Howdens Traders passing on discount - Scam??

MaggieBaking

cddc wrote: »

Retail price when you dont sell retail?

Erm, that's actually what most companies selling a product do - from Parker Pens to Kellogs cereal. Sell at a trade price, with a Recommended Retail Price (RRP).

cddc

MaggieBaking wrote: »

Erm, that's actually what most companies selling a product do - from Parker Pens to Kellogs cereal. Sell at a trade price, with a Recommended Retail Price (RRP).

Yes, but Kellogs dont give a quote on their paperwork,via the retailer to the end customer effectively stating that you, the customer are receiving a huge specified discount on their "retail" price and what a bargain you are getting!

This has never happened when I have popped out for a packet of cornflakes!

MaggieBaking

cddc wrote: »

Yes, but Kellogs dont give a quote on their paperwork,via the retailer to the end customer effectively stating that you, the customer are receiving a huge specified discount on their "retail" price and what a bargain you are getting!

This has never happened when I have popped out for a packet of cornflakes!

Well, slightly different - I was merely highlighting that RRP is a common practice, and that it's an exaggeration to pretend it is unusual. He goes on to explain that the invoices he sees have the full price, plus the discount for trade.

Whether or not it is right that Howdens do it that way, and how builders behave is something different to debate.

cddc

MaggieBaking wrote: »

Well, slightly different - I was merely highlighting that RRP is a common practice, and that it's an exaggeration to pretend it is unusual. He goes on to explain that the invoices he sees have the full price, plus the discount for trade.

Whether or not it is right that Howdens do it that way, and how builders behave is something different to debate.

And this is where you and many others are getting the wrong end of the stick as to what this case is about (at least the bit of the case which the OP has posted some detail on, we know that a percentage of her claim was to do with a kitchen supplied from Howdens via her builder,we do not know what the rest of the claim consists of), though it is hardly suprising given some of the cryptic posts of the OP and wild claims she is making for it.

This is not about profit and trade discount per sae. It is about written paperwork from the same supplier to the same builder with two different prices on it. The builder charged the OP the higher price and paid the lower.

The idea that somehow the result of this case will cause the end of capitalism as we know it is ludicrous. It may, however, stop certain sharp practices by some suppliers and tradesmen. That is all. At this stage knowing what little the OP has posted we cannot even be sure of that!

System

all that has happened here is that (due to lack of any facts) people have joined the dots and come to different conclusions, if the case is as cddc has read it, then it would not be the builder that was guilty of anything as the paperwork was from howdens, therefore it is howdens that have falsified documents - whilst that may due to the builder requesting those documents is neither here nor there - if thebuilder has been sneaky, they have been sneaky, but at the same time unless they have actually produced a false receipt using howdens headed paper etc i can't see how the op can win a case against the builder and not have dragged howdens into it

cddc

the_r_sole wrote: »

all that has happened here is that (due to lack of any facts) people have joined the dots and come to different conclusions, if the case is as cddc has read it, then it would not be the builder that was guilty of anything as the paperwork was from howdens, therefore it is howdens that have falsified documents - whilst that may due to the builder requesting those documents is neither here nor there - if thebuilder has been sneaky, they have been sneaky, but at the same time unless they have actually produced a false receipt using howdens headed paper etc i can't see how the op can win a case against the builder and not have dragged howdens into it

Ah, but you see the higher one is a quote and the lower one is an invoice! If they had both been invoices then yes Howdens would be culpable. As it is they could quite reasonably claim that that they dropped their final price rather than lose the sale!

That is how it works, and why it is the builder who has been seen as culpable and not Howdens. And that is quite correct. The customer would assume, unless told otherwise, that the quote she has in the builders name is what the builder is paying. But that of course is not the case. The OP's contract is with the builder and not Howdens and any monies paid would have been to the builder and not Howdens. Unless, of course the OP tells us different. Had the OP paid Howdens 6K and Howdens kicked back 2k to the builder, it would be a different scenario!

System

you may be right, but i would assume that howdens would have had to be represented to say those things in court as i'm sure the builder would be trying to escape liability - also, as far as i'm aware a trade account at howdens has a fixed percentage discount on an account at certain ££ levels - so it is unlikely they would knock an additional third off the price to keep a sale of one kitchen - but again i'm sure they would have had to prove or dispell that in the court.
I can't understand either, why the op had agreed to the quote of 6K and was happy to pay the 6k and then pursue it after the fact, if they were unhappy at the cost it would have been better not to go with the quote in the first place - or not use howdens at all as the trademen is always the only person that they will deal with directly

but i'm over this thread now, i will until any facts are actually posted if indeed they ever are

cddc

As I said back in post 192 in reply to Keystone, in my experience Howdens do this all the time, or rather some branches do. They are keen to get the fitters/builders business and will produce fictitious quotes at a lower discount rate for those tradesmen who wish to make a percentage on supply of the kitchen.

The problem, as the OP posted somewhere in the deep dark mists of this thread, is that you need the invoice to claim on your warranty. If the builder or Howdens provide that to you then you will know you have been stitched up by builder!

This, along with 3 other unspecified reasons, is why the OP won her case. She got hold of the invoice from, I suspect Howdens, which showed that she had paid 2k over the odds.

As others have posted, shop around with different fitters and branches when buying a kitchen via a tradesman from Howdens.

Nothing wrong with the kitchens as long as you get them at the right price.

Leif

the_r_sole wrote: »

I can't understand either, why the op had agreed to the quote of 6K and was happy to pay the 6k and then pursue it after the fact, if they were unhappy at the cost it would have been better not to go with the quote in the first place - or not use howdens at all as the trademen is always the only person that they will deal with directly

You are not the first to say that, but I do understand. If someone is offered a kitchen at cost (however it is described) plus £800 for the fitting, they will probably assume that they cannot get cheaper elsewhere, and hence they will not search around for other quotes, and will go with that one. That is why I think this practice is so dishonest. It is trickery to convince the customer not to get other quotes.

System

Leif wrote: »

You are not the first to say that, but I do understand. If someone is offered a kitchen at cost (however it is described) plus £800 for the fitting, they will probably assume that they cannot get cheaper elsewhere, and hence they will not search around for other quotes, and will go with that one. That is why I think this practice is so dishonest. It is trickery to convince the customer not to get other quotes.

and this is why the detail is so important in this case