stuart2088

iTrader: (1)

The plot thickens. If i was a betting man i know who my money would be on.

The OP needs to explain the major difference between £783.56 and £1200.

Bang on £1200 seems an odd even figure.

Garage invoices are generally computer generated so i doubt it would come out at exactly £1200.

Someone is being economical with the truth. My money is on..............

N_Scooby

iTrader: (2)

I have to disagree with you Neil. It looks to me like the OP has a problem with juddering brakes and is looking for compensation from PS. At present it isn't looking good for the OP and I feel for his mate who stuck his neck out to defend the guy.

neil1980

iTrader: (2)

So thats the case stand up for your sen ffs if you don't understand ill explain KNOCK THE **** OUT OF THE GUY WHO ROBBED YOU EASY AS THAT SIMPLE if you have no ***** get some decent sized m8s to help you !

Glowplug

iTrader: (8)

As they have.

Shaun

I have no idea what has gone on here and have refrained from jumping on the typical forum witch hunt bandwagon as *some* armchair gobbys have done. However I have never had any problems perosnally in the past 12yrs I have known and worked with PowerStation with regards to charging of work completed.

Neil1980,
That is exactly what they have done now though is'nt it.

In my opinion they have left it (which was wise to a degree) until they had no further choice but to post. Trial by forum can turn in to a witch hunt and personally I would wait until everyone has shot their last bolt until I gave the "killer" blow, which I suspect has just been given!

Hammer man

iTrader: (25)

About half the time it took PS to put up theirs.

53

iTrader: (41)

Cash is easy to lose, official invoice or not, not nice for either side. Presentation is everything, and mistakes have been made, live and learn this won't get resolved

B4D HK

iTrader: (15)

PS you robbing b*stards !!!!!!!!!!

I was the one that scanned the receipt for the OP and can 100% confirm that the invoice was NOT tampered with. The receipt had the till receipt stappled to the right, and now it is stappled to PS's left !!!!!!!!!!

You are trying to stitch this lad up good and proper.
Do the decent thing and give him his cash back NOW !

Hammer, Shaun, Lordy etc etc, you all know me well, trust me the OP has been scammed by these cowboys!
I stuck my kneck out for Irfan as he is a good lad (despite his useless communication skills, bless him)

I have physically seen the original receipt with my own eyes after which I felt like slapping the OP for paying up and not calling me first.

PS, please answer why you convinced the OP to pay cash in order to avoid VAT??? Is this normal practice?







I have advised the OP not to post anymore on here ref this matter. PS please make contact with the OP, or you leave us with no choice but to come up to see you for a cuppa

Glowplug

iTrader: (8)

I assume that you, like myself have read 'all' 6,7 800 posts that have been put up in this thread, and the other 4 related threads. It would not do for you to just 'jumped' in without knowing 'all' the facts related to your comment.

ScoobLou

iTrader: (21)

In that case I sugguest you report them to the VAT man. For some reason I do believe the OP is telling the truth but don't know why just my gut feel.

neil1980

iTrader: (2)

lol seen it after bud **** knows who to believe now but to be honest ive been there n done it coss vaux robbed me i had silly amounts of money in my motor went under lost the lot diff story but my trust in performance garages are bleek

tony de wonderful

Indeed. Someone has a doctored invoice.

The OP's is scanned at quite a low res but do the dates look different?

If Powerstation can supply a VAT receipt or something, that may help?

neil1980

iTrader: (2)

+1 vat receipt needs sticking on ere

B4D HK

iTrader: (15)

PS you robbing b*stards !!!!!!!!!!

I was the one that scanned the receipt for the OP and can 100% confirm that the invoice was NOT tampered with. The receipt had the till receipt stappled to the right, and now it is stappled to PS's left !!!!!!!!!!

You are trying to stitch this lad up good and proper.
Do the decent thing and give him his cash back NOW !

Hammer, Shaun, Lordy etc etc, you all know me well, trust me the OP has been scammed by these cowboys!
I stuck my kneck out for Irfan as he is a good lad (despite his useless communication skills, bless him)

I have physically seen the original receipt with my own eyes after which I felt like slapping the OP for paying up and not calling me first.

PS, please answer why you convinced the OP to pay cash in order to avoid VAT??? Is this normal practice?







I have advised the OP not to post anymore on here ref this matter. PS please make contact with the OP, or you leave us with no choice but to come up to see you for a cuppa

Glowplug

iTrader: (8)

Yeah, it is getting tasty now. With a respected member like B4D HK putting his neck well and truely on the line for the OP.

I'll get the pop corn back out.

N_Scooby

iTrader: (2)

I'll never make a CSI!!

Now just looked at PS's invoice and I don't think that adds up. If you look at the totals they are penny different here and there and the totals don't add up!!

I don't know who to believe anymore!!!

B4D HK

iTrader: (15)

I can confirm that no VAT receipt was given to the OP, nor was the invoice they have put on here !

Cmon PS get the old photoshop on the go and produce one


I have litterally in the last hour or so, returned the receipts back to the OP, if anyone wishes to meet me and see the originals I would be happy to do so.

