Howdens Traders passing on discount - Scam??

neonpoppy

Alan_M wrote: »

Actually I don't think that is criminal unless specifically covered by regulations such as Financial Services Authority etc.

This is why we're all waiting with baited breath for the details of the OP's court case and on what grounds the OP feels they will be able to undertake a criminal prosecution on the builder.

Unitl we're provided with details of the case and the ruling all of this is simply speculation.

But do you think it a good thing that people can mislead and misinform to make a profit and do you think it should be legal?

Felt very dodgy to me. Which is why I steered well clear of Howdens.

Tom_Jones

jillytb wrote: »

Profit is the amount received for services in excessive of the original cost but when deceit is used to gain the difference it becomes fraud. To doubt that a court case based on a builder misleading a consumer for his own personal gains could be won by a consumer really raises a question over the judgements of those that do.

You still haven't answered how you got hold of the paperwork regarding what the fitter paid Howdens, it would be without doubt illegal and if you took a criminal prosecution against me that would be my first line of defence.

Howdens will always provide a quote and pricing without any discounts applied and this is probably what the fitter supplied to the OP.

The judge was very remiss in NOT allowing the Howdens manager to state his point of view IMHO.

If the OP is happy with the kitchen then why be so pedantic as to go after the builder for maybe a 2k profit, after all if he had paid 6k for the kitchen he could well have charged more for the fitting.

olly300

Tom_Jones wrote: »

You still haven't answered how you got hold of the paperwork regarding what the fitter paid Howdens, it would be without doubt illegal and if you took a criminal prosecution against me that would be my first line of defence.

Howdens will always provide a quote and pricing without any discounts applied and this is probably what the fitter supplied to the OP.

The judge was very remiss in NOT allowing the Howdens manager to state his point of view IMHO.

If the OP is happy with the kitchen then why be so pedantic as to go after the builder for maybe a 2k profit, after all if he had paid 6k for the kitchen he could well have charged more for the fitting.

There is information the OP isn't providing.

jillytb

Olly300 I can only apologise for my writing style but I am not from this country. I think most people on here have gathered what I have stated and why I won. I am regretting ever coming on here now as to be told that I must write "in concise english" is an insult as I have worked and studied hard all my life to improve my writing, reading and speaking.

The judge was in no way remiss and I think until i post again perhaps you should save your judgements until then. The judge didnt appear to think it was pedantic of me at all hence he found in my favour.

It seems to me Tom_Jones and Alan M seem to think otherwise and condone builders misleading consumers - theft is not pedantic!

to Olly300 I had four claims against the builder and the judge found in favour of all four.

If more people like me go up against builders for this sort of practice it will perhaps prevent their unscrupoulus (sorry not sure spelling is correct Olly300) behaviour.

I would agree with Vince Cable when he once touted the idea that their needs to be regulations for builders.

Regulations for fraud or theft? No because they are crimes.

milliebear00001

At the risk of adding the circles being pedalled round here...it sounds to me like you're talking about two different situations.

Firstly, the standard practice of builders quoting a price for a fully supplied and fitted kitchen to a customer, where the price of the supply is not necessarily the same as the price they pay themselves to Howdens. Here, the builder includes a 'mark up' on the supply cost so they make profit. As a customer, I don't much care where the mark up is (in the supply or the fitting cost) as long as I get a competitive quote for the supply and fit of a new kitchen.

Secondly, there is the situation I suspect is being described by the OP, which is that the builder has claimed to be supplying her kitchen at cost price - i.e. the price he pays Howdens. Instead of being up front and telling her he isn't passing on his full discount to her, he has lied and invented false paperwork to back up his lie.

The two situations are completely different because of the lie and falsified paperwork.

The upshot is that the builder should have been upfront when asked, and stated that he takes a mark up on the cost of supplying the kitchen as the customer is unable to buy such a product at trade prices and so is still benefiting from his relationship with Howdens. The customer of course, could have avoided all of this by making sure she got several quotes from different Howdens fitters. She would then have known what a competitive price for supply of a Howdens kitchen actually is.

Alan_M_2

neonpoppy wrote: »

But do you think it a good thing that people can mislead and misinform to make a profit and do you think it should be legal?

