| 1 | I’m posting our experience in that we may help others.
We engaged a contractor to do earth work on parking area. Told him budget was xx inclGST. One partner signed a cost sheet. Invoice arrives 40% more. Immediately paid xx as that was agreed. Partner phones contractor to say what’s up with bill. Became heated, end of call. Three months later contractor backs up drive to “take what’s his”. No one was home. CCTV shows he was present for 20 minutes. This was for pure intimidation and bullying. He didn’t take anything. Txt message to him warning him off property and will deal via letter or lawyer.
Three bullying letters from his lawyer later and next thing a caveat letter arrives from Land Information NZ. Our lawyer then advised Dispute Tribunal is the way to clear this up.
We got our ruling a month later(today).
We do not owe him anything. We do not pay his costs. He has to remove caveat’ immediately” at his cost.
We tried for $800 for materials but was dismissed ????♀ï¸
So justice did happen. Our daughter said when it first happened “ just pay it”. I’m glad that $45 for lodging claim was well worth the money Community Law free advice too. . Stand up and don’t be bullied. I hope this helps someone. boots496 - 2021-04-09 18:18:00 |
| 2 | Can't caveat a title for a bill. gabbysnana - 2021-04-09 18:24:00 |
| 3 | gabbysnana wrote:
Can't caveat a title for a bill. Correct. sparkychap - 2021-04-09 18:26:00 |
| 4 | gabbysnana wrote:
Can't caveat a title for a bill. Wrong, you can try, it just won't stand up.
As in this case. Worth a try, if you get paid, lol. Good job OP. smallwoods - 2021-04-09 18:50:00 |
| 5 | [quote=boots496}
We engaged a contractor to do earth work on parking area. Told him budget was xx inclGST. Invoice arrives 40% more. Immediately paid xx as that was agreed. .[/quote]
This is why you always get quotes. An estimate is just that, it can vary.
A quote cannot change.
Verbal discussions are not a legal document.
Make sure you have quotes next time.' lythande1 - 2021-04-09 19:21:00 |
| 6 | lythande1 wrote:
[quote=boots4-
96}
We engaged a contractor to do earth work on parking area. Told him budget was xx inclGST. Invoice arrives 40% more. Immediately paid xx as that was agreed. .
This is why you always get quotes. An estimate is just that, it can vary.
A quote cannot change.
Verbal discussions are not a legal document.
Make sure you have quotes next time.'[/quote] Unless there is unforeseen issues or the owner changes the job, then the quote is clean out the window. mrcat1 - 2021-04-09 19:33:00 |
| 7 | A verbal quote can be binding - the difficulty is when people disagree about what was said, and so whether it was a quote. There's no legal reason why the DT couldn't find that a verbal quote was given. nic48 - 2021-04-09 19:40:00 |
| 8 | smallwoods wrote:
Wrong, you can try, it just won't stand up.
As in this case.
No not wrong. LINZ have very specific legislative guidelines around when a caveat can be registered, and an unpaid bill doesn't meet that criteria. Either there has been a cock up here, or there's more to the story. I suspect the latter. sparkychap - 2021-04-09 19:50:00 |
| 9 | smallwoods wrote:
Wrong, you can try, it just won't stand up.
As in this case. Worth a try, if you get paid, lol. Good job OP. you can't, and LINZ need to be reprimanded for lodging it, there are very few grounds for a caveat. The person needs to take LINZ to the dt for their costs. Their are no qualified people in LINZ now, its out sourced for the most and they read of scripted cards. Costs are due to be ramped up costing conveyancing even more for a non supported budget as service. gabbysnana - 2021-04-10 08:42:00 |
| 10 | gabbysnana wrote:
you can't, and LINZ need to be reprimanded for lodging it, there are very few grounds for a caveat. The person needs to take LINZ to the dt for their costs. Their are no qualified people in LINZ now, its out sourced for the most and they read of scripted cards. Costs are due to be ramped up costing conveyancing even more for a non supported budget as service. Nearly everybody reads off 'scripted cards' - in fact there are probably some cases where your question is actually answered by a pre-recording initiated by software that identifies key words within your question. brouser3 - 2021-04-10 09:11:00 |
| 11 | sparkychap wrote:
Correct. It did happen!
Our next question is how Land Information NZ allowed this to happen.
