Howden's family and friends scam

phil24_7

If you decide to go to court it might be worth getting some advice in advance from a solicitor. It may be possible to go after the individual, his company and howdens, jointly and severally but this will very much depend on the circumstances and the evidence you have.

Furts

phil24_7 wrote: »

If you decide to go to court it might be worth getting some advice in advance from a solicitor. It may be possible to go after the individual, his company and howdens, jointly and severally but this will very much depend on the circumstances and the evidence you have.

For arguments sake let us say a fiddle is being operated out of the Crayford branch. It is a certainty the Branch Manager will know about this. Turning a blind eye would typically mean being in on the fiddle. This is why Howdens Head Office should be involved.

Legal action against Howdens is a difficult area. OP should have nothing to do them, and I am sure they are fully aware of that. An analogy is this...

Howdens are a wholesaler, and supply trade only. Bookers are also a wholesaler and supply trade only. Near to OP there is bound to be a Premiere Store - the corner shops with purple and yellow signs. These are supplied by Booker. If OP purchased a dodgy bottle of lemonade from the corner shop would they be going back to Bookers to complain? Of course not. Equally would a reasonable person expect Bookers to deal direct with OP over the complaint? Of course not.

One might argue that OP has failed to understand the status of Howdens, but to counter this OP is fully aware they are trade only. If OP does not like this situation then why deal with them in the first place?

Of course the clock cannot be turned back, but I wonder if OP has not thought things through, nor got their ducks in line.

fezster

Furts wrote: »

For arguments sake let us say a fiddle is being operated out of the Crayford branch. It is a certainty the Branch Manager will know about this. Turning a blind eye would typically mean being in on the fiddle. This is why Howdens Head Office should be involved.

Legal action against Howdens is a difficult area. OP should have nothing to do them, and I am sure they are fully aware of that. An analogy is this...

Howdens are a wholesaler, and supply trade only. Bookers are also a wholesaler and supply trade only. Near to OP there is bound to be a Premiere Store - the corner shops with purple and yellow signs. These are supplied by Booker. If OP purchased a dodgy bottle of lemonade from the corner shop would they be going back to Bookers to complain? Of course not. Equally would a reasonable person expect Bookers to deal direct with OP over the complaint? Of course not.

One might argue that OP has failed to understand the status of Howdens, but to counter this OP is fully aware they are trade only. If OP does not like this situation then why deal with them in the first place?

Of course the clock cannot be turned back, but I wonder if OP has not thought things through, nor got their ducks in line.

Not quite as simple as that, though. OP states that the Howden's representative identified himself as associated with the kitchen fitter and related to him, as well as using his work account for various communications. I'm not saying this means any blame lies with Howden's (Im not a legal expert), but it's certainly not as simple as the supplier/store scenario you are comparing it to.

Furts

fezster wrote: »

Not quite as simple as that, though. OP states that the Howden's representative identified himself as associated with the kitchen fitter and related to him, as well as using his work account for various communications. I'm not saying this means any blame lies with Howden's (Im not a legal expert), but it's certainly not as simple as the supplier/store scenario you are comparing it to.

To give an anecdotal reply, a neighbour recently got a Howdens quote. Howdens rep turned up and introduced the builder who would be doing the job. Howdens measured up, then the quote came from the builder. I told the neighbour to bin the quote and get real, because the builder was about to rip him off. However, this is the way the system works. If you do not like this rip off mentality then do not go to Howdens. In OP's case they decided to go ahead.

There was no point in the neighbour complaining to Howdens about collusion, anti competitive practices, and general all round conning. The simple, pragmatic, response was to tell Howdens to f--k off and place the order elsewhere.

With this in mind I see no point in trying any action against the corporate legal might of Howdens. It will be like water off a ducks back to them and they will have all the responses and BS to hand. That Is why I believe OP should carefully focus on an end result.

phil24_7

Just to reiterate. Howdens are vicariously liable for any and all actions of an employee whilst they are at work. They may also be liable at other times depending on the circumstances.

phil24_7

Corporate BS and legal might, count for little in the small claims court. The Judges are very good at deciding what laws apply and in what context. They will ignore all the bull and look at the facts.

All or none involved may be liable depending on the circumstances!

Furts

phil24_7 wrote: »

Corporate BS and legal might, count for little in the small claims court. The Judges are very good at deciding what laws apply and in what context. They will ignore all the bull and look at the facts.

All or none involved may be liable depending on the circumstances!

People who suggest small claims often have not been through the procedure. You may well have. This means you are well versed in the enormous amount of preparation, the delays, the counter arguments and the opponents getting the case moved to another location in the country, the stupidity of a Judge, the Judge being ignorant, the Judge being forgetful, the Judge being lazy, the Judge consulting dusty volumes to check the blindingly obvious, the Judge being uncertain on consumer law... I have experienced all these.

My advice to any consumer is only go to the small claims as a last resort when every other avenue has failed. Do not automatically expect justice. Justice will only prevail if the consumer stays sharp as a knife and totally switched on to control the situation.

Silver-Surfer_2

phil24_7 wrote: »

Just to reiterate. Howdens are vicariously liable for any and all actions of an employee whilst they are at work. They may also be liable at other times depending on the circumstances.

Howdens maybe held vicariously liable it's not a clear case they are. The law refers to an employees action whilst in the course of their employment. Howdens will no doubt argue that their employees actions are not in the course of his employment. It would be down to the op to prove it was.

Furts

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Howdens maybe held vicariously liable it's not a clear case they are. The law refers to an employees action whilst in the course of their employment. Howdens will no doubt argue that their employees actions are not in the course of his employment. It would be down to the op to prove it was.

Plus what happens if Howdens say the individual was a contractor, or self employed, or commission only, or freelance, or whatever? Equally Howdens could be telling lies about any of this, but to proof otherwise is loosing sight of the end goal - which is getting a kitchen completed.

I respect Phil's comments on this Forum but on these posts I feel he has lost sight of the practicalities, and realities, of life