Howdens Traders passing on discount - Scam??

System

This thread is really going nowhere op is letting folk speculate then picking certain bits out to agree with, until there is any fact from the op it is pointless posting more ammunition - the case is potentially massive but since there are no details of what the claims were it is impossible to tell

Leif

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.

I simply read through the original posts to understand what was going on. Yes I was the one who wrote the phrase you quote and used the term 'fraud', but I did so based on the earlier thread posts. Bear in mind that Alan M questioned the OP about what was going on and I referred him to an earlier post from the OP referring to a civil action. It seems to me that some people are not reading through the thread. It also seems to be a bit of a "kick the OP" fest.

keystone wrote: »

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

Two readers. cddc has also understood the issue.

keystone wrote: »

No probs.

What you said was: "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".

Whilst I am no lawyer, I would say there is no distinction. To my ear they sound the same. The only way to know is to test it in law. Or perhaps to have a lawyer pitch in to this thread.

System

Leif wrote: »

I simply read through the original posts to understand what was going on. Yes I was the one who wrote the phrase you quote and used the term 'fraud', but I did so based on the earlier thread posts. Bear in mind that Alan M questioned the OP about what was going on and I referred him to an earlier post from the OP referring to a civil action. It seems to me that some people are not reading through the thread. It also seems to be a bit of a "kick the OP" fest.



Two readers. cddc has also understood the issue.



Whilst I am no lawyer, I would say there is no distinction. To my ear they sound the same. The only way to know is to test it in law. Or perhaps to have a lawyer pitch in to this thread.

...or perhaps get some of details of the actual claims raised by the op...

keystone

Leif wrote: »

I simply read through the original posts to understand what was going on. Yes I was the one who wrote the phrase you quote and used the term 'fraud', but I did so based on the earlier thread posts.

So you extrapolated?

It seems to me that some people are not reading through the thread.

Happens all the time. Sigh!

It also seems to be a bit of a "kick the OP" fest.

Very noble of you to be a knight in shining armour I must say BUT when peeps post on here they expect other peeps to respond. Op posted. Reasonable questions have been asked. Peeps might just get a bit sarcy when they get an "accept what I say" response.

Two readers. cddc has also understood the issue.

No he hasn't he is also speculating/guessing. How is this

by reading between the lines what probably happened as I know this goes on is most likely as follows:

anything else but guesswork?

..........I would say there is no distinction.

Read the two statements very very carefully then tell me that again.

Cheers

robert2011

This is a very simple dispute ! Jilly says fitter promised to supply her at howdens price which he did for £6k (£6k was his price) Jilly accepts the £6k quote ! pays the £6k .
Contract made a legaly binding contract ! ,Jilly later finds out the fitter supplied the kitchen £2k more than the trade price, nothing wrong so far! She then says the fitter lied, when did he lie ? its her word against his . But the fitter will win always as Jilly agreed on the £6k quote ! come on guys this is not rocket science.

cddc

robert2011 wrote: »

This is a very simple dispute ! Jilly says fitter promised to supply her at howdens price which he did for £6k (£6k was his price) Jilly accepts the £6k quote ! pays the £6k .
Contract made a legaly binding contract ! ,Jilly later finds out the fitter supplied the kitchen £2k more than the trade price, nothing wrong so far! She then says the fitter lied, when did he lie ? its her word against his . But the fitter will win always as Jilly agreed on the £6k quote ! come on guys this is not rocket science.

Ah, but it is not this simple is it, because the OP has both the quote from Howdens on Howdens paperwork which the builder gave to her, and a copy of the final invoice. She can therefore quite rightly claim deception.

The builders name is on both the original quote and on the final invoice for the same items. This proves he has lied about the true cost of supply of the Kitchen.

Its not rocket science!

Though facts are thin on the ground from the OP, this much has been pretty clearly established!

Alan_M_2

cddc wrote: »

Though facts are thin on the ground from the OP, this much has been pretty clearly established!

Thin is stretching the point.

The kitchen supply dispute was over a sum of £2000 if we are to take figures from the original post. (assumption)

Fast track court starts at £5000 minimum. So the kitchen supply issue is less than half the minimum claim value of this case. (Assumption)

What's the rest for? how can you come to any sort of conclusion with so little information.

Lots of assumption here - that's all we can do, assume/guess.

The OP isn't willing/able to furnish any fact.

For all we know, the builder went through the contents of her sock draw, took all the jewelery, did a runnner with the kitchen she'd paid for without fitting it, burned her house down and went on holiday on the proceeds.

Until we're told otherswise, that's as reasonable assumption as any other made in this thread.

cddc

keystone wrote: »

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


Yes, but it is an educated guess, I sell K&B for Wickes.

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.

No arguement there, but you missed out my point that Howdens are a "trade only" supplier. Retail price when you dont sell retail? This allows builders/fitters to completely BS customers about the true cost of their kitchens. I regularly get customers in front of me with quotes given to them by their builder/fitter on Howdens paperwork which are ridiculous. They look good with a 65% discount on them, but at that price they are coming in at much more than I would charge for (arguably) a superior product and of course this is far more than the builder/fitter is actually paying for them. When I point this out to them, one of two things happen. Either they buy from me, or they go back to their fitter and the supply quote magically shrinks to less than mine!

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

I see it every other week, some builders boast about doing this, building customers trust by saying you pay what I pay and then telling the story down the pub later laughing at how they ripped so and so off by £1000's. Yes I know it works both ways in the trade, customers also withold payments from tradesmen for no good reason. But two wrongs do not make a right.

cddc

Alan_M wrote: »

Thin is stretching the point.

The kitchen supply dispute was over a sum of £2000 if we are to take figures from the original post. (assumption)

Fast track court starts at £5000 minimum. So the kitchen supply issue is less than half the minimum claim value of this case. (Assumption)

What's the rest for? how can you come to any sort of conclusion with so little information.

Lots of assumption here - that's all we can do, assume/guess.

The OP isn't willing/able to furnish any fact.

For all we know, the builder went through the contents of her sock draw, took all the jewelery, did a runnner with the kitchen she'd paid for without fitting it, burned her house down and went on holiday on the proceeds.

Until we're told otherswise, that's as reasonable assumption as any other made in this thread.

I know, you could well be right! There is far more to this than the OP is letting on and until we get to see the full facts of the case and the full judgement, her claims about this being a landmark case etc..... should be taken with a large pinch of salt!

Does not mean that I agree with the way Howdens collude with tradesmen to BS customers over the price of their kitchens though

Leif

keystone wrote: »

So you extrapolated?

Happens all the time. Sigh!

Very noble of you to be a knight in shining armour I must say BUT when peeps post on here they expect other peeps to respond. Op posted. Reasonable questions have been asked. Peeps might just get a bit sarcy when they get an "accept what I say" response.

No he hasn't he is also speculating/guessing. How is this anything else but guesswork?

Read the two statements very very carefully then tell me that again.

Cheers

There is no need for sarcasm.

No matter how many times I read the two statements I come to the same conclusion. And I suspect that most people who are not in the trade, and who are not builders or tradesmen would agree with me.

As I said, you need a court to decide based on the EXACT wording on any contract. BUT there is also a 'invoice'.

But were you to sell me a kitchen at the 'Howdens price', and supply me with an 'invoice' that 'proved' the price, and yet you take a huge cut, I would consider you to be a shyster.

It almost seems as if tradesmen here are defending their patch in a rather aggressive manner.

If this thread has taught me one thing, it is to be extra careful when dealing with tradesmen etc. My dealings with a plumber and builder many years ago were fine, and recent experience with kitchen people (Optiplan) has been outstanding, very efficient and honest, but it looks like that might not be the norm.