East Dulwitch Hunt

[Moos]

But this particular thread was initially about contacting a tradesperson by their username, and quickly got into an irreverent discussion, and a lot of personal comment. If the poster had started a thread entitled 'My experience with Builder J. Smith" it would probably have remained.

[Moos]

Cross-posted with Huguenot.

[binary_star]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the point binary_star was that every

> situation is different, not that regulars get

> favours.

> I think it's pretty insulting to admin and the

> mods to suggest they indulge in that sort of

> thing.

Woah woah woah I didn't say they did, I said I understood why admin had to do it, but that it might LOOK like favouritism from outside.

> It's not possible to have a blanket rule that

> either bans or endorses negative posts. There'd be

> no court in the land that would attempt that

> either.

You can't ban negative posts no, but you could ban anything that might be libelous? What if Andrea Binda decides to drag up the posts from all that time ago and have a legal pop at the forum owners for those? It might be in everyone's interests.

> It's a judgement call, and taking down a post

> doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it's

> impractical to resolve.

Absolutely.

[Moos]

Who?

The difference between negative and libellous is pretty hard to define. If a tradesperson queries or counters negative feedback (and they often do), then a negative post has become potentially libellous. This is what has happened here, isn't it?

Edited to add 2nd comment and for fat fingers.

[binary_star]

Moos Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Who?

You know, the cowboy builder.

[PaulK]

I accept people should have the right to out a cowboy builder on this forum, and it certainly seems DJKQ can bodge,

corner- cut and rip-off with the best of them. But I find it disturbing that there was such a pack mentality who were so quick to pounce on her as soon as Sue set the ball rolling with her undisguised and bitter condemnation of DJKQ.

I know this must have been a hugely traumatic experience for Sue, especially if she feels she has been targeted by the type of rogue cowboy builder who preys on vulnerable pensioners like herself.

But that doesn't excuse the public lambasting meted out by other forum users as soon as they saw a chance to stick the boot in.

[Voyageur]

Well.... I know of other forums where such lambasting of a local trader would not have been allowed to continue due to the risk of unfair bias and/or litigation. Then again, on yet other forums anything goes. Maybe this is somewhere in-between.

Personally, I find the whole thing a bit unpleasant,

[the-e-dealer]

So, can anyone recommend a good builder?

[Voyageur]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So, can anyone recommend a good builder?

I was always a dab hand with lego...

[the-e-dealer]

I think an East Dulwich Witch Hunt would be a good community occasion we could burn them once a month in the winter in the park.

[curlykaren]

Perhaps Sue could post a link to the episode of 'Love the House You're In' that her house was featured on so we can judge for ourselves? As at the moment the situation is pretty much as described by the OP.

[Voyageur]

Or perhaps leave the whole business alone.....

[curlykaren]

that might be easier said than done if you are the individual targeted?

[helena handbasket]

There was actually a thread about this two or three years ago. I was watching the actual episode and when they mentioned that the house was in ED and the woman was a music promoter I figured it was Sue, and started a thread called "Is that Sue on TV?". Sue came on and said it was her, and went into the ugly story of the disastrous renovations and contractor issues. Of course back then she didn't know the person was on the forum and no names were mentioned, but the story was otherwise exactly as she tells it now.

I remember feeling awful for her, and there were a lot of responses about legal action if I recall. There was a lot of money spent and I couldn't believe how little was done. Bookshelves in the lounge? A really tiny bathroom maybe.....

That was long before they started to bicker on here, so would be inclined to think that Sue didn't know who DJKQ was at all.

[sheilarose]

x

[Mark]

As Huguenot said I wrote that 5 years ago when I thought the forum would be a small place for a few locals, not a site where 28,000 users have posted messages. We don't do favouritism to companies on the site, the main rule is that companies on here should be East Dulwich based and even then amount of grief we get for that is amazing, usually in the form of "I'm a builder in Essex with loads of clients in Dulwich, why can't I advertise for free?".

Considering the case in hand it's become a personal issue and is no longer just a "non-recommendation" and we don't want that on the site, it makes it a nasty vindictive place which isn't what the forum's about. Generally there aren't that many bad recommendations on here, if a complaint is raised then Admin and the team look into it and act accordingly. Sometimes it means asking the message poster to put their name against it so they are identifiable and sometimes we may just have to take it down. We don't have a legal team on hand to advise, or the time to investigate each case so sometimes we do have to play it cautiously and remove negative posts about a company. If a company complains/threatens action because of a bad review then usually we remove both good and bad reviews about them.

As we do try and have on only East Dulwich companies on here and a bad review can do a lot more damage than 10 good reviews and the forum's intention is not to cause issues with local companies, we want to help them.

