Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 18 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2586 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

The Electrician & Trading Standards.

Zoomup
Mornin' All,

                    A potential customer has reported me to the Local Trading Standards Dept.


The local Trading Standards Officer has written to me stating that I need to provide a written leaflet to all of my customers about their "Right to Cancel."


Simply, I went to do an urgent repair and was not allowed to continue. I was asked to leave as it was getting late in the day. I did make some progress on the job and left things working that were not working before. I left without payment but later sent in an invoice for my lost time. That is when the customer contacted the Trading Standard Dept.


The trading Standards officer sent me various emailed documents about Rights to Cancel a Contract. He is not taking any action on this occasion as I have not been reported before.


This mater is covered by The Consumer Contracts (Information, cancellation & Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.


After having read through the document carefully I discovered a get out of jail clause. This applies.


"Contracts where the consumer has specifically requested the trader to call to carry out urgent repairs or maintenance" apply and there is NO RIGHT TO CANCEL.


There I rest my case.


Be warned, have you got a pile of the leaflets for your customers?


Bye.


Z.






  • 0
    My wife muttered at me when I was getting text messages telling me to break into flats and change the locks before the HA contractor lost rhe contract. 


    One elderly lady was actually locked in and so I entered through her lounge window which she opened for me, I phoned the locksmith and told him what I intended to do to open the door and he said crack on then bring me the old lock and I will sell you a replacement.


    One tenant tried complaining that an electrician had been sent to fix the communal front door lock rather than a locksmith, I just pointed out it's an electrically operated lock Relaxed
  • 0

    ... A few letters and then a County Court Claim in the Small Claims Court I believe will be best, but there is only a 50/50 chance of winning these type of cases and it involves much lost time and paperwork, and expense....


    Z.



     




    There's not much point in bothering with CCJ's (because you can't force people to pay even if you win) unless it's an amount that can be transfered to the High Court (think it's around £300+, plus approx £60 Court fees) if unpaid (as Sheriff's seem to have greater powers over Bailiff's). However, rather than raid someone's bank account to get payment (which is what they should do), all they can do is take asset's to cover the claim amount, if any are available (which is ridiculous because someone can be cash rich but asset poor). For these reason's, it could be argued that contracts only serve to benefit the customer, as they seem to have all the protective rights, with the trader having to carry the costs if unpaid; indeed, B2B trading standards told me as much, also saying that businesses are seen as being big enough and ugly enough to take care of themselves, it's the poor little customer that needs the protections.


    Also, with the soft touch Britain that we've got, if you do pursue a claim, you'll have a bunch of bleeding heart Liberal's bleating about how you are the ogre, pursuing innocent people, upsetting their mental health, but what about yours! These Liberals seem to pay no heed to if you can't, or don't want to, pay for it, don't have it done (It's theft in my book)! Therefore, personally, for values below the High Court threshold, I wouldn't even bother.


    The trick is to be fly about the customers you do work for by sniffing out the shysters (which has limitations but is better than nothing), for example, always go and look at the job, and them! detail everything in quotes (I sometime write essays as quotes, but can copy and paste to different quotes, so not that bad), get their consent in writing, on jobs over e.g. £500 get half up front or half way through (written into the contract) - it's not foolproof, but I've found that it can help weed out non-payers as they give off tell-tale signs such as don't want you to see the job first, or don't want to sign things or pay anything up front, or shuffle about when talking to them, or are evasive in specifics saying things like we can focus on that later - you have to sniff them out and be vigilant (I say you, but we all do) it never lets up, let your guard down and you get shafted. As you say, there are some nice people out there but it does pay (pardon the punn) to be cynical.


    We should do what America does and lock 'em up, for what is arguably fraud; a few nights getting three squares a day, Sky TV, an in-house Gym, Sky TV, a snooker table, an Xbox, inside loo (no more slopping out), etc, etc, may make them think about paying. What am I saying, getting all those free luxuries, of course it won't make them pay. 


    F

  • 0
    One of the plumber used to send his wife out debt collecting,  we never did find out what her technique was, but it appeared very effective.
  • 0
    Official gobbledegook sent to me by the Trading Standards Dept.

     

    Supply of service in cancellation period



    36.—(1) The trader must not begin the supply of a service before the end of the cancellation



    period provided for in regulation 30(1) unless the consumer—



    (a) has made an express request, and



    (b) in the case of an off-premises contract, has made the request on a durable medium.



    (2) In the case of a service other than supply of water, gas, electricity or district heating, the



    consumer ceases to have the right to cancel a service contract under regulation 29(1) if the service



    has been fully performed, and performance of the service began—



    (a) after a request by the consumer in accordance with paragraph (1), and



    (b) with the acknowledgement that the consumer would lose that right once the contract had



    been fully performed by the trader.