Felt very dodgy to me. Which is why I steered well clear of Howdens.

What I think and in fact any opinion I may have is irrelevant.

I was using the FSA as an example of a particular industry that is goverened by it's own very specific set of rules (laws) in direct answer to your question of what I consider is legal, moral, ethical or otherwise.

The kitchen wholesale supply industry will be covered by general consumer regulation which will deal with anything that could be construed as underhand or in fact illegal.

Alan_M_2

jillytb wrote: »

And Alan M the FSA is limited to financial services. You do make me "chuckle"!

I'm glad I made you chuckle, see post #58 for a description of why I picked the FSA as an example of governing body that extends controls to a specific industry in answer to another posters question.

It seems as English isn't your first language we lost something in translation there, I wasn't for one moment suggesting the Financial Service Authority governs Howdens business practice.

Once you've managed to stop your chuckling we'd be delighted for ANY information on the court case and details of the criminal charge you expect your builder/supplier to apprehended under.

It should be quite easy to scan the papers in and remove all personal information.

Understand this is not some sort of personal crusade but is genunine interest as someone who runs a wholesale import/distribution business as to what the court found.

Leif

To digress a bit, the financial services industry is very dodgy. My late mother when in her late seventies was advised to invest in a shares ISA by a major high street bank. Shocking, and totally inappropriate. And against the rules. I have dealt with financial advisors, and I would not trust them one inch. They are a bunch of devious deceitful so and sos. I dealt with one, and his first act was to find out what investments I had. The reason is simple. He wanted to register as my financial advisor, thereby getting the commission from my investments. Do they tell you that? No. But that is normal behaviour. We now have a Scottish Widows pension at work. The advisors want to know about our investments so they can advise us properly. I will tell them to take a leap. I have made a nice sum by investing my money myself, mostly in tracker funds which pay no commission to leaches, sorry I mean financial advisors. And oddly enough financial advisors do not recommend tracker funds. I wonder why ...

Good tradesmen are a godsend, but we do need to prevent misrepresentation.

Alan_M_2

jillytb wrote: »

Olly300 I can only apologise for my writing style but I am not from this country. I think most people on here have gathered what I have stated and why I won. I am regretting ever coming on here now as to be told that I must write "in concise english" is an insult as I have worked and studied hard all my life to improve my writing, reading and speaking.

The judge was in no way remiss and I think until i post again perhaps you should save your judgements until then. The judge didnt appear to think it was pedantic of me at all hence he found in my favour.

It seems to me Tom_Jones and Alan M seem to think otherwise and condone builders misleading consumers - theft is not pedantic!

to Olly300 I had four claims against the builder and the judge found in favour of all four.

If more people like me go up against builders for this sort of practice it will perhaps prevent their unscrupoulus (sorry not sure spelling is correct Olly300) behaviour.

I would agree with Vince Cable when he once touted the idea that their needs to be regulations for builders.

Regulations for fraud or theft? No because they are crimes.

Lets clear something up here.

I own and run a wholesale import distribution business that sells predominantly to trade only (in the construction industry).

I know the law, I'm legally obliged to know the law as I'm the person accountable if my company breaks it.

The OP has won a court case, the details of which are of extreme interest to me personally and to other posters on here generally.

I am awaiting with extreme interest details of the case in question.

What I am most interested in is the potential criminal prosecution that the OP is suggesting will take place, who has undertaken anything of a criminal nature, what the offense was and what the expected charge will be.

Can we have some facts please?

I'd like you to highlight anywhere in this thread where I have condoned "builders misleading consumers" to use your words.

I am interested in fact, not hearsay, do you have the ability to actually provide any fact?

Alan_M_2

milliebear00001 wrote: »

At the risk of adding the circles being pedalled round here...it sounds to me like you're talking about two different situations.

We are talking about one very clear situation here, which is an important situation.

A judge has determined the OP has won on four counts of something against her builder.

We need to know what four counts the OP took their builder to court on.

We need to know what the charges were, what the summary and outcomes were for each charge.

Once we are armed with that information no one needs to think, summise, guess or otherwise make any assumptions about what is wrong or what is right.

Why is this so difficult to get across?

Can we have some hard facts please?