Howdens Traders passing on discount - Scam??

Leif

I will comment on Keystones remarks later but this one deserves a quick comment:

keystone wrote: »

which I personally find offensive.

That was in response to "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."

If you find that offensive then the problem is with your reading, not my writing. So you think it offensive to be told that it is not the norm for service etc to be outstanding? In terms of volume B&Q et al will fit the most kitchens and bathrooms (well, supply materials and subcontract fitting), and the feedback for the sheds does not suggest outstanding performance does it. Optiplan were outstanding because a) every item was supplied and without damage b) they arranged visits around me and not vica versa (just one example, they arranged the fitter to hand back keys to coincide with the templates being collected, and at 8am so I did not need to take time off work, how many companies take that much care?) and c) the fitting was first rate. Now I am not saying Magnet etc cannot match that, but if you are saying that is the norm, well I wish I could live in your world. Regarding honesty, my late mother lived in south Devon, and most if not all tradesmen took cash in hand, thereby defrauding the rest of us. And she got no discount.

And some of the comments here from tradesmen have suggested that in their view it is fine for a builder to claim to sell a kitchen at cost price, and in reality to make a huge mark up. It is that last aspect that truly shocks me. Now one or two people have chipped in and agreed that IF THAT WAS THE CASE then it would be unethical.

System

Leif wrote: »

most if not all tradesmen took cash in hand, thereby defrauding the rest of us. And she got no discount.

so you have seen all these tradesmens tax returns i assume?

Leif wrote: »

And some of the comments here from tradesmen

can all of the tradesmen posting on here please make themselves known, job titles and professions are obvioulsy required information before opinions and comments can be validated!

keystone

Leif wrote: »

That was in response to "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."

No it wasn't it was in response to the whole paragraph. Please don't misquote me. If you take the first sentence out of the paragraph as you have done above it doesn't mean the same thing at all. Perhaps its not my reading at all.

In that paragraph taken as a whole you say (in precis) that this thread has taught you to be very careful when dealing with treadesmen because although your previous dealings have been outstanding it seems that such experience is not the norm.

Its the implication/suggestion that most tradesmen contrary to your recent experience are dishonest that I find personally offensive. If I have misread it I apologise.

Regarding honesty, my late mother lived in south Devon, and most if not all tradesmen took cash in hand, thereby defrauding the rest of us.

A different subject for a different thread but I take cash quite happily. The client gets an proper numbered invoice, teh cash gets paid into the bank. I pay my taxes and have a proper paper trail on my business. Are you telling me that I am dishonest for taking cash?

Now one or two people have chipped in and agreed that IF THAT WAS THE CASE then it would be unethical.

Yes including me or don't you read before typing?

Cheers

keystone

the_r_sole wrote: »

can all of the tradesmen posting on here please make themselves known, job titles and professions are obvioulsy required information before opinions and comments can be validated!

No. Because that could be construed as advertising products and services which is against the forum rules although some posters seem to think they are immune to them.;)

Cheers

keystone

Leif wrote: »

I will comment on Keystones remarks later but this one deserves a quick comment:

Crikey - if that post constitutes a quick comment I'd really hate to see a long one.

Cheers

Leif

Okay, then let's assume the full quote. My comment still stands.

keystone wrote: »

Its the implication/suggestion that most tradesmen contrary to your recent experience are dishonest that I find personally offensive. If I have misread it I apologise.

It is comments in this thread from tradesmen that have left me completely shocked. One not only completely condoned claiming to sell at cost price whilst adding a massive mark up, but said that the OP should be taken to court for having found out about the scam. Utterly shocking. So yes I stand by my remark. I am completely gobsmacked at the apparent condoning of sales practices that to me seem indefensible. And by the way, when my late mother was alive, tradesmen were queueing up to defraud her. She was elderly and disabled. Shocking.

Leif

I said: "Now one or two people have chipped in and agreed that IF THAT WAS THE CASE then it would be unethical. "

keystone wrote: »

Yes including me or don't you read before typing?

I said "one or two people". Clearly that includes you. And I am glad that you are in that group. But many seem not to be.

keystone

Leif wrote: »

Okay, then let's assume the full quote. My comment still stands.

So my reading of that paragraph was correct and that was what you meant to say? Yet you berate me for taking personal offence. Whaaat?

