Cost of electrical work

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

grumbler said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

If it was an off premises contract and the trader didn't provide the OP with the details regarding the right to cancel they aren't even obligated to pay anything as they can just cancel the contract.

I am pretty sure this is incorrect. Yes, the contract can possibly be cancelled, but not after the job is done.

It's correct (although limits apply to urgent repairs or maintenance)  

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/36/made

(6) The consumer bears no cost for supply of the service, in full or in part, in the cancellation period, if—

(a)the trader has failed to provide the consumer with the information on the right to cancel required by paragraph (l) of Schedule 2, or the information on payment of that cost required by paragraph (n) of that Schedule, in accordance with Part 2, or

Section62 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

The trader was obligated to provide OP the with:

the total price of the goods or services inclusive of taxes, or where the nature of the goods or services is such that the price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, the manner in which the price is to be calculated;

It's not down to the consumer to guess what the cost will randomly be.

Not condoning dodgy traders or people being overcharged.... but I think it worthy of caveating that "obligated".

Strictly speaking a trader isn't obligated to do anything when approached by a would-be client (other than not discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics).

They can choose not to reply to your email, or not pick up the phone, or just say "Too busy".

Which I'd say is very likely to be the most probable response if you start quoting The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 at them when you ask if they can do a little job for you.


Business only works properly when there is a two-way flow of information and people are clear with each other what is wanted and expected.  And it has to work both ways.

This is correct but 3 and half hours to fiddle with some light fittings for £262 doesn't sound like a bad job to me, if the trader has a better opportunity than that then they would have taken it over the small job OP offered them. 

Business should work properly when the requirements are adhered to, the trader has put themselves in a poor position, if OP doesn't pay the trader has no recourse. 

Even if the OP didn't have the right to cancel the CRA stipulates where no cost or consideration for price, or how it is to be calculated, for a service is given the consumer must pay a reasonable cost. If OP paid £180 based on hourly rates they've found from other tradespeople again the trader isn't going to be in a good position to enforce the rest of the bill.

Section62

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

This is correct but 3 and half hours to fiddle with some light fittings for £262 doesn't sound like a bad job to me, if the trader has a better opportunity than that then they would have taken it over the small job OP offered them.

That's speculation though.  We have no way of knowing what thought processes the trader went through.

It may be as you suggest that the trader had no better opportunity.  Or it may be that having done work for the OP's daughter he felt he should do the OP's job even though he wasn't that interested in it.

We will never know, and speculation won't help the OP's situation. Or change this traders method of working.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Business should work properly when the requirements are adhered to, the trader has put themselves in a poor position, if OP doesn't pay the trader has no recourse.

Then there's the real world.

I'm still not condoning dodgy traders, but anyone expecting rigid adherence to the requirements needs to have a read of this thread...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6313896/how-are-you-coping-with-the-inability-to-get-a-tradesperson-out/p1

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Section62 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

This is correct but 3 and half hours to fiddle with some light fittings for £262 doesn't sound like a bad job to me, if the trader has a better opportunity than that then they would have taken it over the small job OP offered them.

That's speculation though.  We have no way of knowing what thought processes the trader went through.

It may be as you suggest that the trader had no better opportunity.  Or it may be that having done work for the OP's daughter he felt he should do the OP's job even though he wasn't that interested in it.

We will never know, and speculation won't help the OP's situation. Or change this traders method of working.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Business should work properly when the requirements are adhered to, the trader has put themselves in a poor position, if OP doesn't pay the trader has no recourse.

Then there's the real world.

I'm still not condoning dodgy traders, but anyone expecting rigid adherence to the requirements needs to have a read of this thread...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6313896/how-are-you-coping-with-the-inability-to-get-a-tradesperson-out/p1

That would likely be done in self interest in the hope of further work, good reputation, etc. Unless he was just a really nice guy, although if that were true he'd give his customers an idea of how much a job will cost before starting. But yes all speculation. 


Indeed, if only more people were aware of their rights, then there might be a thread on a trades forum titled:

How are you coping with the inability to get customers to pay because you didn't give them the required information! 

Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting people should deliberately not pay for work over this, we had work done at the weekend, granted no information as required but was given a price, shown liability insurance was in place and a day of hard work was undertaken resulting in a very satisfactory job done to a professional standard. I wouldn't dream of not paying. 

However I think trades not explaining to customers how a job is going to be priced is a really poor practice and just begs the question of why a tradesperson would omit such a piece of information. 

Risteard

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Section62 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

This is correct but 3 and half hours to fiddle with some light fittings for £262 doesn't sound like a bad job to me, if the trader has a better opportunity than that then they would have taken it over the small job OP offered them.

That's speculation though.  We have no way of knowing what thought processes the trader went through.

It may be as you suggest that the trader had no better opportunity.  Or it may be that having done work for the OP's daughter he felt he should do the OP's job even though he wasn't that interested in it.

