Plumber Price - Am I in the wrong?

benson1980

Section62 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Devil's Advocate - at what point could/would it have been quite reasonable/understandable for Initial to have queried - nicely, as they did - the cost?

Any time until immediately before they sent the text accepting the quote.

After that point in time it becomes increasingly less reasonable/understandable to start renegotiating.

No one is renegotiating anything. I'd query the price to try and establish if I had dealt with a trustworthy person.

Tradepeople aren't doing their customers a favour. They are providing a service as a business, for which they get paid and thus they should have a reasonably transparent and consistent pricing structure. If someone has cause to question said pricing pre or post-job, so be it. If I found out my dog groomer charged me double what they were charging someone else for a similar sized hound, I'd query it with them. If my cleaner charged double...you get the idea. I really don't see why it's the rudest thing ever/harassment etc etc to query how they'd priced my job. If there's a reasonable explanation, no issues as said.

Doozergirl

benson1980 said:

Section62 said:

ThisIsWeird said:

Devil's Advocate - at what point could/would it have been quite reasonable/understandable for Initial to have queried - nicely, as they did - the cost?

Any time until immediately before they sent the text accepting the quote.

After that point in time it becomes increasingly less reasonable/understandable to start renegotiating.

No one is renegotiating anything. I'd query the price to try and establish if I had dealt with a trustworthy person.

Tradepeople aren't doing their customers a favour. They are providing a service as a business, for which they get paid and thus they should have a reasonably transparent and consistent pricing structure. If someone has cause to question said pricing pre or post-job, so be it. If I found out my dog groomer charged me double what they were charging someone else for a similar sized hound, I'd query it with them. If my cleaner charged double...you get the idea. I really don't see why it's the rudest thing ever/harassment etc etc to query how they'd priced my job. If there's a reasonable explanation, no issues as said.

My lovely friend gave up being a plasterer because people don't pay and he couldn't deal with it anymore.  He now has the proverbial taken out of him on all sides as a paramedic.  

It's never okay to be unprofessional but these people don't receive customer service training because as a nation we don't value manual work.   The way people treat tradies doing small jobs, particularly is another level.  

We all have the opportunity to do our homework before it needs handing in.  If we're going to question a price it should be before the job is done.  With a cleaner/dog groomer you can pay, then question for the next time.  

I'm not sticking up for idiots here, just an acceptable process.  

Section62

benson1980 said:

No one is renegotiating anything. I'd query the price to try and establish if I had dealt with a trustworthy person.

If a price is agreed for something then it is a 'renegotiation' if one party then tries to re-open the discussion about a fair price.

The time to figure out if you are dealing with a trustworthy person is before you accept the quote, not after they have finished the job.  If you are doing it that way round then you are doing it wrong.

benson1980 said:

Tradepeople aren't doing their customers a favour. They are providing a service as a business, for which they get paid and thus they should have a reasonably transparent and consistent pricing structure.

Sure.  If you want a "reasonably transparent and consistent pricing structure" then call out a company like Dyno-Plumb who will do fixed-fee work according to a schedule of prices.

But expect to pay a fair bit more for the same job.

benson1980 said:

If someone has cause to question said pricing pre or post-job, so be it.

And "so be it" if the trader gets annoyed at the poor behaviour by the customer, or "so be it" if other traders decide they don't want to do work for you because you are known to quibble over paying after a job has been done.

benson1980 said:

If I found out my dog groomer charged me double what they were charging someone else for a similar sized hound, I'd query it with them. If my cleaner charged double...you get the idea. I really don't see why it's the rudest thing ever/harassment etc etc to query how they'd priced my job. If there's a reasonable explanation, no issues as said.

How would you feel if at the end of the month your pay didn't arrive in your bank account.  When you ask your boss why, they say they want to run through the work you did that month to make sure you deserved to be paid, because another employee had worked harder and was on a lower wage/salary?

Would you cheerfully respond "so be it"?

(Note, none of the above is an adverse comment on what the OP did)

ThisIsWeird

Section62 said:

benson1980 said:

No one is renegotiating anything. I'd query the price to try and establish if I had dealt with a trustworthy person.

If a price is agreed for something then it is a 'renegotiation' if one party then tries to re-open the discussion about a fair price.

The time to figure out if you are dealing with a trustworthy person is before you accept the quote, not after they have finished the job.  If you are doing it that way round then you are doing it wrong.

My D-A's scenario was not about Initial renegotiating the price, but bringing to the tradesperson's attention what they'd found, and looking for assurance that they weren't done over.

At some point, the accepted quote would tip over into having been exploited. And we don't even know if Initial has been (this forum alone has many examples of complete stitch-ups).

Tipping point? I don't know - let's say £1k. Initial accepted this quote because the person was recommended by their tiler. Initial may have baulked slightly, but accepted it, because - let's face it - it would have been a bit awkward between them and the tiler if they hadn't.

Invoice time - and Initial had been told from a number of sources that the price should have been in the ~£300 ballpark. What's more, another householder on the same estate, with the same plumber, was only charged that 'typical' amount.

Initial should not question this? Initial has always made it clear they'd pay, but to not question this, at all? If only to tell the plumber that Initial 'knows'.

Section62

ThisIsWeird said:

Section62 said:

benson1980 said:

No one is renegotiating anything. I'd query the price to try and establish if I had dealt with a trustworthy person.

If a price is agreed for something then it is a 'renegotiation' if one party then tries to re-open the discussion about a fair price.

The time to figure out if you are dealing with a trustworthy person is before you accept the quote, not after they have finished the job.  If you are doing it that way round then you are doing it wrong.

My D-A's scenario was not about Initial renegotiating the price, but bringing to the tradesperson's attention what they'd found, and looking for assurance that they weren't done over.

You are free to call it what you want, but if you agree something with someone (which in this case forms a contract) and then want to have a discussion about whether the terms are fair prior to payment, then you are seeking to renegotiate.

By all means, pay the person and then have a chat about how you could have got the job done cheaper by Mr Bodgeit Nscarper, but don't be surprised if the trader laughs at you and becomes uncontactable for any future work.

If you have been "done over", don't expect the trader to immediately fall to their knees, hand the money back, and beg for forgiveness.

Think about what your D-A is trying to achieve in this scenario.

ThisIsWeird said:

At some point, the accepted quote would tip over into having been exploited. And we don't even know if Initial has been (this forum alone has many examples of complete stitch-ups).

Tipping point? I don't know - let's say £1k. Initial accepted this quote because the person was recommended by their tiler.

If you'd like to re-write history then it is only fair that you consider all the scenarios.

The client finds a different plumber who charges half as much, and picks them.  On the day the work is to be done the tiler turns up, but the plumber doesn't.  The plumber is uncontactable.  Will you be happy to pay the tiler for a wasted day because they can't do the job without your plumber doing theirs?

Or on the appointed day the plumber arrives but the tiler doesn't.  Do you pay the plumber?

Do you have any recourse to get the tiler to reimburse you for the plumber's wasted costs?

By using the plumber the tiler works with, the OP gained the advantage that the two of them could liaise with each other over the job.  If there was a problem they would probably sort it out between themselves.  Because they work together, their reputations are linked.  Although you are contracting with them separately, if the tiler breaks his leg on the way to do the job, the plumber is unlikely to expect you to pay the full cost of an abortive day - they will probably sort something out between them.

There is an intrinsic value to using contractors and subbies that work together, potentially less risk and less hassle.  The question is how you put a price on that - which will vary according to different people's circumstances and perspective.

We can go round this argument all day long... but the bottom line is that whatever you think might be the morally right thing for traders to do when it comes to pricing work, it doesn't reflect the reality of the real world. They have to make a living, and deal with all the uncertainties and risks that real life brings.

benson1980

Section62 said:

benson1980 said:

No one is renegotiating anything. I'd query the price to try and establish if I had dealt with a trustworthy person.

If a price is agreed for something then it is a 'renegotiation' if one party then tries to re-open the discussion about a fair price.

The time to figure out if you are dealing with a trustworthy person is before you accept the quote, not after they have finished the job.  If you are doing it that way round then you are doing it wrong.

benson1980 said:

Tradepeople aren't doing their customers a favour. They are providing a service as a business, for which they get paid and thus they should have a reasonably transparent and consistent pricing structure.

Sure.  If you want a "reasonably transparent and consistent pricing structure" then call out a company like Dyno-Plumb who will do fixed-fee work according to a schedule of prices.

But expect to pay a fair bit more for the same job.

benson1980 said:

If someone has cause to question said pricing pre or post-job, so be it.

And "so be it" if the trader gets annoyed at the poor behaviour by the customer, or "so be it" if other traders decide they don't want to do work for you because you are known to quibble over paying after a job has been done.

benson1980 said:

If I found out my dog groomer charged me double what they were charging someone else for a similar sized hound, I'd query it with them. If my cleaner charged double...you get the idea. I really don't see why it's the rudest thing ever/harassment etc etc to query how they'd priced my job. If there's a reasonable explanation, no issues as said.

How would you feel if at the end of the month your pay didn't arrive in your bank account.  When you ask your boss why, they say they want to run through the work you did that month to make sure you deserved to be paid, because another employee had worked harder and was on a lower wage/salary?

Would you cheerfully respond "so be it"?

(Note, none of the above is an adverse comment on what the OP did)

Most of us have jobs whereby we are accountable for what we do- I don't have a problem with it or being questioned about how I spend my day, and no one is suggesting people don't get paid as per their invoice for contracted services. 

Fundamentally I just don't think the OP has done much wrong. I get that this particular person won't want to work for the OP again, but then I doubt he/she would want to employ them again, and I'd make an assessment regarding honesty throughout the course of the transaction rather than solely at quotation stage.

Section62

benson1980 said:

Most of us have jobs whereby we are accountable for what we do- I don't have a problem with it or being questioned about how I spend my day....

Sure.  But for most of us, that accountability isn't in the form of the 'boss' withholding pay and asking for retrospective justification why the full payment for that month should be given.

We separate the questions of "fair wage for the job" and "is performance at the required level".  (With the exception of performance-related bonuses and pay, the terms of which are also usually agreed in advance of the work being done.)

If you do the job to the required standard you expect to be paid what was agreed.

benson1980 said:

...and no one is suggesting people don't get paid as per their invoice for contracted services.

You may not think that, but a client opening a discussion with a trader about the price of a completed job is a precursor of the trader not being paid what was originally agreed.  Otherwise, what is the point in having that discussion?

ThisIsWeird

Section62 said:

My D-A's scenario was not about Initial renegotiating the price, but bringing to the tradesperson's attention what they'd found, and looking for assurance that they weren't done over.

You are free to call it what you want, but if you agree something with someone (which in this case forms a contract) and then want to have a discussion about whether the terms are fair prior to payment, then you are seeking to renegotiate. Semantics, surely? I've tried to make it clear, in this D-A (and probably in Initial's too) situation, the customer is not trying to alter the invoice, but is seeking some justification for it, should they have been made aware that it could have been excessive.

By all means, pay the person and then have a chat about how you could have got the job done cheaper by Mr Bodgeit Nscarper, but don't be surprised if the trader laughs at you and becomes uncontactable for any future work. Ok, let's do it that way - Initial pays, and then queries the cost... You are saying they shouldn't because the tradesperson will mock? Or that any cheaper quote would have been by Bodge&Scarp?The customer - at this point being better informed - shouldn't make it clear their suspicion that - through trust and ignorance - they've allowed themselves to be stitched up? The stitching tradesperson should be able to walk away with a "What a Mug!" on his lips? 

I am not talking about this thread's situation - because we do not know all the facts - but one in which a tradesperson very likely has been taking advantage.

As far as I know, and it's what I assume, nothing 'amiss' has gone on with Initial's situation on this thread in terms of the 'value' of the work. But Initial 'questioned' the plumber, and the plumber took huge offence. Based on what Initial has told us, that plumber's petulant behaviour is as much a fault as Initial's possible lack of judgement in questioning the bill. But, also from what we've been told, only Initial has had the decency to accept 'wrong' and apologise (and it ain't for the crime of the century). It would be brilliant if Initial came back on here to give the conclusion, and it was that the plumber also apologised for his manner.

Gavin83

I can't really see how a tradesperson could take advantage in this regard. Ultimately they quote a price and the potential customer either agrees it or doesn't. If the customer agrees the price then that's a confirmation they're happy with it. If they aren't happy with it they should go elsewhere. There is no universal cost for a tradesperson and like most businesses they are free to charge what they wish. There are a huge variety of factors which influence the price. It's all too easy for a plumber to rubbish the quote of another one but I'm sure they've "overcharged" at some point too.

Not all shops charge the same price either. A pint of milk in Waitrose will be more expensive than in Asda.  You don't see people claiming that Waitrose are ripping people off despite offering the same service. People know the price and they are free to shop there or elsewhere.

The point a tradesperson takes advantage is when they don't complete the job properly, on time or add on a bunch of unnecessary extra charges. As long as they're up front from the start as to what the cost is I can't see a problem.

We get a fair amount of threads on here from people who agree a price, get the work done and then decide they aren't happy with the price and try and drive it down. Why can't they just agree the price they're happy with before the work starts?

plumb1_2

I would never give a fixed quote without seeing any job, I would give rough estimate.
Any tradesman is gonna bump the price up to cover any hidden work if he’s not seen the work.
The plumber quoted the take out fittings and reinstall in 2 bathrooms , so may half a day to remove and allowed 1 day to reinstall. 2 visits, time driving plus fuel.
The addition of a extra 1 would be a small time to do. Still 1/2 day + 1 day so the cost is the same.

Tradesmen do bump into each other in the merchants, and inform each other customers to avoid and issues encountered.
As price agreed is a contract, would the Op be happy if the plumber asked for more the the quote?