Plumber Charging Missed Call Out Fee Even Though I Was In The House?

HillStreetBlues

tedted said:

how do you know the doorbell wasn't rung

I read the opened post.

tedted

and you believe it?

HillStreetBlues

tedted said:

and you believe it?

Yes, because if you were going to lie then why say plumber was given wife's number as that's not the brightest thing to do.

To me none of them come out looking good.

Hoenir

HillStreetBlues said:

tedted said:

and you believe it?

Yes, because if you were going to lie then why say plumber was given wife's number as that's not the brightest thing to do.

Not rocket science to answer your phone if it rings. Having given it as a contact number.  

HillStreetBlues

Hoenir said:

HillStreetBlues said:

tedted said:

and you believe it?

Yes, because if you were going to lie then why say plumber was given wife's number as that's not the brightest thing to do.

Not rocket science to answer your phone if it rings. Having given it as a contact number.  

Agreed....

Appliance_engineer

HillStreetBlues said:

Appliance_engineer said:

In these cases where the occupant is at fault, they often try to blame the tradesperson just because they see themselves as hard done by.

In this case, the occupant failed to hear the knocking on the door, failed to answer the phone when the number was given to the tradesperson for that very purpose; he didn't need to call that number but he did due diligence and did.

The plumber did all that he could to make his presence known, and he endured costs in both time and money in attending, and those costs need to be met by the householder.

It's laughable that the OP says that they feel they should claim for having taken a day off work. Just laughable. Really. Some people just want to blame anybody but themselves for their own inadequacies.

You are the only person responsible for this. Pay the man and stop trying to deflect the blame.

Disagree, there was a doorbell that wasn't used.
Just knocking on the window or door is just stupidly if there is a doorbell visible.
It's so simply, ring doorbell first,  then wait a bit then follow with a knock if unanswered, it's not rocket science.

I'd say 50% of doorbells I ring every day don't work. Knocking on the door is a definite sound and should be heard by somebody waiting for a delivery or visit. After all, the OP said that it was a 'small house'.

Pressing a doorbell which may be dead of batteries or disconnected at the other end isn't a guarantee that the person in the house would hear it so a knock on the door is always going to be the best bet. He may well have pressed the bell button in any case, before then knocking, then telephoning.

What more was the bloke expected to do? Stand on top of his van on the drive waving semaphore flags?

eskbanker

Appliance_engineer said:
He may well have pressed the bell button in any case

He said he didn't....

Magnolian said:
We have a doorbell, but he admitted he didn't use it.

Appliance_engineer

eskbanker said:

Appliance_engineer said:
He may well have pressed the bell button in any case

He said he didn't....

Magnolian said:
We have a doorbell, but he admitted he didn't use it.

So what? So he didn't use one of the 2 methods of attracting attention at a front door. He not only knocked, but he telephoned you, using the contact number you had given him to contact you, and that call was ignored because the person receiving the call didn't recognise the number! Well, if you give a contact number of a person who will refuse to answer the call if she doesn't recognise the number; and she's not going to be recognising the number of a random plumber calling her in any case, then what do you expect?

You were at fault, not him. Stop trying to shift the blame for your inadequacies onto somebody else. He turned up to your house at his expense in time and money. He went above and beyond what was needed to contact you. He knocked. He telephoned. You ignored his call. You now owe him for the costs involved in travelling to your house, and the time he could have spent otherwise earning money. You should pay that small amount to cover costs incurred by him. Simple as that.

Your whole argument seems to be that he didn't ring the doorbell, (which he isn't actually obliged to do by the way, unless you specifically agreed with the company that he should only use the bell, and not knock on the door). You also ignore the fact that he not only knocked, but that he then telephoned the number given which the receiver refused to answer. You really don't have an argument in this case.  Just admit that you owe this small amount and pay it and stop with this nonsense of 'he didn't use the doorbell'.

eskbanker

Appliance_engineer said:

eskbanker said:

Appliance_engineer said:
He may well have pressed the bell button in any case

He said he didn't....

Magnolian said:
We have a doorbell, but he admitted he didn't use it.

So what? So he didn't use one of the 2 methods of attracting attention at a front door. He not only knocked, but he telephoned you, using the contact number you had given him to contact you, and that call was ignored because the person receiving the call didn't recognise the number! Well, if you give a contact number of a person who will refuse to answer the call if she doesn't recognise the number; and she's not going to be recognising the number of a random plumber calling her in any case, then what do you expect?

You were at fault, not him. Stop trying to shift the blame for your inadequacies onto somebody else. He turned up to your house at his expense in time and money. He went above and beyond what was needed to contact you. He knocked. He telephoned. You ignored his call. You now owe him for the costs involved in travelling to your house, and the time he could have spent otherwise earning money. You should pay that small amount to cover costs incurred by him. Simple as that.

Your whole argument seems to be that he didn't ring the doorbell, (which he isn't actually obliged to do by the way, unless you specifically agreed with the company that he should only use the bell, and not knock on the door). You also ignore the fact that he not only knocked, but that he then telephoned the number given which the receiver refused to answer. You really don't have an argument in this case.  Just admit that you owe this small amount and pay it and stop with this nonsense of 'he didn't use the doorbell'.

No need to direct that rant at me - I'm not the OP (and am not defending him/her) but was simply highlighting that OP had denied what you were suggesting....

Appliance_engineer

Yes, and I'm responding to his denial.