Builder Demolishes £ 500,000 House While Owner Is On Vacation.
Money is a source of conflict, and this is nothing new: but can you destroy a house worth over £ 500,000 for a financial dispute? It sounds absurd, but it is so: we tell you the story of a conflict that led to the accomplishment of an extreme gesture. We are at Guilford Road in Stoneygate, Leicester, UK. It is a tree-lined avenue with very large detached houses valued in the order of £ 540,000. Something, however, in this neighborhood catches the attention of passers-by: There is a destroyed house, with a missing roof and rubble everywhere.
#1
image credit: Leicestermercury
What happened to this house, estimated to be over £ 500,000? The owner, a man in his forties, was on vacation abroad when his property was demolished by the builder: the roof was destroyed and the garden was covered with rubble. Why such drastic and frightening action? The builder allegedly decided to destroy the work he had done because of financial disputes.
The owner of the house, which was only recently purchased, said he and the builder wanted to do a lot of work to make the house the perfect place to live with his family. The owner wanted some rooms to be enlarged, a new roof, new wiring, and the whole property to be more environmentally friendly. However, there was a dispute: the builder had done unprofessional work, disappointing the expectations of the owner who refused to pay £ 3,500 for work that was not deemed to be up to par.
#2
image credit: Leicestermercury
Then the owner went on vacation and the situation worsened considerably. The work was going on, there was scaffolding everywhere, and the neighbors started to notice that the builders were tearing down the work that had been done so far. The house is now almost destroyed and the neighbors are not at all happy with the situation: in fact, they are angry because the condition of the house is destroying the image of the neighborhood. The owner also says he intends to contact Leicester City Council to see how the damage can be dealt with. Could this case have been resolved without resorting to such vindictive action?
Source used: