Howdens Traders passing on discount - Scam??

keystone

Leif wrote: »

............It is all about deception.

Ah but is it? The first person on this thread to introduce the concept of "I'll charge you cost for the kitchen and fit it for x" was you. The first person on this thread to use the word "fraud" was you.

The OPs beef is that the fitter gave them an invoice from the supplier totalling £6k but subsequently obtained (by what means is currently obscure) a copy of the same (or was it similar?) invoice to their fitter (or was it another?) for the same products but at a total of £4k. OP therefore alleges a scam by the fitter and possible collusion by the supplier in said alleged scam.

Since your introduction of the "promise to supply at cost" and "fraud" concepts numerous posters (including the OP as it hapens have seized upon these concepts with alacrity, some have embellished, one has even gone so far as to stretch our imagination with a suggestion that documents have been forged. Now where on earth did that one come from? Result - substantial and insidious "thread creep".

So with your keyboard warrior hat on you keep plugging this one yet I can't see how you can have evidence that this "promise" was made before the arrangement was entered into since the OP steadfastly refuses to divulge details of the case.

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.

Absolutely correct. However, the OP has been (or could be interpreted as) suggesting that this "landmark" (sic) case will actually call into question the business model of thousands of businesses in this country and that is why the details are important. However, they have chosen, for probably perfectly valid reasons NOT to share the details at this stage so am at a loss to understand why you are being so dogmatic about it.

Because what the OP is apparently suggesting in the minds of some posters here (rather than yours or any others interpretation of what they are sugegsting) is so potentially important then it is fair and reasonable that peeps ask for details. The OP doesn't chose to give them which is their right BUT that doesn't mean that people won't be sceptical about it after the OP trumpets the win rather loudly.

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.

A very big if seeing as you are dogmatically maintaining that such is the case. If such is a criminal offence why has the fitter not been prosecuted? Did not the OP say that they had consulted Trading Standards? Why has a fraud case not been brought? Why did it need a civil case? It might if the evidence is too flimsy to have reasonable expectation of obtaining a criminal conviction. Interestingly the Judge in the County Court put this case on the Fast Track. That means the claim will have been for between £5k and £15k. So its about more than the alleged £2k variation between invoices which would have been allocated to the Small Claims Track. The Fast Track process demands disclosure of evidentiary documentation from both plaintiff and defendant yet the OP implies that the Judge refused the suppliers representative the opportunity to present evidence. That in itself seems strange but never mind.

There are always two sides to a story - we have not heard the defendants side and nor, actually, have we heard the plaintiffs side properly so all the gum flapping going on here is really rather moot. So thats my gum flapping over and done with.

Cheers

keystone

jillytb wrote: »

A............ 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.

Ah - sorry missed that. So my previous post was correct - it is about more than the cost of the kitchen. Thank you.

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.

Leif is guessing as we all are as you don't reveal the details.:D

Thank heavens the judge knew the difference too.

The judge knew something based on his knowledge of the facts which, on this thread, are extremely sparse and therefore the Judge is in the correct position to make a judgement. No-one on this board is.

Cheers

keystone

Alan_M wrote: »

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.

Saucer of milk over here please. :D:D

Cheers

jillytb

keystone wrote: »

Ah but is it? The first person on this thread to introduce the concept of "I'll charge you cost for the kitchen and fit it for x" was you. The first person on this thread to use the word "fraud" was you.

Actually it was I who brought this concept in virtually from the start.

The OP doesn't chose to give them which is their right BUT that doesn't mean that people won't be sceptical about it after the OP trumpets the win rather loudly.

Understood!

Interestingly the Judge in the County Court put this case on the Fast Track. That means the claim will have been for between £5k and £15k. So its about more than the alleged £2k variation between invoices which would have been allocated to the Small Claims Track. The Fast Track process demands disclosure of evidentiary documentation from both plaintiff and defendant yet the OP implies that the Judge refused the suppliers representative the opportunity to present evidence. That in itself seems strange but never mind.

The Defendant submitted paperwork provided by the supplier as part of his defense but he did not inform the court that he was bringing any witnesses, as was the case with me. He did on the day announce that he had a witness from the supplier but as you are probably aware that is not the procedure and was naturally ruled out by the judge.

There are always two sides to a story - we have not heard the defendants side and nor, actually, have we heard the plaintiffs side properly so all the gum flapping going on here is really rather moot. So thats my gum flapping over and done with.

Cheers

Leif has actually so far been the only person who has grasped what went on, I appreciate yours and everyone elses scepticism because I have not provided full details but I am glad you appreciate I have good reason just for now.

jillytb

Sorry Keystone, this quoting technique is not my forte!

Actually it was I who brought this concept in virtually from the start.

The Defendant submitted paperwork provided by the supplier as part of his defense but he did not inform the court that he was bringing any witnesses, as was the case with me. He did on the day announce that he had a witness from the supplier but as you are probably aware that is not the procedure and was naturally ruled out by the judge.

cddc

I know this thread is missing certain "facts" but by reading between the lines what probably happened as I know this goes on is most likely as follows:

Builder goes to Howdens to get quote for OP's kitchen. Howdens print out quote showing x% discount.

Builder then gives quote to OP, saying "look at this huge discount I have managed to get on your kitchen and I am passing it all on to you!" OP is impressed and agrees to go ahead with it.

Builder then goes to Howdens and places order at his regular discount of y%, which is of course much better than x%.

OP somehow gets hold of paperwork showing what builder actually paid for kitchen. Realised that builder had not even remotely been honest when he said he was passing on anything like the discount he actually received. Now has copies of both prices.

Sues builder for deception and wins!

Why do you think all Howdens quotes show enormous discounts off a totally fictitous "retail" price. They are a trade only company, are they not?

The problem here is not about trade discount, and will not affect it in any way. There is no problem for a tradesman looking to make a profit on materials.

What is wrong here is the tradesman convincing the OP that he was passing the full discount on to her and not making a profit on the materials when he actually was!

keystone

jillytb wrote: »

Leif has actually so far been the only person who has grasped what went on,

and I have a problem with that because that means that only one of your, by now numerous, readers has understood what you are saying. That says more about the way that you are saying it than one particular posters abilities.

Cheers

keystone

jillytb wrote: »

Sorry Keystone, this quoting technique is not my forte!

No probs.

Actually it was I who brought this concept in virtually from the start.

What you said was:

jillytb wrote: »

Okay I hear you but he told me I was paying the Howdens price,

which is NOT the same as he "told me that he would supply it at cost".

The Defendant submitted paperwork provided by the supplier as part of his defense but he did not inform the court that he was bringing any witnesses, as was the case with me. He did on the day announce that he had a witness from the supplier but as you are probably aware that is not the procedure and was naturally ruled out by the judge.

Oh indeed its definitely procedural. Fast Track means just that - don't move the goalposts halfway as there isn't time.

Cheers

keystone

cddc wrote: »

I know this thread is missing certain "facts" but by reading between the lines what probably happened as I know this goes on is most likely as follows:

So, sorry if I appear rude here, you are also speculating/guessing?

Why do you think all Howdens quotes show enormous discounts off a totally fictitous "retail" price.

and why do so many people allow themselves to get taken in by the marketing practices of a certain well known sofa supplier on a year in year out basis. There are peeps out there who actually believe the BS.

What is wrong here is the tradesman convincing the OP that he was passing the full discount on to her and not making a profit on the materials when he actually was!

I find no evidence of this on this thread. In case I missed it please say where it is categorically stated that in the contract negotiations the builder specifically said that he would pass on all the discount he would receive from Howdens. If he only said that he would pass on a discount that is a totally and completely different matter. If its not present then all else is speculation.

Cheers

keystone

I took the builder to court over this matter and others,

Others being far more significant financially than a kitchen discount.

the judge agreed that I was misled by the builder

The judge may have agreed that OP was misled by the builder on an awful lot of things concerning their business relationship. The statement is unspecific and perhaps not soley attributable to the discount issue.

and that he did not pass on the discount,

but it hasn't been said that the judge found it fraudulent or dishonest that he didn't. From what we've been told he just found that he didn't pass it on.

he also did not allow the Howdens Manager that the builder brought in to the court as a witness.

Correctly on a procedural basis.

There is an awful lot more to this case than has currently been revealed. We obviously have to wait.

Cheers