Suing a handyman. How?

If straightforward (as in the building work is clearly dodgy and you are not arguing about it meeting code etc) then $1650 plus filing fees plus service fees would be as cheap as you are going to get it. Then if he didn't file a defence you would be looking at another $880 for default judgement and related. If he defended it then you could be $5k to $50k or more.

A letter of demand may do it.

For that amount of money then you would not want to get into a defended action..

 

Who’s to say the Hilux isn’t leased, or financed on a very small deposit?
Could even belong to a mate.
Marg

 

Spoke to a lawyer today, his advice: "Don't use a lawyer", I appreciate his honesty and I know it's along the same line as some of the advice on here.

Anyone care to guess what his hourly rate would have been?

He recommended that I go to QCAT though and fair trading (both also mentioned on here), apparently the application fee is less than $200, which is less than 10%, so I'll be filing a claim. And I probably wouldn't have to be in attendance unless he wanted to cross examine me.

 

If you don't use a lawyer and don't attend who will run the case?

Lawyers would charge $300 per HR upwards generally

 

According to the lawyer that I spoke to, it might be possible to phone in.
$396/hour!

 

Well you should find out, or be prepared to turn up. But what if they use a lawyer? Steep learning curve, but the risks are relatively low.

BTW, This is how I became a lawyer. I sued someone on my own, lodged a statement of claim, and went to court.

 

Here's to me becoming a lawyer too then!

 

Maybe he is a man of principle and is just going to see how much money you will burn on this, then at the very last moment ask for extra time , after you have organised to commute to the meeting.

 

I have taken matters to Tribunal myself and provided you keep calm and are diligent, well mannered and dressed and very well prepared (like turning up on time with ALL evidence) and can explain yourself clearly and with all the evidence to support your views its not that daunting. You can expect them to suggest conciliation where you should also hold firm even if their lawyer starts to intimidate. I have won each time. One just gave up when I filed the matter.

I would suggest visiting the tribunal now to see if its something you feel comfortable with. They dont expect you to be a lawyer but do expect minimum standards. You have to back up anything you claim. You want to demonstrate you have been unable to resolve the matter with the other party and your claim is valid and fair. You cant seek "costs" or inconvenience monies.

 

First you would want to work out which is the appropriate court or tribunal to hear the matter. If you begin in the wrong one you could be up for some costs

 

Have you considered the services of companies such as Wise McGrath? (Not an endorsement)

They would be able to send a field agent out to try to resolve the matter on your behalf.

 

I thought that I could only do this after a court ruling?

 

Negotiations can happen at any stage, and will need to happen before court.

 

Am I just expecting too much of @spludgey and people generally?

Isn't the problem that you hired an amateur to do what was properly a chippy's job, because you didn't want to pay what a chippy would have charged, and now you're upset that he didn't do as good a job as a chippy would have done?

Wasn't this all entirely predictable?

Sorry, I do have some sympathy for you spludgey because I know that a lot of people do this, but ... I dunno, isn't it a bit rough to expect him to compensate you for lost rent etc when you asked him to do something that was outside his expertise anyway?

Yes, I agree that he shouldn't have taken on the job, but it seems that you weren't willing to pay what it cost to do the job properly.

Aren't you both at fault? In accepting the lowest quote from a non-qualified person, and not asking for his licence and insurance and plans and council certificate etc, didn't you take on the risk that it wouldn't be performed to the letter of the law? Weren't you effectively saying "nudge nudge wink wink I don't need this done with all the is dotted and ts crossed, I just want a deck"?

Isn't it then unreasonable to turn around and say "Oh, I know I only paid a fraction of the cost for a proper fully-licenced job, but I expected you to do the job to the same standard as a fully-licenced tradie would have done, with insurance and council compliance and Workcover and all the other expenses he incurs!"? That would have been a $10-20K deck, not a $3K deck.

Or is it me that's being unreasonable?

 

@Perp has a good point.

You replied to me earlier that there were no plans or specifications. The brief was simply “to remove an old deck and build a new one”.
Marg

 

This is the problem here.

I don’t think the size of the quote necessarily represents the quality of the workmanship.

 

It's less the price that is the issue, but that it wasn't done by a licenced tradesman, and there was no discussion of Council approvals or plans or his licencing and insurance to do the job etc.

The low quote should simply have served to make it blindingly obvious that all of this couldn't possibly have been included.

 

It is an illusion that paying more gets better quality service. I have used expensive trades and professionals and moderately priced trades and professionals. In almost every case the most expensive have been the worst. My most expensive accountant was the worst. My most expensive conveyancing solicitor was the worst. On the other hand I have had a great run with moderately priced conveyancers. 10/10 service from them. I also hire moderately priced to low priced electricians and plumbers and they have done much better quality work than the big guys with their big bills who just make mistake after mistake.

Price is what you pay, quality is what you get. In my experience the more I pay the lower the quality.

 

my point exactly

Don't base your decision's , on price only