Wedding supplier issue
Discussion
cb31 said:
JustinP1 said:
Seeing as they turned up to a sales pitch without any written information, and deal exclusively with consumers without taking the time to learn the basics of consumer law then I think we can discount that possibility.
They may be a hopeless company on the admin side but presumably they must do a good job. Sounds like giving £380 back is a cheap way of getting rid of a nightmare customer.All we know is:
1) They lost some stuff at the OP's new venue.
2) They turned up late to meet the OP.
3) They turned up late for the OP because the lost some stuff at another venue.
4) They would rather lose the OP's business than deal with the reason why they lose stuff at places.
5) Despite running a business completing off-premises contracts with consumers, they don't even start to adhere to the legal obligations for completing off premises contracts. This leaves them open to prosecution and an unlimited fine.
6) They want to bind the OP to cancellation terms without telling the OP what those terms actually were.
To be quite frank, if they act like that, my concern would be whether they actually exist in a year's time.
I say as a business owner that the reality is that a customer changing heir mind for whatever reason is a foreseeable issue. You confirm for customers what happens in that scenario in a lawful way, in writing, so they understand the consequences.
Not rocket science. Simple stuff. Fail to do that and you deserve to be stuffed. Basically because for every customer that stands up for themselves and knows he law, there will be five more that have been cheated by a law-breaking operation.
frankenstein12 said:
Yet again let me repeat how far away or near to the date it is is barely relevant.As I said in a previous response I do project management and as soon as I receive approval i start prep regardless of when the project is due to commence it is entirely possible they do the same...
This is all very nice, but isn't actually all that relevant.The sole reason for the OP to wish to cancel his booking is because, having agreed it was perfectly ok for him to move to another venue and still keep their services, the company turned around and told him they would not work with the venue he chose. In addition to their apparent failure to provide any paperwork relating to his booking with them in the first place, they didn't give him any reason to believe that there was some kind of restriction on which venue he could choose to move to.
That's on them. The OP has done nothing wrong. In effect, they want to cancel his booking using a justification that he was not made aware of at any point beforehand, and keep his entire deposit for the privilege. That is not on, and, given you're not the only one here with previous experience of "project management", I can say with some certainty that it would not fly in a business to business rather than consumer scenario (though whoever paid the deposit without the paperwork would likely be in hot water on that side of the deal).
Additionally, their justification for not liking his new venue was a previous incident of equipment missing or damaged? That seems a little fishy to me, as it's exactly the sort of thing you both have insurance for, and take into account as a risk of doing this kind of work. I'm wondering if maybe there's more to it, and the incident expanded from there such that it soured things with the venue (e.g. they had a massive s
tfit at someone over it and were asked not to return).JustinP1 said:
What evidence is there to make you presume they do a good job?
All we know is:
1) They lost some stuff at the OP's new venue.
2) They turned up late to meet the OP.
3) They turned up late for the OP because the lost some stuff at another venue.
4) They would rather lose the OP's business than deal with the reason why they lose stuff at places.
5) Despite running a business completing off-premises contracts with consumers, they don't even start to adhere to the legal obligations for completing off premises contracts. This leaves them open to prosecution and an unlimited fine.
6) They want to bind the OP to cancellation terms without telling the OP what those terms actually were.
To be quite frank, if they act like that, my concern would be whether they actually exist in a year's time.
Well presumably they came recommended to the OP (or at least, his missus to be), they do 1200 weddings per year and if the deposit is £380 then Goodness knows what the full amount is, and they can afford to pick and choose which venues they'll work at. All we know is:
1) They lost some stuff at the OP's new venue.
2) They turned up late to meet the OP.
3) They turned up late for the OP because the lost some stuff at another venue.
4) They would rather lose the OP's business than deal with the reason why they lose stuff at places.
5) Despite running a business completing off-premises contracts with consumers, they don't even start to adhere to the legal obligations for completing off premises contracts. This leaves them open to prosecution and an unlimited fine.
6) They want to bind the OP to cancellation terms without telling the OP what those terms actually were.
To be quite frank, if they act like that, my concern would be whether they actually exist in a year's time.
Sounds like they're doing OK.
Having paid for the wedding of both my daughters in the last few years, most things wedding are done pretty informally. You find yourself wondering on the day if everything is going to turn up. But it did.
Sheepshanks said:
Well presumably they came recommended to the OP (or at least, his missus to be), they do 1200 weddings per year and if the deposit is £380...
Sounds like they're doing OK.
I do not believe that a business which supposedly takes apparently nigh on half a million quid in deposits a year from consumers at venues does not know what the basic law regarding taking deposits from consumers at venues is. They simply don't get that far. Sounds like they're doing OK.
