Posted by: Schtum, Glasgow on 11:40am Wed 6 Feb 08
Cases like these only go to highlight just how poor customer service can be within this industry.
However, I am disappointed by the grand-standing by MSP Sandra White...
[quote]GLASGOW SNP MSP Sandra White said: "Factors are faceless bureaucrats with no sense of humanitarian duty.
"They are money-making machines. This is a disgraceful case."[/quote]
Yes, this is a dreadful case, but not all factors can be generalised like this.
If nothing else, this campaign should help the general public sift the good from the bad.
Cases like these only go to highlight just how poor customer service can be within this industry.
However, I am disappointed by the grand-standing by MSP Sandra White...
GLASGOW SNP MSP Sandra White said: "Factors are faceless bureaucrats with no sense of humanitarian duty.
"They are money-making machines. This is a disgraceful case."
Yes, this is a dreadful case, but not all factors can be generalised like this.
If nothing else, this campaign should help the general public sift the good from the bad.
Posted by: glamkitty, Glasgow on 11:57am Wed 6 Feb 08
I do think these factors are despicable and the cases are outrageous - but this comment did strike me:
[bold]The mum-of-four said: "How can you pay that amount of money when you're living on benefits?[/bold]
Er...if you're living on benefits, WTF are you doing spitting out four kids?
I do think these factors are despicable and the cases are outrageous - but this comment did strike me:
The mum-of-four said: "How can you pay that amount of money when you're living on benefits?
Er...if you're living on benefits, WTF are you doing spitting out four kids?
Posted by: Luke Watson, Glasgow on 12:00pm Wed 6 Feb 08
With regards the above owners at properties, I regalarly make payments towards my bill and I don't receive any late payment charges and or the interst charges on my account.
It seems that only defaulting owners that do not pay their bills have the admin charges applied.
I would rather this method than paying a substantial float to a factor to cover defaulting co-proprietors. Walker Sandford do not charge me a float.
The article appears to be focused on bad debtors rather than actual services provided by the factor.
With regards the above owners at properties, I regalarly make payments towards my bill and I don't receive any late payment charges and or the interst charges on my account.
It seems that only defaulting owners that do not pay their bills have the admin charges applied.
I would rather this method than paying a substantial float to a factor to cover defaulting co-proprietors. Walker Sandford do not charge me a float.
The article appears to be focused on bad debtors rather than actual services provided by the factor.
Posted by: glamkitty, Glasgow on 12:08pm Wed 6 Feb 08
My building self-factors. We have an account we contribute to monthly, and when work needs doing, we all meet up to discuss and agree it. Very rarely do we have to add anything to the existing account to cover the work. It works perfectly for us, I dont know why more people dont do it.
The only problem we actually have ever had, is that one flat is rented out of the eight, and the landlord keeps refusing to pay, saying the work 'isnt necessary'.
Youll be amazed to hear, he is a partner in one of the city's largest property management/factoring firms.
My building self-factors. We have an account we contribute to monthly, and when work needs doing, we all meet up to discuss and agree it. Very rarely do we have to add anything to the existing account to cover the work. It works perfectly for us, I dont know why more people dont do it.
The only problem we actually have ever had, is that one flat is rented out of the eight, and the landlord keeps refusing to pay, saying the work 'isnt necessary'.
Youll be amazed to hear, he is a partner in one of the city's largest property management/factoring firms.
Posted by: Schtum, Glasgow on 12:14pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]Luke Watson wrote: The article appears to be focused on bad debtors rather than actual services provided by the factor.[/quote]
True, but there is also an element of disproportionate charges applied to late payment.
This is something that has to be addressed quite urgently.
Luke Watson wrote: The article appears to be focused on bad debtors rather than actual services provided by the factor.
True, but there is also an element of disproportionate charges applied to late payment.
This is something that has to be addressed quite urgently.
Posted by: Southsider, Glasgow on 12:44pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Glasgow's factors with a few honorable exceptions, are lazy and greedy. Owners distrust them because of the high charges and doubtful workmanship - that's where the problems stem from. If there is no trust then there can never be any working relationship. Walker Sandford who are a recent entrant to the factoring business - and do not belong to a professional organisation will undoubtedly live to regret their approach.
Glasgow's factors with a few honorable exceptions, are lazy and greedy. Owners distrust them because of the high charges and doubtful workmanship - that's where the problems stem from. If there is no trust then there can never be any working relationship. Walker Sandford who are a recent entrant to the factoring business - and do not belong to a professional organisation will undoubtedly live to regret their approach.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 12:47pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]glamkitty[/bold] wrote:
I do think these factors are despicable and the cases are outrageous - but this comment did strike me: [bold]The mum-of-four said: "How can you pay that amount of money when you're living on benefits?[/bold] Er...if you're living on benefits, WTF are you doing spitting out four kids?[/quote]
Glamkitty,
People circumstances can change over time - and it is easy to judge or criticise why someone is having 4 kids.
Whether they have 4 or 44 kids is besides the point - without the full facts - who are any of us to judge what life choices others make.
Life is not just black and white - and nothing stays the same.
Anyway, look at the parents with full time jobs, wages and a good house - do their kids always turn out well . . . .
Err - I don't think so.
Spoilt, arrogant brats. With parents who are too busy working to take care of them.
Throwing money at kids does not make them turn out well.
So, if anything - being brought up with far less does kids good - as far too many think money grows on trees!
As for Factors, schtum, you are right to a point, but many people are far less clued up on their factors role, what rights they have and how they go about complaining.
Simply having the time to switch factors, and the inconvenience that causes in the short term is a problem for alot of people.
And, finally - until we have standardised bills for services from factors which are calculated or at least set by the Scottish Parliament - the discrepances and variations will continue to be an unneccessary evil of facors today.
glamkitty wrote:
I do think these factors are despicable and the cases are outrageous - but this comment did strike me: The mum-of-four said: "How can you pay that amount of money when you're living on benefits? Er...if you're living on benefits, WTF are you doing spitting out four kids?
Glamkitty,
People circumstances can change over time - and it is easy to judge or criticise why someone is having 4 kids.
Whether they have 4 or 44 kids is besides the point - without the full facts - who are any of us to judge what life choices others make.
Life is not just black and white - and nothing stays the same.
Anyway, look at the parents with full time jobs, wages and a good house - do their kids always turn out well . . . .
Err - I don't think so.
Spoilt, arrogant brats. With parents who are too busy working to take care of them.
Throwing money at kids does not make them turn out well.
So, if anything - being brought up with far less does kids good - as far too many think money grows on trees!
As for Factors, schtum, you are right to a point, but many people are far less clued up on their factors role, what rights they have and how they go about complaining.
Simply having the time to switch factors, and the inconvenience that causes in the short term is a problem for alot of people.
