ISDAL/LGH

[kwatt]

Copy of my reply to today’s email FYI…

me! wrote:Sorry guys but I think this is totally unrealistic.

My current charges are £80 excl VAT to break into a system on a chargeable basis and that rate it’s not great given the value of the product and the demanding customers. If it also includes sundries it’s very poor indeed.

There is no way on God’s green Earth that a customer refusing to pay a bill for customer misuse will sign a disclaimer, it’s just not going to happen in the real world. So what happens if they don’t sign, do we get lumped up?

LGH are infamous for not paying, MFI, NESN and almost everyone else who’s ever dealt with them have had “issues”, including us directly and I will not invoice them directly. I had to threaten court action in the past to get paid by them and I’m not alone there. In fact when we did the exercise for MFI we actually categorically stated that invoicing to LGH was at their risk, not the agents, effectively MFI have to underwrite LGH work and I’m reliably informed that it’s a nightmare.

So any LGH policies are on a strictly pay-and-claim basis from here if there is no contract in place that covers us for payment.

You will also find that they are an administrative nightmare to deal with, they would not accept faxed or emailed reports.

I just don’t want to see you digging a hole for yourselves.

K.

Just so you guys know what my response was.

K.

[Alex]

Re: ISDAL/LGH

Just so that Richard does not think Ken is the only one with reservations, I followed it up as below.

On 20 Oct 2005 at 8:20, Sedgemoor Domestic wrote:

> Richard.
>
> First of all we could do with reassurance that LGH are the best. They
> don’t cover Knobs, door handles, and most non functional parts. They
> are the slowest to pay yet the fastest to reject.
>
> If the words detergent, conveyor, decalcifier (as in IWMS) appear on
> the claim they reject.
>
> Being MFI agents we get a lot of work through LGH so now we have to
> bill MFI on every ins call. At least we get paid.
>
> Fortunately the GE products are few and far between. I hope there is a
> good rate in place as traditionally this product can be difficult to
> repair.
>
> Regards Alex

20th Oct 05 at 10.31 R Dalley wrote:-

Alex,

Been there and have the tee shirt. I am awaiting a copy of the policy to
make sure of the exclusions.

The rate was in the memo £55.00 + parts @ cost plus 30{e5d1b7155a01ef1f3b9c9968eaba33524ee81600d00d4be2b4d93ac2e58cec2d}

Richard

[kwatt]

Re: ISDAL/LGH

Hmm, slightly different reply from Julian…

Julian Hunter Jones wrote:Dear Ken,

I understand your concerns regarding the LGH business but in theory it should be us taking the risk and not our network. I have personally dealt with LGH for some time and found them to be more than reasonable to deal with. It is our role as a service provider to ensure that legitimate claims are paid. We will argue (communicate !!) the case with whoever passed us the job.

When we sign up with any manufacturer, retailer or insurance company we ask them to sign up to a service level agreement that has all the relevant information to ensure that disagreements are kept to a minimum. I firmly believe that if a contract is set up correctly in the first place issues such as invoice queries and non-payment should be minimal.

With regard to the ‘disclaimer’. I am not sure if you have come across this before but they are a way to ensure payment in the case of ‘no fault found’.
Should the customer be un-willing to pay for a situation such as this they may have their policy suspended. I will forward you a copy asap.

Regarding the rate for system work, unfortunately I omitted to publish the refrigeration sundry charge on the memo. This can be charged at an additional £20.00 resulting in a system repair being paid at £75.00.

Thanks for you input.

Regards

Julian Hunter-Jones
ISDAL

😕

K.

[Flipper]

Re: ISDAL/LGH

Which side of the fence was he when he ” personally dealt with them” not our side I bet.

Philip 😕

[kwatt]

I’d bet on you being right.

I know, as Alex points out, that this is liable to be low volume and all that but, in part, it’s the principal. The other part is the “more work” mentioned from the same source.

I just think we should be indemnified from getting shafted… again.

K.

[Author]

Posts