Tom

It's all on one itemised invoice The 2k that they have already agreed I can withhold is to cover remaining electrical work and remedial work due to damage to walls caused by one of their workers. The cost of the EIC certification isn't taken in to account with this. With this in mind, I'm inclined to withhold the 2k AND additional money to cover certification - I've had a quote from a good sparks who said he can issue an EICR (which BC will accept) and it would be 3-4 days work perhaps, so approx £1200. In addition, now that they have thrown this 12 month warranty thing at me in another attempt to put pressure on, I'd like to throw that back at them and say I'm going to withhold more money to cover a 12 month warranty. Does that sound like a reasonable thing to do? If this ever ended up in front of the beak I want to look reasonable. Thanks @saveasteading, the cracked tiles have already been replaced by the contractor - this was 6 months ago, I pointed them out at the time, they bought replacement tiles and had them fitted. Only now are they saying that I am liable for this cost and they have tacked it on to the end of the final invoice.

Thanks both. There is about 8k outstanding that they say I owe them, split roughly as follows: 3k for part of the original tiling cost - this I am now satisfied that I do actually owe them 1.5k charge for replacing a few broken tiles 1.5k for the tower hire 2k suggested by them to be retained until electrical remedial work was complete (though does not cover certification - this they said would only be done once ALL the money had been paid) Their latest correspondence threatens that they would not do the electrical certification and I would lose the 12 month defect guarantee. I was originally going to pay the 3k for the original tiling cost that I agree is owed, but now I'm thinking I need to retain some/all of that if I'm to cover the cost of certification and the cost of a 12 month guarantee. Is that reasonable? I'm trying to look at it from the view of a judge, so want to make it clear at every step that I'm trying to be fair and reasonable.

Brilliant, thanks both. So, if I'm going to withhold some money for the electrical certification, should I also withold some for the loss of the 12 month "defect period", as they put it?

The item on the invoice says for" scaffold and hire of tower scaffold for eight weeks". This has been paid. No mention of the tower scaffold was made for the next six months as it collected dust.

The cracks were brought to their attention at the time and they arranged for the tiles to be replaced. No mention was made of a cost to me. In contrast, in a separate incident the tilers cut out completely the wrong shape for the shower valve, the contractor vigorously denied responsibility and I ended up replacing the tiles myself.

Looking at the small claims info on gov.uk looks like mediation happens as part of the process, so guess I will wait for that. The tiles were damaged during the work, presumably as or very shortly after they were laid. One on the floor had cracked where it had been notched, and the one behind the wall hung toilet had cracked where it had been cut out to take the waste etc. I paid for 8 weeks tower hire as we had agreed initially, it was then taken down and put in a corner of the build. Their argument now is that they left it on site "as a favour" in case I needed it - without telling me or course!

OK, so the contractor has failed to answer my questions re the disputed items on the invoice (broken tiles, tower scaffold hire) or provide any evidence as to why I should be liable for these costs - they have essentially completely ignored my last email to them. Instead they have emailed what they call a "Letter before Legal action is taken" - saying this: "This letter serves as a notification that legal action will be taken in 7 days if the full payment for Invoice (deleted) which were due for payment on 28th January 2025 remains outstanding. We have sent reminders and a final demand and yet the payment remains outstanding. Failure to settle the outstanding amount will result in (deleted) taking the following actions to resolve the overdue payment: 1. Application to the Small Claims Court to recoup the money owed plus legal expenses. 2. Termination of the contract which will void the 12 month defect period." In the email they also say "failure to pay the full amount in 7 days will lead to us terminating your contract, which include all subcontractors and will void the 12 month defect period. Under the termination, any trades that have to complete work will be under no obligation to return or to provide any certificates" I am currently withholding costs for broken tiles and tower scaffold hire but I have agreed to pay an amount to cover the original tiling costs that I had previously withheld, pending their evidence for this cost (which they have now sent me and is satisfactory). Now that it looks like they are threatening not to return to issue the electrical completion certificate, would it be reasonable for me to pay for the tiling costs, as above, but subtract a reasonable amount for getting a third party to test and issue the electrical completion certificate, if this were needed?

I guess so. Not sure what paint tbh, I'd normally say something oil based that needs highly toxic chemicals to clean the brush after, good old fashioned stuff. However, seems most paints these days are water based and less toxic, disappointingly. Why not just scrape off the powder coating though and bask in the majesty of the galvanising?

If it's silver with a bit of white powder on it (which it looks like it is) then it's highly likely to be galvanised. Unprotected mild steel would be covered in rust. Looks like the powder coat was just a cosmetic thing rather than to protect the metal, which, as above, rarely lasts long anyway. Galvanised you'll be good for years!

That looks galvanised no? Might need an etch primer on the zinc IIRC.

Also, the wording of their letter stating the penalty interest is this: "The outstanding balance is now incurring interest at 8% over the UK base rate for the (sic) each day it is not settled." To my eyes, this clearly indicates it's a daily penalty of base+8% - which is ridiculous, as many have said above. Does this make their notice invalid?

