so. HOW do you find a builder?

Leif

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

Leif

You and others who use these trade websites seem to labouring under a major misapprehension.

I do not know of any of these type of sites that make any claims about the quality of their registered tradesmen let alone state they will intervene and mediate when things go wrong.

...

I had stitches left in my back the other week after the highly trained nurse removed them.

Should I now proclaim that the entire hospital or NHS is bad do you think ?

You make some good points, many of which I agree with, and I will respond in the context of CheckATrade as that is the organisation I used. On their web site they make the following claim:

"The answer to the UK's rogue trader problem "

So that is the standard they set themselves. They also say:

"In the rare event that you have been let down by a business that is a member of Checkatrade, please let us know. Either fill out a customer feedback card or phone our Trade Appraisal Line. We can send you a card if you have not already received one. Where you are happy for us to contact the business involved, we raise any issues of concern directly with them. This gives them the right of reply and encourages any necessary reparation.
Usually the problem is one of communication or expectation, and it is in the interest of our trades and services to put things right. When the job is finished, your feedback is made public on our web site (your identity is not published). This monitoring system prevents things from going wrong in the vast majority of circumstances."


There are numerous false claims above, such as the first quote, and the use of the term 'rare' in the second.



When I contacted CheckATrade, they did not want to know, and they did not even reply to emails containing independent surveys demonstrating that I had been ripped off by cowboys. So the above claims from CheckATrade are dishonest. Subsequently I complained to the managers, and they gave me some soft soap carp about being understaffed due to circumstances beyond their control.



CheckATrade claim that their members are not cowboys. Well, the cowboys who ripped me off are still on the web site. Trading Standards have agree that the work was below the legally acceptable standard.



CheckATrare claim to talk directly with a trade in the case of a complaint. I was provided with no evidence to that effect.



So CheckATrade are making claims that are not backed up by the facts i.e. they are dishonest.



As you say, they are no more than a marketing board, and in my view they are sleazy.



Regarding your comment on other professions, without doubt there are incompetent doctors, dentists, lawyers, and so on. I am sure, given my own experiences, and those of people I talk to, that the level of incompetence is much higher in the building trades because it is so easy to call yourself a builder. (I am inclined to think that lawyers are as bad, and maybe worse, because they know how to rip you off whilst staying on the right side of the law, and it is near impossible to sue a lawyer.)



I did not say that all builders are bad, but I did say that there are a lot of rogues and bodgers about, who give the profession a bad name, and it is not easy to find good trades. Some are excellent. One bathroom fitter I contacted said he was busy for the next 4 months. He was very good. The chap who refitted my bathroom, after the cowboys, was also decent. You probably know how to spot a cowboy just by speaking to him, since you are a trade, and you can probably see through nonsense, even when you do not know details of the specialisation.


I think you commented earlier about bad customers. I do not doubt that customers can be a pain. Many expect the best and want to pay the bare minimum. Then after you agree a price, and start, they say "Oh, can you just do X, there's a love, it won't take 5 minutes" when you know it is half a days work. Or the customer who will not pay on time. Or the one who looks over your shoulder, and tells you what to do.

Fed_Up_Tradesman

Leif wrote: »

"The answer to the UK's rogue trader problem "

Much like Carlsberg - probably the best lager in the world et al ... Do you also believe that hype too?

Leif wrote: »

So that is the standard they set themselves. They also say:

"In the rare event that you have been let down by a business that is a member of Checkatrade, please let us know. Either fill out a customer feedback card or phone our Trade Appraisal Line. We can send you a card if you have not already received one. Where you are happy for us to contact the business involved, we raise any issues of concern directly with them. This gives them the right of reply and encourages any necessary reparation.
Usually the problem is one of communication or expectation, and it is in the interest of our trades and services to put things right. When the job is finished, your feedback is made public on our web site (your identity is not published). This monitoring system prevents things from going wrong in the vast majority of circumstances."


There are numerous false claims above, such as the first quote, and the use of the term 'rare' in the second.

That's 2 then - according to you.

Leif wrote: »

When I contacted CheckATrade, they did not want to know, and they did not even reply to emails containing independent surveys demonstrating that I had been ripped off by cowboys. So the above claims from CheckATrade are dishonest. Subsequently I complained to the managers, and they gave me some soft soap carp about being understaffed due to circumstances beyond their control.

