Big Ugly Stick (Delicate Wrapping)

[kwatt]

Okay so, sent a mail to Carl which I hope he has and can answer my madness.

I need the point of law clarified so I know I’m on the right track then, mix that up with a little bit of politic, a smattering of economics and… shazam!

But, even if the point of law is 100{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} crystal but only 80{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d} or higher then the tact may well work, even as a bluff.

The premise is actually pretty simple in part. That the repairer carrying out a warranty repair is only an alternative form of payment for service/s rendered and, it worked in Scots law several years back against Currys, which is probably why they don’t much like me to this day, I think they might hold a grudge. 😉

This might get technical for some of you but I suspect for Carl it’ll be child’s play…

At the time when I pulled this stunt my contention was that we attended to repair the appliance under the terms of the warranty and that the costs of that repair (or remedy in law) were being met by the “warranty provider” or “retailer” as an alternative to our attending, charging the consumer and them claiming back the cost of reparation from the retailer or manufacturer.

With ISDAL they are merely an intermediary that processed claims from the repairer that actually carried out this work on behalf of the consumer who had the issue that required your services to resolve and re-billed that service to the manufacturer, the retailer or whoever the hell paid for it, that’s not actually that relevant.

Now, ISDAL go belly up and you’re not getting paid. In other words, nobody is going to pick up the tab for the service that you provided to that consumer, who agreed to allow you into their home and to repair their product, that they paid for.

You didn’t sell it. You didn’t warranty it. You didn’t agree to cover the warranty terms.

The repairer is merely a “hired gun” that has an agreement (i use the term loosely) to repair, “as instructed on behalf of the manufacturer under the terms of their warranty”. Not the repairer’s warranty.

In my view, also not the repairer’s risk.

I will admit, it’s a complex argument to make to some degree and also most probably a bit flaky around the edges.

However, the next bit is not.

The manufacturers NEED the repairers to be onboard so as to continue in the future and not f**k them up at a later date.

So, walk softly, carry a big stick that’s delicately wrapped with a “you scratch my back…” label on it.

You need repairers to sort your service then, you have to support those repairers and back them up, that would include f**king up Ernst & Young shagging over the repairers and the manufacturers.

If and, it is a big IF, we can pull this off and it works it’s a huge win not only for the guys that stand to lose a sh1tload of cash now but also for the future.

More than that however, the ramifications politically of such a win are immense. I haven’t stopped thinking about it since I dreamed up the tactic and it should, I hope, put the power and the ball right back at the repairer’s feet.

So long as the mad buggers actually suss that and actually make use of the new found leverage this trade is gonna be a sh1load better for it but, mucho importantly, a sh1tload better for the repairers.

Now, I need to sleep and recharge the batteries…

K.

[kwatt]

Re: Big Ugly Stick (Delicate Wrapping)

I forgot and, talking to T reminded me…

ISDAL/E&Y can quite properly and correctly invoice for the services that they provided.

Which would be the administrative charges that they made for operating as a “middle man” but, I would argue that they could not legally charge for services that they did not provide, that being the actual in-home service.

K.

[Jackal]

Re: Big Ugly Stick (Delicate Wrapping)

I am on the case.

K, you have email.

C

Sent from my iPhone 4s using Tapatalk
http://www.lofra-uk.co.uk

[Author]

Posts