The small contractor’s trap: deliver the work, then fight for the money

# The small contractor’s trap: deliver the work, then fight for the money

*The Pet Vet’s Feltham project: public praise, agreed additional charges and a £7,226.76 balance we are still pursuing.*

There is a photograph-friendly side to opening a new business: smart interiors, new equipment, a welcoming reception and public thanks for the people who made it happen.

Then there is the side you will not see in the photographs. The contractor sitting at a desk, chasing payment for work already delivered. Another email. Another unreturned call. Another evening assembling records instead of running the business.

We know both sides. Cavendish deVere carried out the flooring at The Pet Vet’s new Feltham surgery. We are proud of the work. We are deeply unimpressed by the handling of our final account.

## Public praise for the people doing the work

During the fit-out, The Pet Vet’s CEO, Dr Mel Fuller, published a [LinkedIn post thanking the Feltham project team](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/mel-fuller-27933a11_amazing-progress-in-just-a-few-weeks-so-activity-7472624824264249344-KN5L). She described them as:

> “an amazing crew of contractors who couldn’t be more helpful”

Her post celebrated progress and included photographs of the surgery taking shape. It was a progress update, not a final inspection or approval of our invoice. But it records something worth remembering: the contractors’ contribution was being publicly appreciated while the work was underway.

We share that pride. A good-looking surgery takes skilled people, careful preparation and a great deal of work that customers never see. Our team delivered its part of that project despite awkward areas, restricted access and the practical difficulties of working around other activity on site.

When Terry Pearson, The Pet Vet’s Head of Commercial Developments & Estate, subsequently challenged the invoice, he expressly said there was “no issue with his work”, referring to our fitter. His objections concerned quantities, additional charges and the time taken.

The irony is hard to miss. The work was good enough to praise publicly. Yet part of the account for delivering it remains unpaid.

## We explained the extra work. We offered a substantial compromise.

On 29 and 30 July, we set out the additional labour we considered necessary, explained the difficult installation conditions and supplied a video. We sought agreement in writing.

We then offered to halve the proposed additional charge: **£6,000 plus VAT reduced to £3,000 plus VAT**.

That was a substantial concession, intended to keep the project moving and preserve the relationship. At the time, we hoped the reduced sum would cover the additional fitter time. In our assessment, the extra time ultimately required went beyond what that reduced charge covered. We absorbed the difference.

Terry later disputed our explanation of the scope and said the additional payment was linked to quicker completion. That is his position. But his email of 14 September also contained this unequivocal acknowledgement:

> “At the outset I confirm I agreed the additional charges”

This was an additional charge discussed during the project and acknowledged in writing as agreed. It was not a surprise invented after completion.

In the same email, Terry described the charge as being levied with “a gun to my head”. We reject that characterisation. Our correspondence explained the work, sought approval and offered a 50% reduction. Asking a customer to agree the cost of additional work is a normal part of managing a project. We do not accept that our proposal amounted to coercion.

## Completion, a payment assurance, then deductions

On 24 August, we confirmed completion, advised that the invoice had been sent and invited Terry to raise anything he wished to discuss.

By 1 September, we were chasing the overdue account. On 10 September, Terry gave a written assurance that payment would go out the following day. It did not arrive as promised.

On 14 September, he presented his revised calculation. He removed charges for two rolls of vinyl, reduced the screeding charge and included only half of the already reduced additional-labour charge.

We had compromised from £6,000 to £3,000 plus VAT. His payment calculation then allowed £1,500 plus VAT for that additional work.

The payment received was £25,903.58 against the £33,130.34 balance then outstanding, leaving **£7,226.76**. We acknowledge the money paid. We have not accepted the deductions or agreed to waive the remainder.

We answered the disputed items. Our position is that the 180-unit screed entry described bags of material, not square metres; the additional vinyl was supplied for the project; and the extra labour charge was an agreed, heavily reduced contribution towards the work involved. Those positions must be assessed against the records, and we are prepared to have them examined.

A customer can challenge an invoice. But a revised calculation does not, by itself, settle a disagreement. Choosing what to pay leaves the contractor to fund and pursue the difference.

## The second unpaid job: chasing the account

On 14 September, Terry acknowledged our rebuttal and promised a substantive response. We chased it. We escalated the matter to Dr Fuller and Dr Rob Jones. Our subsequent correspondence records further unanswered calls and voicemail, as well as repeated requests for a reasoned response.

Complete silence, quite incredible really.

And so here we are, we have had to retrieve correspondence, explain quantities, reconcile invoices, assemble supplier records, prepare an evidence pack and approach a solicitor. That is time taken away from customers, estimating, scheduling and earning a living.

Completing a difficult installation should not be followed by another substantial job trying to recover the agreed price.

## Why this matters to every small contractor

Materials and labour cost real money before the final account is settled. Suppliers and fitters do not stop needing payment because a customer disputes the last part of a bill.

Once the work is installed, the contractor’s practical position changes. The customer has the benefit of the work. The contractor has an outstanding account and must decide how much more time and money to spend pursuing it.

That imbalance makes small businesses vulnerable to retrospective deductions and prolonged non-response. Whatever a customer’s intention, the financial pressure on the contractor is real.

Our view of The Pet Vet’s handling of this account is blunt: the missed payment assurance, deductions imposed after completion and prolonged failure to answer our rebuttal amount to unacceptable commercial conduct. We consider that combination sharp practice. That is our opinion of the conduct described here, based on this project and its correspondence.

Public thanks are welcome. They do not pay for the work being praised.

## What happens next

We continue to seek the £7,226.76 balance. The Pet Vet disputes part of our account; we dispute its deductions. No court or adjudicator has determined the claim.

We will report how this develops, including any substantive explanation from The Pet Vet, any payment and the eventual outcome. We will correct factual errors if identified.

The next article will also explain how we intend to reduce this exposure: clearer records of variations, payment stages tied more closely to our commitments, limits on credit and an earlier response when an account falls overdue.

We delivered work we are proud of. We offered a substantial compromise. We have repeatedly tried to resolve the account. We should not have to write an article to obtain a proper answer.