I'll also put myself out there and state that I'd bet a considerable amount that they've lied about the 1200 wedding a year claim.
That's 23 a week, or more than 10 per weekend day. Taking that further, presuming a supposed 25% deposit, they turnover almost £2m per annum without supplying proper written terms....?
I don't believe it. And Even if it is true, they well deserve a shakedown as they are flaunting the law.
Edited by JustinP1 on Saturday 24th September 00:15
JustinP1 said:
I'll also put myself out there and state that I'd bet a considerable amount that they've lied about the 1200 wedding a year claim.
That's 23 a week, or more than 10 per weekend day.
Once encountered an event publishing attendance numbers that sounded very fishy, as it was a market I and the people I worked with were pretty familiar with.That's 23 a week, or more than 10 per weekend day.
What eventually came out was that they'd been doing things like treating daily numbers as attendance (one person on a three-day weekend ticket counts as three people) and things like that.
I'm wondering if, allowing the possibility it somehow isn't an outright lie, their "1200 weddings" is perhaps some flavour of "we run weddings for 1200 people a year - one a month with an average of 100 people."
InitialDave said:
I'm wondering if, allowing the possibility it somehow isn't an outright lie, their "1200 weddings" is perhaps some flavour of "we run weddings for 1200 people a year - one a month with an average of 100 people."
Sounds much more plausible and may not have been a lie at all. "Have you done this before..?" "Yes.. We do about 1200 covers a year.." was taken as weddings incorrectly. That probably makes it part time operation and not the next sports direct and much more consistent with the behaviours.1200 weddings from a one man band affair?
That's barely believable. That's 3 a day. Given weddings tend to be in Summer, on Saturdays, that would be several a day in peak season. Some venues may host a couple of weddings at the same time, but that's likely to be the exception.
I reckon 120 is a more accurate number.
Anyway, for anyone posting who is not married, wedding plans are a tricky affair. Plans do change- this is par for the course.
Anyone who thinks this is a preserve of only nightmare customers clearly doesn't have experience relevant to the wedding industry, and should probably not assume that the awesome responsibility they deal with on a day to day basis is applicable here.
Lss- company not aware of law, company not following law, company faces legal consequences if they don't resolve.
Ian
That's barely believable. That's 3 a day. Given weddings tend to be in Summer, on Saturdays, that would be several a day in peak season. Some venues may host a couple of weddings at the same time, but that's likely to be the exception.
I reckon 120 is a more accurate number.
Anyway, for anyone posting who is not married, wedding plans are a tricky affair. Plans do change- this is par for the course.
Anyone who thinks this is a preserve of only nightmare customers clearly doesn't have experience relevant to the wedding industry, and should probably not assume that the awesome responsibility they deal with on a day to day basis is applicable here.
Lss- company not aware of law, company not following law, company faces legal consequences if they don't resolve.
Ian
InitialDave said:
I'm wondering if, allowing the possibility it somehow isn't an outright lie, their "1200 weddings" is perhaps some flavour of "we run weddings for 1200 people a year - one a month with an average of 100 people."
And if you count the bride and groom separately you can double up again!ging84 said:
...it's a very competitive industry.
Really? Maybe it varies based on where you are or the level you're going for, but it would be a slippery slope competing for wedding business on price. Having recently paid for two, and knowing someone who has a venue, a florist, a photographer and someone who does cars, I know they have a price (all reasonable) and that's it. The venue owner will advertise a deal if they get a cancellation as they get booked up a long time in advance so they tend not to even get people enquiring about relatively near-term dates.There's got to be some misunderstand on the 1200 a year for the venue dresser - my missus knows about such matters and she thinks it would be tough to have unsupervised staff doing venue dressing, and obviously there are going to be plenty of days with no weddings, so they'd have to be doing a completely unfeasible number at busy times. Perhaps they've done 1200 ever.
Edited by Sheepshanks on Saturday 24th September 19:03
Red Devil said:
JustinP1 said:
frankenstein12 said:
I do not know exactly what they have to do whether they have to do any risk assessment docs for example...
The very first thing they had to do was provide the OP with written terms of business, including informing his of his legal right to cancel, allowing him time to digest in his own home the full terms provided and decide if that service was indeed right for him.They haven't done even that. They've done nothing. So, by law, they are obliged to allow the OP to cancel without making any deduction to the deposit.
ETA: The reason that these laws are passed because too many companies do not deal with consumers in a fair and open way. Not providing written terms of business and lawful cancellation terms is an example of that. This company have learnt the hard way. Some people just aren't cut out for business. However, the consumer should not lose out because of that.