Rather than take us to Dispute Tribunals he chose a caveat. boots496 - 2021-04-10 09:25:00 |
| 12 | gabbysnana wrote:
you can't, and LINZ need to be reprimanded for lodging it, there are very few grounds for a caveat. The person needs to take LINZ to the dt for their costs. Their are no qualified people in LINZ now, its out sourced for the most and they read of scripted cards. Costs are due to be ramped up costing conveyancing even more for a non supported budget as service. I want to get answers as to how he was able to caveat our property. The amount he overcharged us was less than $3k so is that a caveatable interest? Absolutely not.
I would love to name and shame him. boots496 - 2021-04-10 09:32:00 |
| 13 | gabbysnana wrote:
Can't caveat a title for a bill. He did. boots496 - 2021-04-10 09:33:00 |
| 14 | How do you register a caveat? In order to register a caveat against a title you must have a sufficient interest in the land. It is not enough that you have an interest or right against the owner of the land. It is important to note that if you register a caveat without having reasonable cause to do so you could be liable to pay compensation to anyone who suffers loss as a result. This is all I can find. We did not suffer loss, just stress. boots496 - 2021-04-10 09:45:00 |
| 15 | To reiterate - there are specific circumstances allowing a caveat to be registered. An unpaid bill is not one of them. That is why gabby and myself have both stated that you can't register one. My understanding is the process is quite robust. OP when you received the notice from LINZ, did it explain the reason for the Caveat? If not, you can order a copy of the Caveat which should give the reason given to LINZ for the caveat. Would be very interesting to see what they told LINZ. Edited by sparkychap at 10:01 am, Sat 10 Apr sparkychap - 2021-04-10 10:00:00 |
| 16 | Surely this would have/should have been done under the Personal Property Securities Register Otherwise it would have no legal hold at all? I had never heard of this place until recently. When I rang them regarding a "twatt" that did such to me. And it's a deadly bloody Dept of the Government if ever I came across one. They don't notify you anyone has used it, and then you have to pay to get a copy of it so you can find out what "twatt" has done it. Meant to be used in Housing situations BUT I found out it can be used by anyone, merely by ticking a "box" saying it is not being used for "illegal purposes". No proof even has to be attached!
And then to get it removed you have to pay again. Some of these Govt Dept need a real shake up. And as the poster say's all this type of crap done by 'fools and others' places an amazing amount of stress on a person. And yes sparkychap this on top of all I am going through currently :) anne1955 - 2021-04-10 10:20:00 |
| 17 | More correctly a caveat cannot be sustained for a personal debt and the caveator can be liable for costs. johnston - 2021-04-10 10:35:00 |
| 18 | boots496 wrote:
It did happen!
Our next question is how Land Information NZ allowed this to happen.
Rather than take us to Dispute Tribunals he chose a caveat. they are required to gatekeep and they haven't, dealing with this kinda crap is stressful and costly and causes unnecessary delays. Everyone that deals with these box tickers will have stories. gabbysnana - 2021-04-10 12:37:00 |
| 19 | anne1955 wrote:
Surely this would have/should have been done under the Personal Property Securities Register Otherwise it would have no legal hold at all? I had never heard of this place until recently. When I rang them regarding a "twatt" that did such to me. And it's a deadly bloody Dept of the Government if ever I came across one. They don't notify you anyone has used it, and then you have to pay to get a copy of it so you can find out what "twatt" has done it. Meant to be used in Housing situations BUT I found out it can be used by anyone, merely by ticking a "box" saying it is not being used for "illegal purposes". No proof even has to be attached!
And then to get it removed you have to pay again. Some of these Govt Dept need a real shake up. And as the poster say's all this type of crap done by 'fools and others' places an amazing amount of stress on a person. And yes sparkychap this on top of all I am going through currently :) Our lawyer did a title check and it was confirmed a caveat was on our property. boots496 - 2021-04-10 13:03:00 |
| 20 | gabbysnana wrote:
Can't caveat a title for a bill.
Section 139 of Land Transfer Act
Notice of caveat against dealings
The Registrar must give notice of the lodging of a caveat against dealings to the registered owner of the estate or interest against which the caveat is lodged.
Compare: 1952 No 52 s 142(b) boots496 - 2021-04-10 13:15:00 |
| 21 | boots496 wrote:
Section 139 of Land Transfer Act
Notice of caveat against dealings
The Registrar must give notice of the lodging of a caveat against dealings to the registered owner of the estate or interest against which the caveat is lodged.
