Plumber gets "pulled to shreds" as Petty Debts claim backfires

Tuesday 18 August 2020

A plumbing firm's claims that they were underpaid by the owners of the 'Big House' at Cobo have backfired, after the work was valued at significantly less than the company had already been paid.

All Aspects Director Jed Le Page said his firm was due £8,244 on top of the £24,208 it had been paid for plumbing works at the house between September and December 2019.

The co-defendants and joint owners of the property, Paul Annegarn and Simona Casella, argued that the All Aspects had inflated the number of hours actually worked and that some work was either shoddily done or unnecessary. 

The Petty Debts Court ruled in their favour, meaning Mr Le Page's business will receive no further payment, will have to cover the court fees and could yet be susceptible to a counter-claim for over-payment if Mr Annegarn and Ms Casella wanted to pursue one. 

All Aspects started working at the property in late September, laying underfloor heating in ground floor rooms and doing the pipework for the property's four bathrooms, kitchen, cloakroom and utility room. 

"It's a very large house," said Mr Le Page. "Our hours worked are absolutely reasonable because of the size of the property and the amount of pipework that had to go into feeding such a large property." 

The Judge questioned why the invoices didn't describe the work the firm had done. "You cannot really elaborate on it more than your 'first fix'," Mr Le Page said by way of example. "It is common practice because you would end up writing several pages every day."

Ms Casella was project managing the house's development until she was involved in a car accident in late November, which led to Mr Annegarn stepping in for two weeks. 

Pictured: The 'big house' at Cobo in the early stages of its development in April last year. It has since been completed. 

Mr Le Page alleged that there was another reason why Mr Annegarn had taken over. "There was a lot of tension between the contractors and Ms Casella, and the way some of them felt they were being treated and spoken to."

This was rebutted by Mr Annegarn, who said his involvement was purely because of his wife's car crash. It was, however, clear that the relationship between the owners and All Aspects had reached a head in December. 

Mr Annegarn told Mr Le Page that he would get someone else to finish the work, leading to the expiry of All Aspects' 'time and materials' contract. 

Following an initial hearing in June, Mr Le Page was asked to provide all of his timesheets and invoices for the duration of the work done at the house. 

He was chastised by Advocate Peter Ferbrache, representing the co-defendants, for only producing three week's worth of timesheets. 

"It doesn't even cover the period we are in dispute about for the lead plumber," said Advocate Ferbrache. "That is all you have produced for the main man on the job."

Pictured: Advocate Peter Ferbrache said Mr Le Page had "grossly overcharged" his clients.

Mr Le Page said he had misunderstood the Judge's directions, and acknowledged he had ignored an email from Ms Casella last month requesting that these documents be provided. 

Advocate Ferbrache also highlighted had All Aspects employees' hourly wages had, in some instances, been increased by up to 30% without notifying Ms Casella. There were also occasions where the 10% uplift agreed between the two parties for materials purchased by All Aspects had been exceeded. 

Advocate Ferbrache said some of the invoices for material had been clearly "doctored" by Mr Le Page as they showed the RRP as the price Mr Le Page had paid and "blocked out" the trade discount he had received. The Judge agreed that the claimant's behaviour with the invoices had been "misleading". 

"What you are doing is trying to hide information from the court," Advocate Ferbrache told Mr Le Page. 

He said that All Aspects had also held up some of the other work on-site, causing "significant delays", and that some of the work had to be re-done due to its poor standard. 

Mr Annegarn and Ms Casella had commissioned a quantity surveyor to assess the value of the work, which the surveyor put at around £16k after allowing for a 25% uplift for any inaccuracies. This compared to the £24k already paid and the £32k that Mr Le Page valued the work at. 

"You have grossly overcharged my clients," Advocate Ferbrache concluded after a lengthy cross-examination. 

Pictured: Ms Casella said she had pretended to leave the site "quite a few times" and wait in a nearby car park to catch out the main plumber, who she said would consistently leave the building site shortly afterwards and was not working the hours claimed. 

In cross-examination, Mr Le Page said the quantity surveyor had based his valuations on incorrect measurements of pipework and was unaware of all of the oak beams, stills and other inconveniences to getting the pipework around the house from Point A to Point B.

The surveyor, William Gladstone, admitted that he was unaware of those things, as the work had since been covered up.

"Even allowing for all those things, I would consider (All Aspects' valuation) to be excessive," Mr Gladstone told the Court. 

Taking to the witness stand, Ms Casella, who had managed the various contractors on-site full-time, said the lead plumber did not work the hours claimed. He was later given written tasks for the day but she claimed that he did not complete these. 

That was disputed by All Aspects who said that if the plumber in question told Ms Casella that he needed to something else before he could do what he was being asked, she would not listen. "It depends on what he said, to a point," Ms Casella admitted.

In his closing speech, Mr Le Page acknowledged that Advocate Ferbrache had "pulled me to shreds".

"I am not perfect but I reassure you that I have done my best," the plumber said. "Their house is massive, it is about three times the size of my house. We did the job to the best of our abilities."

"We may not do a full eight hours [an example of hours charged for in a day] because of site conditions, you may end up doing six hours, sometimes you do have standing around time [when you are waiting for other contractors to finish before they can start.]"

"But if we kept going off we'd have to pack all our stuff away every time and Ms Casella would have to spend all her life in Cobo car park." 

Pictured: The co-defendants, the main plumber contracted at their house, and the quantity surveyor all took to the witness stand. 

In summing up, the Judge said this dispute had become "very bitter".

He questioned whether the time claimed was accurate, factoring in that no allowance had been made for lunch breaks or for occasions where they were on-site but not working. 

He said that Ms Casella had "asserted some pressure" on the contractor, but that was necessary as it was just one part of a wider project that she was coordinating. 

He said that All Aspects employees had "exhibited some unprofessional behaviour" in WhatsApp messages presented to the court, in which they had referred to the co-defendants using crude language. 

He concluded that he had no reason to doubt the co-defendants' willingness to pay for completed work.

"They have made previous payments quickly when requested and had made a payment to be held onto as credit," the Judge said.

With those factors in mind, and without any evidence by Mr Le Page to the contrary, he ruled that All Aspects' time and value estimates were "excessive".

Having been offered a mutual settlement of £4,000 back in June, Mr Le Page left the courtroom out of pocket. All Aspects will receive no further payments and, having lost the case, will have to cover the court fees. The hearing does not preclude the co-defendants from making a counter-claim in the future if they so wish.