Persuading a non payer

[Garno]

I love seeing people taking the initiative to get back monies owed to them.

 

[clogs]

nice one.....
had a few myself.....not saying any more....

 

[Garno]

nice one.....
had a few myself.....not saying any more....

I really struggle to understand peoples mentality when they refuse to pay.
If it's a bad job still pay up give them the chance to rectify it, if they don't it's time to take them to court.

 

[Rorschach]

I like that, no harm done, no damage, just inconvenience which is exactly what he caused in the first place.

 

[sneggysteve]

Love it

 

[PetePontoValentino]

 

[sploo]

It's funny, but surely the guy wasn't that smart - he should have just gone inside for a cuppa (or wandered off to the pub). Wait for the scaffolding guys to get bored and leave, then come back and take the scaffolding down himself. Voila - no paying, and free scaffolding!

(yes, I am joking)

 

[kevinlightfoot]

A threat of violence may work!

 

[Rorschach]

A threat of violence may work!

A threat of violence makes it criminal though, the police absolutely would get involved, the debt becomes trivial to the high likelihood of a criminal prosecution.
In this case though it's a totally civil matter, the police can't do anything. It's very clever.

 

[gregmcateer]

I like that - most polite scaffolder ever
My mate was a digger driver and when the VERY wealthy developer kept not paying, at the next site meeting, Billy parked the JCB right up to his Rolls, put the front bucket over the roof and switched off, then went for a cuppa.
Big man knew the bucket would slowly sink onto his pride and joy.
Cash was on the digger seat when Billy got back
Mind you, Billy also partook of bare knuckle bouts for cash at the local traveller sites. He was a loon

 

[Billy_wizz]

A threat of violence makes it criminal though, the police absolutely would get involved, the debt becomes trivial to the high likelihood of a criminal prosecution.
In this case though it's a totally civil matter, the police can't do anything. It's very clever.

A threat of violence is usually enough as long as it's believed you will follow through! And make sure it's made with no proof although that gets harder and harder

 

[Gary]

A threat of violence makes it criminal though, the police absolutely would get involved, the debt becomes trivial to the high likelihood of a criminal prosecution.
In this case though it's a totally civil matter, the police can't do anything. It's very clever.

If they're blocking access to the highway that can.

 

[Rorschach]

If they're blocking access to the highway that can.

Not sure if it would definitely be classed as blocking access since the person could in theory remove the scaffolding himself, it's not like using a vehicle to block a driveway which you couldn't move.


I think we would both agree though it's a better option than threatening violence.

 

[Gary]

Not sure if it would definitely be classed as blocking access since the person could in theory remove the scaffolding himself, it's not like using a vehicle to block a driveway which you couldn't move.


I think we would both agree though it's a better option than threatening violence.

Can they move the car as it stands? No, as it's clearly obstructed.

Threatening violence is a he said she said. One v one and the police won't prosecute.

 

[Rorschach]

Can they move the car as it stands? No, as it's clearly obstructed.

Threatening violence is a he said she said. One v one and the police won't prosecute.

So you are advocating a criminal act?

 

[AJB Temple]

Threatening violence is stupidity. It plays into the hands of the debtor who may well provoke the perpetrator into action (*especially if there is CCTV present - and it is cheap and common now) and then has a cast iron case for damages, and a criminal record for the perpetrator. Makes it easier for the debtor to resist collection in court later too.

 

[artie]

Threatening violence is stupidity. It plays into the hands of the debtor who may well provoke the perpetrator into action (*especially if there is CCTV present - and it is cheap and common now) and then has a cast iron case for damages, and a criminal record for the perpetrator. Makes it easier for the debtor to resist collection in court later too.

I'm not advocating law breaking, and only once have I failed to collect full payment.

But I am wondering about your comment regarding CCTV.
Are privately taken video or even still images admissible in court?

 

[profchris]

I'm not advocating law breaking, and only once have I failed to collect full payment.

But I am wondering about your comment regarding CCTV.
Are privately taken video or even still images admissible in court?

Simply, yes. There's complexity about their evidential value, but in an example where everyone is clearly identifiable from the video, that wouldn't be a problem either.

So threats of violence is not a very sensible approach.

 

[julianf]

That chap has got his face on the internet as being a liar for £450?

Looked like the house was probably worth a few quid, shiny car on a private drive, and he doesn't value his rep at less than half a grand?

 

[artie]

Simply, yes.

Is this you opinion or is it fact.?
I am not a lawyer I don't even play one on TV, but I can see many pitfalls. time verification, chain of evidence, intent