Howdens Traders passing on discount - Scam??

Leif

molerat wrote: »

Garages will generally pay half what they charge for parts so is this now criminal ? With my trade card in Halfords I pay 40p for bulbs (and they still make a margin) whereas joe public pays £2.99. I get 2 receipts, one is just a list of items and retail prices, is this now also criminal ? Please give us some facts of the court case, the other posters are genuinely interested

If I buy a part from a garage, I expect them to make a profit.

If I get my car serviced by a garage, I know they make a profit on the parts they fit. That is standard practice. A garage keeps parts in stock, and they are a parts retailer, as well as a place for servicing etc.

But what happened here (according to the OP) is that the fitter said that he paid £6K for the kitchen and charged £X for the fitting. He also used a receipt for £6K to back up his story. But he paid £4K for the kitchen. And he used a receipt for £6K to back up his story. That is fraud. It is blatant dishonesty.

I presume the OP thought "Mmm, the fitting cost is good, and if that is what he pays for the kitchen, then I won't get a better deal elsewhere". Whereas had he told the truth, or said "I will fit for £X and I can provide a kitchen for £6K" the OP would have gone elsewhere to see what other people would quote. She would have known that £6K was not the cost to him of the kitchen, and she would have discovered that he was making a MASSIVE profit. That is why this is deception.

No-one is criticising the Howdens policy of giving a 'discount' to traders, or the freedom of fitters to quote for a kitchen and fitting. But that must be done in an honest and transparent manner.

The fact that one poster here shows no concern for the fraud, but attacks the OP for having found proof of the deception, and suggests she could be found guilty of a crime is shameful. Utterly shameful.

Leif

Tom_Jones wrote: »

Next thing you'll know customers will want all materials at cost price :eek:

That is an utterly ridiculous remark that bears no relationship to the case in question.

molerat

Here is one for you moralists then.

You walk into Halfords needing a bulb. You are offered a bulb for £2.99 and they will fit it for a further £2.99. You walk out with a bulb fitted and a receipt showing £2.99 for the bulb and £2.99 for the fitting.

I offer you the same service at the same price. I give an invoice showing the same amounts as Halfords and I can show you a piece of paper from Halfords showing the retail price of the bulb.

I can also offer you an alternative, you supply the bulb and I fit it for £2.99.

All 3 scenarios cost you £5.98. I paid 40p for that bulb, considerably more than Halfords did. Who is the fraudster ? Would you take me to court, would you take Halfords to court ?

Until the op comes up with some facts about the court case we will all still be guessing.

Leif

molerat: You say:

"I offer you the same service at the same price. I give an invoice showing the same amounts as Halfords and I can show you a piece of paper from Halfords showing the retail price of the bulb."

Let's ignore the fact that the sum of money in question is small, it's the principle you want to discuss. In the above scenario you have not claimed to have bought the bulb at Halfords. You are in effect selling me a bulb for £3 and fitting it for £3 (you can keep the 2p change, as I reward good workmanship). That is normal business practice.

But your example is not really appropriate as Halfords are open to the public, and have fixed prices. And the fact that the sum of money is small DOES impact the discussion. No-one cares about £3 odd. People do care about £2K. The issue is that the fitter claimed to have bought the kitchen from Howdens for £6K but actually paid £4K. That is the core issue. He did not quote to supply a kitchen for £6K. This might seem pedantic to some, but were I a customer, I would see these as totally different scenarios.

I might perhaps be critical of the OP for having trusted the fitter, but then again she was provided with an invoice from Howdens, so to be honest I cannot really criticise her, unless I take the view that she should have assumed from the outset that the fitter was a liar. She probably thought that the invoice from Howdens was the guarantee that the fitter was honest in his dealings with her. I certainly would have taken the invoice at face value. That is why I think this case stinks.

I am getting a quote for a bathroom to be supplied and fitted. The fitters are quoting full RRP for the furniture. But I know they are getting it at trade prices. And they probably know that I know. And I know that they know that I know. No problem there. It is all transparent and above board.