And, finally - until we have standardised bills for services from factors which are calculated or at least set by the Scottish Parliament - the discrepances and variations will continue to be an unneccessary evil of facors today.
Posted by: Biffo the bear, beano town on 1:10pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?.
Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger..
Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.
Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?.
Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger..
Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.
Posted by: Factor1, Glasgow on 1:16pm Wed 6 Feb 08
If this entire debate (and the subsequent Bill to enforce regulation on factors) narrows to the charging for late payment of debtors' accounts it will be unfortunate. The ultimate result in this case will be very simple - those who do pay their bills on time will be forced to shoulder the costs applicable for those who do not. Alternatively, no maintenance work will be instructed and the property concerned will be degraded to a slum. I would definitely prefer that debtors are pursued directly by whatever means rather than me footing their bills.
The cases mentioned today have clearly been selected for their sensationalist value. Letting the true global picture get in the way of the story clearly is not the way neither the newspaper nor the solicitor quoted operate.
Now, if the debate is broadened to include the transparency of the practice of, for example, charging floats which accrue interest for the factor or the provision of insurances which give the factor a commission, we may be getting somewhere. Next time you contact your factor ask him why he charges you a float and why when you sell your flat you will only (if you are lucky) get the same amount back. Has he kept it in an office drawer all this time? The gentleman from Newton Property Management quoted yesterday advises he factors 4000 properties. Assuming he charges a float, how much of his clients’ money do you think he is holding and earning interest on that his clients will never see - £800K - £1M? Who knows? If he is as keen as he says to have this regulation applied, he will be only to willing to divulge this information.
Do not permit the vested interests to hi-jack this debate or we will all suffer.
If this entire debate (and the subsequent Bill to enforce regulation on factors) narrows to the charging for late payment of debtors' accounts it will be unfortunate. The ultimate result in this case will be very simple - those who do pay their bills on time will be forced to shoulder the costs applicable for those who do not. Alternatively, no maintenance work will be instructed and the property concerned will be degraded to a slum. I would definitely prefer that debtors are pursued directly by whatever means rather than me footing their bills.
The cases mentioned today have clearly been selected for their sensationalist value. Letting the true global picture get in the way of the story clearly is not the way neither the newspaper nor the solicitor quoted operate.
Now, if the debate is broadened to include the transparency of the practice of, for example, charging floats which accrue interest for the factor or the provision of insurances which give the factor a commission, we may be getting somewhere. Next time you contact your factor ask him why he charges you a float and why when you sell your flat you will only (if you are lucky) get the same amount back. Has he kept it in an office drawer all this time? The gentleman from Newton Property Management quoted yesterday advises he factors 4000 properties. Assuming he charges a float, how much of his clients’ money do you think he is holding and earning interest on that his clients will never see - £800K - £1M? Who knows? If he is as keen as he says to have this regulation applied, he will be only to willing to divulge this information.
Do not permit the vested interests to hi-jack this debate or we will all suffer.
Posted by: daz, glasgow on 1:17pm Wed 6 Feb 08
biffo
aye cos people don't get electrocuted whilst changing light bulbs do they? quick search of the media will highlight numerous cases.
betcha feel a right plonker now.....
biffo
aye cos people don't get electrocuted whilst changing light bulbs do they? quick search of the media will highlight numerous cases.
betcha feel a right plonker now.....
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 1:21pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]glamkitty[/bold] wrote:
My building self-factors. We have an account we contribute to monthly, and when work needs doing, we all meet up to discuss and agree it. Very rarely do we have to add anything to the existing account to cover the work. It works perfectly for us, I dont know why more people dont do it. The only problem we actually have ever had, is that one flat is rented out of the eight, and the landlord keeps refusing to pay, saying the work 'isnt necessary'. Youll be amazed to hear, he is a partner in one of the city's largest property management/factoring firms. [/quote]
In response to Factor1's gobbledeegook, and guff,
I quote Glamkittys earlier post which for once, I actually agree with!
Why not have people being more pro-active, and being their own factors - cut out the middle man, and stop this ridiculous overcharging.
People have enough worries, and things to spend their money on - without the crap of such exorbitant Facors bills.
glamkitty wrote:
My building self-factors. We have an account we contribute to monthly, and when work needs doing, we all meet up to discuss and agree it. Very rarely do we have to add anything to the existing account to cover the work. It works perfectly for us, I dont know why more people dont do it. The only problem we actually have ever had, is that one flat is rented out of the eight, and the landlord keeps refusing to pay, saying the work 'isnt necessary'. Youll be amazed to hear, he is a partner in one of the city's largest property management/factoring firms.
In response to Factor1's gobbledeegook, and guff,
I quote Glamkittys earlier post which for once, I actually agree with!
Why not have people being more pro-active, and being their own factors - cut out the middle man, and stop this ridiculous overcharging.
People have enough worries, and things to spend their money on - without the crap of such exorbitant Facors bills.
Posted by: Schtum, Glasgow on 1:33pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]Why not have people being more pro-active, and being their own factors - cut out the middle man, and stop this ridiculous overcharging.
People have enough worries, and things to spend their money on - without the crap of such exorbitant Factors bills.[/quote] Because people are inherently lazy...
And there will always be people who do not want to contribute for the common good.
Whilst I admire your optimism, I can't really agree with your position.
Far, far better to find a trustworthy factor who recognises that they are working FOR you than for themselves.
Why not have people being more pro-active, and being their own factors - cut out the middle man, and stop this ridiculous overcharging.
People have enough worries, and things to spend their money on - without the crap of such exorbitant Factors bills.
Because people are inherently lazy...
And there will always be people who do not want to contribute for the common good.
Whilst I admire your optimism, I can't really agree with your position.
Far, far better to find a trustworthy factor who recognises that they are working FOR you than for themselves.
Posted by: People Power, Glasgow on 1:37pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Sadly Schtum,
These are one a penny! And few and far between.
Just, as with our distrustworthy Politiciansm What they say and what they do are two different things.
And, I am still of the belief that until they are given far stricter codes of conduct and pricing structures, from our MSP's which they all must adhere to they will continue to be no more than a bunch of cowboys and rip off merchants!
Factors = Con Artists = FACT!
Sadly Schtum,
These are one a penny! And few and far between.
Just, as with our distrustworthy Politiciansm What they say and what they do are two different things.
And, I am still of the belief that until they are given far stricter codes of conduct and pricing structures, from our MSP's which they all must adhere to they will continue to be no more than a bunch of cowboys and rip off merchants!
Factors = Con Artists = FACT!
Posted by: Pete, Glasgow on 1:38pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Despite your thoughts on Factors (and mine are unprintable, as I used to be factored by GHA... idiots), this guy has been sitting on this issue for years. This guy seems to ignored the debt and hoped that it would go away. I don't agree with the factor's charging policy but this guy hasn't helped. I'm sure that the advice of Govan Law Centre - regradles sof how debt has been accrued - would be to stand up to your position and be proactive in dealing with your debt.