I thought all they claim they will do is to contact the tradesman - quoted by you above. But you're not complaining about that but something else.

Leif wrote: »

CheckATrade claim that their members are not cowboys. Well, the cowboys who ripped me off are still on the web site. Trading Standards have agree that the work was below the legally acceptable standard.

Do they actually make that claim ?

Leif wrote: »

CheckATrare claim to talk directly with a trade in the case of a complaint. I was provided with no evidence to that effect.

So that means it didn't happen does it?

Leif wrote: »

So CheckATrade are making claims that are not backed up by the facts i.e. they are dishonest.

Case closed m'Lud?

Leif wrote: »

As you say, they are no more than a marketing board, and in my view they are sleazy.

I didn't say that now did I?

Leif wrote: »

Regarding your comment on other professions, without doubt there are incompetent doctors, dentists, lawyers, and so on. I am sure, given my own experiences, and those of people I talk to, that the level of incompetence is much higher in the building trades because it is so easy to call yourself a builder. (I am inclined to think that lawyers are as bad, and maybe worse, because they know how to rip you off whilst staying on the right side of the law, and it is near impossible to sue a lawyer.)

Oh good. So you'd look forward like me to all of the "Cowboy xxxx" programmes that the Islington / Hampstead meeja lovvies are just itching to make. Including your profession no doubt?

Leif wrote: »

I did not say that all builders are bad, but I did say that there are a lot of rogues and bodgers about, who give the profession a bad name, and it is not easy to find good trades. Some are excellent. One bathroom fitter I contacted said he was busy for the next 4 months. He was very good. The chap who refitted my bathroom, after the cowboys, was also decent. You probably know how to spot a cowboy just by speaking to him, since you are a trade, and you can probably see through nonsense, even when you do not know details of the specialisation.

Goodoh. It's not easy to find goog people. Period.

Leif wrote: »

I think you commented earlier about bad customers. I do not doubt that customers can be a pain. Many expect the best and want to pay the bare minimum. Then after you agree a price, and start, they say "Oh, can you just do X, there's a love, it won't take 5 minutes" when you know it is half a days work. Or the customer who will not pay on time. Or the one who looks over your shoulder, and tells you what to do.

Customers eh. Who'd have em?

Leif

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

Much like Carlsberg - probably the best lager in the world et al ... Do you also believe that hype too?

There are laws about what you can and can't say in adverts. And if there is a scoring system, with feedback from customers, such as 47 glowing reviews, then you expect them to be good. In my case they were incompetent, and Trading Standards have agreed with that assessment. So how can there be 47 glowing reviews? Something is very rotten.

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

That's 2 then - according to you.

No. I used two people. one was poor, the other was dreadful. That is very unlikely to happen if most are good. I've spoken with many other people, some in person, some online. I reckon about half are good, half are bodgers. That is poor. I've used many trades recommended by friends and colleagues, I've never had a problem.

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

I thought all they claim they will do is to contact the tradesman - quoted by you above. But you're not complaining about that but something else.

No. Reread their claims.

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

Do they actually make that claim ?

So that means it didn't happen does it?

Case closed m'Lud?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leif
As you say, they are no more than a marketing board, and in my view they are sleazy.

I didn't say that now did I?

Here is what you said: "they're just trade directories who are all making money out of you "

Do you remember what you write?

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

Oh good. So you'd look forward like me to all of the "Cowboy xxxx" programmes that the Islington / Hampstead meeja lovvies are just itching to make. Including your profession no doubt?

Goodoh. It's not easy to find goog people. Period.

Customers eh. Who'd have em?

What drivel.

Do you really not understand the difference between a profession that is regulated, with people who spend 5 years studying, and many years under supervision, and one where anyone can do the work and call themselves a professional? You really think someone with no qualifications who calls himself a builder can be compared to a medical doctor, for example. If you do, then you live on another planet.

I was chatting with my neighbour last night. He is a qualified electrician. He told me it is commonplace to come across work done by professionals that is poor, and he gave a recent example that was dangerous.

My own experience of builders is never even employ someone without personal recommendation from someone you know and trust, because so many are either bodgers, or just cowboys.

Fed_Up_Tradesman

Leif wrote: »

There are laws about what you can and can't say in adverts.