Jillytb: Do please provide some details of the legal judgement, such as a summing up of the case, with names removed of course. Clearly there is a distinction between honest trading, and deceptive trading, and the case details will clarify the distinction as seen by the judge.

molerat

I can provide you with a printed till slip from Halfords showing £2.99, the retail price, for the bulb, seemingly the same as the kitchen fitter. Many trade outlets produce multiple carbon copy invoices showing the retail price and trade price on the top copy but the trade price is blocked out on the lower copies, which one would the customer see. Agree that facts are needed.

Alan_M_2

Having re read this thread from the beginning, this is starting to make even less sense.

Even if there was a case to answer (which I don't think there is) then it would be with Howdens and the builder for collusion, it's the only logical charge that exists for this case - but the OP is suggesting she sued the builder only.

Quite frankly this thread is now entirely redundant until full details of the court case are made available. If in fact one actually took place and it's not a figment of the OP's imagination. It wouldn't be the first time on a forum.

Tom_Jones

Leif wrote: »

That is an utterly ridiculous remark that bears no relationship to the case in question.

Have you bothered to read this thread ? the OP wants exactly that to pay the price of the kitchen that the fitter paid i.e AT COST PRICE

Leif

Tom_Jones wrote: »

Have you bothered to read this thread ? the OP wants exactly that to pay the price of the kitchen that the fitter paid i.e AT COST PRICE

I suggest you reread the thread, several times until you understand. The fitter did not offer to sell her a kitchen. Had he done so there would be no problem. He said he would supply it AT COST PRICE. Lots of fitters do that via Howdens, or other suppliers. But he DID NOT supply at cost price. That is why I think this is deception. Why can you not understand that?

And to those people who say Joe Public despise the idea what traders can make profit, the fitter charged for the fitting. That is how he said he would make profit.

I recently got a quote for fitting a bathroom from Coomers. I know Coomers do trade prices, and the builder said I would get back some of his discount. There was no dishonesty there, no attempt to deceive. I have no issue with him taking some of the retail-trade price difference as profit. In fact I will go with another company who quote the price of bathroom furniture. They give RRP but I am sure they pay trade. Again I have no issue with this. They are not claiming to supply at cost price. All I do is work on the basis of the total price minus the cost I would pay for the furniture.

But I will reiterate again what others have said, could we please have some facts? Whilst I believe the OP to be genuine, there may be some who question the authenticity of the story. And there are others, myself included, who are interested to know the specifics of the legal ruling.

System

i don't understand what the complaint is here, if the op was happy to pay for the kitchen at the agreed price it doesn't matter what the builder was charged by howdens.
if the op had gone to howdens directly, they couldn't buy the kitchen at the same rate as the builder as they are not trade, at the end of the day, they agreed to buy the units at that price from the builder (not from howdens) and if this wasn't the case, why did the op pay the builder for the units and not write a cheque to howdens?
seems totally ridiculous to argue after the fact and only after seeing a similar kitchen someone else got cheaper! there really is no case to answer here for either the builder or howdens, I think the op should pursue howdens as they really don't pay the same to the factory as they sell them for, in fact, it's really the factory at fault as they are so dishonest to expect to make a profit, after all there's no way they have paid the same amount for the raw materials the cheeky beggars

jillytb

Leif, it's a relief that you can understand the concept of bad practice and fraud. As I said before I will post the details a little later and perhaps I was premature in sharing my victory here but I am quite proud of what I have done as taking someone to court is not an easy task.

My claim was that the builder stated he would provide the kitchen at "trade price". He said he would charge separately for the labour which he did and that was where he would make his money. I challenged this and the judge agreed he did not pass on the full discount to me - he actually submitted documents from Howden's which stated the same kitchen to me directly would have cost 16k, but given they dont deal with the relevant public it proved further that the whole process was dishonest and as I was a direct client of the builder Howden's had no place in being involved in my civil claim.

I need to provide the transcript elsewhere before posting here and I will do once I know what is the next step in this case.

Sorry for posting so prematurely, I had wanted to share my victory but it is clear that many do not think a consumer should be allowed to challenge a supplier! Shame on those who do not see this as fraud or deception and for those who call me a criminal, well that judgement reflects entirely on you.

It is quite shocking how greed brings out the worst in people but it is actually quite shocking that so many on hear like to laugh at what I have done. Sign of the times I guess....