13 hours 3 gauges receipt & job sheet
#91
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..............
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..............
#92
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: www.dsoc.co.nr
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#93
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: leeds
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont want to take my car back there as they are a bunch of incompatant robbing scam artists who couldnt do the job right 1st time being specialists so why should i give them my car again ? they will only cause further damage! and power station are well aware of the threads on here as i phoned him the next day after putting my original thread up and durk knew id been on here,he said to me i know youve been on the forum and was still not going to give me any money back.
#95
Scooby Regular
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!
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!
#98
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Club Chairman - West Mids Imprezas
Posts: 8,889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by B4D HK; 15 October 2010 at 02:15 PM. Reason: typo error
#100
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (21)
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
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
#102
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?
#104
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Club Chairman - West Mids Imprezas
Posts: 8,889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
#106
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: www.dsoc.co.nr
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
#107
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Club Chairman - West Mids Imprezas
Posts: 8,889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by B4D HK; 15 October 2010 at 02:29 PM.
#108
Scooby Regular
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$tards! I hope they get what they deserve!
I dont see why the OP would sign up just to have a pop at PS unless he had a genuine greivence. The fact he didnt name THEM in his original thread but instead waited to hear what people had to say about the ridiculous labour charges and also B4D HK's posts in this thread brings me to my own conclusion.
Im going with my gut instinct on this in favour of the OP...Robbing Ba$tards! I hope they get what they deserve!
#109
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Darlington
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....?
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....?
Last edited by MDS_WRX; 15 October 2010 at 02:45 PM.
#110
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Club Chairman - West Mids Imprezas
Posts: 8,889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !!!!
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 !!!!
Last edited by B4D HK; 15 October 2010 at 02:51 PM.
#111
Scooby Regular
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.
****'d if i know.
#112
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.
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....?
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....?
#114
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Darlington
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#116
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.
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.
#117
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Darlington
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#118
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Darlington
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#119
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Huntingdon
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.)
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.)
#120
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
Made up numbers to suit? Absolutely