Liveline or Gripeline - Was Joe Duffy's Liveline fair ?

There has been a significant amount of feedback from tradesmen and builders in the last week regarding a segment aired on Joe Duffy's Liveline programme on RTE Radio 1 on Wednesday 5th November. The general gist of the feedback was that the builder at the center of the peice was dealt with harshly and that the liveline show only covered 'bad' stories about builders or tradesmen. Well, in reality there is no shock in either point given that the feedback was from fellow tradesmen and that, in my opinion, liveline is a show that deals mainly with complaints - but lets have a look at the particular incident in overview.

From what I can gather a property owner rang up liveline to complain about a new home build that a builder had contracted to complete. There was a contract in place and an architect to sign off on the project in stages. The issue appears to have arisen towards the back end of the project. The property owner contended that the builder had practised shoddy workmanship and unacceptable work practices (i.e not turning up on site). They subsequently dismissed the builder in question and did not pay them the outstanding amount - some €30k. The customer contends that they are in the possession of both a QS report and structural engineer to back up their claims. When the builder came on air to defend himself he was also met with a queue of his suppliers to whom he owed money - unfortunately a growing problem in today's climate - which caused further doubt about the builder in the listeners mind. Indeed, coupled with the unfortunate property owners story, the case seemed to be a closed book with the builder condemned to a life of hanging pictures on a remote Island - as long as it natives can't pick up liveline!

However, the builder in question raised a number of interesting points in his defence. His argument was that the project had proceed near completion and had been signed off at every stage by an architect. Is this possible where a project has shown consistently poor workmanship and is been managed by a competent architect ? The builder also contended the majority of delays were down to a lack of funds on the property owners side as the scope of the project changed during the process. This most certainly happens and the availability of extra credit is by no means a given these days. The builder then maintained that, after purchasing a number of high end fittings on his accounts, he was chased off site on the day that they were delivered. He reckons that this meant he was indebted to the various suppliers with no chance of payment for the goods, hence his debt problem.

Now this blog cannot support either side of what is a complicated affair founded on allegation, but on the face of it there are valid (if unfounded) points on both sides. However, in my opinion this is where the balance ends. At the end of the liveline piece I was left thinking that the builder in question will have difficulty doing business in this country again. As for the property owner, he made his points well, did some serious damage to the builder and lost nothing from the experience.

So herein lie the questions:

If the case goes to court and the builder is found to be the victim, what then ? If innocent, can the builder hope to retrieve his reputation and recoup his livelihood ? If innocent, will liveline feature his company again in a positive light ? If guilty, has liveline done society a favor?

Of course there is no guarantee that the builder would be shown to be a victim. Maybe he is the one at fault and deserves everything that is thrown at him as there is absolutely no place for shoddy workmanship or poor customer service in today's Ireland. Regardless, I think that there are lessons here - life in business isn't fair and, if you want proof, listen to liveline.