This sad case is rather extreme, but shows how important it can be to ensure that whoever one employs… is actually Registered and Insured to do so…
Cutting as long story short, the company used was NOT covered for the task they undertook. The client is still paying-off the loan he took out to cover the works. Around 300€ a month, despite the proposed extension not being achieved… and he has to live in a mobile home beside his dangerous/ruined property.
Google translation:
“It appears that GME Technique, insured with SA Gan Assurances, behaved like a general contractor. However, it was not insured as a project manager or builder of individual houses but only for very specific and limited trades. And the decennial could not take responsibility for the faults committed by GME because no report of acceptance of the work was drawn up, and for good reason.”
A very sorry tale, and probably not unfamiliar to many I would imagine. I think the old addage most certainly applies - ‘if it’s too good to be true, then it probably is’. Not too sure why, but the building trade can invite some of the most unscrupulous individuals to participate.
Seems the poor man has found a further 90 people who have similarly fallen victim to this particular company.
It’s too easy to overlook basics like checking someone’s credentials.
This victim is French (so it’s not a question of language difficulty)…
The La Rochelle Court found the Company guilty and ordered them to pay him blah blah blah … but the Company had been put into Forced Liquidation with huge debts, so it’s highly unlikely that he or any victims will receive money… too far down the pecking order.
This victim was even forced to pay SA Gan Assurances’ Court costs… since he had forced them to defend their position… all sounds terrible to me.
What a terrible terrible situation. Being duped like that, and then having to also pay the court’s costs - despicable. Just hope that there’s some karma coming the way of the culprits. And my heart goes out to all those unfortunate victims. Personally, if I have any work done now, I normally try to go on personal recommendation, but also check other references and credentials - always look beyond the smiling salesman, and not a bad thing to start from a position of distrust, until trust is established!
Some years ago, I was asked my advice about someone an acquaintance had found to replace his roof (at a good price) and I said (as always)… check credentials very thoroughly…
That “Roofer” was (and still is) actually only registered/insured as a gardener.
but the acquaintance was happy to accept the “Roofer’s” assurances at the time that “It’s all above board., Roofing is Insured and records/databases are all in the process of being updated…”
The acquaintance could not fail to understand my feelings on that load of garbage, but he still went ahead.
I take a peek at that roof whenever I go by… so far so good… but it was one helluva gamble and not one I would recommend anyone to take.
Both were non-French and speaking the same language… aaargh.
Just thinking about it, are folks allowed to do paid work in areas outside of what is covered by their Siret code??
I assume you need to include the details of what has been provided on one’s invoice, and that I assume is subject to possible investigation by the authorities. So net, if someone carries out work outside the scope of their Siret code, isn’t that ‘illegal’???
You can look up a Siret number and see what the person is registered to do.
The received wisdom is that British workpeople are often working illegally, either with no Siret/decennial insurance at all or with it but for completely different (less qualified) work. Perhaps a small Brexit bonus will be that these people are slowly rooted out.
If one knowingly employes a person, when they know the payment is not/will not be declared… that is “a naughty” aka “employing someone on the black/someone working on the black” and is an illegal practise.
Employing someone in “good faith”… that is not illegal.
Seems like it’s a minefield out there, but with a little knowledge and awareness, hopefully possible to avoid the pitfalls of being duped! And I think your article Stella is a very good reminder of the consequences.
Are you sure Stella? Is this for all “under the table” work? As employing an illegal foreign worker is very serious here, and a reason to have your CdS removed, so I would be surprised if just saying “but I didn’t”t know” would be an acceptable excuse.
All the British builder/plumber/electrician tradespeople who I have used over the years have been registered and have been quite happy to prove so, due to them knowing the consequences of them being found out as they have all lived in France full time, maybe I have just been lucky.
As with the Court case at the top of this thread … the firm was employed and paid in good faith by the client.
An authentic looking Devis with Siret number… can fool folk … very few take the bother to check what is covered by the Registration and/or ask to see/check the Insurance.
But they take it as read that the firm/person is legit and that book-keeping will be in order… why wouldn’t they.
People who pay for work without devis/invoice… (ie cash in hand…) must surely know that is a bit dodgy… and (if caught) they are brought to book as much as the worker…
Would ignorance be a defence? Our ballon d’eau was replaced (very quickly) by a tradesman recommended to us. We had to pay cash as we had no cheque book at that time. We didn’t get a receipt. The person who recommended him said he would probably post us one but he never did. We are completely happy with the work and we now know what we should have done but we didn’t then.
Exactly! You used someone recommended by another … you paid cash because there was no other way… and you asked for and expected to get a receipt.
Thinking ahead…
I would have no qualms in writing out a brief receipt for the Worker to sign.
eg: xxx € received by ZZZ from Mrs Stella for YYY work done by ZZZ… and get ZZZ to sign and date it.
Then, I would expect the official receipt to arrive asap, but would have something in the meantime.
