Quotations?

fred7777

Abrielle wrote: »

I think she would favour this option. Should she mention Trading Standards in her letter or just offer to pay £40?

Yes.

My first response would have been Crabman, she never asked for the work to be carried out, she is under no obligation to let them add insult to injury by coming back to undo the work and I suspect rather than putting it back the way it was they would leave it in a worse condition.

However an alternative would be to send a cheque for £40 in "full and final settlement" pointing out she never agreed for the work to be done and that she only asked for a quote. I would also tell them I would be contacting trading standards and I would do so.

Anyone who charges £80 without prior agreement is lucky to get paid at all.

Inner_Zone

InsideInsurance wrote: »

But the freeview is just freeview and not part of a subscription

What? The box is subject to a contract with TalkTalk, if that is the provider. No box no Freeview!

wiogs

Inner_Zone wrote: »

What? The box is subject to a contract with TalkTalk, if that is the provider. No box no Freeview!

How does that work since you don't need an additional box to watch Freeview?

[Deleted User]

fred7777 wrote: »

Yes.

However an alternative would be to send a cheque for £40 in "full and final settlement" pointing out she never agreed for the work to be done and that she only asked for a quote. I would also tell them I would be contacting trading standards and I would do so.

Anyone who charges £80 without prior agreement is lucky to get paid at all.

Agreed! Especially as, having left the voicemail, two men turned up on her doorstep this morning, admitted they hadn't given her a quote and offered to 'knock off the VAT" and charge her £70! She told them she was in the process of writing to them and would be checking their offer with Trading Standards. They didn't seem too pleased with that!

wiogs

Abrielle wrote: »

Agreed! Especially as, having left the voicemail, two men turned up on her doorstep this morning, admitted they hadn't given her a quote and offered to 'knock off the VAT" and charge her £70! She told them she was in the process of writing to them and would be checking their offer with Trading Standards. They didn't seem too pleased with that!

Not very good at maths either it seems.

Crabman

Abrielle wrote: »

Agreed! Especially as, having left the voicemail, two men turned up on her doorstep this morning, admitted they hadn't given her a quote and offered to 'knock off the VAT" and charge her £70! She told them she was in the process of writing to them and would be checking their offer with Trading Standards. They didn't seem too pleased with that!

Personally speaking, I think these parasites should receive nothing. There is no evidence that they were contracted or given consent to carry out work on the property and they appear to have admitted this on their recent doorstep visit. They also offered to defraud HMRC by "knocking off the VAT." If this was put in a letter to them I think they'd probably drop it. They mustn't get the impression that these tactics pay off.

However, a more practical solution may be to offer £40 if your daughter is willing, but as others have said, this must be in full and final settlement. They shouldn't expect to be rewarded for their rogue trader behaviour.

Incidentally, it may be worth letting these folks know:

https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bhwv8/contact

[Deleted User]

Crabman wrote: »

Personally speaking, I think these parasites should receive nothing. There is no evidence that they were contracted or given consent to carry out work on the property and they appear to have admitted this on their recent doorstep visit. They also offered to defraud HMRC by "knocking off the VAT." If this was put in a letter to them I think they'd probably drop it. They mustn't get the impression that these tactics pay off.

However, a more practical solution may be to offer £40 if your daughter is willing, but as others have said, this must be in full and final settlement. They shouldn't expect to be rewarded for their rogue trader behaviour.

Incidentally, it may be worth letting these folks know:

https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03bhwv8/contact

I like this! Isn't it a little contradictory though - no contract, no obligation but offer to pay £40 in full and final settlement?

My daughter has now contacted her local council who have told her to contact the Citizen's Advice Service who, apparently, may refer her to trading standards!

JReacher1

There's obviously been a misunderstanding somewhere. £80 is a fair price for the work done.

If your daughter can't afford it then it seems a fair compromise for them to come back and put it back where it was.

I don't think you would have got the work done much cheaper than £80 so I'm slightly confused over how much she expected to pay?

Crabman

Abrielle wrote: »

I like this! Isn't it a little contradictory though - no contract, no obligation but offer to pay £40 in full and final settlement?

My daughter has now contacted her local council who have told her to contact the Citizen's Advice Service who, apparently, may refer her to trading standards!

It does sound contradictory, but I'd do it in stages, so firstly emphasise no contract, no consent for work, no quote given (they've admitted this), contact trading standards, etc. but if they don't drop it then consider offering perhaps £20 as a goodwill gesture. If they aren't happy, then increase it to £40 to close the matter.

If they'd just provided a quote and left, as they should have done, your daughter would have needed to pay someone else to do the work.

Exile_geordie

wiogs wrote: »

How does that work since you don't need an additional box to watch Freeview?

Well you kind of do if you don't have a telly that receives freeview on its own.