# Invoiced by solicitor after nearly 4 years!



## fcdub

Hi all,

I had some dealings with a solicitor about three / four years ago and he was to send us an invoice.  It never arrived.  Now three years later I have just received an invoice for €1600, can he do this after all this time?

Regards

Post Celtic Tiger Broken Man


----------



## Niall M

I heard about this going on, seemingly they are going back over their files for the last 10 years to see if they missed anything and can claw in a efw bob....


----------



## rustbucket

You really should have paid it years ago. Chasing up if you had to. 
That being said 4 years is a bit of a joke. You should ring them and see about paying a reduced amount given the time frame or coming up with some kind of payment plan. At the end of the day you still owe the money but what kind of business are they running if they allow a bill to go unpaid for 4 years!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Tell him that you will pay it in 4 years. 

Brendan


----------



## Vanilla

fcdub said:


> can he do this after all this time?


 
To answer your question, yes he can.


----------



## Woodie

Brendan Burgess said:


> Tell him that you will pay it in 4 years.
> 
> Brendan


 
 Obviously the correct answer for such inefficency.  

If the issue of payment now is causing you difficulty you could try to negotiate payment, reduced amount for payment, phased basis payment etc.  After all the circumstances of almost everyone has changed to a greater or lesser degree in the intervening years.


----------



## onq

I'm not certain your solicitor can easily pursue you to get this money at this late stage.

I've had several conversations with my solicitor about going after people who owe me monies historically.
His view was that leaving it go even two years would look very in odd in the eyes of the courts and could affect the case.

Four years is very close to the five years referred to by a Judge in a case taken by the local authority against an advertising hoarding.
That judge took the view that the LA had had five years to bring a case and failed to do so and the hoarding was now beyond their influence.

This was precedent until the planning and Development Act 2000 ratified the 7 year limit for pursuing unauthorized development without permission.
Five years was also the limit in the Building Control Act 1990 within which legal actions could be taken against offender for breaches of the Regulations.

Solicitors fees may be measurable and enforceable, but a case for a reduced fee based on current hardship or inability to pay could be well-received by the courts.
It all depends on what judge you get and what the cost benefits are if you decide to let him pursue you legally - I'd put any offer of reduced payment to him in writing.


ONQ

             All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot          be                              relied                      upon                                                                                                                                                                                  as   a                         defence            or                                support     -                in                        and           of                                  itself         -                                              should                                              legal                                            action                            be                                                taken.
             Competent legal professionals should be asked                   to                              advise        in                                                                                                                                                                                         Real               Life              with                             rights            to                                inspect                     and                                issue                                            reports                    on                            the                                                                matters                  at                                              hand.


----------



## Vanilla

Delay is normally only relevant where a defendant can say it might prejudice a case. This is therefore usually in criminal proceedings. The Statute of Limitations on a debt is 6 years.


----------



## onq

Under other circumstances Vanilla I might agree with you, but we're not talking about a delay in pursuing a debt but rather in invoicing for fees.
Delay may be held to be relevant where the defendant can show that he had a  reasonable expectation that the debt had either been forgiven or written  off based on the four year delay in invoicing.

You could certainly build a defence around it, especially where hardship or an inability to pay might currently exist.
Whether a court would look favourably on this is anyone's guess, but while courts look after their own profession, they also expect high standards.

A reduced amount, or a deferred payment or an extended payment schedule might be agreed between the parties on foot of the threat of such a defence.
Its all up in the air at this point, but that would be my point of departure for any future negotiations.


ONQ

             All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot           be                              relied                      upon                                                                                                                                                                                     as   a                         defence             or                                support     -                 in                        and           of                                   itself         -                                               should                                              legal                                             action                            be                                                 taken.
             Competent legal professionals should be asked                    to                              advise        in                                                                                                                                                                                            Real               Life              with                              rights            to                                 inspect                     and                                issue                                             reports                    on                             the                                                                 matters                  at                                               hand.


----------



## Vanilla

onq said:


> You could certainly build a defence around it, especially where hardship or an inability to pay might currently exist.
> 
> ONQ
> 
> All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon as a defence or support - in and of itself - should legal action be taken.
> Competent legal professionals should be asked to advise in Real Life with rights to inspect and issue reports on the matters at hand.


 
That's good to know, counsel.


----------



## onq

Vanilla said:


> That's good to know, counsel.



LOL!

I'm not a Counsel, as you well know Vanilla, and no one can pre-empt a court judgement result.
But if you're going to pick a fight with a solicitor on fees, you have to look ahead to where it will end up.

Solicitors like to throw shapes and threaten legal action because they can take a case relatively cheaply.
That doesn't mean you can't strike a pose with them in return.

The OP's job is to make it look less costly to offer a discount after such a significant delay in invoicing rather than fight a court battle the outcome of which may be in doubt.
Part of my job is to write report on buildings supporting affected owners claims - several of these have been settled in my clients' favour on the steps of the courts after the defendants consider the balance of probabilities.