Compare: 1952 No 52 s 142(b) That is not relevant to what she posted. A personal debt is not a caveatable interest. While it may have been registered it was not sustainable. The caveator was at risk for a wrongfully lodged caveat. Edited by johnston at 2:09 pm, Sat 10 Apr johnston - 2021-04-10 14:09:00 |
| 22 | My understanding is ... a real or registerable interest. https://www.linz.govt.nz/system/files_force/media/doc/caveat
s_and_other_stops_on_registration_guideline_2018.pdf?downloa
d=1 kenw1 - 2021-04-10 16:47:00 |
| 23 | kenw1 wrote:
My understanding is ... a real or registerable interest. https://www.linz.govt.nz/system/files_force/media/doc/caveat
s_and_other_stops_on_registration_guideline_2018.pdf?downloa
d=1 That's what I have been saying. Simply asserting someone owes you money even if true does not create a cavetable interest. johnston - 2021-04-10 17:24:00 |
| 24 | johnston wrote:
That is not relevant to what she posted. A personal debt is not a caveatable interest. While it may have been registered it was not sustainable. The caveator was at risk for a wrongfully lodged caveat. This is relevant as this is what was on our Land Information NZ letter
CAVEAT NOTICE PURSUANT TO SECTION 139 OF THE LAND TRANSFER ACT 2017.
What’s questionable is what the contractor used as justifiable.
I shall find out on Monday or when they give me this information. boots496 - 2021-04-10 19:00:00 |
| 25 | It is not questionable in my opinion. There is no caveatable interest. Edited by johnston at 7:08 pm, Sat 10 Apr johnston - 2021-04-10 19:08:00 |
| 26 | kenw1 wrote:
My understanding is ... a real or registerable interest. https://www.linz.govt.nz/system/files_force/media/doc/caveat
s_and_other_stops_on_registration_guideline_2018.pdf?downloa
d=1 That's interesting. |
| 27 | anne1955 wrote:
Surely this would have/should have been done under the Personal Property Securities Register Otherwise it would have no legal hold at all? I had never heard of this place until recently. When I rang them regarding a "twatt" that did such to me. And it's a deadly bloody Dept of the Government if ever I came across one. They don't notify you anyone has used it, and then you have to pay to get a copy of it so you can find out what "twatt" has done it. Meant to be used in Housing situations BUT I found out it can be used by anyone, merely by ticking a "box" saying it is not being used for "illegal purposes". No proof even has to be attached!
And then to get it removed you have to pay again. Some of these Govt Dept need a real shake up. And as the poster say's all this type of crap done by 'fools and others' places an amazing amount of stress on a person. And yes sparkychap this on top of all I am going through currently :) The Registrar did nothing wrong. Edited by johnston at 10:35 am, Sun 11 Apr johnston - 2021-04-11 10:34:00 |
| 28 | johnston wrote:
The Registrar did nothing wrong. Sorry if I implied the Registrar was wrong wasn't my intention. Am trying to find were I actually wrote that But never my intention. What is wrong is the "System" that allows people to do such things when it isn't in fact the right place to do or register such. And to be able to do so by a mere tick of a box is even sillier. And open to misuse by some. And it seems like there is a number of Govt Depts that allow such things to happen, and in my particular case I didn't even have to be notified. I wish the poster all the best on Monday with his problems.
My beef is with the New Zealand Companies Office and their branch called Personal Properties Securities Register And the lady I spoke with their said it also covers the Tenancy Tribunal which I found interesting But maybe that was just me :) Edited by anne1955 at 11:33 am, Sun 11 Apr anne1955 - 2021-04-11 11:28:00 |
| 29 | sparkychap wrote:
No not wrong. LINZ have very specific legislative guidelines around when a caveat can be registered, and an unpaid bill doesn't meet that criteria. Either there has been a cock up here, or there's more to the story. I suspect the latter. What I was getting at is, they made out there was one placed, whether they did or didn't is another point. (by all accounts there was!)
They can try and place one, but whether it gets actioned or sticks is another point.
