Jump to content

CaRT: Corrupt Management Fiasco


one of the hidden

Featured Posts

7 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

I don't ask, and assume overheads. 

 

 

Alas, as many as public sector novice contractor can find to their cost, 'overheads' is not always what you imagine it to be. In such contexts you cannot just add in anything not directly related to the specific task.

 

The use of the term 'rip off' suggests that the business setting the charge is thereby making an undue profit. This is not the situation that CaRT finds itself in. Using the term to refer to anything you do not like paying only serves to debase a erm that should be reserved for those who, by any standard, are taking their customer for a ride and extracting un fair (monopolistic) profits.

 

For comparison, both EA and National Trust make similar offers regarding refunds.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i contacted my insurance as i had changed my car .not a problem they said .i gave them the new reg fine they said .oh your insurance as come down by by £3.80 nice i said admin fee to change reg and refund me £3.80 there will be a a admin fee of £50 ,as there was only two weeks left on my cover i said dont bother . i will go elsewere in two weeks time .oh let me see if i can waver  the admin .and guess what they did 

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, haza said:

i contacted my insurance as i had changed my car .not a problem they said .i gave them the new reg fine they said .oh your insurance as come down by by £3.80 nice i said admin fee to change reg and refund me £3.80 there will be a a admin fee of £50 ,as there was only two weeks left on my cover i said dont bother . i will go elsewere in two weeks time .oh let me see if i can waver  the admin .and guess what they did 

I agree the admin fee seems large, and you know you should not have two concurrent policies in place. Yes you forced their hand, but think on, you don't need to renew with this company. Get a better deal elsewhere if that is your reasoning. 

Edited by LadyG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/01/2022 at 13:12, Chagall said:

I think one of the hidden might suddenly become visible and at the A&E.  🤔

 

 

Re your edit reason, shouldn't that be Puncturation?

Edited by Jim Riley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, frangar said:

So has anyone noticed if the OP has been back or are they still sulking? 

 

one of the hidden

Member

Joined November 8, 2014

Last visited Tuesday at 17:54

 
 
That'll be Tuesday 25th January 2022.
 
Shame we can't have absolute times and dates. These relative posting and visiting times that change every time you look are useless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MtB said:

Last visited Tuesday at 17:54

 
 
That'll be Tuesday 25th January 2022.

Yes. If the poster has posted within the last week you get the day and time of the last post. If it is longer ago I think you get the full date. Like this from a former member:

707946146_Screenshot_20220128-211959_SamsungInternet.jpg.abb8b2544f7e4f343995a5e2034fddaa.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 back to picture  #1,one sees a largish van parked as compactly as may be possible in a narrow parking spot ,possibly designed for cars of the 1960s when Minis and Hillman Imps were common.........then  a small cabin cruiser,which is partly sunk ......no doubt the owner of the boat disputes this ,and refuses to move it ,or indeed ,bail it out..........now no reasonable person,nor even an unreasonable one,would see this as any indication of untoward activity in the canal management.............I think maybe the OP has been watching U tubes of Karens ,and decided to try his arm at being a Karen.....because some of them are very good ,quite intimidating for sure.

Edited by john.k
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the Central London law firm I worked for until I retired a  decade ago, we used to write off charges of less than £30 that were outstanding at the end of an accounting period as it was reckoned to cost that much to raise and process the invoices and other paperwork.  So I guess the handling charge amount is not unreasonable.

Edited by Ronaldo47
  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, LadyG said:

I agree the admin fee seems large, and you know you should not have two concurrent policies in place. Yes you forced their hand, but think on, you don't need to renew with this company. Get a better deal elsewhere if that is your reasoning. 

 

err  ..............  isn't that exactly what he proposed to do?    :banghead:  :banghead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/01/2022 at 17:02, LadyG said:

I think Higgs should buy a salt water boat, free salt water, no licence, what's not to like? 

 

CRT asked licence holders to follow a procedure. That response to their needs required a response in return; the issuing of some refund. No one else set up the need but CRT. Administration is needed to run the scheme. It is not some unique requirement of a business. It is essential for the running of a business. It is not an extra. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/01/2022 at 18:41, Mike Todd said:

Alas, as many as public sector novice contractor can find to their cost, 'overheads' is not always what you imagine it to be. In such contexts you cannot just add in anything not directly related to the specific task.

 

The use of the term 'rip off' suggests that the business setting the charge is thereby making an undue profit. This is not the situation that CaRT finds itself in. Using the term to refer to anything you do not like paying only serves to debase a erm that should be reserved for those who, by any standard, are taking their customer for a ride and extracting un fair (monopolistic) profits.

 

For comparison, both EA and National Trust make similar offers regarding refunds.

 

I don't mind paying for administration. A business cannot get by without administration. It is part of every transaction. I don't expect to have a bill charged by a company for making out the bill and sending it; in the course of completing a transaction - unless anywhere before taking on work, it had been laid out as a cost, and given in an original cost for a job, which I could then agree to, or question. If it is not mentioned at this stage, as a specific extra, it will be deemed to already be an assumed and accounted for cost, included in the cost given for the work. 

 

 

I would still question why it is necessary to record one specific charge that would ordinarily be an overhead, an incidental cost; as fuel or electricity or wages. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Higgs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Athy said:

What is one, and how would a bloke attempt to become one?

 

A 'Karen" as I understand it, is one of these women who can let loose a continuous stream of invective (usually critical of YOU), keeping going for up to ten minutes without stopping to draw a breath. 

 

I've no idea why "Karen" in particular. 

 

Or there is an alternative definition here:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Karen

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

A 'Karen" as I understand it, is one of these women who can let loose a continuous stream of invective (usually critical of YOU), keeping going for up to ten minutes without stopping to draw a breath. 

 

I've no idea why "Karen" in particular. 

 

Or there is an alternative definition here:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Karen

 

My sister in law is named Karen.

 

Just sayin'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Murflynn said:

 

err  ..............  isn't that exactly what he proposed to do?    :banghead:  :banghead:

But it also demonstrates the importance of care when signing up to a contract (of any sort). Unless foreseen as part of the contract, both parties have an obligation to fulfil their part of the bargain. Whenever arguing for a right to break that contract it is always important to remember that doing so would open the gates to allowing the other party to act similarly. In the case cited, I am sure that the insured boater would be (rightly) upset of the insurance company decided to cancel the contract because they no longer wanted to carry that specific risk, and to make no recompense to the insured boater.

3 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

CRT asked licence holders to follow a procedure. That response to their needs required a response in return; the issuing of some refund. No one else set up the need but CRT. Administration is needed to run the scheme. It is not some unique requirement of a business. It is essential for the running of a business. It is not an extra. 

 

 

It may be so but that does not suggest that CaRT should not levy a charge for the use of their services, like any other charge. Ironically, your argument adds to the justification for the charge rather than the other way around.

3 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

I don't mind paying for administration. A business cannot get by without administration. It is part of every transaction. I don't expect to have a bill charged by a company for making out the bill and sending it; in the course of completing a transaction - unless anywhere before taking on work, it had been laid out as a cost, and given in an original cost for a job, which I could then agree to, or question. If it is not mentioned at this stage, as a specific extra, it will be deemed to already be an assumed and accounted for cost, included in the cost given for the work. 

 

 

I would still question why it is necessary to record one specific charge that would ordinarily be an overhead, an incidental cost; as fuel or electricity or wages. 

 

 

 

 

 

But it is set out before the contract is entered into in this instance. But then, not every boater reads the conditions  beforehand!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.