[Sue]

curlykaren Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Perhaps Sue could post a link to the episode of

> 'Love the House You're In' that her house was

> featured on so we can judge for ourselves? As at

> the moment the situation is pretty much as

> described by the OP.

xxxxxxx

The programme did not cover these issues, the makers obviously became aware of them but it was not that kind of programme.

I don't have a link to it - so far as I know there were only ever a few extracts put online, to advertise the programme, and it was first aired over two years ago so I doubt they are still there as I believe there has been another series made since.

I don't want to say anything else and I am genuinely sorry if I have caused Admin so much trouble by recently posting about it again on here - old wounds were reopened by the OP on the other thread but I should have restricted myself to PMs to the OP :-$

That's all I intend to say.

Edited to say: By "the other thread" I mean the thread which was locked and then deleted.

[curlykaren]

Yes, I do think you should have constrained yourself to private messages.

Instead you instigated a public 'witch hunt' which, despite there having been a TV programme that could demonstrate, for us all how awful (or not), the workmanship was, the only proof is your say so.

Very recently admin removed another thread in which you overtly and personally attacked the same person, as such your apology to admin seems a little misguided given your willingness to do the same thing again.

My experiences of this person could not be further removed from the way you have portrayed her. The small amount of work she has done in my house has been satisfactory in every way and I consider myself to be very lucky to be part of the community in which she lives, where she generously and freely donates both her time and equipment to community events, just last month she organised and ran a free party for over fifty local children. On sunday afternoon, 100 yards from my front door, she intervened in a stabbing in which the victim, a 15 yr old boy, was very badly injured, performing emergency first aide while waiting for an ambulance which prevented him from drowning in his own blood from a vicious stab wound to the chest.

There are two sides to every story, it might have been nice if the commentators on the other thread could have remembered that?

[Fabricio the Guido]

mother teresa award coming up...

[red devil]

Mother Teresa was shit at DIY too...

[Jeremy]

CK - I appreciate you're sticking up for your mate, but most of your post is totally irrelevant.

[DJKillaQueen]

There is of course the other side to the story and one that is more rational and very different to Sue?s account (and can be corroborated by both other trades people who were working on her home at the time and the TV production company involved) but if you are reading all of that how can you decide what is the truth and what isn?t? I think the willingness by some to automatically take as truth every word that Sue writes and then to go further and just write downright nasty things was an appalling display.

That?s one reason why I have not posted to defend myself (that and being ill and not having been online for a few weeks) and what would be achieved by that anyway. Sue doesn?t know when to stop ?.and will never admit any fault or back down even when proven to be wrong.

She has consistently lied and exaggerated about both the scale and the finish of the work. Many of her claims are not only ludicrous but pure fantasy. I see nothing to be achieved by arguing with her via a public forum.

I am more than happy to pm privately to anyone who requests it, a full account of what really happened and to also send photographs of the work (you will have to look hard to find the chaos Sue describes I?m afraid).

When someone repeatedly changes their mind, ignores the advice given to them, goes for the lower cost option (a factor in finishing) and then tries to blame the worker when not happy with the finish then whose fault is that? Sue gradually drove me up the wall with it all (she exasperated the TV company too).

As for the timescale/ cost ? things would have taken far less time and cost less had Sue been decisive regarding what she wanted and had taken the initial advice given to her (and taken care to keep finished paintwork clean and working areas clear). As to the terms of payment etc. Sue agreed to those terms, and then breached them. That is all a court would consider for example, not the terms themselves. No money was ever asked for up front for either and I continued working even when Sue stopped paying invoices ? which I also had no obligation to do.

Like I say I am more than happy to pm a full account to anyone but who in their right mind really wants to read all of that?

My main profession is elsewhere and one where reputation is key but only employs those who work in it for around 8 months of the year. The work I did for Sue is work I do/ have done between the contracts of my main profession. But even there I can provide lots of good references going back 20 years and indeed the person who recommended me to Sue in the first place is not in the habit of recommending incompetent people either (I wasn?t on the forum at the time).

Sue seems to complain about 90% of the people ever working in her home (her posting history shows that) and that tells me that if you do work for her the chances are that you are going to be labelled as incompetent. People should use their common sense there.

I don?t want to see this thread descending into the same unwarranted character assassination of the other. I?m still not online 24/7 so am not going to be able to respond to any of it either. Sue et al have had their pound of flesh....time to let it go I think.

[Sue]

Why has this all kicked off again?

DJKQ - you did not turn up to discuss the situation on several occasions, and did not reply to me when I tried to contact you to find out why,

I offered to abide by the decision of an independent and objective mediator. You refused to discuss the situation with a mediator.

