New Kitchen installation

cyclonebri1

keystone wrote: »

I rather resent the implication that any and all tradesmen on this site are not here to help people save money actually. I bet I'm not the only one either.

Cheers

Ok, I did think that might get exactly that reaction, let me make it clearer if I can.

My view?, there are trades people on here who would never advise a poster that infact, they could do the job themselves and save money.

Some trades are here to further their businesses

It really is as simple as that.

What's the forum called?, Money saving expert.

It isn't a trade forum. it's not tilers Uk or DIY not etc, the clue is in the subtitle. (inc DIY)

This is where I come in and will continue to offer the alternative and realistic point of view, that is how to avoid paying a tradesman, either over the odds or at all.

Now, this isn't aimed at you in the least, there isn't a more accurate and sensible poster on the block, but, it is still a forum dedicated to saving money, and for me that means the customer not the tradesfolks.

Like you I will stand any polite argument or discussion, we don't have to agree, the question askers make their choice based on what all of us say.

The highlighted bit?, if my comments make others think how to please customers better, well, as they say, my work here is done.

keystone

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Ok, I did think that might get exactly that reaction,

Then why write it that way unless it was just to be deliberately provocative?

let me make it clearer if I can

OK - I'm waiting.

Cheers

cyclonebri1

keystone wrote: »

Then why write it that way unless it was just to be deliberately provocative?

OK - I'm waiting.

Cheers

I was editing when you posted, I know I'm at odds with some traders on here. I really am not worried about that. They are the people who have most to lose, or are trying to gain most, you decide.

I know you well enough to believe you feel I'm genuine. I don't post bullsheite. Everything I post is from experience, not from books like a few other souls on here. I have nothing to gain from spending an hour a day here.

But,I don't pay when I don't have to, isn't that the reason for this forum section?

I've put myself about abit, dabbled in all trades, some professionally some purely as a hobby, why should I or anyone with some skill want to pay for a job that possibly they can do as well or not better than the bloke that knocks on the door.

You of all people will be aware of the number of complaints here about the builder/the plumber/the sparky etc etc, that has screwed up the posters expectations.

Are they all wrong?.

Ok, for every satisfied customer there is an unsatisfied 1, but the fact that only the ones with the hump post means there is work to be done on the traders side.

The fact that can't be escaped is that you are pro trade and I'm pro customer, we will have differing views.

If the average suppliers of services was to the standard you champion, there wouldn't be an issue, but there's a way to go on that 1.

The average customer, (you'd know better than me),I'd guess he/she just wants what they ask for at the agreed price and to the standard indicated, any difference is a legal issue.

keystone

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

But,I don't pay when I don't have to, isn't that the reason for this forum section?

Quite right but why should the trader be deprived of remuneration to fix something that nobody could have envisaged before the work began. I can't and won't defend the "we had all this extra to do luv so that'll be another £XXX" approach but I can and will defend either of these:

1. It may be that we find that .... and therefore suggest a PC sum of £YYY be included in the contract to cover such eventualities and;

2. A contract variation clause which allows for the above and also allows for the customer to change their kminds (which they frequently do) and that such clause should include for discussion and agreement on additional work required including a fixed price for it before such work commences.

When I worked in sales and marketiung I had to continually remind management that I had two bosses - them and the customer and I had to have a foot in both camps.

You of all people will be aware of the number of complaints here about the builder/the plumber/the sparky etc etc, that has screwed up the posters expectations. Are they all wrong?

And the number of those complaints that turn out to be unfounded because the poster just didn't use his brain and we only ever hear one siude of the story. There are always two.

Ok, for every satisfied customer there is an unsatisfied 1, but the fact that only the ones with the hump post means there is work to be done on the traders side.

I really didn't think that sweeping generalisations were your style.

The fact that can't be escaped is that you are pro trade and I'm pro customer, we will have differing views.

No I'm not pro trade. I'll castigate a poor tradesman for any reason if its warranted. You try to paint it far too.

If the average suppliers of services was to the standard you champion, there wouldn't be an issue, but there's a way to go on that 1.

There are more rogue customers out there than there are rogue tradesmen. Thats a fact.

The average customer, (you'd know better than me),I'd guess he/she just wants what they ask for at the agreed price and to the standard indicated,

You are correct.

any difference is a legal issue.

Not necessarily.

Cheers

keystone

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

This is where I come in and will continue to offer the alternative and realistic point of view, that is how to avoid paying a tradesman, either over the odds or at all.

That one will come around and bit you squarely on the bum at some stage.

Now, this isn't aimed at you in the least, there isn't a more accurate and sensible poster on the block,

Why thank you for saying so.

but, it is still a forum dedicated to saving money, and for me that means the customer not the tradesfolks.

No it means everybody.

Cheers

cyclonebri1

Sound answers chap, can't argue, and don't want to deprive the genuine tradesman who has to feed his children.

But to turn round what you once reminded me, the customer has to eat too;)



Hmmmmm I starting to get worried about you, it's the 2nd time you've told me my sit upon is going to be bitten in 2 days.

Lets just keep giving the options, the topic host can decide.

redmalc

Thanks for all the imput guys,i have spoken to a number of other sparkies and as i thought the guy is having us over.
The rest of it i am ok with,and it is my intention to get the thing signed up and will advise how we go

keystone

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Hmmmmm I starting to get worried about you, it's the 2nd time you've told me my sit upon is going to be bitten in 2 days.

Umm no - the first was a general comment the "you" being generic. I thought I had explained that.

The one on this thread was, however, most certainly pointed at you.

cyclonebri1 wrote:

This is where I come in - how to avoid paying a tradesman at all.

That one will bite you on the bum at some stage and indeed it probably indicates that the old rear end deserves a damned good kicking. However, I'm generous enough to allow that you may not have meant it how it reads and I do appreciate that I have removed some of your words.

Cheers

keystone

redmalc wrote: »

Thanks for all the imput guys,i have spoken to a number of other sparkies and as i thought the guy is having us over.
The rest of it i am ok with,and it is my intention to get the thing signed up and will advise how we go

Keep in touch - good luck.

Cheers

cyclonebri1

keystone wrote: »

Umm no - the first was a general comment the "you" being generic. I thought I had explained that.

The one on this thread was, however, most certainly pointed at you.

That one will bite you on the bum at some stage and indeed it probably indicates that the old rear end deserves a damned good kicking. However, I'm generous enough to allow that you may not have meant it how it reads and I do appreciate that I have removed some of your words.

Cheers

Can you quote the whole post and not the bit you have here?

Keystone, I won't edit the last bit out. I've just looked back over your quote.

We are at loggerheads over a misunderstanding here.

I think you took that to mean I wouldn't pay a tradesman for work done, regardless.

The intention was to say "avoid paying the tradesman at all, (if you can do it yourself)."

As in, "You do what you can, and you pay for what you can't."

I hope that clears things up. If you thought I was advocating not paying for services received, then no, you got the wrong end.

If it doesn't then fine, we really are poles apart.