customer wont pay

[eggsarascal]

2 minutes ago, felixthelogchopper said:

The argument would be the argument in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, that the 2nd invoice was too late for the OP to rely on its T&C's as it was given after the fact, so denying the customer the chance to reject them. Even if the OP went down the reasonable cost route, how would he prove the extent of the work?

I don't know about Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, so can't comment like, innit.

 

It seems I'm on a sticky wicket. I can't give a customer a price on a job, I can give them my hourly rate, plus travel. On the job I posted earlier the home owner was on holiday with his young'ish daughter calling me. I went ahead and did the job with no agreement on price from the bloke who (hopefully) will pay the bill.

 

I have done work for him before mind.

[felixthelogchopper]

6 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

I don't know about Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, so can't comment like, innit.

 

It seems I'm on a sticky wicket. I can't give a customer a price on a job, I can give them my hourly rate, plus travel. On the job I posted earlier the home owner was on holiday with his young'ish daughter calling me. I went ahead and did the job with no agreement on price from the bloke who (hopefully) will pay the bill.

 

I have done work for him before mind.

If you have done work on an hourly rate for them before then they have a reference point so you would be on safer ground as you are working on an established basis. A thumbnail of the case I named is basically that a company was attempting to rely on T&C's that were only available after the contract was made. Lord Denning upheld that it was unreasonable for them to do so.

[Guest spiderman]

so after a day of varying comments on here about likelihood of winning in court and such, and after me sending multiple texts to said householder about his qualifications in judging the price of tree work or the amount of work involved, and offering lists of costs for the usual, vehicle insurance, work insurance, chainsaw, rope, trousers, boots, helmet (all listed to give him the scale of things) and comments about other local companies agreeing they would stick at least 100 on the original 140, and further commenting on my years of experience, fully insured, qualified, professional, member of AA, mention of the sudden decision to cut down a 20 foot tree, and questioning was he disputing that the work was carried out competently and suitably by the aforementioned experienced qualified etc professional, size of the second tree, that I'm not running a charity, and finally my acceptance to take the matter to small claims court, chummy has turned up at my house with the 200 he offered and peeled another 20 off a large wedge from his pocket and paid the full 220 I offered him 2 days ago as a serious reduction on the 280 I had asked for.

he refused first and was questioning the ability of my groundman to judge on price because he doesnt use a chainsaw, and said take it to court and drove off, then phoned and agreed to come back with the 220 if I issued an receipt for it.

then asks me to come back to cut the stump lower than the 2 foot he specifically requested, which I shall do free of charge at my convenience.

 

long story short, I won, he paid the price I offered 2 days ago after trying to bully me to accept much less.

[Guest spiderman]

oh and for those who mentioned, in my costing of jobs I don't make allowance for travel to job unless well outside of area. neither do i make any charges or draw wages for viewing and pricing jobs or writing up any paperwork for TPOs etc.

yearly costs for various insurances, tax, cover for maintenance of vehicle and equipment, divided to provide weekly and daily income needed, 2 wages on top of that, 2 fuel costs to obtain a daily rate, divided per part of day for job then cost of recycling added varying on amount of waste.

[eggsarascal]

8 minutes ago, Guest spiderman said:

so after a day of varying comments on here about likelihood of winning in court and such, and after me sending multiple texts to said householder about his qualifications in judging the price of tree work or the amount of work involved, and offering lists of costs for the usual, vehicle insurance, work insurance, chainsaw, rope, trousers, boots, helmet (all listed to give him the scale of things) and comments about other local companies agreeing they would stick at least 100 on the original 140, and further commenting on my years of experience, fully insured, qualified, professional, member of AA, mention of the sudden decision to cut down a 20 foot tree, and questioning was he disputing that the work was carried out competently and suitably by the aforementioned experienced qualified etc professional, size of the second tree, that I'm not running a charity, and finally my acceptance to take the matter to small claims court, chummy has turned up at my house with the 200 he offered and peeled another 20 off a large wedge from his pocket and paid the full 220 I offered him 2 days ago as a serious reduction on the 280 I had asked for.

he refused first and was questioning the ability of my groundman to judge on price because he doesnt use a chainsaw, and said take it to court and drove off, then phoned and agreed to come back with the 220 if I issued an receipt for it.

then asks me to come back to cut the stump lower than the 2 foot he specifically requested, which I shall do free of charge at my convenience.

 

long story short, I won, he paid the price I offered 2 days ago after trying to bully me to accept much less.

You won? I'm not sure I follow. He's paid you £220 out of £280, and you're going back to reduce the stumps FOC. Your idea of winning and mine are two totally different things.