I wrote you a formal letter in August 2009 and also emailed it to you, asking for your explanations of a number of things and attempting to resolve the situation in an amicable manner. You never replied.

I am shaking with anger as I write this.

Would you like me to copy that letter here, so that everybody is aware of its contents? I somehow doubt it.

ETA: Admin - In view of DJKQ's post above, do I have your permission to post that letter on this forum?

ETA: Sory but I've had enough. The following letter speaks for itself. It was sent to DJKQ (except I only found out this Summer that it was DJKQ) by recorded delivery and by email. I had no response to either and the letter was never picked up from the sorting office.

[Sue]

My address

Dear

WORK DONE AT ** ULVERSCROFT ROAD

As you know, I have been trying to arrange a meeting with you to discuss various issues relating to the work which you have been doing on my house. You came to my house last Thursday afternoon (20 August) but said you could not stop to talk as you were going to another job. You did not leave an invoice or mention payment. You said that you would come back in the evening for our discussion, which you did not.

You then emailed me on Friday 21 August to say that you would work on the house that afternoon and stay till I got home. You did not come to the house at all that day. You did not respond to my texts, phone calls or emails over the weekend, and you did not contact me until you sent several emails on Monday afternoon to an email address you do not normally use for me.

Following those emails I again tried to arrange to meet you to discuss relevant issues. If I understand your most recent emails correctly, your present position is that you will not discuss anything with me unless I pay you the amount outstanding on your latest invoice, which is ?***.

As I have previously said, I have no intention of withholding any money which may be fairly due to you. However, since some of my concerns relate to your invoices, I am not willing to pay you any further amount until we have talked through those concerns, which I have been trying to do since 20 August.

I told you that I thought it would be useful to use the services of an impartial and objective mediator, but if I understand you correctly, you are not agreeable to mediation.

The main issues which I would like to discuss ? preferably with a mediator to facilitate the discussion - are as follows.

You were employed from 22 June to do certain building work in my living room, hall/stairs/ landing and bathroom. It was clearly stated that this had to be completed by 9 July as a television company, Talkback Thames, was doing an observation documentary on my house renovation, and 9 July was to be their last day of filming.

You therefore drew up a schedule to demonstrate how the various aspects of the work would be completed day by day, and on the basis that the work would be finished by 9 July we agreed hourly rates for yourself and your apprentice, ****.

The work was not completed by that date. Talkback agreed to a later date in July for the final filming. You provided a revised schedule on 6 July with a forecast completion date of 18 July.

The work was not completed by that date. You then provided a third schedule on 21 July with a forecast completion date of 2 August. If you no longer have copies of those three schedules, I can provide them.

The work was not completed by 2 August. Talkback made it very clear to you and to me that there was no way that they could extend the final day of the filming beyond 19 August.

You verbally promised, followed by a written promise on 11 August, that all the work on the third schedule would be completed by 19 August. That promise was not kept, and Talkback were obliged to do the final filming with no cupboard doors on the cupboards in the living room, and to leave the bathroom out of the filming altogether.

I attach an outline of my understanding of the work which has been completed, the work which has been partially completed, and the work which has not yet been started.

I am aware that there have been some unavoidable delays, and some additional work required. However it does not appear to me that these could have accounted for a situation where after two months, a large part of the work which was supposed to have been completed in two weeks is still outstanding.

Despite requests, I have never received a breakdown of how the hours for which I have paid you and ***** have been accounted for. Therefore, I would like a breakdown in as much detail as you are able to provide of how you estimate the hours you have worked since 22 June have been spent, and in particular how much time you estimate has been allocated to each aspect of the most recent work schedule.

Where there have been delays to the schedule, or additional work required, I would like to know what you believe those were. In addition, I would like to know how much time you estimate was lost as a result of each of those delays or pieces of additional work, and why.

I would also like to know whether or not I was charged for the time and materials used in making good areas of work which had to be redone (excluding that relating to the plastering), or where repairs needed to be carried out due to the actions of yourself and your employees.

I had hoped that we could have had an amicable discussion on Thursday night, 20 August, that a mutually acceptable final payment could then have been agreed for the work completed so far, and that a mutually acceptable way forward for the outstanding work could have been agreed.

I greatly regret that as a result of your refusal to meet me, I should be having to send you such a formal letter. I also greatly regret that in view of the tone and content of your recent emails to me it seems unlikely that we can continue to work together, so there is now the added complication of my having to find somebody else to complete your unfinished work.

I would be grateful for a response to the issues outlined in this letter as soon as possible please, to enable us to agree on the final payment to be made to you, and to enable me to put this behind me and finally get the work on my house completed.

Yours sincerely

Sue (my surname)

Edited to remove identifying details

[steveo]

They wouldn't let it lie