Ugent help please before tradesman comes back!

macman

Why did you agree such a ridiculous price in the first place to fix a few loose floorboards, if that was all that was involved? There are no 'parts' required (a few screws?), and £280 is approx 2 days labour for a job that can't take more than 2/3 hours at most. Anyone quoting that much must surely have rung alarm bells? How long was he on site?
I cannot see why the police would be concerned with a civil dispute about a bill?

Mr_Ted

Leif wrote: »

Your post is full of assumptions and you have no idea if the OP was naive.

:T Isnt this an assumption on your part???

My trade "suggestions" are based on "good practices" to avoid asssumptions!

BB66

sorry had to delete post

Leif

Mr_Ted wrote: »

:T Isnt this an assumption on your part???

My trade "suggestions" are based on "good practices" to avoid asssumptions!

No. The information you gave had nothing to do with the OP. The OP is not expected to know anything about how the work is to be done. The OP wanted work doing, the trade quoted to fix the problem, that is a contract, possibly verbal in this case. The expectation is that the trade does the work. In practice the trade messed about, and created additional problems, demonstrating incompetence.

The mistake the OP did make - which you did not even mention - was not getting three quotes. But we all make mistakes, and learn from them.

Another mistake the OP made, dare I say, is not checking up on the trade. However, speaking as someone who had cowboy bathroom fitters in, and it took me almost a year to get back ~£2000 compensation, I can vouch that it is not easy to find good trades. In my case I now do as much work as I can - repairing guttering, hanging doors, painting - given the issues I have had.

Mr_Ted

Leif wrote: »

No. The information you gave had nothing to do with the OP. The OP is not expected to know anything about how the work is to be done. The OP wanted work doing, the trade quoted to fix the problem, that is a contract, possibly verbal in this case. The expectation is that the trade does the work. In practice the trade messed about, and created additional problems, demonstrating incompetence.

So as i said my information was based on "good practices" to avoid assumptions, these would be good working practices on behalf of the tradesman, and I agree the tradesman is responsible if he doesnt follow good working paractice, and that was incompetance!
However that is still naivety on the part of the OP in the way the work was initiated and concluded!
Surely the way to avoid naivety if one is not sure is to ask others rather than be bamboozled by 1 person, argueing the toss AFTER the event does not detract from the event

wrote:

The mistake the OP did make - which you did not even mention - was not getting three quotes. But we all make mistakes, and learn from them.

Another mistake the OP made, dare I say, is not checking up on the trade. However, speaking as someone who had cowboy bathroom fitters in, and it took me almost a year to get back ~£2000 compensation, I can vouch that it is not easy to find good trades. In my case I now do as much work as I can - repairing guttering, hanging doors, painting - given the issues I have had.

So you agree then that it was "naive" as were you

Leif

Mr_Ted wrote: »

So as i said my information was based on "good practices" to avoid assumptions, these would be good working practices on behalf of the tradesman, and I agree the tradesman is responsible if he doesnt follow good working paractice, and that was incompetance!
However that is still naivety on the part of the OP in the way the work was initiated and concluded!
Surely the way to avoid naivety if one is not sure is to ask others rather than be bamboozled by 1 person, argueing the toss AFTER the event does not detract from the event



So you agree then that it was "naive" as were you

I thought the tone of your posts was rather unsympathetic, and suggested that the OP should have known what needed doing.

You said: "It may well be that he was a duffer but the fact is probably also on both parts an inexperienced understanding of what actually needed doing, and no doubt price was an issue?"

That does not make sense. You are blaming the OP for an 'inexperienced understanding of what actually needed doing". A householder is not expected to understand what actually needed doing, just as I do not understand why my car engine might rattle, or backfire.

Most of the rest of that post goes into detail about the job, which is irrelevant to the OP. It is the responsibility of the trade to do the job.

You then say: "So basically if the job was to have been done right a cheap job is not possible!!!"

Again, that presupposed knowledge on the part of the OP. How does the OP know what is proper? How do they know what is cheap and what is expensive? In most cases a householder knows nothing about what actually needs doing.

And you then say: "Good skills cost money, and a recommendation is imperative, I am not trying to upset anyone or dispel blame, just lets say you were naive! "

Actually good skills can be cheap, and poor skills can be expensive. Price is not a guide to quality, which I know from experience. In fact chancers are the ones likely to overprice. Unfortunately a recommendation is no guarantee. I had my boiler serviced by a recommended chap. He did not even take the cover off. Worcester Bosch confirmed that he had not done a proper job. I had my bathroom redone by a recommended builder. I still had a light switch fall of the ceiling, a tile crack, and some other issues.

