Only one workman of two turned up and wants paying for both!

kinger101

Risteard wrote: »

Neither were you.

But the reality is that that is how quotations work.

I never said I was there. Your assertions and reality are not the same thing.

Risteard

kinger101 wrote: »

I never said I was there. Your assertions and reality are not the same thing.

I don't make assertions - I only express facts.

cool_dude_2000

I understand where you're coming from Fulmer, but you have to be fair and ask yourself if the tradesman turned round and said it's a much bigger job and he needed more people, would you agree to pay extra? You cant have it both ways I'm afraid. You either pay a fixed price for the job and let the tradesman fulfil it in their way, or you pay a daily rate but then risk it coming in higher.

I had a landscaper who originally specified on a job he would have his assistant with him, only for him to let him down on in the day when he pulled a sickie. The chap worked solidly for 12 hours, doing the job of 2 and I not only paid him what he quoted, but gave him a bit extra. I said to him it would have been easy for him to ring me with an excuse on the day, and I did not take that for granted.

Good tradespeople are hard to find and should rightly be rewarded.

shortcrust

cool_dude_2000 wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from Fulmer, but you have to be fair and ask yourself if the tradesman turned round and said it's a much bigger job and he needed more people, would you agree to pay extra? You cant have it both ways I'm afraid. You either pay a fixed price for the job and let the tradesman fulfil it in their way, or you pay a daily rate but then risk it coming in higher.

I had a landscaper who originally specified on a job he would have his assistant with him, only for him to let him down on in the day when he pulled a sickie. The chap worked solidly for 12 hours, doing the job of 2 and I not only paid him what he quoted, but gave him a bit extra. I said to him it would have been easy for him to ring me with an excuse on the day, and I did not take that for granted.

Good tradespeople are hard to find and should rightly be rewarded.

But that’s the whole point. He was quoted a daily rate. It wasn’t 600 for the job, it was 100 per man per day. Why should a customer agreeing to a daily rate have to carry the risk of it coming in higher but not benefit from it coming in lower?

This bloke thought the 600 quote would be more palatable if it was presented as needing two blokes for three days and that’s been revealed to be bs. More fool him. What he’s effectively said is “Oh yeah, I exaggerated the scale of the job to get more money from you. Oh well, that’s what you’re paying anyway.”

As I’ve said, I wouldn’t be paying it but it’s too late for the OP to quibble about it now.

cool_dude_2000

If the OP was quoted and mutually agreed a day rate, I agree that he should have the benefit of the saving of the job come in quicker or requires fewer tradespeople.

But the way the original question is phrased doesn't convincely suggest this the case.

The work has started, and if I agree then I will be paying what I was going to pay if both had turned up, and the work will be done, but I need some opinions on this, thanks.

To me, you have either agreed to pay day rate or you havent. There isn't any ambiguity, so why do you need some second opinions or have to agree to anything? It does sound as though you were quoted for the job and told it would take an extra person, but this hasn't happened and you want to see what grounds you have.

The best way of uncovering the truth is to honestly answer my original question which was if it took longer, would you have accepted a higher amount?