ONQ.


----------



## Vanilla

onq said:


> LOL!
> 
> I'm not a Counsel, as you well know Vanilla, and no one can pre-empt a court judgement result.
> But if you're going to pick a fight with a solicitor on fees, you have to look ahead to where it will end up.
> 
> Solicitors like to throw shapes and threaten legal action because they can take a case relatively cheaply.
> That doesn't mean you can't strike a pose with them in return.
> 
> The OP's job is to make it look less costly to offer a discount after such a significant delay in invoicing rather than fight a court battle the outcome of which may be in doubt.
> Part of my job is to write report on buildings supporting affected owners claims - several of these have been settled in my clients' favour on the steps of the courts after the defendants consider the balance of probabilities.
> 
> ONQ.


 
Onq- you're an architect, I think. But you post frequently in the legal section. It seems you have experience of the legal system but no, you're not a barrister or a solicitor.


----------



## onq

Correct on all counts.

I *think* I'm an architect too (!) I'm just not allowed to use the title until I get formally registered, which in terms of compilation of information and the written submission is an unbelievably time consuming task - still, twenty one years of experience needing to be condensed, what can you expect? LOL!

I've specialised in law as it pertains to the practise of architecture. I've attended many briefing meetings with solicitors and barristers and I recommend them to anyone interested in the law. Just being a fly on the wall in those surroundings gives you a great education, as does attending at court. Some people hate court attendances because there is a lot of waiting in the halls, but I love them. Watching people under stress is always informative about human nature - including your own!

Recently I've read employment, H&S and HR law as part of a formal Business Development course. Hardest thing I've ever done, Employment Law, particularly the written assignment on Transfer of Undertakings and the way this part of the law is variously interpreted in Ireland, Britain and in Europe. I'm waiting for the formal results in a week or so. Fingers crossed.

ONQ.


----------



## PaddyBloggit

OP ~ 


 Solicitor did the work for you (which you don't dispute).
He gave you four years interest free credit.
 You owe the money ... pay it!


----------



## dahamsta

I have to say, on a general level, anyone that issued me with an invoice after a 12 months or so would have it sent back with a big smiley face on it, never mind 4 years.

If they're not competent enough to invoice in a timely fashion, it's their loss.


----------



## Marion

dahamsta said:
			
		

> I have to say, on a general level, anyone that issued me with an invoice after a 12 months or so would have it sent back with a big smiley face on it






The smiley face definitely worked for this guy. He endorsed the bank of a fake cheque with one.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=155111

Marion


----------



## Mongola

So, did you think at the time you were getting the solicitor to work for you for...free???? WHy did you not ring to check the invoice status?


----------



## nuac

Yes, the solicitor was slow in issuing the invoice = this is often due to pressure of work in meeting current deadlines.

Did it never occur to the poster to enquire what he owed the solicitor for the work done, or did he think some other party had paid for the service

The liability would not be statute barred until six years has expired.

With respect to Ong periods of limitation set out in the Planning Act 2000 ( currently 7 years ) are irrelevant in contract law.


----------



## mercman

Statute of Limitations in this case would be another six years now, making it 10 years in total. And if the brief charges interest the bill will be a whole lot more, 

Pay the bill -- the job was done.


----------



## onq

nuac said:


> Yes, the solicitor was slow in issuing the invoice = this is often due to pressure of work in meeting current deadlines.
> 
> Did it never occur to the poster to enquire what he owed the solicitor for the work done, or did he think some other party had paid for the service
> 
> The liability would not be statute barred until six years has expired.
> 
> With respect to Ong periods of limitation set out in the Planning Act 2000 ( currently 7 years ) are irrelevant in contract law.



Its "onq" not "ong". 

Laws and bodies of laws are discrete as you have stated - there is no argument here.

But while solicitors may seek payment up until the date of the six year term expires, others it seems cannot do so with any assurance.

FWIW

ONQ.

PS

The seven year limit relates to taking action unauthorized development which didn't have a permission.
The maximum stated period in the planning and development act 2000 is actually 12 years from the date of grant of permission.
The time to take action for something like continuance of unauthorized  used of land (like mining) is unlimited - this may tie in with pollution regulations.


----------



## One

I think that the respectable thing to do is pay the bill. That solicitor worked for you, and forgot to send a bill, but that is absolutely no justification for not paying him. To be fair, you could have rang him for that bill a long time ago.

From my own perspective, I have always worked in a factory. I get paid every month without fail and am thankful for it. It is a sheltered existance. I often had dealings with people, particulary tradesmen such as plumbers, electricians, plasterers who have done work for clients and who have not been paid. They have little or no protection against this. I feel sorry for them. People who supply goods all too frequently get caught out too, and don't get paid. It is not right.


----------



## Bronte

The solicitor is within his rights to send the invoice as the statute of limitations is not up.  He is wrong to have invoiced you 3 or 4 years later, unless there was a reason for this (land registry delay for example).  He is wrong if there was a delay in not sending you at least once every 6 months a reminder that the bill would be issued when the 'issue' was cleared up.  You were wrong not to enquire about the bill, you did know you owed it.  