Indeed there are. Are you suggesting that this provider is in breach of those Advertising Standards? Maybe you should complain to the ASA?

Leif wrote: »

And if there is a scoring system, with feedback from customers, such as 47 glowing reviews, then you expect them to be good. In my case they were incompetent, and Trading Standards have agreed with that assessment. So how can there be 47 glowing reviews? Something is very rotten.

So are you suggesting that the 47 "glowing reviews" were somehow faked then, just because you've had a bad experience?

Have Trading Standards taken up your case with the builder?

No. Thought not.

My original point was that you and others are labouring under a misapprehension if you think these middlemen are going to intervene and adjudicate. I'm still convinced that you are.

Leif wrote: »

No. I used two people. one was poor, the other was dreadful. That is very unlikely to happen if most are good. I've spoken with many other people, some in person, some online. I reckon about half are good, half are bodgers. That is poor. I've used many trades recommended by friends and colleagues, I've never had a problem.

Well then consider yourself lucky.

There you go again, setting up your ridiculous straw men.

Assumption: If most are good...

Do you think that these internet sites have a special reserve of service providers that just fell to earth or something?

Leif wrote: »

No. Reread their claims.

You posted the quote from the site which said that the web service would contact the tradesman. I responded by asking you how do you know that they didn't do this.

If you have any other of their T&C's that make additional promises then you should post them for all to see, otherwise folk might think you're just whinging about imagined T&Cs instead, which was after all, my original point.

Leif wrote: »

Here is what you said: "they're just trade directories who are all making money out of you "

Correct. Well done.

You claimed I said they were a "marketing board" which is not what I said.

Leif wrote: »

Do you remember what you write?

Yes. I also don't subscribe with what you imagined I wrote. Is that OK with you?

Leif wrote: »

What drivel.

Do you really not understand the difference between a profession that is regulated, with people who spend 5 years studying, and many years under supervision, and one where anyone can do the work and call themselves a professional? You really think someone with no qualifications who calls himself a builder can be compared to a medical doctor, for example. If you do, then you live on another planet.

Sure I do. Hence why I was a tad surprised to find stitches left in my back last week after a highly trained nurse who works in a nationwide health outfit which is highly regulated and who we are led to believe employ highly trained professionals, had supposedly taken my stitches out.

Maybe we should have a check-a-nurse.com and check-a-doctor.com too ?

Something very rotten then clearly ...

Leif wrote: »

I was chatting with my neighbour last night. He is a qualified electrician. He told me it is commonplace to come across work done by professionals that is poor, and he gave a recent example that was dangerous.

Well indeed. Bad stuff does happen. It's called life.

Leif wrote: »

My own experience of builders is never even employ someone without personal recommendation from someone you know and trust, because so many are either bodgers, or just cowboys.

So you'd change your mind on that philosophy if your 2 examples had been recommended to you by someone you trusted then presumably?

You seem to be a very argumentative person and give the impression that you are very sure of your case. Part of the qualification process for me is to make sure that I only accept work from customers who are respectful, polite and honest, just like me. I help them set their expectation too, so that they're never disappointed and know what they're getting for their money. That way I minimise any chance of contentious issues arising later on.

If you've had a bad experience then there are remedies available to you.

Blaming the middleman and expecting them to take action, even though you've posted no evidence that this is what they claim they will do is just wishful thinking and because your wishful thinking hasn't been fulfilled by them you are blaming them. Can't you see that?

A reasonable person I feel sure would accept that simple point. You seem to be arguiing over and over about some imagined service level which exists only in your mind.

Maybe that's why you feel so disappointed.

Are you a highly trained professional? Are you even trained to do your job? What qualification do you hold for your employment? How are you regulated? What professional bodies to yor belong to? Have you ever produce sub-standard work in your life?

If you managed one of these web service companies and had to deal with your issue from a customer, what would you do?

Leif

Fed_Up_Tradesman: You are an aggressive person aren't you. :mad: :mad::mad: I think the truth is that you are a trade who uses these web sites, and hence they are part of your livelihood. Not surprising then that you try to discredit me eh? And I have been told by many trades that if you are any good, you don't need to use these advertising web sites, as a good trade turns work away. None of the very good trades I used are on advertising web sites. Of course that is their opinion, but I have heard it often. And the people I know who have had good work done have told me they got the people by recommendation, and none are on CheckATrade etc.