As I said, I thought your posts were rather unsympathetic, and unhelpful. It sounded like you were standing on a pedestal, and blowing a raspberry. It is easy to look at someone else's problems and be an expert. My late mother was not naive, but she did get ripped off by some trades. Some 'trades' (they do not deserve the title) are con merchants who prey on the elderly and the vulnerable. I am not naive, but I did get ripped off by bathroom fitters. They were on the council's approved trades scheme. Eh?

Mr_Ted

Leif, I dont wish to sound condescending or unsympathetic, but naivety isnt a bad thing, unless it has a detrimental effect, it is a fact of life that when this happens it is a learning curve, but there are safeguards that most people use by way of obtaining and validating references that prevent such issues.

The biggest stumbling block to naivety unfortunately is when cost savings are at the forefront of peoples minds, as it very often over rules good sense (would have said common sense but i have yet to find a valid definition of it) thereby creating a situation that is advantagious to the sorts of trades people we are talking about.

With respect to trades people, having worked with numerous over the years, in domestic, commercial, local authority and government contracts, and why I am particularly critical of what i consider poor standards, is the fact that 95% of them I would not give any trust to, no matter what their credentials might say they are qualified to do!

I have been a tradesman with a variety of skills on the shop floor, in the field, as a supervisor, and in management, and I find the skills base and qualifications, let alone the conscience of other trades people in this country abysmal.
It is far to cost and time driven by individuals and by companies and customer service no matter what any might say is just a front that they feel they have to offer but seldom act on!

You stated your problems with trades that were recommended from a councils approved list, which is unfortunate, but it is equally unfortunate that those that usually appear on them are there by the use of a differing set of criteria that you or i would expect, usually from carrying out work for councils whose standards are not the highest, are low cost driven, whose standard quality of material and workmanship requirements are lower than you or i would expect, and can possibly be driven by other factors that shall we say are not necessarilly bona fide associations and relationships!
Believe me I have experienced them :mad:, and abhore them, but have never had the positive proof to act on them, but that would also have been seen as a negative by the companies I have worked for?

So your experinces do not surprise me, which is why I often state BUYER BEWARE, and which was applicable in this case, unfortunately!

:kisses3: :rotfl:

Leif

Mr_Ted wrote: »

The biggest stumbling block to naivety unfortunately is when cost savings are at the forefront of peoples minds, as it very often over rules good sense (would have said common sense but i have yet to find a valid definition of it) thereby creating a situation that is advantagious to the sorts of trades people we are talking about.

There is no evidence that the OP was trying to get work done cheap.

Mr_Ted wrote: »

With respect to trades people, having worked with numerous over the years, in domestic, commercial, local authority and government contracts, and why I am particularly critical of what i consider poor standards, is the fact that 95% of them I would not give any trust to, no matter what their credentials might say they are qualified to do!

I have been a tradesman with a variety of skills on the shop floor, in the field, as a supervisor, and in management, and I find the skills base and qualifications, let alone the conscience of other trades people in this country abysmal.
It is far to cost and time driven by individuals and by companies and customer service no matter what any might say is just a front that they feel they have to offer but seldom act on!

You stated your problems with trades that were recommended from a councils approved list, which is unfortunate, but it is equally unfortunate that those that usually appear on them are there by the use of a differing set of criteria that you or i would expect, usually from carrying out work for councils whose standards are not the highest, are low cost driven, whose standard quality of material and workmanship requirements are lower than you or i would expect, and can possibly be driven by other factors that shall we say are not necessarilly bona fide associations and relationships!
Believe me I have experienced them :mad:, and abhore them, but have never had the positive proof to act on them, but that would also have been seen as a negative by the companies I have worked for?

So your experinces do not surprise me, which is why I often state BUYER BEWARE, and which was applicable in this case, unfortunately!

:kisses3: :rotfl:

The council scheme was a Trading Standards scheme, called Buy With Confidence, Trading Standards officers being council employees. It was for domestic work, and not based on work for the council. The trades are monitored, and complaints are taken seriously. I got the trade from CheckATrade, a huge mistake. CheckATrade did not care when the trades screwed up my bathroom, and they sided with the trade. Trading Standards concluded that the work was below the legally acceptable standard, and negotiated compensation, although it took 6 months.

Clearly the standard of UK trades is poor. My neighbour was an upholsterer, and he can do almost anything to a high standard, such as completely rewire his house, fit a kitchen, install a sink in a bedroom and so on. He is not the norm though.