
My accountant suggests getting the customers to pay for as much of ther own materials as they can.I think it discourages small businesses from growing.
I suspect it also encourages more cash jobs
Looks like you agree with the Reform party VAT policy. Glad to see you are at last coming round. You’ll be urging everyone to vote reform before you know it.I think it discourages small businesses from growing.
I suspect it also encourages more cash jobs


surely you are VAT registered.My accountant suggests getting the customers to pay for as much of ther own materials as they can.
A lot of tradesmen I know that hover or go over the limit, are intent on making money from materials, hence the hefty turnover for those that buy lots of second fix items, I.e. kitchens, tiles, bath suites, CH boilers, fancy radiators etc.
A scam, or is it just a variation of the “I can get a discount for you” ?Many consumers are aware of the Quote for Retail scam. that some builders pull. Travis Perkins "retail" price is normally double what you can get from alternatives.
Better to let the builder take the rap if you are a consumer, because they are also liable for the service, and it is better to keep both claims together , especially When it is not always clear where the failure lies.of course from a consumer point of view, its better to buy direct, rather than have to claim warranty issues against the builder.

If it is used to imply that a "Trade price" is being passed on to the consumer, it is intended to deceive.A scam, or is it just a variation of the “I can get a discount for you” ?
No it isn't. 1st rule of litigation?Better to let the builder take the rap if you are a consumer, because they are also liable for the service, and it is better to keep both claims together , especially When it is not always clear where the failure lies.

Looks like you agree with the Reform party VAT policy. Glad to see you are at last coming round. You’ll be urging everyone to vote reform before you know it.![]()
It ook me some time to realise when a tradie said I can get a discount, they meant for themselves not to be passed on, but isnt deceit, it's pretty standard practice. The fact that I didnt understand it a a consumer makes no difference.If it is used to imply that a "Trade price" is being passed on to the consumer, it is intended to deceive.
RRP £100
"Trade price "£80
Actual Price £60
What offence does a person commit, if they obtain a benefit through deception ?
I imagine you mean sue the person who can pay up, but if the supplier blames the builder for the way the materials were fitted, you still have to sue both.No it isn't. 1st rule of litigation?

It took me some time to realise when a tradie said I can get a discount, they meant for themselves not to be passed on,
It may be standard practice, but your own statement is confirmation. "it took me some time to realise". along with "The fact that I didn't understand."The fact that I didnt understand it a a consumer makes no difference.
Materials tend not to come with meaningful warranties.I imagine you mean sue the person who can pay up, but if the supplier blames the builder for the way the materials were fitted, you still have to sue both.
Do you have to understand an implication?It may be standard practice, but your own statement is confirmation. "it took me some time to realise". along with "The fact that I didn't understand."
More reason to benefit from both warrantiesMaterials tend not to come with meaningful warranties.