In message , Cicero
writes
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:55:47 +0100, Tanner-'op wrote:

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Tanner-'op wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-22 20:22:57 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...news.html?in_a
rticle_id=561216&in_page_id=1770

Not a good businessman for several reasons:

- Didn't secure the customer's ability to pay before starting the
work. Council tenant.

- Continued the work despite missed payment deadlines

- Destroyed the work done


Not very bright, either of them.

Too true matey. Why didn't he ask for a deposit or staged payment?
If I accept a decking job I always ask for & clear a 50% deposit
before I order the timber. The timber typically acounts for 35% of
the price so I'm in front before I start.

I'm sorry Dave, but if you asked me for a 50% deposit for materials
then my response would be "on yer bike" - the maximum deposit I would
give would be 10% (if I'm in a good mood) and I would be keeping 10%
back at the end of the job as a 'retention in case of defects' for an
agreed period (for a small job may that would be three months max and
for a larger job, six months).

Never had a problem matey. I ask for it and get it - 100% success
rate. I don't specify that its for materials, I just ask for a 50%
deposit.

Then those that give that amount of deposit are idiots Dave - as I said, I
would only pay 10% maximum and the rest either in stages or on satifactory
job completion.

snipped


From a very old, retired builder himself!

Tanner-'op

==================================
Maybe it's a matter of scale. The Medway Man is probably doing jobs
costing a few hundreds of pounds at most, with a timescale of days, which
is the nature of 'handyman' jobs. A builder is often working for thousands
of pounds over weeks or months. Most people would be happy to pay 50% of a
few hundred pounds but would baulk at 50% of thousands.

Even some would do it themselves


--
geoff

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...


Can you imagine if I went into Jewsons & asked to open a credit acount
with a £22K limit if they had never done business with me, didn't know me
& I couldn't supply trade & bank references?

That's what credit cards are for, 20k free for a few weeks.

wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
But why should I finance the customers project? Without any guarantee of
payment? Look what happened to this guy - £22k or whatever down the
swanee - could put him out of business.

Never mind Rouge Traders what about Rouge Customers? They exist as well.

What have red traders and customers got to do with it?

Nothing, its a pigment of your imagination. ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 2008-04-23 23:15:46 +0100, John Rumm said:

wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
But why should I finance the customers project? Without any guarantee
of payment? Look what happened to this guy - £22k or whatever down the
swanee - could put him out of business.

Never mind Rouge Traders what about Rouge Customers? They exist as well.

What have red traders and customers got to do with it?

Nothing, its a pigment of your imagination. ;-)

Farb from it

Cicero wrote:
SNIP


==================================
Maybe it's a matter of scale. The Medway Man is probably doing jobs
costing a few hundreds of pounds at most, with a timescale of days,
which is the nature of 'handyman' jobs. A builder is often working
for thousands of pounds over weeks or months. Most people would be
happy to pay 50% of a few hundred pounds but would baulk at 50% of
thousands.

I really only ask for deposits on decking jobs, the largest of which has
been just under £2K for the job, deposit of 50% of that. Average decking
job is around £1200, so £600 deposit.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Cicero" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:55:47 +0100, Tanner-'op wrote:

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Tanner-'op wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-04-22 20:22:57 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

Not a good businessman for several reasons:

- Didn't secure the customer's ability to pay before starting the
work. Council tenant.

- Continued the work despite missed payment deadlines

- Destroyed the work done


Not very bright, either of them.

Too true matey. Why didn't he ask for a deposit or staged payment?
If I accept a decking job I always ask for & clear a 50% deposit
before I order the timber. The timber typically acounts for 35% of
the price so I'm in front before I start.

I'm sorry Dave, but if you asked me for a 50% deposit for materials
then my response would be "on yer bike" - the maximum deposit I would
give would be 10% (if I'm in a good mood) and I would be keeping 10%
back at the end of the job as a 'retention in case of defects' for an
agreed period (for a small job may that would be three months max and
for a larger job, six months).

Never had a problem matey. I ask for it and get it - 100% success
rate. I don't specify that its for materials, I just ask for a 50%
deposit.

Then those that give that amount of deposit are idiots Dave - as I said,
I
would only pay 10% maximum and the rest either in stages or on
satifactory
job completion.

snipped


From a very old, retired builder himself!

Tanner-'op

==================================
Maybe it's a matter of scale. The Medway Man is probably doing jobs
costing a few hundreds of pounds at most, with a timescale of days, which
is the nature of 'handyman' jobs. A builder is often working for thousands
of pounds over weeks or months. Most people would be happy to pay 50% of a
few hundred pounds but would baulk at 50% of thousands.