As you are now finding it difficult to pay, and the solicitor will be aware a lot of people are struggling. Then a mutual arrangement whereby you pay x amount per week/month until it is paid should be worked out.    

On a side note to the legal eagles:

Does the Law society not give guidence on time frames in relation to bills.  I know of no other professsion who seem to send bills years later, apparently out of the blue to their clients.  Even if there are reasons for the delay, surely the client, being a client, should be given at least 6  monthly updates.


----------



## mf1

fcdub said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I had some dealings with a solicitor about three / four years ago and he was to send us an invoice.  It never arrived.  Now three years later I have just received an invoice for €1600, can he do this after all this time?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Post Celtic Tiger Broken Man



OP posted only once about this. Gave very little detail. Did not dispute the amount. From that one post, people drew lots of assumptions. 

Solicitors run businesses. Like every business, some are more or less efficient than others.  

My view on all matters is: what would a Court say? Here, it is more likely that a Court would say : bad form in not issuing invoice but money is due. Pay up. Being annoyed about an invoice being issued after three years is not a defence but it will be helpful in looking for time to pay. 

And just as a by the way, clients are sometimes ( and increasingly so) nasty, manipulative, underhanded pieces of work who are happy to take advices but see no reason to pay fees. And those are the ones who have the money but use the recession to justify their meanness.

mf


----------



## Stardom

*Involve after 7 years*

My Solicitor actually has sent an invoice after 7 years. The excuse has been used that they have sent invoice at the address when I used his service for one day. I stayed in that address for 1 year and never got an invoice. They had my phone no, never got a phone call and now after 7 years! Can they do thar?


----------



## onq

Unless he's started legal proceedings within the 6 years from the date the debt was due I'm not certain he has a case. No doubt others will answer. Regardless of this you got a service and owe him money. Will you follow sharp practice and deny the debt just because it may be possible for you to do this or will you pay the debt?

I'm concerned that people don't pay their debts and instead wind up here looking to see if they an get off paying debts they admit were run up.


----------



## johnjoda

onq said:


> unless he's started legal proceedings within the 6 years from the date the debt was due i'm not certain he has a case. No doubt others will answer. Regardless of this you got a service and owe him money. Will you follow sharp practice and deny the debt just because it may be possible for you to do this or will you pay the debt?
> 
> I'm concerned that people don't pay their debts and instead wind up here looking to see if they an get off paying debts they admit were run up.



+1


----------



## SparkRite

Stardom said:
			
		

> My Solicitor actually has sent an invoice after 7 years. The excuse  has been used that they have sent invoice at the address when I used his  service for one day. I stayed in that address for 1 year and never got  an invoice. They had my phone no, never got a phone call and now after 7  years! Can they do thar?







onq said:


> Unless he's started legal proceedings within the 6 years from the date  the debt was due I'm not certain he has a case. No doubt others will  answer. Regardless of this you got a service and owe him money. Will you  follow sharp practice and deny the debt just because it may be possible  for you to do this or will you pay the debt?
> 
> I'm concerned that people don't pay their debts and instead wind up here looking to see if they an get off paying debts they admit were run up.



ONQ in itself thats all very well, and I do not condone people reneging on debt,  however I know that if I received an invoice for services rendered 7 years ago, I for one, and I suspect many other people would not remember how much was owed, especially if I knew/thought that I had paid all or part of the monies owed.

I don't think to be expected to produce receipts pertaining to 7 year old bills/outstanding debts is reasonable.

As you, I also would be concerned, but more so, about people who flout the 6 year time limit law. Why so long, what are they up to....looking for more than originally owed.....looking to be paid twice.......etc.

IMHO 6 years is more that ample time to seek payment, remember, these laws are there to protect people.


----------



## onq

The amount owed is written on the invoice, so no feats of memory are required.
I didn't say I was concerned about why it took so long and I certainly didn't imply any wrongdoing on their part in relation to additional payments or double payments.
In relation to the six years, I included and "if then" clause about whether the solicitor can reasonably expect to be paid if he hasn't commenced action withing the six years.
I agree that six years is sufficient time in which to act, if you're a solicitor seeking payment.

ONQ.


----------



## Bronte

Stardom said:


> My Solicitor actually has sent an invoice after 7 years. They had my phone no, never got a phone call and now after 7 years! Can they do thar?


 
No they cannot do this, the statute of limitations is 6 years.  And they are outrageous sending you a bill after 7 years.  Very very shoddy to be invoicing now.


----------



## Bronte

mf1 said:


> And just as a by the way, clients are sometimes ( and increasingly so) nasty, manipulative, underhanded pieces of work who are happy to take advices but see no reason to pay fees. And those are the ones who have the money but use the recession to justify their meanness.


 
That is very sad.  What is wrong with people.


----------