[Guest spiderman]

10 minutes ago, eggsarascal said:

You won? I'm not sure I follow. He's paid you £220 out of £280, and you're going back to reduce the stumps FOC. Your idea of winning and mine are two totally different things.

in fairness to my lack of price before starting work on the second tree, and after fair consultation with colleagues, 2 days ago I offered our man a reduced price of 220 total for work, as a good reliable local trader.

the original price was based on just a case of well its the same sorta size tree so its reasonable to throw the same price on it for the additional work involved and extra wages to be paid.

he has spent 2 days arguing his place over 20 quid difference. ive held my ground because 60 quid extra is taking the piss for a second tree, and because he clearly was trying to take the piss.

I was willing to accept 220 2 days ago with no argument.

but had he still refused I would have been pushing in court for the full 280 I initially asked, just cos he being a dick.

I'm going back to reduce the one stump so he cant complain I left it unfinished.

I'm my reasoning he is now left with nothing possible to complain about to anyone about the quality of the work done or my pricing. and he has looked like a dick for 2 days over 20 quid.

[Vespasian]

3 minutes ago, Guest spiderman said:

in fairness to my lack of price before starting work on the second tree, and after fair consultation with colleagues, 2 days ago I offered our man a reduced price of 220 total for work, as a good reliable local trader.

the original price was based on just a case of well its the same sorta size tree so its reasonable to throw the same price on it for the additional work involved and extra wages to be paid.

he has spent 2 days arguing his place over 20 quid difference. ive held my ground because 60 quid extra is taking the piss for a second tree, and because he clearly was trying to take the piss.

I was willing to accept 220 2 days ago with no argument.

but had he still refused I would have been pushing in court for the full 280 I initially asked, just cos he being a dick.

I'm going back to reduce the one stump so he cant complain I left it unfinished.

I'm my reasoning he is now left with nothing possible to complain about to anyone about the quality of the work done or my pricing. and he has looked like a dick for 2 days over 20 quid.

You've got what you should of asked for in the first place, if you'd of said 220 instead of doubling up you more than likely would of been paid on good terms....   in future open your mouth before you think to do any work on trust..  .  

[eggsarascal]

5 minutes ago, Guest spiderman said:

in fairness to my lack of price before starting work on the second tree, and after fair consultation with colleagues, 2 days ago I offered our man a reduced price of 220 total for work, as a good reliable local trader.

the original price was based on just a case of well its the same sorta size tree so its reasonable to throw the same price on it for the additional work involved and extra wages to be paid.

he has spent 2 days arguing his place over 20 quid difference. ive held my ground because 60 quid extra is taking the piss for a second tree, and because he clearly was trying to take the piss.

I was willing to accept 220 2 days ago with no argument.

but had he still refused I would have been pushing in court for the full 280 I initially asked, just cos he being a dick.

I'm going back to reduce the one stump so he cant complain I left it unfinished.

I'm my reasoning he is now left with nothing possible to complain about to anyone about the quality of the work done or my pricing. and he has looked like a dick for 2 days over 20 quid.

Fair enough. I'll give you the draw?

 

Isn't it funny, I worked at a big place yesterday, one of those where the kettle seems permanently broken, not this one, got brews a plenty and a cold glass of juice, and a £20 tip.

 

Funny old world.

[benedmonds]

46 minutes ago, Guest spiderman said:

oh and for those who mentioned, in my costing of jobs I don't make allowance for travel to job unless well outside of area. neither do i make any charges or draw wages for viewing and pricing jobs or writing up any paperwork for TPOs etc.

Well you should... It's part of the job..  

[Guest spiderman]

4 minutes ago, Vespasian said:

You've got what you should of asked for in the first place, if you'd of said 220 instead of doubling up you more than likely would of been paid on good terms....   in future open your mouth before you think to do any work on trust..  .  

no, our man clearly would have argued at 220 and id have come away with much less or gone to court. best price for the two trees should have been 240, in good favour, since we were there, all things considered.

stand-alone the second tree to stump should have been the 140 I said.

best acceptable price if I had been told in advance to make it two trees down not one, would have been worked out at 240 for both.

that's 100 extra for a second tree that meant disruption to the day and another job left undone. hence the extra pricing for cocking up my day on short notice with what was clearly a try at a con.

if he hadn't come straight out and argued blind that the second tree was smaller and that he thought I would do it for like 20 quid, there wouldn't have been the hassle.

hes been arguing for 4 days over the cost and 2 days over the last 20 quid for the offer I gave of 220.

senior member or not ill thank you not to question my pricing or backbone for sticking to a price ive given when someone is clearly asking BOGOF tree services.

my query here was not over my amounts, it was over how I fight my case with not having given him a price in advance.

does he order a pint in the pub and then argue the price because the barman didn't tell him how much before he pulled the pint?

does our man have many years experience of cutting trees and know how much work goes into it and the costs associated?

you employ a professional and you accept the bill at the end of the job.

you cant expect a 20 foot tree to cost less than half the price of a 14 foot tree. everyone else seems to agree on this point.

this being the main basis of my post.