Despite your thoughts on Factors (and mine are unprintable, as I used to be factored by GHA... idiots), this guy has been sitting on this issue for years. This guy seems to ignored the debt and hoped that it would go away. I don't agree with the factor's charging policy but this guy hasn't helped. I'm sure that the advice of Govan Law Centre - regradles sof how debt has been accrued - would be to stand up to your position and be proactive in dealing with your debt.
Posted by: Schtum, Glasgow on 1:52pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]And, I am still of the belief that until they are given far stricter codes of conduct and pricing structures, from our MSP's which they all must adhere to they will continue to be no more than a bunch of cowboys and rip off merchants![/quote]I think that we can both agree there...
Although I would prefer to use "chancers". ;-)
And they'll continue to get away with as much as they can until someone takes the time to challenge them as an industry and not on a one to one, case by case basis.
I'm kind of draw to the Rate Your Factor concept... Their website is a bit amateurish, but the idea has merit.
A league table of top and bottom performers to inform the public at large.
And, I am still of the belief that until they are given far stricter codes of conduct and pricing structures, from our MSP's which they all must adhere to they will continue to be no more than a bunch of cowboys and rip off merchants!
I think that we can both agree there...
Although I would prefer to use "chancers". ;-)
And they'll continue to get away with as much as they can until someone takes the time to challenge them as an industry and not on a one to one, case by case basis.
I'm kind of draw to the Rate Your Factor concept... Their website is a bit amateurish, but the idea has merit.
A league table of top and bottom performers to inform the public at large.
Posted by: Pete, Glasgow on 1:59pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]mikedailly[/bold] wrote:
[Far, far better to find a trustworthy factor who recognises that they are working FOR you than for themselves.] This is all well and good, if the YOU in question are paying your accounts and funding necessary works, and even if YOU do, what if the fellow who lets the 2 bedroom flat upstairs to 6 students is not paying his share. Do you accept the additional cost of covering the defaulting owners share, or complain that your lazy factor will not do the work you need done, or sympathise if that same individual gets sued to protect both your property and (obviously) the financial position of the “greedy” factor. [/quote] Is this a hypothetical point, or the detail missing from this story?
Always easier for ET to draw on the emotive rather than all that awkward fact stuff that needs to be researched.
mikedailly wrote:
This is all well and good, if the YOU in question are paying your accounts and funding necessary works, and even if YOU do, what if the fellow who lets the 2 bedroom flat upstairs to 6 students is not paying his share. Do you accept the additional cost of covering the defaulting owners share, or complain that your lazy factor will not do the work you need done, or sympathise if that same individual gets sued to protect both your property and (obviously) the financial position of the “greedy” factor.
Is this a hypothetical point, or the detail missing from this story?
Always easier for ET to draw on the emotive rather than all that awkward fact stuff that needs to be researched.
Posted by: Captain Sensible, Glasgow on 2:01pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Factor1 I'm watching this debate with interest and I agree with your points about the Factor going after just the people who owe money rather than asking you to pay for them.
However you seem misinformed about the purpose of the Factors Float. Having looked at this in detail before, I understand the purpose of the float to be a working cash fund which is used to pay for repairs and it replaces a system of being charged an `estimated bill` in advance.
The float is therefore not a deposit as such.
The majority of Factors charge accounts in arrears and as such you will only be billed for actual repairs incurred. It is therefore unfair to assume that the Factor would be getting interest on Floats as this is not their purpose. They are there to be spent by the Factor and topped back up once you ( hopefully ) when you pay your bill.
Hope thats of interest!!!
Factor1 I'm watching this debate with interest and I agree with your points about the Factor going after just the people who owe money rather than asking you to pay for them.
However you seem misinformed about the purpose of the Factors Float. Having looked at this in detail before, I understand the purpose of the float to be a working cash fund which is used to pay for repairs and it replaces a system of being charged an `estimated bill` in advance.
The float is therefore not a deposit as such.
The majority of Factors charge accounts in arrears and as such you will only be billed for actual repairs incurred. It is therefore unfair to assume that the Factor would be getting interest on Floats as this is not their purpose. They are there to be spent by the Factor and topped back up once you ( hopefully ) when you pay your bill.
Hope thats of interest!!!
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 2:04pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]I would rather this method than paying a substantial float to a factor to cover defaulting co-proprietors. Walker Sandford do not charge me a float.[/quote]
My factor takes a £50 float and while I would prefer not to have to pay it I wouldn't describe it as "substantial"
Walker Sandford have a horrendous reputation - there were other cases highlighted on the BBC programme a few weeks ago. The scale of the charges that they are adding are outrageous.
In certain situations factors are a necessary evil. Self-factoring is obviously a far preferable option for a tenement close where [bold]all[/bold] the owners are reasonable people and happy to pay their share of necessary maintenace. For large developments (especially with communal gardens) and even more especially with a significant proportion of flats that are permanently rented out, it's not an option.
I would rather this method than paying a substantial float to a factor to cover defaulting co-proprietors. Walker Sandford do not charge me a float.
My factor takes a £50 float and while I would prefer not to have to pay it I wouldn't describe it as "substantial"
Walker Sandford have a horrendous reputation - there were other cases highlighted on the BBC programme a few weeks ago. The scale of the charges that they are adding are outrageous.
In certain situations factors are a necessary evil. Self-factoring is obviously a far preferable option for a tenement close where
all the owners are reasonable people and happy to pay their share of necessary maintenace. For large developments (especially with communal gardens) and even more especially with a significant proportion of flats that are permanently rented out, it's not an option.
Posted by: Mr Angry, Glasgow on 2:05pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Factor1[/bold] wrote:
If this entire debate (and the subsequent Bill to enforce regulation on factors) narrows to the charging for late payment of debtors' accounts it will be unfortunate. The ultimate result in this case will be very simple - those who do pay their bills on time will be forced to shoulder the costs applicable for those who do not. Alternatively, no maintenance work will be instructed and the property concerned will be degraded to a slum. I would definitely prefer that debtors are pursued directly by whatever means rather than me footing their bills. The cases mentioned today have clearly been selected for their sensationalist value. Letting the true global picture get in the way of the story clearly is not the way neither the newspaper nor the solicitor quoted operate. Now, if the debate is broadened to include the transparency of the practice of, for example, charging floats which accrue interest for the factor or the provision of insurances which give the factor a commission, we may be getting somewhere. Next time you contact your factor ask him why he charges you a float and why when you sell your flat you will only (if you are lucky) get the same amount back. Has he kept it in an office drawer all this time? The gentleman from Newton Property Management quoted yesterday advises he factors 4000 properties. Assuming he charges a float, how much of his clients’ money do you think he is holding and earning interest on that his clients will never see - £800K - £1M? Who knows? If he is as keen as he says to have this regulation applied, he will be only to willing to divulge this information. Do not permit the vested interests to hi-jack this debate or we will all suffer. [/quote] "vested interests", "hi-jack this debate"....
