One of my friends has had her bathroom done by a builder she has used twice b4 and he was ok.
This time they are having a disagreement of the cost - she says he quoted her 4k for all the work including costs of products while he said he quoted he 4k not including costs.(about an extra 1k)
Any ideas guys?

written or verbal quote?

Where the previous plus costs?

There is a sound reason for plus costs, as it can keep turnover below vat levels.

It was a verbal quote - he gave her a quote of 4k and she said she asked him does that include everything - she said he said yes - but now he is saying its didnt include "costs of materials"

If it's verbal she's not going to have a leg to stand on

The average builder speaking face to face with one of The Bear's female 'friends' would probably struggle to get a sentence out (and make eye contact) let alone give a comprehensive verbal quote.

Confusion over Bathroom work... I thought for a minute you meant you went for a wee and did a number 2!

Anyway. What's the point in the builder giving a cost if it doesn't include everything? He surely must have stated "plus materials" or suggested that your friend would be supplying the materials. If he didn't say "plus materials" then the builder must realise she would have almost certainly asked "does that include everything".

If it isn't written down, then it is a bit of a stalemate and so some compromise needs agreeing.

If it's a verbal quote then she is stuffed.

Surely 50/50? He should have written it down, she should have requested it written down. Is it seen differently legally, though?

IMO it's all her fault for not demanding that it was in writing somewhere. I don't understand why you say "he should have written it down". The emphasis is on her shirley!?

I think because he has done work b4 which was ok and no problems she didnt ask for a written quotation .
Also they went to the shop together to look at the stuff and he said it would cost 1k but in the end he spent 1600 - should he have cleared this increase with her first?

Because of good will, not getting himself into this situation, and as the professional doing this every day, it should be automatic for him.

Edit: However, I agree that she probably will need to pay up.

Yes he should and had he done so then it would have been clear that materials were not included. It is partly his fault and as a poster has mentioned, they need to look at the past jobs. If they were all in then she has a case.

The fact that they went shopping together would imply that she was paying.

Bathrooms and kitchens tend to be quoted with installation separate, as customers pick the contents; plastering walls etc are more likely to be all-in, as the customer does not pick the plaster.... decorators tend to use the customers products, except for undercoats I would assume.

How long did the job take? How many men were working on the job?

Then you need to look at how long the previous project took and work out a rough amount per day. If the £3K of work, knock off the cost of materials, is similar to the daily rate from last time then you know he's having you on.

Alternatively, the job may have taken longer than he expected and now wants extra money to cover this and is using the materials line.

Finally, if this was going to be done with cash? If so, ask the builder for full receipts. including all material receipts and his company bank account details (refuse to pay to a personal account but only to a business account) and that the transfer will be made online. With VAT and income tax, it should persuade him to keep to the original quote as he'll pay out what the same in taxes that he'll make with cash)

That's creative work there Jonothon! Hope that idea wasn't based on experience...

Oh come on. We've all done it.

Haven't wee?

Well, id say if he didn't give a quote its his problem for not stating what was to be paid for. Surely you need reciepts and quotes to pay income tax? Ask X-man, but her word against his, if work has been done without quote, he can't do anything about it, as he didn't say how much it was going to cost in writing. For all a court knows, your friend was under the impression it was being done for free out of the kindness of his heart, with her paying for materials.

A verbal contract is just as legally binding as a written one but the problems start when there's a dispute and if there's nothing in writing it's very difficult, for either side, to prove what was originally agreed. I'd suggest that the only practical way forward is for the parties to try to reach a negotiated settlement.

Or threaten to bring in Melinda Messinger and Dominic Littlewood to deal with him.

He could always take the suite back

Yes, but only if they allow him free access to their home.

The Police may help with that, if he is reclaiming his property

You can't really keep something if you have not paid for it, so I'm on the side of the builder however dubious he may be.
Otherwise we would have people everywhere getting building work carried out and not paying for it.

On the other hand the builder is at fault for not providing a comprehensive quote to the customer and the customer should have asked for one.

Not that clear cut, the Police can't just take one side if there's a dispute. They'd be more likely to encourage the parties to reach an agreement themselves.

Mrs Mc has gone out for the day and left me on my tod. FPL still hasn't launched so it's either emptying the dishwasher or replying to this thread. On that basis....

Where goods are supplied to a customer, the passing of ownership, unless otherwise stated, is generally deemed to have occurred where both parties intend the passing of ownership to take place: usually at the delivery stage. So, only when a 'retention clause' is specifically stipulated in the Terms & Conditions of Sale & Service, does payment become the point at which ownership passes to the customer.

In the situation mentioned in the OP, the customer can hardly have agreed to a retention clause if they did not know about it until after they accepted the goods and may have grounds for retaining possession of the goods in a dispute situation. To avoid such a situation the builder should provide a copy of his trading terms together with a written quote at an early stage of the proceedings.

I'm even boring myself now...

I thought the goods only changed hands when payment was made.

I guess strictly speaking that if you order a new bathroom and get a builder to put in the new bathroon then the goods have changed hands once the bathroom is in place regardless of payment.

Strictly speaking it is wrong to open and eat a pack of biscuits in a Supermarket, and then pay for them.

What about eating grapes in a supermarket before you have paid for them?