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

Indeed there are. Are you suggesting that this provider is in breach of those Advertising Standards? Maybe you should complain to the ASA?

I intend to. But at the moment I have legal action pending.

If you want to see how ineffectual Trading Standards can be, Google JA Bathroom, including the thread on this site. Also Google the Kitchen Gangster, to see how rogues prosper.

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

So are you suggesting that the 47 "glowing reviews" were somehow faked then, just because you've had a bad experience?

Have Trading Standards taken up your case with the builder?

Yes they have. Trading Standards are mediating, and they have agreed that the work was below the legally acceptable standard, and that I am due a refund. The cowboys are arguing.

So, given that they had 47 glowing reviews, how come the work they did for me was totally incompetent, displaying numerous errors? Did they suddenly become incompetent when dealing with me?

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

No. Thought not.

Wrong. See above. Did you read my earlier posts, or were you too busy having a knee jerk kickathon, as that is what it feels like. :mad::mad::mad:

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

My original point was that you and others are labouring under a misapprehension if you think these middlemen are going to intervene and adjudicate. I'm still convinced that you are.

1) If a company makes claims, they are legally obliged to honour them. They claim to filter out cowboys. The people I employed were out and out cowboys. They even lied about what they did in letters they sent me, as proven by the three surveys I commissioned. Is this consistent with "Where reputation matters"?
2) There is a ratings system. The cowboys who destroyed my bathroom had 47 glowing reviews. And yet they were incompetent. They put a shower at the opposite end of the bath to the taps, so you could not stand beneath the shower. They applied cement based tile adhesive directly to bare plaster, which leads to a chemical reaction forcing the tiles off the wall. They left coving in place, then had the entire room skimmed, then tiled up the wall, with the top tiles overlapping the bottom of the coving, and hanging in mid-air. And when I removed tiles, they almost fell off, the bonding being weak. So, given such total incompetence, how did they get 47 glowing reviews? And how come they are still on the web site, given that this is plain incompetence i.e. inability to do the job.
3) CheckATrade indicate that they will contact the trader in the case of a 'rare' dispute. They refused to tell me what they had done, hence zero proof. So this claim may well be legally dubious.
4) They say that customers can post reviews. They edited mine. That is not stated in the T&C. It makes a huge difference, whether or not they are unedited reviews i.e. as written. It also took many months for them to publish my review, it being bounced at the request of the cowboys who claimed a 'family tragedy'. Easy to blag isn't it?

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

Well then consider yourself lucky.

There you go again, setting up your ridiculous straw men.

Assumption: If most are good...

Do you think that these internet sites have a special reserve of service providers that just fell to earth or something?



You posted the quote from the site which said that the web service would contact the tradesman. I responded by asking you how do you know that they didn't do this.

Because there is no proof. All requests to know what was said were rebuffed with "We cannot tell you due to the data protection act". That is unacceptable. Whereas Trading Standards have told me a summary their discussions with the cowboys, not in detail of course, but the general picture.

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

If you have any other of their T&C's that make additional promises then you should post them for all to see, otherwise folk might think you're just whinging about imagined T&Cs instead, which was after all, my original point.

Correct. Well done.

You claimed I said they were a "marketing board" which is not what I said.

Petty minded pedantry. Is that how you deal with your customers?

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

Yes. I also don't subscribe with what you imagined I wrote. Is that OK with you?



Sure I do. Hence why I was a tad surprised to find stitches left in my back last week after a highly trained nurse who works in a nationwide health outfit which is highly regulated and who we are led to believe employ highly trained professionals, had supposedly taken my stitches out.

Maybe we should have a check-a-nurse.com and check-a-doctor.com too ?

Something very rotten then clearly ...



Well indeed. Bad stuff does happen. It's called life.



So you'd change your mind on that philosophy if your 2 examples had been recommended to you by someone you trusted then presumably?

But they weren't. So your point is?

My late mother also had problems with trades. One recommended by Help The Aged was excellent. Several gardeners were crooks. One company took good plants from her garden, to sell I assume, and left weeds in place. As I said, any shyster can claim to be a trade. Good ones are hard to find.

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

You seem to be a very argumentative person and give the impression that you are very sure of your case.

