I refused to pay my builder £5,000 for his ‘shoddy’ work – but the internet is seriously divided


A CUSTOMER who refused to pay a builder over claims of poor service has divided the internet.

Footage has emerged on social media showing a homeowner being confronted by a tradesman demanding £5,000 payment.

The dispute took place on the customer’s doorstep

The men could not come to an agreement over payment

But the man refuses to part with any money on the basis the work was of a sub-par standard and he has been left with an unusable toilet.

He explained the work had been carried out two months earlier and he was preparing to pay “the second half of the money”.

However, he told the builder he had encountered problems with the work, to which he claims the tradesman did not address

The builder responds by saying the homeowner had signed off and was happy with the standard of the work at the time the job finished.

He said he was happy to come and fix any subsequent issues, but only once he had been paid.

The homeowner responds: “The problems I had arose two weeks after you’d finished the job.

“But you didn’t come and do anything with it.”

He then offers to show the problems inside his property, but the builder refuses.

At one point, the builder compares his non-payment with a customer refusing to pay for food at a restaurant.

He asks: “If you went to a restaurant and you eat, then you’d pay for it wouldn’t you?”

The customer responds: “Yes, providing the food was okay.

“If I go to a restaurant and they  deliver the food onto the table and I look at the food and go ‘wow, that’s going to be a great meal’, but as soon as I start eating it it’s cold, then I’d send it back.’

The debate became increasingly tense, with the builder filming the dispute to later share with his solicitor.

He says: “We’ve got a contract, we’ve had an agreement, we’ve provided a service – you pay for that.

“You’re the only person not holding not holding up your end of the bargain at the moment.”

The homeowner responds by saying he disagrees.

The argument continued, with the two men unable to reach a settlement, before the builder threatened to call police over being “robbed” of £5,000.

Each of the men confirm they will be taking footage of the argument to their solicitors, before they go their separate ways.

After the footage began circulating online, viewers have been split over who is in the right and who is on the wrong.

One said: “I’m glad the homeowner isn’t paying him until he fixes what he messed up.

“Great job standing his ground by the home owner. The video is great evidence of the contractor refusing to stand behind his work.”

A second adds: “As a tradesman myself, I’m gonna have to say the customer looks to be in the right on this one.

“The builder has clearly been ignoring the customer’s calls for help to fix the issues that arose shortly after the work was done.

“Now he wants to come back and ask for the rest of the money that’s owed even though he’s been ignoring the customer who has clearly had issues occur revolving around the job that the builder did.”

A third wrote: “I don’t like customers who dont pay, but this customer was actually in the right.

“This young lad needed to go in, note the issues, fix them and expect his money after.”

But others landed on the side of the tradesman, arguing that he should be paid.

One said: “He [the homeowner] signed off on the work so he should have paid the full amount.

“If any warranties etc were made, that is not clear at the moment. So far it seems like contractor was not responsible for issues arising after the work had been accepted as satisfactory.”

A second wrote: “According to what they said, the homeowner didn’t pay after the work was done.

“He only found out the work had problems 2 weeks after it was done; long after he should’ve already paid. Homeowner is in the wrong.”

A third added: “The builder is in the right 100% The client has no right to withhold funds after signing it off.

“If there are problems arising from the workmanship then that is a separate warranty issue and the client still has no right to withhold funds.”

The builder refused to rectify issues until he had been paid