So, in the biggest incident I have with my factor when they wanted £220 for a job that cost £110 when I arranged it myself. Is this good practise or just another day at the office for you?
Most people accept the fact that a Factor assist in getting everyone to pay, but there are too many instances of when the factor overcharges. The case I point out isn't the only one I have but its the biggest in terms of cash value. When I challenged the factor on it they stated that this was the cheapest quote they received. As far as they were concerned the matter ended there - discussion over. That was their story and they were sticking to it...
Should I have charged the factor £110 for arranging this repair myself? Or am I just oversensitive in thinking that if a job costs £110 then maybe thats what I should be paying?
Factor1 wrote:
If this entire debate (and the subsequent Bill to enforce regulation on factors) narrows to the charging for late payment of debtors' accounts it will be unfortunate. The ultimate result in this case will be very simple - those who do pay their bills on time will be forced to shoulder the costs applicable for those who do not. Alternatively, no maintenance work will be instructed and the property concerned will be degraded to a slum. I would definitely prefer that debtors are pursued directly by whatever means rather than me footing their bills. The cases mentioned today have clearly been selected for their sensationalist value. Letting the true global picture get in the way of the story clearly is not the way neither the newspaper nor the solicitor quoted operate. Now, if the debate is broadened to include the transparency of the practice of, for example, charging floats which accrue interest for the factor or the provision of insurances which give the factor a commission, we may be getting somewhere. Next time you contact your factor ask him why he charges you a float and why when you sell your flat you will only (if you are lucky) get the same amount back. Has he kept it in an office drawer all this time? The gentleman from Newton Property Management quoted yesterday advises he factors 4000 properties. Assuming he charges a float, how much of his clients’ money do you think he is holding and earning interest on that his clients will never see - £800K - £1M? Who knows? If he is as keen as he says to have this regulation applied, he will be only to willing to divulge this information. Do not permit the vested interests to hi-jack this debate or we will all suffer.
"vested interests", "hi-jack this debate"....
So, in the biggest incident I have with my factor when they wanted £220 for a job that cost £110 when I arranged it myself. Is this good practise or just another day at the office for you?
Most people accept the fact that a Factor assist in getting everyone to pay, but there are too many instances of when the factor overcharges. The case I point out isn't the only one I have but its the biggest in terms of cash value. When I challenged the factor on it they stated that this was the cheapest quote they received. As far as they were concerned the matter ended there - discussion over. That was their story and they were sticking to it...
Should I have charged the factor £110 for arranging this repair myself? Or am I just oversensitive in thinking that if a job costs £110 then maybe thats what I should be paying?
Posted by: cowantona, glasgow on 2:11pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Luke Watson[/bold] wrote:
With regards the above owners at properties, I regalarly make payments towards my bill and I don't receive any late payment charges and or the interst charges on my account. It seems that only defaulting owners that do not pay their bills have the admin charges applied. I would rather this method than paying a substantial float to a factor to cover defaulting co-proprietors. Walker Sandford do not charge me a float. The article appears to be focused on bad debtors rather than actual services provided by the factor.[/quote] Some people obviously don't pay bills. In my case I was charged additional money after paying the bill in full. I hadn't defaulted on anything and now face a bill of £1600, which is all admin/interest etc. They even refuse to accept my mgt fees as an excuse to apply even more charges. So its not just defaulters.
Luke Watson wrote:
With regards the above owners at properties, I regalarly make payments towards my bill and I don't receive any late payment charges and or the interst charges on my account. It seems that only defaulting owners that do not pay their bills have the admin charges applied. I would rather this method than paying a substantial float to a factor to cover defaulting co-proprietors. Walker Sandford do not charge me a float. The article appears to be focused on bad debtors rather than actual services provided by the factor.
Some people obviously don't pay bills. In my case I was charged additional money after paying the bill in full. I hadn't defaulted on anything and now face a bill of £1600, which is all admin/interest etc. They even refuse to accept my mgt fees as an excuse to apply even more charges. So its not just defaulters.
Posted by: Factor1, Glasgow on 2:27pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Captain Sensible[/bold] wrote:
Factor1 I'm watching this debate with interest and I agree with your points about the Factor going after just the people who owe money rather than asking you to pay for them. However you seem misinformed about the purpose of the Factors Float. Having looked at this in detail before, I understand the purpose of the float to be a working cash fund which is used to pay for repairs and it replaces a system of being charged an `estimated bill` in advance. The float is therefore not a deposit as such. The majority of Factors charge accounts in arrears and as such you will only be billed for actual repairs incurred. It is therefore unfair to assume that the Factor would be getting interest on Floats as this is not their purpose. They are there to be spent by the Factor and topped back up once you ( hopefully ) when you pay your bill. Hope thats of interest!!![/quote] Whatever purpose you think the float is supposed to serve, I suggest you are being naïve if you think the factor is not earning interest on a substantial sum of money.
Captain Sensible wrote:
Factor1 I'm watching this debate with interest and I agree with your points about the Factor going after just the people who owe money rather than asking you to pay for them. However you seem misinformed about the purpose of the Factors Float. Having looked at this in detail before, I understand the purpose of the float to be a working cash fund which is used to pay for repairs and it replaces a system of being charged an `estimated bill` in advance. The float is therefore not a deposit as such. The majority of Factors charge accounts in arrears and as such you will only be billed for actual repairs incurred. It is therefore unfair to assume that the Factor would be getting interest on Floats as this is not their purpose. They are there to be spent by the Factor and topped back up once you ( hopefully ) when you pay your bill. Hope thats of interest!!!
Whatever purpose you think the float is supposed to serve, I suggest you are being naïve if you think the factor is not earning interest on a substantial sum of money.
Posted by: Southsider, Glasgow on 2:32pm Wed 6 Feb 08
I queried a bill with Walker Sandford so didn't pay it- it turned out THEY had made a mistake. They didn't respond to queries, just piled on penalty charges and interest. Every time I tried to speak their staff they were rude, unhelpful and boorish - defnitely a bully-boy operation. We threw them out and now have a great firm who work WITH us, not against us. Where can we name and shame - and also post the GOOD stories. It's not all bad - it's just that the bad ones are truly awful.
I queried a bill with Walker Sandford so didn't pay it- it turned out THEY had made a mistake. They didn't respond to queries, just piled on penalty charges and interest. Every time I tried to speak their staff they were rude, unhelpful and boorish - defnitely a bully-boy operation. We threw them out and now have a great firm who work WITH us, not against us. Where can we name and shame - and also post the GOOD stories. It's not all bad - it's just that the bad ones are truly awful.