I am sure of my case because a) a large number of helpful friendly trades viewed pictures of the work, and explained to me what was wrong. I then had three surveys, in two cases unpaid for and hence the result of kindness of two trades, for which I am grateful. And Trading Standards have reviewed the evidence, talked with the cowboys, and agreed with the case I put together. From a legal perspective they have said I have a good case, and the chap I am talking to had his boss check over his conclusions, and give the nod. I will go to court if the cowboys do not accede to the agreement proposed by Trading Standards.

Also, in discussions with CheckATrade, a senior manager said they had treated me very poorly. Not surprisingly I have no written record of that, and absolutely nothng was done to rectify the issues.

Is that good enough for you? Or are you going to carry on giving me a kicking.

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

Part of the qualification process for me is to make sure that I only accept work from customers who are respectful, polite and honest, just like me. I help them set their expectation too, so that they're never disappointed and know what they're getting for their money. That way I minimise any chance of contentious issues arising later on.

If you've had a bad experience then there are remedies available to you.

See above.

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

Blaming the middleman and expecting them to take action, even though you've posted no evidence that this is what they claim they will do is just wishful thinking and because your wishful thinking hasn't been fulfilled by them you are blaming them. Can't you see that?

Nonsense. See above for my explanations.

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

A reasonable person I feel sure would accept that simple point. You seem to be arguiing over and over about some imagined service level which exists only in your mind.

Maybe that's why you feel so disappointed.

Are you a highly trained professional? Are you even trained to do your job? What qualification do you hold for your employment? How are you regulated? What professional bodies to yor belong to? Have you ever produce sub-standard work in your life?

If you managed one of these web service companies and had to deal with your issue from a customer, what would you do?

Why is this relevent? Why have you decided to try and attack me when the issue is builders? :mad::mad::mad:

But since you ask, yes I am highly trained, with a 3 year degree (a first in physics), a PhD, and published research papers.

When I got my current job, I had to provide two personal references, from people who have known me a long time (>20 years in this case), and 2 references from people who managed me in recent jobs. In addition the project manager of the company I now work for was a personal friend of someone I had worked alongside (they sail together), and he had also employed another person who knew my work. Hence I had loads of supporting references. I also had to submit a list of all addresses going back many years, details of my parents, and other family members. I had to list details of any money owed, mortgages, previous convictions, previous money troubles and so on. And if I have lied, I can be prosecuted, and sent to prison, depending on the nature of the lie. I also had a long interview, where they asked technical questions, and gave me a written test, which I had to do, including problem solving. They asked lots of detailed technical questions and probed my past work.

That matey boy is the real world some of us live in, not one where a trade goes round to someones house, and then tries to smooth talk the potential customer, or rely on dubious marketing sites, rather than providing any real evidence of ability. :mad::mad: That is why we should avoid these MyBuilder type sites, and only ever employ a trade by personal recommendation. I know you do not like that message, and will try and attack me at a personal level, as you have done, because this threatens your livelihood. But it is the truth.

Leif

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

Have you ever produce sub-standard work in your life?

No I haven't. I have worked for 10 years on short contracts, as a freelancer. Were I to produce sub-standard work, I would be sacked. As it is I have often been told that the work is very good. But having a contract renewed is the real test of quality of work.

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

If you managed one of these web service companies and had to deal with your issue from a customer, what would you do?

If a member of the public could prove that a response posted by a trade was dishonest, then I would either have it removed, or add a comment indicating that the member of public had shown evidence to disprove the response. Also, if a trade lost a court case, or had a serious judgement against them from Trading Standards, I would remove them from the directory. I would also allow the customer to see the trade's explanation of their actions, which is not the case now. However, the CheckATrade business model is so massively biased against the public, that this will never happen.

Fed_Up_Tradesman

Goodness gracious me.

Do you know what I would do if I ran into you as a customer. I'd sniff you out in 5 minutes and run for the hills.

My point still stands.

You are moaning about so many things here, yet my point was simply that you are complaining about and slagging off checkatrade when I cannot see what they have done wrong or how they have offended you.

The only thing you claim that they've done is edit your feedback which, if true, is not on I agree.

My original point was that you are wrong to expect them to intervene.

So what's to argue about.

If what you say is true about the quality of your job then something serious has gone wrong clearly.

No amount of repeated assertion by you is going to change that fact or the fact that checkatrade don't seem to be in breach of anything as far as I can see.

