Quote for works v Works carried out

[Blazer]

Hi,

I was quoted £325 for some works which was broken down to include "2 men...one day". I was happy with the overall price compared to other quotes so proceeded.

When it came to the works, 1 man was on site for 5 hours (inc travel time for materials because it was sub'ed to someone else who had not come with any materials).

I was happy with what they did so paid. I deal with contracts all the time at work so just want an 'easy time' at home. But the fact that it took such less 'labour' than quoted has left a bit of a sour taste.

What would the collective have done in my position?

TIA

[ElyDave]

Definitely worth questioning that. One fewer person, I'd not quibble on 5 vs 8 hours if they have worked effectively, but saying its a two person job and doing it with one seems a bit off to me

[robgul]

I can see your point - but the "contract" was to carry out a task for a price.  It seems that happened and you're satisfied with the work - and happy with the price.  Not much to argue about.

We've had quite a bit of work done in the last 3 years or so (driveway, garage doors, landscaping, taking trees out, wood flooring, tiling)- it's all been fixed price . . . the labour was irrelevant as long as the job was done in the agreed time scale . . . none of the suppliers said it would be n men for n days - how they worked was up to them.

[Beardy]

Fixed price contract. If you were happy with the work done, you got what you contracted for.

Consider, if the task had taken three people over five days, would you still expect to pay what was quoted, or would you have been happy to pay more?

I would say though that the firm you contracted needs to do some work in its customer communication. The general rule is promise low and deliver high. Taking half the time with half the people you quoted is going to leave your customer feeling ripped off no matter how well well you delivered.