Howdens Traders passing on discount - Scam??

System

This would definitely be newsworthy as it would effectively end trade discounts as all consumers would insist there is no mark up on any materials

keystone

the_r_sole wrote: »

This would definitely be newsworthy as it would effectively end trade discounts as all consumers would insist there is no mark up on any materials

Which would result in labour costs increasing.

Cheers

Leif

the_r_sole wrote: »

This would definitely be newsworthy as it would effectively end trade discounts as all consumers would insist there is no mark up on any materials

I really cannot understand why people are arguing. You can sell me something at any price as long as you describe it accurately, and it is yours to sell. But if you describe it incorrectly, and I can prove that, then I have reason to seek legal address against you. Simples.

System

Leif wrote: »

I really cannot understand why people are arguing. You can sell me something at any price as long as you describe it accurately, and it is yours to sell. But if you describe it incorrectly, and I can prove that, then I have reason to seek legal address against you. Simples.

but there would be no point in anywhere offering trade discounts as the consumer would insist on getting it at cost, knowing that they could take someone to court if they try to mark up a price - and they could just shop around to get the tradesman that will do it for trade price - thus there would no advantage offering any trade discounts as the end consumer would always be paying that price so the price of materials for everyone would go up and so would the price of labour as it would be the only way a trader could make their money - therefore, this is a major major case!! and i am surprised that not one of the industry magazines or any local or national press has picked up that there will be a test case

jillytb

keystone wrote: »

Jilly

A couple of questions if I may - both have yes or no answers and neither infringe on your need to keep the details of the case to yourself.

1. Did you take action against your contractor through the small claims process in the county court?

2. If the answer to question 1 is yes did he turn up for the hearing to present evidence in his defence?

Cheers

1. No it was a Fast Track Hearing
2. Yes the builder did turn up

jillytb

robert2011 wrote: »

Jilly you do misunderstand me ! i realy do admire your tenacity and determination.
I would love to have someone like you work for me . But your wrong i am aslso a consumer ! we all are consumers ,the problem is most of us have overconsumed, spent beyond our means thats why the economy is in such a mess. Thats not true i assume you no nothing , i can only go on case precedents. Maybe i am wrong ! i would be happy to be if it meant your lying fitter got his just deserts.

The cases you have put forward as your own are that of you as the trader, mine was as a consumer and they were different indeed. Your clients didnt have a case, you say, but I did so I pursued this.

I do agree that consumption is way out of control and the country is a mess, like many others.

I saw this today: shttp://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/crime/9209093.Royal_Mail_driver_spared_jail_after_stealing___8_000/aw a Howdens member of staff got done for fiddling receipts with dodgy builders,

keystone

jillytb wrote: »

1. No it was a Fast Track Hearing

Ah thank you.

2. Yes the builder did turn up

Yes I guess he would have to have done in that case. He could just have not have bothered for Small Claims Track. A very large number of no shows at Small Claims result in judgement by default for the plaintiff irrespective of the actual veracity of their claims unless the Judge can clearly see that someone is "trying it on".

Cheers

Leif

the_r_sole wrote: »

but there would be no point in anywhere offering trade discounts as the consumer would insist on getting it at cost, knowing that they could take someone to court if they try to mark up a price - and they could just shop around to get the tradesman that will do it for trade price - thus there would no advantage offering any trade discounts as the end consumer would always be paying that price so the price of materials for everyone would go up and so would the price of labour as it would be the only way a trader could make their money - therefore, this is a major major case!! and i am surprised that not one of the industry magazines or any local or national press has picked up that there will be a test case

Sorry but that is utter nonsense. You are obviously intelligent, so I am not quite sure what the argument is about. This has nothing to do with whether or not a shop can provide trade discounts. Nothing whatsoever. It is all about deception. A fitter can say "I will provide a kitchen and fit it for £7000", and the price he pays to the kitchen shop is irrelevant. He can say "I will provide a kitchen for £7000 and fit it for free" or "I will provide a free kitchen and fit it for £7000". Again whether or not he got a trade discount from the kitchen shop is neither here nor there. It is irrelevant. You can choose to accept or reject his offer, or bargain with him.

But, what this is about is describing something in a false manner so as to convince the customer that they are getting a much better deal than they really are. This is not about marketing. It is not about charming someone with sales talk. It is about blatant lying. And there are strong laws to protect us from lying. Advertisers are VERY careful to stay on the right side of the law. If an advert makes a claim, the company MUST be able to substantiate that claim. But, if a kitchen fitter says "I will provide a kitchen at cost price, and charge you £800 for fitting" then that is what he must do. If he has lied about the cost of the kitchen, then that is (as far as I know) a criminal offense, assuming of course that you can prove the lie.

Alan_M_2

I was about to post a very long winded reply to Leif's last post about kickbacks, back end, bonus payments and how these are (or not) included in percieved cost price or trade price or "at cost". However I've lost the will to reply to a thread that is based entirely on conjecture of what someone claims to have done but refuses to provide any detail whatsoever.

Fast Track claims deal with sums of money over and above small claims - generally £5,000 up to £25,000, even this seems to be at odds with the original claim of an overcharge of £2,000 - which itself would only be dealt with via small claims court.

I could go into greater detail here, but I've been advised by someone who doesn't exsit, to not post details of a court case that also doesn't exist about a claim that may or may not exist.

jillytb

Alan_M wrote: »

I was about to post a very long winded reply to Leif's last post about kickbacks, back end, bonus payments and how these are (or not) included in percieved cost price or trade price or "at cost". However I've lost the will to reply to a thread that is based entirely on conjecture of what someone claims to have done but refuses to provide any detail whatsoever.

Fast Track claims deal with sums of money over and above small claims - generally £5,000 up to £25,000, even this seems to be at odds with the original claim of an overcharge of £2,000 - which itself would only be dealt with via small claims court.

I could go into greater detail here, but I've been advised by someone who doesn't exsit, to not post details of a court case that also doesn't exist about a claim that may or may not exist.

Alan_M, as you have been keeping in touch on this you may recall me saying I made a number of claims against the builder, including that of the kitchen. The total claim plus costs took the claim well above the small claims level, hence it was a Fast Track hearing. So anything else you want to try pick holes with!!

Leif, I think you are the only person here who actually agrees that the way I was misled and the practice used to deceive for personal gain is totally unacceptable. Thank heavens the judge knew the difference too.