I'm not defending them - I'm not registered with them as they're way too expensive for me.

I take your projections about who I am and what I am with a pinch of salt as they say more about you than me.

I wish you luck with your endeavours to seek redress for the mess you claim has happened.

Hopefully you've learnt from it and will be more careful in future about who you let into your home.

Why you then translate this into a global problem with internet tradesmen sites is just beyond me.

When I was an apprentice, I was taught that "a man who has never made a mistake, has never made anything".

Your claim to professional perfection seems to be living proof of that truism.

And detracts hugely from your credibility imo.

busy_mom_2

Offering my advice, I rang the local council and spoke to the building inspectors there. they came out free of charge and discussed my ideas. they then put me in touch with various people to do my plans and they also gave me a list of good builders with whom they inspect their work on a regular basis.

The builder I eventually chose, after all the quotes, was excellent, no issues at all and even the few issues I have had since with patio doors, a phone call and he is always there the very next day and sorts everything.
I did have to wait a few months before he could fit my job in but certainly worth it.

Leif

Fed_Up_Tradesman wrote: »

Goodness gracious me.

Do you know what I would do if I ran into you as a customer. I'd sniff you out in 5 minutes and run for the hills.

My point still stands.

You are moaning about so many things here, yet my point was simply that you are complaining about and slagging off checkatrade when I cannot see what they have done wrong or how they have offended you.

The only thing you claim that they've done is edit your feedback which, if true, is not on I agree.

My original point was that you are wrong to expect them to intervene.

So what's to argue about.

If what you say is true about the quality of your job then something serious has gone wrong clearly.

No amount of repeated assertion by you is going to change that fact or the fact that checkatrade don't seem to be in breach of anything as far as I can see.

I'm not defending them - I'm not registered with them as they're way too expensive for me.

I take your projections about who I am and what I am with a pinch of salt as they say more about you than me.

I wish you luck with your endeavours to seek redress for the mess you claim has happened.

Hopefully you've learnt from it and will be more careful in future about who you let into your home.

Why you then translate this into a global problem with internet tradesmen sites is just beyond me.

When I was an apprentice, I was taught that "a man who has never made a mistake, has never made anything".

Your claim to professional perfection seems to be living proof of that truism.

And detracts hugely from your credibility imo.

The idea that an organisation that has the slogan "Where reputation matters" will do nothing when one of their members causes thousands of pounds worth of damage in a customers house is astonishing. To not even respond when sent copies of surveys that show that the work was below the legally acceptable standard, and that they had lied in letters, is totally out of order. The fact that this company is still on CheckATrade is astonishing. Why don't you address the issue that these people had a large number of glowing reviews, and yet they were clearly incompetent, and dangerous. Because you would rather ignore such details.

And a CheckATrade quote from earlier "The answer to the UK's rogue trader problem". Given my experience, clearly not.

CheckATrade claim to supply quality trades. Clearly they don't, or rather, a significant number of their trades are not good.

My case is not rare. As said numerous times - but you cannot read - I have met many people who have dealt with CheckATrade, and the hit rate is about 50% i.e half are good, half are bodgers. Search online, and you find that the hit rate is so so. There have been threads on this site, again some are good, many aren't. It is not a good way to get trades. Sorry if this offends you, I know you want to push these sites as they get work for you. And I am sorry that because you cannot deal with that viewpoint, you see a need to attack my on a personal level. :mad::mad::mad:

You say: "Do you know what I would do if I ran into you as a customer. I'd sniff you out in 5 minutes and run for the hills."

I hope I never meet you given that you continually resort to personal abuse.

Several trades who did work for me did surveys without charge to help me. I guess they did not like me then.

Now I think it is my turn to attack you, for a change. Are you really that good if you need to advertise on these sites? How come you haven't built up a reputation by word of mouth? The good trades I know have more work than they can do. Why don't you? Is your work not good enough to build up a reputation? Most people I speak to me tell me that it is hard to find good trades, and when someone finds a good one, their name is passed around. How come that does not happen to you? How come you have to resort to these advertising sites? Is the finish not so good? Or is your time keeping not so good? Or is the aggression you have shown towards me on this forum typical of your day to day demeanour? I'd like to know why you are not good enough to get work by word of mouth.

Fed_Up_Tradesman

I think you've got some serious issues to be honest.

Tata.