Hi again. So, it's been 2 days just about and no response from the cantractor to my queries. Their self imposed deadline of early next week is approaching at which point they have threatened to pursue legal action. Is there something legal sounding that I can send them that basically states that in the abscence of any response from them it is impossible for me to meet their deadline? I just want to make sure that, if this ever does go to law, I can show that I have been absolutely reasonable and transparrent in this whole saga. I guess that, given their silence, they can clearly not answer why I should pay for broken tiles broken by their contractor, or the tower scaffold that they left on site for months on end without being used.

Hi both. The hire was definitely included. The invoice specifically said "for scaffold and tower hire" or something like that. I paid this off long ago. The electricians, and everyone who used the tower, were employed by the main contractor.

They priced for scaffold and tower hire as part of the work. I've paid for that. The final invoice now has this extra line on it for additional hire of tower scaffold. Their argument is that because I passed on a message from their sparks, that they still needed the tower, that I was responsible for it going forward and I should have informed them when it was no longer needed. This all coincides with when they sacked their project manager and not replaced.

It was, and I paid it. This is extra for the overrun while it was safely sat in a corner covered in cobwebs.

They hired it in. The whole thing turned in to a mess with their sub-contractors being slow/not showing up, then they fired their own project manager - so essentially the whole project was without any oversight. The tower was obviously just forgotten about, left in a corner and just gathered dust. Now they are trying to get me to pay for their mistake.

Thanks for all the input everyone. I think it must be BoE +8% annually! Anyway, other than the previously agreed retention, there are two points on the invoice that I am contesting, and that I have withheld payment of: - replacement of tiles broken by the tiler when they were installed, totalling £1,200 - extra hire of tower scaffold for £1,900 (!) The tower scaffold was for the use of the contractor and his sub-contractors, it was left on site for months and months unused and was eventually taken away. Basically, the contractor forgot it was still on hire. Apparently this is my fault and I have been charged. I absolutely do not feel I should be liable for the above, and I'm sticking my heels in!

I've never signed a contract, or even been shown their terms. But I guess after working with them for a year+ then you are deemed to be working under their contractual terms by default?

Thanks again both. I went back to the contractor yesterday with the points on the invoice that I'm contesting, sent them the Pay Less Notice and paid them by bank transfer for the balance. They have, not suprisingly, pushed back and are now saying the invoice is accruing interest at something like BoE base rate + 8% a day! My question is, do they actually have the right to impose this "late payment" charge on an invoice that I am contesting? I have never signed a contract with them.

Thanks both. I was unaware of a Pay Less Notice. I don't actually have a signed contract with these people, if that makes a difference - shall I send a Pay Less Notice anyway?

Hi all, the saga with this invoice continues. So, as a recap, the contractor has agreed a retention to cover work still outstanding and are now saying the invoice (less the retention agreed) is due to be paid. As above, I wanted to raise the issue of the damaged kitchen doors and a few other items on the invoice that I shouldn't be liable for. So: - I suggested a call last week to discuss the invoice - they declined, saying they will not speak on the phone, insisting everything is via email - I emailed detailing my queries re the items on the invoice that I believe I shouldn't be liable for - they responded saying they aren't getting in to a "tit for tat" and that the invoice is now due - I responded, again reiterating my position re the items I shouldn't be liable for - no response from them and now their self-imposed deadline of today to pay the invoice has arrived From a legal point of view, where do I stand do you think? I'm not paying an invoice that includes items that I don't believe I should pay for. Should I reply again and suggest I pay for everything else but these, so as to give more time to come to agreement about the rest? Does the deadline imposed by the contractor to pay the invoice actually mean anything- especially if I am contesting the invoice? It seems a completely random deadline pulled out of thin air to simply pressure me.

Can you get up in the attic and have a look at the underside of the roof?

Thanks both. I am speaking on the phone though, and we have agreed to the 1.5k retention. The question is whether to speak to them specifically about the kitchen doors now, or wait until the plumbing has been completed.

yep ~£500

Thanks all. The amount I'm withholding for the plumbing work would cover the damage to the doors and other items. So, the way I see it there are four possible scenarios: - withhold 1.5k as agreed now, final plumbing work completed, contractor asks for final 1.5k to be paid at which point I say that the cost for the doors should be taken out of this etc. We agree on a figure and walk off in to the sunset happy: unlikely - withhold 1.5k as agreed now, final plumbing work completed, contractor asks for final 1.5k to be paid at which point I say that the cost for the doors should be taken out of this etc. He disagrees but as all other work completed I'm in a comfortable bargaining position: likely - raise the issue of the damaged doors now, agree additional money to be retained by me until rectified: very unlikely - raise the issue of the damaged doors now, contractor kicks up a fuss and says that no plumbing work will be done until I pay the invoice. My bargaining position is weaker as I still need the plumbing work finished: likely The question is whether to raise the damaged door issue now, and risk the plumbing work not being done, or later after the plumbing work has been done but when less money (though still sufficient to cover costs) is owed. And, if by paying the invoice less the "plumbing" retention of 1.5k I have in effect paid for and accepted liability for the doors?