We will never know, and speculation won't help the OP's situation. Or change this traders method of working.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Business should work properly when the requirements are adhered to, the trader has put themselves in a poor position, if OP doesn't pay the trader has no recourse.

Then there's the real world.

I'm still not condoning dodgy traders, but anyone expecting rigid adherence to the requirements needs to have a read of this thread...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6313896/how-are-you-coping-with-the-inability-to-get-a-tradesperson-out/p1

That would likely be done in self interest in the hope of further work, good reputation, etc. Unless he was just a really nice guy, although if that were true he'd give his customers an idea of how much a job will cost before starting. But yes all speculation. 


Indeed, if only more people were aware of their rights, then there might be a thread on a trades forum titled:

How are you coping with the inability to get customers to pay because you didn't give them the required information! 

Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting people should deliberately not pay for work over this, we had work done at the weekend, granted no information as required but was given a price, shown liability insurance was in place and a day of hard work was undertaken resulting in a very satisfactory job done to a professional standard. I wouldn't dream of not paying. 

However I think trades not explaining to customers how a job is going to be priced is a really poor practice and just begs the question of why a tradesperson would omit such a piece of information. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Section62 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

This is correct but 3 and half hours to fiddle with some light fittings for £262 doesn't sound like a bad job to me, if the trader has a better opportunity than that then they would have taken it over the small job OP offered them.

That's speculation though.  We have no way of knowing what thought processes the trader went through.

It may be as you suggest that the trader had no better opportunity.  Or it may be that having done work for the OP's daughter he felt he should do the OP's job even though he wasn't that interested in it.

We will never know, and speculation won't help the OP's situation. Or change this traders method of working.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Business should work properly when the requirements are adhered to, the trader has put themselves in a poor position, if OP doesn't pay the trader has no recourse.

Then there's the real world.

I'm still not condoning dodgy traders, but anyone expecting rigid adherence to the requirements needs to have a read of this thread...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6313896/how-are-you-coping-with-the-inability-to-get-a-tradesperson-out/p1

That would likely be done in self interest in the hope of further work, good reputation, etc. Unless he was just a really nice guy, although if that were true he'd give his customers an idea of how much a job will cost before starting. But yes all speculation. 


Indeed, if only more people were aware of their rights, then there might be a thread on a trades forum titled:

How are you coping with the inability to get customers to pay because you didn't give them the required information! 

Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting people should deliberately not pay for work over this, we had work done at the weekend, granted no information as required but was given a price, shown liability insurance was in place and a day of hard work was undertaken resulting in a very satisfactory job done to a professional standard. I wouldn't dream of not paying. 

However I think trades not explaining to customers how a job is going to be priced is a really poor practice and just begs the question of why a tradesperson would omit such a piece of information. 

Why wouldn't the customer ask as to how the price would be calculated if they were so concerned about the price?

Section62

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting people should deliberately not pay for work over this, we had work done at the weekend, granted no information as required but was given a price, shown liability insurance was in place and a day of hard work was undertaken resulting in a very satisfactory job done to a professional standard. I wouldn't dream of not paying. 

However I think trades not explaining to customers how a job is going to be priced is a really poor practice and just begs the question of why a tradesperson would omit such a piece of information. 

The second BiB just begs the question why, knowing your rights, you didn't demand the information as per the first BiB?

For most people the answer revolves around mutual trust.  And the avoidance of what they regard as 'box ticking' red tape (on both sides).

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Section62 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting people should deliberately not pay for work over this, we had work done at the weekend, granted no information as required but was given a price, shown liability insurance was in place and a day of hard work was undertaken resulting in a very satisfactory job done to a professional standard. I wouldn't dream of not paying. 

However I think trades not explaining to customers how a job is going to be priced is a really poor practice and just begs the question of why a tradesperson would omit such a piece of information. 

The second BiB just begs the question why, knowing your rights, you didn't demand the information as per the first BiB?

For most people the answer revolves around mutual trust.  And the avoidance of what they regard as 'box ticking' red tape (on both sides).

Why would I weaken my position to their advantage by pointing out something they should know?

And where does mutual trust get us? OP says their daughter wasn't charged as much, maybe a different kind of work is the reason but, without commenting on the OP, tradespeople not giving a price may be the type to turn up at a home were it appears the customer has a bit of money and charging more, maybe that's not the end of the world but if they find the customer is vulnerable and take advance, without wishing to bounce up and down on the moral bandwagon, I think that's something the majority would view as wrong. 

I'm sure genuine tradespeople aren't happy with such things as it gives their industry a bad name, customers aren't happy with it because it creates uncertainly.

On the point of trust they say money and friends don't mix, if you shouldn't necessarily trust people close to you why should you when dealing with a stranger? Yes I understand you aren't going to get far in life by not trusting anyone but giving the customer a template piece of paper letting them know where they stand is hardly an arduous task, portraying it as box ticking red tape just plays to the advantage of those who can't be bothered.  

Consumers in this country have a lot of protection sadly we are lacking the bodies with authority to ensure they are enforced.