All bluff and bravado, but sometimes it works. Edited by smallwoods at 4:56 pm, Sun 11 Apr smallwoods - 2021-04-11 16:48:00 |
| 30 | gabbysnana wrote:
you can't, and LINZ need to be reprimanded for lodging it, there are very few grounds for a caveat. The person needs to take LINZ to the dt for their costs. Their are no qualified people in LINZ now, its out sourced for the most and they read of scripted cards. Costs are due to be ramped up costing conveyancing even more for a non supported budget as service. BUT they DID! Wasn't gunna work though, as long as the other party knew it wouldn't. smallwoods - 2021-04-11 16:49:00 |
| 31 | smallwoods wrote:
BUT they DID! Wasn't gunna work though, as long as the other party knew it wouldn't. Contrary to what she claimed, the Registrar acted entirely appropiately. johnston - 2021-04-11 18:52:00 |
| 32 | smallwoods wrote:
What I was getting at is, they made out there was one placed, whether they did or didn't is another point. (by all accounts there was!)
They can try and place one, but whether it gets actioned or sticks is another point.
All bluff and bravado, but sometimes it works. Either a caveat is registered or it's not. Edited by johnston at 6:54 pm, Sun 11 Apr johnston - 2021-04-11 18:53:00 |
| 33 | johnston wrote:
Either a caveat is registered or it's not. And some are registered wrongly! smallwoods - 2021-04-11 18:58:00 |
| 34 | I'm happy to wait until tomorrow. laurelanne - 2021-04-11 19:37:00 |
| 35 | smallwoods wrote:
And some are registered wrongly! Wrongly lodged but correctly registered. Once registered the caveat's existence is conclusive. johnston - 2021-04-11 23:10:00 |
| 36 | lythande1 wrote:
[quote=boots4-
96}
We engaged a contractor to do earth work on parking area. Told him budget was xx inclGST. Invoice arrives 40% more. Immediately paid xx as that was agreed. .
This is why you always get quotes. An estimate is just that, it can vary.
A quote cannot change.
Verbal discussions are not a legal document.
Make sure you have quotes next time.'[/quote] Anything verbal is plainly not a document but a verbal agreement can be a contract (with some exceptions). johnston - 2021-04-12 06:48:00 |
| 37 | johnston wrote:
Anything verbal is plainly not a document but a verbal agreement can be a contract (with some exceptions). The adjudicator also stated this about verbal agreement, however the contractor dug a deeper hole for himself in his counter claim stating “$xx was agreed BUT ........”
Then came the lies which we proved were in fact lies. He did a rant to which the adjudicator questioned his past dealings. This then confirmed what we thought all along. He didn’t want to take us to DT because he’s been there before and possibly not gone in his favour. 30 years experience!. He thought putting a caveat on would be a sure way of getting $$. boots496 - 2021-04-12 07:00:00 |
| 38 | boots496 wrote:
The adjudicator also stated this about verbal agreement, however the contractor dug a deeper hole for himself in his counter claim stating “$xx was agreed BUT ........”
Then came the lies which we proved were in fact lies. He did a rant to which the adjudicator questioned his past dealings. This then confirmed what we thought all along. He didn’t want to take us to DT because he’s been there before and possibly not gone in his favour. 30 years experience!. He thought putting a caveat on would be a sure way of getting $$. He sounds like a piece of work. Recover any costs (legal fees) for the wrongly lodged caveat from him. In your case, it appears there was a discussion about additional expenses or contingencies but the discussion was not incorporated into the agreement. It seems he tried to bully you. Edited by johnston at 7:18 am, Mon 12 Apr johnston - 2021-04-12 07:14:00 |
| 39 | The contractor and his lawyer did not remove the caveat. Our lawyer ended up applying for a lapse which cost us. The Dispute Tribunal ordered the contractor to remove the caveat at his cost but he did not follow this. Our lawyer says “ let it go”. Me, I want to bill contractor of which I know will end up again in Dispute Tribunal. boots496 - 2021-07-04 20:23:00 |
| 40 | To be fair to the contractor, there are people out there who get a quote for X, then there is unforeseen ground conditions, or extra work done at the clients request and they think that because there was a quote provided, they don't have to pay any more than the quote, I've struck that a few times. mrcat1 - 2021-07-05 10:20:00 |
| 41 | mrcat1 wrote:
To be fair to the contractor, there are people out there who get a quote for X, then there is unforeseen ground conditions, or extra work done at the clients request and they think that because there was a quote provided, they don't have to pay any more than the quote, I've struck that a few times.
correct they do not have to pay more than what was quoted. thats why we never did any quotes, it was always estimates only. you had no idea what you would find once you got into the job.
to quote it you would have to pull everything apart which is a big part of the job, so you might as well just do the job. but a common trick is for them to underprice the job to make sure they get it, then bump up the price later on to make their money. just relying on people not wanting to fight it. tweake - 2021-07-05 11:30:00 |
| 42 | tweake wrote:
correct they do not have to pay more than what was quoted. thats why we never did any quotes, it was always estimates only. you had no idea what you would find once you got into the job.
to quote it you would have to pull everything apart which is a big part of the job, so you might as well just do the job. but a common trick is for them to underprice the job to make sure they get it, then bump up the price later on to make their money. just relying on people not wanting to fight it. Totally incorrect.