The Regulations have been in force for over 2 years - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regul...
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills put forth a considerable amount of preparatory educational material. As did other business oriented organisations.
The fact that there are still proprietors/directors who are either ignorant or think they can get away with flouting the law is both deplorable and depressing in equal measure.
The fact that the CMA felt the need only six months ago to issue this to wedding and event venue providers speaks for itself - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wedding...
frankenstein12 said:
I work in project management.
My bet is that this relates exclusively to B2B transactions and has all to do with consumer law. Who is he and how is to define reasonable costs? He does not run their business nor is he i assume in the same business or he would be doing it himself. How would he feel if they stated they would only refund 50% of his deposit as they have calculated he has cost them 50% of what his deposit was in business time?
As I said earlier realistically they should simply immediately issue him a refund and be glad to see the back of him as trying to negotiate a partial refund will be more hassle than its worth.
frankenstein12 said:
He messed them around and now wants his deposit back less what he considers reasonable costs.
He did not.He checked with them if changing date and venue was ok before doing so, and they said yes. They then said they would not work with the venue he was changing to, when such a thing had not been mentioned at the time of the initial booking or when he asked about making the change.
It's all on them.
frankenstein12 said:
Red Devil said:
JustinP1 said:
frankenstein12 said:
I do not know exactly what they have to do whether they have to do any risk assessment docs for example...
The very first thing they had to do was provide the OP with written terms of business, including informing his of his legal right to cancel, allowing him time to digest in his own home the full terms provided and decide if that service was indeed right for him.They haven't done even that. They've done nothing. So, by law, they are obliged to allow the OP to cancel without making any deduction to the deposit.
ETA: The reason that these laws are passed because too many companies do not deal with consumers in a fair and open way. Not providing written terms of business and lawful cancellation terms is an example of that. This company have learnt the hard way. Some people just aren't cut out for business. However, the consumer should not lose out because of that.
The Regulations have been in force for over 2 years - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regul...
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills put forth a considerable amount of preparatory educational material. As did other business oriented organisations.
The fact that there are still proprietors/directors who are either ignorant or think they can get away with flouting the law is both deplorable and depressing in equal measure.
The fact that the CMA felt the need only six months ago to issue this to wedding and event venue providers speaks for itself - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wedding...
frankenstein12 said:
I work in project management.
My bet is that this relates exclusively to B2B transactions and has all to do with consumer law. Who is he and how is to define reasonable costs? He does not run their business nor is he i assume in the same business or he would be doing it himself. How would he feel if they stated they would only refund 50% of his deposit as they have calculated he has cost them 50% of what his deposit was in business time?
As I said earlier realistically they should simply immediately issue him a refund and be glad to see the back of him as trying to negotiate a partial refund will be more hassle than its worth.
Also, why are you so antagonistic to the OP? Viz: 'mess them around', 'glad to see the back of him'. It would appear that this is a distance contract, in which case the supplier has failed the very first test by failing to provide information which is required by law as has been pointed out you above by Justin P1. Such failure means that the consumer cannot be bound See Section 13. A refund is not a question of should: it's a must.
Red Devil said:
It would appear that this is a distance contract,
Nope - OP met them and handed over cash as the deposit.Consumer law is all very well, but even if it's on the OPs side it's not like he can call the police and have the bloke arrested.
If the supplier digs their heels in then his only recourse is to use the small claims court process and the outcome there is close to random.
Sheepshanks said:
Red Devil said:
It would appear that this is a distance contract,
Nope - OP met them and handed over cash as the deposit.Consumer law is all very well, but even if it's on the OPs side it's not like he can call the police and have the bloke arrested.
If the supplier digs their heels in then his only recourse is to use the small claims court process and the outcome there is close to random.
JustinP1 said:
frankenstein12 said:
I do not know exactly what they have to do whether they have to do any risk assessment docs for example...
The very first thing they had to do was provide the OP with written terms of business, including informing his of his legal right to cancel, allowing him time to digest in his own home the full terms provided and decide if that service was indeed right for him.They haven't done even that. They've done nothing. So, by law, they are obliged to allow the OP to cancel without making any deduction to the deposit.
ETA: The reason that these laws are passed because too many companies do not deal with consumers in a fair and open way. Not providing written terms of business and lawful cancellation terms is an example of that. This company have learnt the hard way. Some people just aren't cut out for business. However, the consumer should not lose out because of that.
Edited by JustinP1 on Friday 23 September 17:59
Frank here works in "Project Management", so he is definitely the guy to talk to about consumer law.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff