Fraudulent 10 Year Guarentee

[JJ]

Does anyone know what the legal situation is when one has work done by a registered and insured enterprise, only to find out that the said company were not covered to carry out those works?

We had a pool built in 2004 by a company who made a great sales pitch about their 10 year guarentee, we now find that they were only insured for general building and not the construction of pools.

Any advice would be gratefully recieved.

[Val_2]

Did you not have a copy of their insurance policy and what they were covered to construct? Most insurers give their artisans copies of the policies to give to their clients for large expensive works. Ours very clearly states that we are not insured for pools and other specialist works and their insurers will require them each year to confirm exactly what trades they want insurance and guarantee for, ours do. All I can suggest is that you contact their insurers if only to inform them of what they are upto and if you have a genuine complaint or problem, contact the firm involved first and ask them to put things right FOC or else you will report them to all the authorities you can think of and it could damage their reputation.

[Sunday Driver]

Is your query about having had a pool built two years ago by a company that didn't have the correct insurance in place at that time? Has a third party claim suddenly arisen after all this time?

Or is it that you are you unhappy about their 10 year guarantee?  What do you think is fraudulent about it?

[JJ]

Val,

Many thanks, we did look at the insurance, but being a tad green, we did not realise that the different trades had to be specified, the company in question was only insured for general building. Hindsight is a valuable tool.

As far as contacting them to rectify the problem, well, we have been trying for over a year, they are in liquidation, and it was when we contacted the insurance company we found out about the fraud.

Sunday Driver,

Yes, it was because of a problem with part of the pool that caused us to find out that the comapny were not covered for building pools.

My question is has a criminal fraud taken place? Thayt is what my originalpost asked, what to do next, has anyone else had a similar problem?

[Val_2]

Unfortunately for yourselves if the company has gone into liquidation and were not covered by their insurers for a swimming pool construction,then I'm afraid you probably have no recourse at all - who will pay out? Certainly not the insurers if they hadn't insured for that work and had been paid by the builders and as for the builder/s,well they won't have any money either and are probably either on chomage or employed elsewhere by another firm. You could try,if you have a lot of money to part with,seeing an avocat but the legal wheels take years to turn in France as anyone will tell you and the end results will probably be nul. Its a great pity that you have been conned like this,but for years and years on this and other forums and in the papers people have been warned to check very very careful the credentials of artisans whether they be french or foreigners in France. Maybe you could claim against your house insurance if you have the right civile juridique etc and get another properly insured firm in to do any repairs etc. Whatever the outcome, I hope you manage to use your pool.

[Nick Trollope]

Val is quite right, but (and it is abit of a but,) if you may be able to get somewhere with the fraud bit (obtaining money by deception, which is a specific offence in France, as it is in the UK) - in which case you would need to persude the Gendarmes to think the same. You could obtain compensation becuase the owners or managers of the business would be personally liable for the criminal aspects of the issue.

I think that there are some specific criminal issues attached to decinal guarantees, too.

Good luck!

 

[Sunday Driver]

JJ

This is a complex situation, so it's worth taking it step by step.

I'm not au fait with the law in France, but in the UK, there is no specific crime of fraud - just theft.  Under Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968, it is an offence to "dishonestly obtain property belonging to another by deception with the intention to permanently deprive".

If we assume that the general principle is the same in France, then each element of the offence has to be proved.

Firstly, the deception.  In your case, would you have proceeded with the contract if you had been aware that the firm was uninsured for that particular project and that as a consequence, the guarantee would be worthless?  Your awareness must be based on statements made by the firm (eg "it's OK, mate. We're fully insured") and more importantly, by documentation provided to you ("For your peace of mind, we are fully insured to install pools") which caused you to be deceived. To just be ignorant of the requirement in itself is not grounds to claim deception.

So, if they handed you a guarantee document which said that the guarantee was only valid if the pool was installed by a fully insured installer, and the firm confirmed that they were correctly insured, then this was clearly a lie and a deception occured. As a result, they dishonestly obtained property (your money) by deception.

However, the final part of the offence also needs to be proved - did they intend to permanently deprive you of that property.

They might argue that they had every intention of honouring the guarantee, out of their own pockets if necessary, but they subsequently ran into financial difficulty (outside their control, of course) which prevented them from providing you with the intended support.

Result - difficult to prove intent.

You can report the matter to the police, but unless someone comes up with anything else, I suspect your only option is to bite the bullet and cut your losses.  As previous posters have said, it may be expensive to pursue them civilly. 

 

[JJ]

Sunday Driver,

Many thanks, you have raised lots of good points for us to think about. We will have to go through all the documentation.Bottom line is that I think it would be very hard to prove intent on the deception front, in particular as they are now in liquidation, and will say that they would have sorted any problems if they were still in business.

 

[JJ]

Sunday Driver,

Many thanks, you have raised lots of good points for us to think about. We will have to go through all the documentation.Bottom line is that I think it would be very hard to prove intent on the deception front, in particular as they are now in liquidation, and will say that they would have sorted any problems if they were still in business.