New Kitchen

Flyboy152

HOPHOP wrote: »

Have ordered a complete kitchen which is due to be delivered in about a weeks time.
The company want full payment up front before they deliver...that is full payment for supply, deliver and fitting.

I don't mind paying for the supply and deliver; but, I'm a bit concerned about paying up front for fitting!

Am I right in thinking that this shouldn't be the way it should be done.
Have I any rights if I refuse to pay the fitting costs until the work is completed?

Can someone please help a.s.a.p as the paymnt is due on Tuesday 26th April.

You need to consider what every single consumer pundit advices in these circumstances....."never, ever pay in full up front."

Hintza

Flyboy152 wrote: »

You need to consider what every single consumer pundit advices in these circumstances....."never, ever pay in full up front."

Bit late if you agreed to it when you paid a deposit.

Our new Magnet kitcen was £500 down balance to be paid 14 days before delivery. Builder was fitting it not Magnet though.

squeaky

Meepster wrote: »

Which will never happen if you are dealing with one of the big kitchen companies/sheds...

Which is why I said "aimed for". That scenario is, to all intents and purposes 70% up front with 20% paid immediately on delivery and installation, with 10% held back. I would often end up settling at 40, 40, 10, 10... But no way on a large expenditure would I consider paying everything in full. Any company demanding such would find themselves with nothing to write into their order book.

Meepster

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Any company with a decent reputation wouldn't be asking for everything upfront.

The company I work for has a great reputation, but we ask for everything upfront.

Companies with good reputations tend to also be backed by the Furniture Ombudsman, or are even a part of Trustmark, which means that any monies paid are fully insured (as not to have a situation like MFI) and have to adhere to a strick set of guidlines. http://www.trustmark.org.uk/

When I worked for an independent kitchen showroom, I had to go court 3 times, for cases where customers hadn't paid their final balance. Only one of these was where the customer had an issue with the product. The other two, they simply decided not to bother paying, as they thought they could get away with it.

Big companies can't be bothered having to go to court to recieve payment, so they ask for it all up front. I really don't see the problem with it...

squeaky

I agree with you that reputable companies "do what they say on the tin", so to speak.

But there are a lot of companies out there who, as we see all too often here, tend not to [STRIKE]care a jot[/STRIKE] be quite so assiduous in their customer service one they've got their hands on your money.

So while money up front is OK where, as you say, the company can display the trust logo... for anyone else I'd be wary and would want some incentive available to me to have them sort out any teething problems.

Actually, I found that "good" companies had no problem with this since they were quite prepared to back up their products and didn't mind waiting the last 30 days for the final payment.

I suppose the difference is that they were dealing with another company then, rather than an individual, but, as an individual - I'd be aiming for the same sort of payment scedule where no trust logo or association is evident.

fthl

Companies with good reputations tend to also be backed by the Furniture Ombudsman

Hmmm.

http://www.fira.co.uk/tfo/members-of-tfo/registered-members-list

B&Q, Moben, Kitchens Direct, Dolphin, DFS, Dreams...

Not sure that is such a good club.

Meepster

fthl wrote: »

Hmmm.

http://www.fira.co.uk/tfo/members-of-tfo/registered-members-list

B&Q, Moben, Kitchens Direct, Dolphin, DFS, Dreams...

Not sure that is such a good club.

Which is why I also mentioned Trustmark...

Flyboy152

Meepster wrote: »

The company I work for has a great reputation, but we ask for everything upfront.

Companies with good reputations tend to also be backed by the Furniture Ombudsman, or are even a part of Trustmark, which means that any monies paid are fully insured (as not to have a situation like MFI) and have to adhere to a strick set of guidlines. http://www.trustmark.org.uk/

When I worked for an independent kitchen showroom, I had to go court 3 times, for cases where customers hadn't paid their final balance. Only one of these was where the customer had an issue with the product. The other two, they simply decided not to bother paying, as they thought they could get away with it.

Big companies can't be bothered having to go to court to recieve payment, so they ask for it all up front. I really don't see the problem with it...

But as has been mentioned before, I will never do business with a compnay, no matter what their supposed reputation is, who asks for the full amount up front. People like Vance Miller is testament to these precautions.

fthl

although the strange thing is that you might end up paying a bit more from an independent, so the bottom line is that the amount paid, with and without a retention, can often be the same. which begs the question - why do any of them bother? It is all basically just the same dfs sale type stuff.

Meepster

Flyboy152 wrote: »

But as has been mentioned before, I will never do business with a compnay, no matter what their supposed reputation is, who asks for the full amount up front. People like Vance Miller is testament to these precautions.

Since when has Vance Miller had a good reputation? I find comparing one of his companies to the likes of (for example, as they are Trustmark accredited) Homebase or Magnet completely laughable...