Posted by: Captain Sensible, Glasgow on 2:36pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Hi Factor 1,
Interest may well be earned by the Factor on float money, however dont you think that the Factor looses an equal amount of interest on money that he is always using to pay out for repairs?
Our Factor has explained that the Float he holds is roughly equal to one quarter of the annual charges and he bills four times a year.
Do the maths!!
Hope thats of interest!!
Hi Factor 1,
Interest may well be earned by the Factor on float money, however dont you think that the Factor looses an equal amount of interest on money that he is always using to pay out for repairs?
Our Factor has explained that the Float he holds is roughly equal to one quarter of the annual charges and he bills four times a year.
Do the maths!!
Hope thats of interest!!
Posted by: wattaj, Glasgow on 2:41pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]Where can we name and shame - and also post the GOOD stories.[/quote]Emmm...
Might I make so bold as to suggest... [bold]www.RateYourFactor.c
o.uk[/bold]
Totally shameless plug. 8-)
Where can we name and shame - and also post the GOOD stories.
Emmm...
Might I make so bold as to suggest...
www.RateYourFactor.c
o.uk
Totally shameless plug. 8-)
Posted by: wattaj, Glasgow on 2:44pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]A league table of top and bottom performers to inform the public at large.[/quote]Thanks for your support Schtum.
We're working on it and will try to get enough information to put something like this together.
A league table of top and bottom performers to inform the public at large.
Thanks for your support Schtum.
We're working on it and will try to get enough information to put something like this together.
Posted by: Factor1, Glasgow on 2:59pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Captain Sensible[/bold] wrote:
Hi Factor 1, Interest may well be earned by the Factor on float money, however dont you think that the Factor looses an equal amount of interest on money that he is always using to pay out for repairs? Our Factor has explained that the Float he holds is roughly equal to one quarter of the annual charges and he bills four times a year. Do the maths!! Hope thats of interest!![/quote] We will agree to differ on this one.
However, unless the ‘hidden income’(interest on floats, commissions, kickbacks etc.) generated by factors is fully exposed as part of the proposed regulation I can assure you the result will not be beneficial to the average proprietor.
Captain Sensible wrote:
Hi Factor 1, Interest may well be earned by the Factor on float money, however dont you think that the Factor looses an equal amount of interest on money that he is always using to pay out for repairs? Our Factor has explained that the Float he holds is roughly equal to one quarter of the annual charges and he bills four times a year. Do the maths!! Hope thats of interest!!
We will agree to differ on this one.
However, unless the ‘hidden income’(interest on floats, commissions, kickbacks etc.) generated by factors is fully exposed as part of the proposed regulation I can assure you the result will not be beneficial to the average proprietor.
Posted by: Lowflo, Glasgow on 3:26pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Factors! Today, my aunt, who is housebound is trying to get someone to assist her. There is water leaking into my Aunt's Bathroom from upstairs. Again! The Block insurance, via GHA is already invoked because this leakage of water was first noticed started in October last year. Since then the upstairs neighbour has apparently had a plumber out who charged her £100 and who told her there was nothing wrong. The facctors GHA say it is nothing to do with them as they are no longer council tenants. However today, my Aunt also received the letter from GHA detailing the compulsory repairs which they are going to force on the ex Council Tenants. What is the point of these expensive (needless) maintenance if the inside of the building is falling down and the insurance and the Factors wont do anything to help. [bold]Why pay them any money at all? The suggestion has been made that my Aunt gets her own Plumber ! What For? he'd need to break into someone else's property.[/bold]
Factors! Today, my aunt, who is housebound is trying to get someone to assist her. There is water leaking into my Aunt's Bathroom from upstairs. Again! The Block insurance, via GHA is already invoked because this leakage of water was first noticed started in October last year. Since then the upstairs neighbour has apparently had a plumber out who charged her £100 and who told her there was nothing wrong. The facctors GHA say it is nothing to do with them as they are no longer council tenants. However today, my Aunt also received the letter from GHA detailing the compulsory repairs which they are going to force on the ex Council Tenants. What is the point of these expensive (needless) maintenance if the inside of the building is falling down and the insurance and the Factors wont do anything to help.
Why pay them any money at all? The suggestion has been made that my Aunt gets her own Plumber ! What For? he'd need to break into someone else's property. Posted by: Southsider, Glasgow on 3:40pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]wattaj[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Where can we name and shame - and also post the GOOD stories.[/quote]Emmm... Might I make so bold as to suggest... [bold]www.RateYourFactor.c o.uk[/bold] Totally shameless plug. 8-) [/quote] Thanks wattaj - very difficult to register. I've got stuck! But a very good idea though if it can be made easier to use!
wattaj wrote:
Where can we name and shame - and also post the GOOD stories.
Emmm... Might I make so bold as to suggest... www.RateYourFactor.c o.uk Totally shameless plug. 8-)
Thanks wattaj - very difficult to register. I've got stuck! But a very good idea though if it can be made easier to use!
Posted by: wattaj, Glasgow on 3:50pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote]Very difficult to register. I've got stuck![/quote]Sorry Southsider... We realise that registration is an issue and we're working on making this easier.
Could you email "[bold]factor@rateyourfacto
r.co.uk[/bold] " with the difficulties that you've had?
Cheers.
Very difficult to register. I've got stuck!
Sorry Southsider... We realise that registration is an issue and we're working on making this easier.
Could you email "
factor@rateyourfacto
r.co.uk " with the difficulties that you've had?
Cheers.
Posted by: stephensimmons, Glagow on 4:01pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Biffo the bear[/bold] wrote:
Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.[/quote] yah dobber? i think that says it all about the kind of mentality you have - once again i have stated if a light bulb needs changed an owner can do it themselves. if they phone up and ask the factor or anyone else to do it then surely an electrician must be called out. I dont get a doctor to put a plaster on my finger but if i went to a private one and asked them to do so, i wouldnt complain that it then cost me. I am honestly amazed that you cant understand this concept. Please seek help.
Biffo the bear wrote:
Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.
yah dobber? i think that says it all about the kind of mentality you have - once again i have stated if a light bulb needs changed an owner can do it themselves. if they phone up and ask the factor or anyone else to do it then surely an electrician must be called out. I dont get a doctor to put a plaster on my finger but if i went to a private one and asked them to do so, i wouldnt complain that it then cost me. I am honestly amazed that you cant understand this concept. Please seek help.
Posted by: uncle ben, glasgow on 4:12pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Every customer of a factor should please note that they cannot charge an unreasonable amount for administration or service fees etc, on top of the repair bill. This is unlawful and any "fee" should be fully transparent and reflect the factors actual costs. Note that this is a similar principle to Bank Charge penalties which are currently the subject of a High Court Test Case.