    (3) Paragraphs (4) to (6) apply where a contract is cancelled under regulation 29(1) and a service



    has been supplied in the cancellation period.



    (4) Where the service is supplied in response to a request in accordance with paragraph (1), the



    consumer must (subject to paragraph (6)) pay to the trader an amount—



    (a) for the supply of the service for the period for which it is supplied, ending with the time



    when the trader is informed of the consumer’s decision to cancel the contract, in



    accordance with regulation 32(2), and



    (b) which is in proportion to what has been supplied, in comparison with the full coverage of



    the contract.



    (5) The amount is to be calculated—



    (a) on the basis of the total price agreed in the contract, or



    (b) if the total price is excessive, on the basis of the market value of the service that has been



    supplied, calculated by comparing prices for equivalent services supplied by other traders.



    (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



    (b) the service is not supplied in response to a request in accordance with paragraph (1).


    Z.


  • 0
    A few years ago, I employed a recommended local builder to carry out an extension, he approached a local plumber to carry out that aspect of the works. The plumber was keen to do work, but only directly for me and not in a sub-contract role. The Plumber’s judgement proved prescient, progress ground to a halt and it became clear that the builder had diverted his energy and some of my money elsewhere, so I dismissed him. He came round a few days later, probably drunk or drugged apparently and smashed a window in retribution. Obviously the police were involved, but he denied responsibility until the very last moment, presumably hoping that the case would collapse, witnesses wouldn’t turn up or similar. A compensation order was made part of the Criminal Damage conviction, but we have never seen a penny.


    We hadn’t signed a formal contract, but he was always cash positive using my money and I paid many of the bills (skips, scaffolding hire, materials, sub-contractors etc) so as far as I was concerned he was a self-employed project manager working for me. Once dismissed he claimed to have contractual entitlements, which I didn’t accept. If I hadn’t cut my losses when I did, then I would have lost many thousands more. It turned out subsequently that he had even conned the local Authority Building Inspector who had trusted him from past experience by whipping out underfloor insulation (to double charge for) at the last minute before pouring the concrete for example, where a wet underfloor heating system was intended.


    Recently a friend and neighbour used another builder who was very contractual and on the whole, good quality and professional, but the cost went way beyond the initial estimate, leaving the customer scrambling to borrow money, as everything became a “variation”. They also have had to employ someone else to fix snags like a leaking upstairs shower ruining ceilings below.  The average householder who probably only does something like this “once in a lifetime” isn’t in a strong position. I had found myself let down by my first choice of builder, who just no-showed having agreed to start work only a week before.   


    This is an example at a much larger scale involving my former company (which wasn’t spelt with a Y in Haden) https://www.building.co.uk/communities/living-in-sin-haden-young-vs-laing-orourke-midlands/3116920.article  The intentions of both parties were honourable throughout and the work was carried out to a good standard, but when the client’s money runs out, before they have what they were promised; then who is willing to “stump up” ?  


  • 0
    Roy,

    Fully agree on the potential problems. For our extension we had an architect/surveyor draw up the plans and then retained him as project manager to oversee the works. It added about 10% to the cost but paid dividends in preventing issues as he made sure the contract was right at the beginning. There were a few variations where we asked for something extra but we were careful and he told us it was the least over-run contract he had been involved in. He also monitored the progress and kept the builder honest (which is not to say he wouldn't have stayed honest anyway). My only issue was the electricians who were competent-ish but wired a two way switch arrangement for two sets of kitchen lights leaving one set two way switched and the other just switched on and off by one of the switches. Their solution involved digging channels up a wall and running extra cables in the underfloor space above. My solution was to tell them to tell them "take one of the switches off, put that wire there, put that wire there, try it"....."oh look, it works!"

    Working for an engineering consultancy our attitude is that the contract is to protect both parties. If the situation ends up in court, nobody wins (except the lawyers). If the customer believes that the price is too high, the solution is not to proceed and then refuse to pay but rather to find somebody else who will do the job within their budget (and best of luck with that) or to discuss with their preferred contractor how the cost can be limited.

    Alasdair
  • 0
    The trouble with this consumer protection malarkey is that noe of the customers expect or want to be told that the electrician will not start work for sixteen days from when they agreed the quote. 


    Customers want and expect an almost instant response from electricians and other trades people with a quote the same day as they call and the job started the same or the next day,  which under consumer protection law takes all the protection that a contract should give away from the trades people and hands the customer the upper hand. 


    Andy 

  • 0

    Sparkingchip:

    Customers want and expect an almost instant response from electricians and other trades people with a quote the same day as they call and the job started the same or the next day,  which under consumer protection law takes all the protection that a contract should give away from the trades people and hands the customer the upper hand. 




    ''Tis the modern way. Daughter expects same day or next day delivery. Whatever happened to patience? ?

Community Rules & Guidelines