Stuff like this winds me up

Cheers b13bat, it is not in my interest to sh*t stir, but fair is fair mate, and this lad has been shaffted by PS

jayallen

iTrader: (31)

Just because PS have now posted a receipt means fookall! They could of doctored it because of the allegations being thrown around.

I dont see why the OP would sign up just to have a pop at PS unless he had a genuine greivence. The fact he didnt name THEM in his original thread but instead waited to hear what people had to say about the ridiculous labour charges and also B4D HK's posts in this thread brings me to my own conclusion.

Im going with my gut instinct on this in favour of the OP...Robbing Ba$tards! I hope they get what they deserve!

MDS_WRX

iTrader: (1)

Looking at both invoices, it looks doubtful (IMO) that either have actually been doctored as such. Which leaves one of two theories:

1. Powerstation is at fault

The OP was given the invoice he scanned, but paid an additional amount of cash for the labour (~£1000) which wasn't put on the original invoice to reduce the cost and help Powerstation avoid paying the VAT. Powerstation then subsequently take his receipt, create a new one, add the labour to it and attach his card payment to it. The OP then comes on here as he feels he has still been ripped off.

2. The OP is at fault

The OP was initially given the first invoice without labour, but subsequently provided with a second one that did include the labour and paid said labour in cash (~£700). He then comes on here to falsely accuse Powerstation of charging hiim ~£1000 in cash and uses the first incomplete invoice as "proof".

Unfortunately, both are actually feasible and it would be very difficult to prove either one due to the cash involved.

So, which one is correct....?

B4D HK

iTrader: (15)

thank you Jay, totally agree, this is the only way this kind of behaviour will stop!
I feel for the OP

MDS I can 100% gaurantee that at no point was that invoice given to the OP, PS have made it up on seeing this post.

The OP is a genuine chap and I have known him for over 20years !!!!

Glowplug

iTrader: (8)

It is one thing for a private individual to alter a reciept (not that i am saying the OP has, as i haven't a clue any more). But for a registered company to do it, 'and' post it in the public domain, that's absolute suicide surely, as that reciept will be decleared to HMRC as a legal document.

****'d if i know.

tony de wonderful

Why would Powerstation go to the trouble of doing that? If they were trying to keep the cash 'under the table' then faking an invoice only hurts them...leaving a paper trail to their fraud.

But it's the same invoice number, and would not the 'second' invoice (now 'correct') not have included a note about previous payements?

tony de wonderful

£497.87 is a very strange figure for labour.

MDS_WRX

iTrader: (1)

Because they now want to avoid damaging their reputation so have concluded that the best way to restore it is to bite the bullet on some or all of the cash they received and make it into a legitimate invoice. This way there isn't really a paper trail as such as they can argue the first one was incorrectly printed without labour, so a reprint was issued and paid for.

I'm not sure how their system works, but I'm assuming it should be relatively simple to change/modify an invoice and re-print it. As to whether the system would record these changes, again I don't know.

I honestly don't want to accuse either Powerstation or the OP as no matter what anyone says (or who they believe/trust) there is no definitive way (as yet) of proving which party is lying.

jayallen

iTrader: (31)

Me neither but would record the date the document was actually created no doubt.

tony de wonderful

You implied it was some innocent mistake or designed save the OP money in a scenario BEFORE the matter came to light publicly on this forum. If having read Scoobynet they went and changed the invoice on the computer system - so as to not get in trouble with HMRC etc - it is not so different as doctoring the invoice in 'shop, either way it's dishonest as **** and maybe more devious. Yes maybe the 13 hours for 3 gauges thing looks less of a rip off now but the VAT issue has not gone away.

Yeah I'm not sure either and it's possible that PS have covered their tracks now if they did indeed not intent to declare for VAT originally.

MDS_WRX

iTrader: (1)

Yep, agree on both counts.

MDS_WRX

iTrader: (1)

If it was for the 22.75 hours they quoted, that would conclude that they charged an hourly rate of £21.8843956043956.

If it was for the reduced 8.5 hours they quoted, that would conclude that they charged an hourly rate of £58.57294117647059.

Agreed that both figures above are a strange hourly rate!

However, they did say that he was "only charged for less than 8.5 hours labour", so it could be that the actual hours charged were somewhere less than 8.5 and a figure that does give a nice round hourly rate.

Mark'sWRX

I agree that its the labour figure that is suspicious.

I think they charge £60/hr, so the hrs billed would be 8.29783 (which is unlikely).

It 'appears' that they have made this figure up so that the final total comes to a figure ending in £83.52 as this is the only traceable payment made.

As said before, the PS invoice figures do not quite add up exactly (but as an ex-auditor I'd probably let that go.)

Tail Slider

8.5 hours or less? The fact you have stated 8.5 hours must the fiqure you have worked the hourly rate from unless you have some unorthodox method of charging labour by the second, so £58.57294117647059 is a very strange hourly rate.

Made up numbers to suit? Absolutely