The impact of the unlawful administration charges on top of possibly inflated repair costs when combined with added compound interest charges is not legally sustainable and need not be paid, assuming you challenge it.
Every customer of a factor should please note that they cannot charge an unreasonable amount for administration or service fees etc, on top of the repair bill. This is unlawful and any "fee" should be fully transparent and reflect the factors actual costs. Note that this is a similar principle to Bank Charge penalties which are currently the subject of a High Court Test Case.
The impact of the unlawful administration charges on top of possibly inflated repair costs when combined with added compound interest charges is not legally sustainable and need not be paid, assuming you challenge it.
Posted by: uncle ben, glasgow on 4:18pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Lowflo
Convene a close meeting and if you have a majority of owners who want change, then you can switch factors. That way, it is possible to ditch GHA, particularly in cottage types and tenements.
Due notice must be given of the intention to hold the meeting and the proper procedures must be followed, but it is easy to do!! What are you waiting for!! Good Luck!!
Lowflo
Convene a close meeting and if you have a majority of owners who want change, then you can switch factors. That way, it is possible to ditch GHA, particularly in cottage types and tenements.
Due notice must be given of the intention to hold the meeting and the proper procedures must be followed, but it is easy to do!! What are you waiting for!! Good Luck!!
Posted by: greenie, Glasgow on 4:18pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]stephensimmons[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Biffo the bear[/bold] wrote: Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.[/quote] yah dobber? i think that says it all about the kind of mentality you have - once again i have stated if a light bulb needs changed an owner can do it themselves. if they phone up and ask the factor or anyone else to do it then surely an electrician must be called out. I dont get a doctor to put a plaster on my finger but if i went to a private one and asked them to do so, i wouldnt complain that it then cost me. I am honestly amazed that you cant understand this concept. Please seek help.[/quote] Mr Simmons - you are clearly a factor or work for one, it would be helpful for you to disclose so if that is the case, in the interest of fairness? Fairness is perhaps a concept alien to too many factors.
As to light bulbs, can I suggest a simple handyman. You do not need to be a qualified sparkie to change a light bulb in law or practice - if that were so, no-one in Scotland could change a bulb without an electrician and we would all be in dark I fear.
As to Walker Sandford, they would appear to operate without a scintilla of moral fibre, decency or ethics. They refuse to be sacked by their customers so they can keep on adding penalty charges every single week. That is a form of exploitation and the Evening Times is to congratulating on exposing this vile practice. I doubt if any other factors in Scotland operate like Walker Sandford?
stephensimmons wrote:
Biffo the bear wrote: Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.
yah dobber? i think that says it all about the kind of mentality you have - once again i have stated if a light bulb needs changed an owner can do it themselves. if they phone up and ask the factor or anyone else to do it then surely an electrician must be called out. I dont get a doctor to put a plaster on my finger but if i went to a private one and asked them to do so, i wouldnt complain that it then cost me. I am honestly amazed that you cant understand this concept. Please seek help.
Mr Simmons - you are clearly a factor or work for one, it would be helpful for you to disclose so if that is the case, in the interest of fairness? Fairness is perhaps a concept alien to too many factors.
As to light bulbs, can I suggest a simple handyman. You do not need to be a qualified sparkie to change a light bulb in law or practice - if that were so, no-one in Scotland could change a bulb without an electrician and we would all be in dark I fear.
As to Walker Sandford, they would appear to operate without a scintilla of moral fibre, decency or ethics. They refuse to be sacked by their customers so they can keep on adding penalty charges every single week. That is a form of exploitation and the Evening Times is to congratulating on exposing this vile practice. I doubt if any other factors in Scotland operate like Walker Sandford?
Posted by: stephensimmons, Glagow on 4:36pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Greenie - so everyone who does not agree with the article are factors or work for factors? I agree a handyman would be an ideal solution but I would imagine that they would not respond to a call to change a lightbulb without charging hourly rate, call out fee, materials etc unless they actually lived on the estate. I doubt that either a handyman would do this or that the price would be much different to a trade.
I agree that the practice mentioned in the article is deplorable and would not in any way agree with it. While i agree the ET should highlight such matters I dont think that balanced reporting should be thrown out of the window.
Greenie - so everyone who does not agree with the article are factors or work for factors? I agree a handyman would be an ideal solution but I would imagine that they would not respond to a call to change a lightbulb without charging hourly rate, call out fee, materials etc unless they actually lived on the estate. I doubt that either a handyman would do this or that the price would be much different to a trade.
I agree that the practice mentioned in the article is deplorable and would not in any way agree with it. While i agree the ET should highlight such matters I dont think that balanced reporting should be thrown out of the window.
Posted by: Biffo the bear, beano town on 4:36pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]greenie[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]stephensimmons[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Biffo the bear[/bold] wrote: Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.[/quote] yah dobber? i think that says it all about the kind of mentality you have - once again i have stated if a light bulb needs changed an owner can do it themselves. if they phone up and ask the factor or anyone else to do it then surely an electrician must be called out. I dont get a doctor to put a plaster on my finger but if i went to a private one and asked them to do so, i wouldnt complain that it then cost me. I am honestly amazed that you cant understand this concept. Please seek help.[/quote] Mr Simmons - you are clearly a factor or work for one, it would be helpful for you to disclose so if that is the case, in the interest of fairness? Fairness is perhaps a concept alien to too many factors.
As to light bulbs, can I suggest a simple handyman. You do not need to be a qualified sparkie to change a light bulb in law or practice - if that were so, no-one in Scotland could change a bulb without an electrician and we would all be in dark I fear.
As to Walker Sandford, they would appear to operate without a scintilla of moral fibre, decency or ethics. They refuse to be sacked by their customers so they can keep on adding penalty charges every single week. That is a form of exploitation and the Evening Times is to congratulating on exposing this vile practice. I doubt if any other factors in Scotland operate like Walker Sandford?
[/quote] Oh Stephen yah dobber,yes thats right DOBBER.I stoop to this language because you obviously fail to understand why people are angry at certain factors & the charges that they levy.
It takes 2mins to change a light-bulb ergo £44 is to much, now does that penetrate your pea sized brain?..
Now i excuse me while i call a plumber to remove your head from your ****
greenie wrote:
stephensimmons wrote:
Biffo the bear wrote: Wee message for StephenSimmoms, i stand by yesterdays post that it shouldnt cost £44 to change a light-bulb.You also ask who should change it if not an electrician?. Do you get an electrician to change yours when the blow or a doctor to tend a cut on your finger.. Maybe you should think before you post yah dobber.
yah dobber? i think that says it all about the kind of mentality you have - once again i have stated if a light bulb needs changed an owner can do it themselves. if they phone up and ask the factor or anyone else to do it then surely an electrician must be called out. I dont get a doctor to put a plaster on my finger but if i went to a private one and asked them to do so, i wouldnt complain that it then cost me. I am honestly amazed that you cant understand this concept. Please seek help.