But you make no sense. Your explanation on your "quick comment" post made the paragraph mean something entirely different. Has the word consistency been expunged from your dictionary? (Yes that was supposed to be sarcy. )

It is comments in this thread from tradesmen that have left me completely shocked. One not only completely condoned claiming to sell at cost price whilst adding a massive mark up,

Would you please direct me to the entry where any poster (whether tradesman or not) specifically condoned the action of which the OP complained.

but said that the OP should be taken to court for having found out about the scam.

As we have yet to find out whther it really is a scam or not thats a silly statement. Secondly I do remember one poster suggesting that the OP might not have obtained the copy of the second invoice legally. Is that what you mean?

So yes I stand by my remark.

So you should be ashamed of yourself for tarring eveybody with an unproven brush and whether you like it or not I remain offended by it.

I am completely gobsmacked at the apparent condoning of sales practices that to me seem indefensible.

Apparent being the key word here and by its use you are retreating from your previously stated position. Can I presume that the use of faux outrage is designed to distract from that? I could be wrong of course - it has been known.

Cheers

jillytb

keystone wrote: »

So my reading of that paragraph was correct and that was what you meant to say? Yet you berate me for taking personal offence. Whaaat?

But you make no sense. Your explanation on your "quick comment" post made the paragraph mean something entirely different. Has the word consistency been expunged from your dictionary? (Yes that was supposed to be sarcy. )

Would you please direct me to the entry where any poster (whether tradesman or not) specifically condoned the action of which the OP complained.

As we have yet to find out whther it really is a scam or not thats a silly statement. Secondly I do remember one poster suggesting that the OP might not have obtained the copy of the second invoice legally. Is that what you mean?

So you should be ashamed of yourself for tarring eveybody with an unproven brush and whether you like it or not I remain offended by it.

Apparent being the key word here and by its use you are retreating from your previously stated position. Can I presume that the use of faux outrage is designed to distract from that? I could be wrong of course - it has been known.

Cheers

Check out all postings by Tom_Jones he condones this whole thing, apparently the difference of pricing "was none of your business" and he would love me to sue him so he could get a solicitor to.... well let's just say his comments say all about him. His profile states he works in construction and his posts indicate he runs a company....

Check out Robert2011 also!

I think this post, most would agree, is now getting ridiculous.

I think the arguments and sarcasm and the high handed comments by Keystone and Alan_M need to stop.

I said before I will be back and I will. No need to start quoting 2013 again, it will be before then and I will happily come back here and back up what i have said.....

Given I am the one here with the issues I am more qualified than any to comment, even though I have not backed it up, and the only person who actually has grasped the nastiness of this situation and understands that it is truly wrong is Leif.

In the meantime I think it is best that the arguments and speculation stop, I have already apologised for coming on here prematurely.

By the way Robert, I would be worried if I were you, mine was an "oral agreeement" accepted by the judge!

keystone

jillytb wrote: »

Check out all postings by Tom_Jones he condones this whole thing, apparently the difference of pricing "was none of your business" and he would love me to sue him so he could get a solicitor to.... well let's just say his comments say all about him. His profile states he works in construction and his posts indicate he runs a company....

Thanks I will.

Check out Robert2011 also!

Ditto.

I think this post, most would agree, is now getting ridiculous.

Thought so from page 1 meself.

I think the arguments and sarcasm and the high handed comments by Keystone and Alan_M need to stop.

Excuse me where have I made high handed comments please? Edit: OK I got it you mean me challenging other posts. How is that high handed?

I said before I will be back and I will. No need to start quoting 2013 again, it will be before then and I will happily come back here and back up what i have said.....

Great stuff - look forward to it.

Given I am the one here with the issues I am more qualified than any to comment, even though I have not backed it up, and the only person who actually has grasped the nastiness of this situation and understands that it is truly wrong is Leif.

Oh no not at all. I think most peeps here knows that if the situation is as you describe it then it is wrong (I will review the posts you refer to BTW). The difference is that one poster is prepared to commit to you that it is wrong without you presenting the detail (which you don't have to) and is therefore basing his judgement on guesswork. I, however, am not prepared just to roll over and accept it just becuse you say so because this judgement (I see to recollect you described it as landmark or groundbreaking or something similar) will be important if the way you describe it is correct and which is why the detail is important. However, I too tire of this thread.

In the meantime I think it is best that the arguments and speculation stop, I have already apologised for coming on here prematurely.

Agree totally - I said that about the speculation n posts ago but really can't be arsed to go looking for the post concerned.

By the way Robert, I would be worried if I were you, mine was an "oral agreeement" accepted by the judge!

Oh do behave - there you go asking everybody to stop and promptly pour a bucket full of petrol on the bonfire.:D 'spose it is your bonfire though.

Cheers