A quote is for what the quote said it is for, nothing more. If there is major unforeseen events during the job, or the client changes any part, the quote has changed.
Therefore can be amended. Classic was a $600k toilet down by the wharf, ended as $1m+ Edited by smallwoods at 1:49 pm, Mon 5 Jul smallwoods - 2021-07-05 13:48:00 |
| 43 | smallwoods wrote:
Totally incorrect.
A quote is for what the quote said it is for, nothing more. If there is major unforeseen events during the job, or the client changes any part, the quote has changed.
Therefore can be amended. Classic was a $600k toilet down by the wharf, ended as $1m+ can't change it even for major unforeseen events. typically you have charge up clauses in the contract, including a scope of work etc thats accounts for hidden things, changes in material prices etc. which is what the 600k toilet would have had, especialyl when dealing with govt projects.
but straight quotes do not have that, there is no out clause. tweake - 2021-07-05 15:23:00 |
| 44 | mrcat1 wrote:
To be fair to the contractor, there are people out there who get a quote for X, then there is unforeseen ground conditions, or extra work done at the clients request and they think that because there was a quote provided, they don't have to pay any more than the quote, I've struck that a few times. if either of those two situations arises you should reprice and get agreement to the new pricing become continuing any work. There’s too much cost creep in this country. sparkychap - 2021-07-05 15:34:00 |
| 45 | smallwoods wrote:
Totally incorrect.
A quote is for what the quote said it is for, nothing more. If there is major unforeseen events during the job, or the client changes any part, the quote has changed.
Therefore can be amended. Classic was a $600k toilet down by the wharf, ended as $1m+ No, you are incorrect. Once accepted a quote becomes a contract. Hence a quote on acceptance becomes more than a quote. johnston - 2021-07-05 16:09:00 |
| 46 | johnston wrote:
No, you are incorrect. Once accepted a quote becomes a contract. Hence a quote on acceptance becomes more than a quote. Yeah, think. Rebuilding a kitchen, half way through and a weather storm blew the doors open over the weekend.
Totally saturated some of our work from the week.
Owner got recharged, for the fact they left the doors open or unlocked. Totally unforseen, no weather pattern showed it to be coming. smallwoods - 2021-07-05 17:06:00 |
| 47 | smallwoods wrote:
Yeah, think. Rebuilding a kitchen, half way through and a weather storm blew the doors open over the weekend.
Totally saturated some of our work from the week.
Owner got recharged, for the fact they left the doors open or unlocked. Totally unforseen, no weather pattern showed it to be coming. So? The quote was still a contract once accepted. In your example the contract could be ended by frustration. johnston - 2021-07-05 18:22:00 |
| 48 | johnston wrote:
So? The quote was still a contract once accepted. In your example the contract could be ended by frustration. Wasn't our fault the work had to be redone.
We didn't install the doors, OR leave them insecure.
The contract was the kitchen makeover, we completed our part and charged for work outside the scope of the contract.
The deck, porch and doors were on the owners or builder.
Their argument, which I think ended with the owner copping the extra. smallwoods - 2021-07-05 18:58:00 |
| 49 | smallwoods wrote:
Yeah, think. Rebuilding a kitchen, half way through and a weather storm blew the doors open over the weekend.
Totally saturated some of our work from the week.
Owner got recharged, for the fact they left the doors open or unlocked. Totally unforseen, no weather pattern showed it to be coming. you would be pretty silly to be doing a kitchen reno without a contract and things like that example are usually in the contract and rather importantly whose insurance covers what. if you only did a straight quote then home owner has every right to only pay the quoted price.
thats exactly whats happened in the OP case, which is why home owner won. one of the standard con jobs is to quote low then talk the job up once quote is accepted.
this is why its illegal to charge extra on a quote. tweake - 2021-07-05 19:09:00 |
| 50 | You can't just charge people for extra work without a variation to the contract agreed by both parties. Edited by sparkychap at 7:17 pm, Mon 5 Jul sparkychap - 2021-07-05 19:16:00 |