Mr Simmons - you are clearly a factor or work for one, it would be helpful for you to disclose so if that is the case, in the interest of fairness? Fairness is perhaps a concept alien to too many factors.
As to light bulbs, can I suggest a simple handyman. You do not need to be a qualified sparkie to change a light bulb in law or practice - if that were so, no-one in Scotland could change a bulb without an electrician and we would all be in dark I fear.
As to Walker Sandford, they would appear to operate without a scintilla of moral fibre, decency or ethics. They refuse to be sacked by their customers so they can keep on adding penalty charges every single week. That is a form of exploitation and the Evening Times is to congratulating on exposing this vile practice. I doubt if any other factors in Scotland operate like Walker Sandford?
Oh Stephen yah dobber,yes thats right DOBBER.I stoop to this language because you obviously fail to understand why people are angry at certain factors & the charges that they levy.
It takes 2mins to change a light-bulb ergo £44 is to much, now does that penetrate your pea sized brain?..
Now i excuse me while i call a plumber to remove your head from your ****
Posted by: stephensimmons, Glagow on 4:43pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Biffo - stooping to that language just demeans you and makes you laughable.
1. It takes much less than 2 minutes to change a lightbulb unless, as i expect, you struggle with simple concepts
and
2. You are clearly not a tradesman as no-one i know charges for 2 minutes work. A minimum call out of 1 hour or more is standard practice.
Once again your ignorance betrays a complete lack of understanding of the subject.
Biffo - stooping to that language just demeans you and makes you laughable.
1. It takes much less than 2 minutes to change a lightbulb unless, as i expect, you struggle with simple concepts
and
2. You are clearly not a tradesman as no-one i know charges for 2 minutes work. A minimum call out of 1 hour or more is standard practice.
Once again your ignorance betrays a complete lack of understanding of the subject.
Posted by: greenie, Glasgow on 5:00pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Mr Simmons
Why should anyone pay for an hours work if it takes 1 mins? Just because you suggest a one hour charge is 'standard practice' does not make it fair.
If we had someone changing 100 lightbulbs during a day along a couple of streets does that mean they could charge 100 hours work?
Do you see the absurdity of your position?
Mr Simmons
Why should anyone pay for an hours work if it takes 1 mins? Just because you suggest a one hour charge is 'standard practice' does not make it fair.
If we had someone changing 100 lightbulbs during a day along a couple of streets does that mean they could charge 100 hours work?
Do you see the absurdity of your position?
Posted by: stephensimmons, Glagow on 5:10pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Greenie,
I welcome your more intelligent standpoint in the debate however again I can see that you have never worked for a trade. What joiner, sparky etc in the world would only charge for the time taken to rectify the item? Are you suggesting that a trade only starts from the moment they turn a screw etc or the time they arrive on site? All trades include call out time in an invoice - this is not standard practice within factoring it is standard practice in ALL INDUSTRIES. Of course someone changing 100 light bulbs would not charge 100 hours - that is absurd - but I am dissapointed that you cannot see that a minimum charge must be applied - if not there would be no point in a trade attending to be paid for 2 minutes work. Again naivety is the problem here.
Greenie,
I welcome your more intelligent standpoint in the debate however again I can see that you have never worked for a trade. What joiner, sparky etc in the world would only charge for the time taken to rectify the item? Are you suggesting that a trade only starts from the moment they turn a screw etc or the time they arrive on site? All trades include call out time in an invoice - this is not standard practice within factoring it is standard practice in ALL INDUSTRIES. Of course someone changing 100 light bulbs would not charge 100 hours - that is absurd - but I am dissapointed that you cannot see that a minimum charge must be applied - if not there would be no point in a trade attending to be paid for 2 minutes work. Again naivety is the problem here.
Posted by: FuffyAnt, glasgow on 5:23pm Wed 6 Feb 08
walker sandford are an absolute disgrace. they are factors for our flat in battlefield and made a mistake with our billing which they promised to sort out. they didn't and continued to apply late payment charges. they are impossible to get hold off, dont respond to phone calls or e-mails. weeks later you get a letter saying any complaint must be made in writing. by this time they have added more late payment charges. are these charges even legal? it's very frustrating - now they want to take us to court when it could have sorted out so much more easily. surely this is a waste of court time. i really hate dealing with these people. they are unscrupulous and act like crooks. i feel now i have to pay as i cant face the prospect of having to pay legal bills if i lose. www.walkersandfordsu
cks.co.uk
walker sandford are an absolute disgrace. they are factors for our flat in battlefield and made a mistake with our billing which they promised to sort out. they didn't and continued to apply late payment charges. they are impossible to get hold off, dont respond to phone calls or e-mails. weeks later you get a letter saying any complaint must be made in writing. by this time they have added more late payment charges. are these charges even legal? it's very frustrating - now they want to take us to court when it could have sorted out so much more easily. surely this is a waste of court time. i really hate dealing with these people. they are unscrupulous and act like crooks. i feel now i have to pay as i cant face the prospect of having to pay legal bills if i lose. www.walkersandfordsu
cks.co.uk
Posted by: Pat Gillaney, Glasgow on 5:58pm Wed 6 Feb 08
Yes Walker Sandford have their problems, but they did not warrant the vicious, one sided attack in the article.
I moved to Walker Sandford from Spiers Parnie, and Walker Sandford are better by far. Spiers Parnie would not accept weekly payments to keep my debt to them down - and when the debt reached £220 they sent sheriff officers, who charged me £113 for each of the three identical court writs, and then court costs and ADMINISTRATION CHARGES which brought the total to £870 - which was then agreed could be paid WEEKLY.
Walker Sandford send you a bill, followed by a Polite Reminder, and then USUALLY start charging the late payment fee. If you call and explain any circumstances that prevented you paying, they will usually sort it out, BUT not it you leave it for six months or a year. In other words, as all the good consumer advice articles tell you, "speak to people and try and sort it out first - don't leave it until it becomes a major problem".
For the most part I have had a good experience of Walker Sandford, probably because I pay my bills and speak to them when I have a probem.
Yes Walker Sandford have their problems, but they did not warrant the vicious, one sided attack in the article.
I moved to Walker Sandford from Spiers Parnie, and Walker Sandford are better by far. Spiers Parnie would not accept weekly payments to keep my debt to them down - and when the debt reached £220 they sent sheriff officers, who charged me £113 for each of the three identical court writs, and then court costs and ADMINISTRATION CHARGES which brought the total to £870 - which was then agreed could be paid WEEKLY.
Walker Sandford send you a bill, followed by a Polite Reminder, and then USUALLY start charging the late payment fee. If you call and explain any circumstances that prevented you paying, they will usually sort it out, BUT not it you leave it for six months or a year. In other words, as all the good consumer advice articles tell you, "speak to people and try and sort it out first - don't leave it until it becomes a major problem".
For the most part I have had a good experience of Walker Sandford, probably because I pay my bills and speak to them when I have a probem.
Posted by: dtb, Glasga on 6:11pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]stephensimmons[/bold] wrote:
Greenie, I welcome your more intelligent standpoint in the debate however again I can see that you have never worked for a trade. What joiner, sparky etc in the world would only charge for the time taken to rectify the item? Are you suggesting that a trade only starts from the moment they turn a screw etc or the time they arrive on site? All trades include call out time in an invoice - this is not standard practice within factoring it is standard practice in ALL INDUSTRIES. Of course someone changing 100 light bulbs would not charge 100 hours - that is absurd - but I am dissapointed that you cannot see that a minimum charge must be applied - if not there would be no point in a trade attending to be paid for 2 minutes work. Again naivety is the problem here. [/quote] A trade ? changing a lightbulb, mmmmmmmmm, I'll take that trade on any day. It took me four years to gain mine.
Can you think of any job that takes a joiner 20 seconds of work, or a glazier, or for that matter an electrian. Your point defeats itself because the situation is absurd and should never arise, thus the fees are absurd and should never arise.
stephensimmons wrote:
Greenie, I welcome your more intelligent standpoint in the debate however again I can see that you have never worked for a trade. What joiner, sparky etc in the world would only charge for the time taken to rectify the item? Are you suggesting that a trade only starts from the moment they turn a screw etc or the time they arrive on site? All trades include call out time in an invoice - this is not standard practice within factoring it is standard practice in ALL INDUSTRIES. Of course someone changing 100 light bulbs would not charge 100 hours - that is absurd - but I am dissapointed that you cannot see that a minimum charge must be applied - if not there would be no point in a trade attending to be paid for 2 minutes work. Again naivety is the problem here.
A trade ? changing a lightbulb, mmmmmmmmm, I'll take that trade on any day. It took me four years to gain mine.
Can you think of any job that takes a joiner 20 seconds of work, or a glazier, or for that matter an electrian. Your point defeats itself because the situation is absurd and should never arise, thus the fees are absurd and should never arise.
Posted by: tiberious, Glasgow on 6:32pm Wed 6 Feb 08
I am having a bit of trouble with the facts of the matter in this article. Let me explain where my concern lies;
Mr Norman Anderson has the same name as his late father."Mr Anderson's dead father, also called Norman"
Mr Anderson Jnr resides at the property in question. "Mr Anderson, who has lived with his mother - whom he doesn't want named - for most of his life"
According to the factor, the property is registered in the name of Mr Norman Anderson."According to the land registry, Norman Anderson still owns the property"
So...
Bills have been issued, presumably in the name of Norman Anderson, to the address in question.
Is it really reasonable for us to believe that when a piece of correspondence drops through his door, Mr Norman Anderson Jnr knows that in fact that is something addressed to his father, who died some 15 years ago, and is not therefore his responsibility?
I don't know about you, but when I get a bill to my address, in my name, I assume it is for me. Regardless of what my father's name is, or was.
My thinking is simple (I think);
The property actually belongs to Mr Anderson Jnr and in fact, he has been exploiting the fact that his late father shared his name to avoid paying his communal maintenance charges.
Surely, when Mr Anderson Snr passed away, the property title would have passed to Mrs Anderson and would have been recorded in the Land Register. Possibly an admin error on the part of the record keeper?
IF my theory is correct however, then I would say that it is in fact Mr Anderson Jnr's actions that have brought about this current state of affairs and it is in fact he who is to blame for his elderly mother's home, health and possibly even life being put in danger as a result. Not to mention blackening his father's good name in the process.
I am surprised that no one has picked up on these facts before now. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?
Just my thoughts on the matter.
I am having a bit of trouble with the facts of the matter in this article. Let me explain where my concern lies;
Mr Norman Anderson has the same name as his late father."Mr Anderson's dead father, also called Norman"
Mr Anderson Jnr resides at the property in question. "Mr Anderson, who has lived with his mother - whom he doesn't want named - for most of his life"
According to the factor, the property is registered in the name of Mr Norman Anderson."According to the land registry, Norman Anderson still owns the property"
So...
Bills have been issued, presumably in the name of Norman Anderson, to the address in question.
Is it really reasonable for us to believe that when a piece of correspondence drops through his door, Mr Norman Anderson Jnr knows that in fact that is something addressed to his father, who died some 15 years ago, and is not therefore his responsibility?
I don't know about you, but when I get a bill to my address, in my name, I assume it is for me. Regardless of what my father's name is, or was.
My thinking is simple (I think);
The property actually belongs to Mr Anderson Jnr and in fact, he has been exploiting the fact that his late father shared his name to avoid paying his communal maintenance charges.
Surely, when Mr Anderson Snr passed away, the property title would have passed to Mrs Anderson and would have been recorded in the Land Register. Possibly an admin error on the part of the record keeper?
IF my theory is correct however, then I would say that it is in fact Mr Anderson Jnr's actions that have brought about this current state of affairs and it is in fact he who is to blame for his elderly mother's home, health and possibly even life being put in danger as a result. Not to mention blackening his father's good name in the process.
I am surprised that no one has picked up on these facts before now. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Posted by: greenie, Glasgow on 6:38pm Wed 6 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Pat Gillaney[/bold] wrote:
Yes Walker Sandford have their problems, but they did not warrant the vicious, one sided attack in the article. I moved to Walker Sandford from Spiers Parnie, and Walker Sandford are better by far. Spiers Parnie would not accept weekly payments to keep my debt to them down - and when the debt reached £220 they sent sheriff officers, who charged me £113 for each of the three identical court writs, and then court costs and ADMINISTRATION CHARGES which brought the total to £870 - which was then agreed could be paid WEEKLY. Walker Sandford send you a bill, followed by a Polite Reminder, and then USUALLY start charging the late payment fee. If you call and explain any circumstances that prevented you paying, they will usually sort it out, BUT not it you leave it for six months or a year. In other words, as all the good consumer advice articles tell you, "speak to people and try and sort it out first - don't leave it until it becomes a major problem". For the most part I have had a good experience of Walker Sandford, probably because I pay my bills and speak to them when I have a probem. [/quote] Yes, it's another post from Scotland's worst factor?
Has anyone noticed Scotland's 'bullying factor' has been posting for the last couple of days under various names.
Vicious attack? Trying to make a 83 year old women bankrupt and homeless because you apply penalty charges every single week and rip-off interest for no service to anyone other than yourself is vicious and cruel.
Pat (or is it Paul or the chubby wee assistant) look, you cannot fine people every week because it enables you to make a huge profit. What other factor does this? None?
Mr An
Comment | Read Comments (85)