Perhaps, but to me, a request for 50% up front would make it fairly obvious
to me that the tradesman needed the money to buy materials. That implies
that he does not have an account at the local trade suppliers, which in turn
suggests that he has problems getting credit and is probably operating on a
very tight margin. If that is the case, there is a higher than average
chance that his business could fail at any time, which is not good news if
he happens to be working on your job when it does, particularly if he has
used your money to finance a previous job.

Colin Bignell

"nightjar.me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

8

Perhaps, but to me, a request for 50% up front would make it fairly
obvious to me that the tradesman needed the money to buy materials. That
implies that he does not have an account at the local trade suppliers,
which in turn suggests that he has problems getting credit and is probably
operating on a very tight margin. If that is the case, there is a higher
than average chance that his business could fail at any time, which is not
good news if he happens to be working on your job when it does,
particularly if he has used your money to finance a previous job.

Colin Bignell


"I" would prefer to pay by credit card so "I" get cover for things going
wrong.
Then there needs to be a deposit of at least £100 for the law to kick in.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"nightjar.me.uk" cpb@insert my surname here wrote in message
...

8

Perhaps, but to me, a request for 50% up front would make it fairly
obvious to me that the tradesman needed the money to buy materials. That
implies that he does not have an account at the local trade suppliers,
which in turn suggests that he has problems getting credit and is
probably operating on a very tight margin. If that is the case, there is
a higher than average chance that his business could fail at any time,
which is not good news if he happens to be working on your job when it
does, particularly if he has used your money to finance a previous job.

Colin Bignell


"I" would prefer to pay by credit card so "I" get cover for things going
wrong.
Then there needs to be a deposit of at least £100 for the law to kick in.

If the trader has managed to get a merchant number to accept cards that, in
itself, is a good sign. However, you could end up paying more for using a
card - it is quite legal to have one price for cash and another for card
payments. The difference must be a reasonable reflection of the extra cost
of processing the card, although it is more likely to manifest itself as
'I'll knock off £X for cash Guv' than as a surcharge for card payment..

Colin Bignell

In article et,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
Maybe that is why the proch
roof doesn't appear to be attached to the building...

I was intreagued that when the porch roof hit the ground,
all the tiles just fell away as a single solid sheet.
Presumably you can buy large sheets of plastic which look
like a roof of redland tiles? Never seen that before.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
"Tanner-'op" writes:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Tanner-'op wrote:
I'm sorry Dave, but if you asked me for a 50% deposit for materials
then my response would be "on yer bike" - the maximum deposit I would
give would be 10% (if I'm in a good mood) and I would be keeping 10%
back at the end of the job as a 'retention in case of defects' for an
agreed period (for a small job may that would be three months max and
for a larger job, six months).

Never had a problem matey. I ask for it and get it - 100% success
rate. I don't specify that its for materials, I just ask for a 50%
deposit.

Then those that give that amount of deposit are idiots Dave - as I said, I
would only pay 10% maximum and the rest either in stages or on satifactory
job completion.

I've never had a builder or other workman ask for a deposit.
I would probably pay up to 10-20% if asked. I did have one
builder who out of the blue, asked for what was about 15% part
payment halfway through, in order to pay his labourer on the
Friday. They were both doing an excellent job, so I was happy
to oblige with that.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
fred writes:
In article , nightjar
writes
The demolition was carried out with the permission of the property owners -
the local Council - and with the Police in attendance.

Nothing like that in the referenced Mail article or those I have found
on searching.

It said that on the news last night (about the council having
given permission for him to demolish it). However, she is now
liable for putting the house back as it was, which was estimated
will cost some more thousands.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
fred writes:
In article , nightjar
writes
The demolition was carried out with the permission of the property owners -
the local Council - and with the Police in attendance.

Nothing like that in the referenced Mail article or those I have found
on searching.

It said that on the news last night (about the council having
given permission for him to demolish it). However, she is now
liable for putting the house back as it was, which was estimated
will cost some more thousands.

I was questioning whether the council, having given permission for the
building of the porch/conservatory, had the authority to give the
builder permission to remove it based on the issue of the debt alone. If
they gave permission for it to be removed then I believe any damage
caused to the (their) property is their own responsibility.

I would add that I have no time for the woman at the centre of the row
but that doesn't make the behaviour of the builder or the council right
or lawful.

IANAL
--
fred
Plusnet - I hope you like vanilla

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article et,
"Dave Liquorice" writes:
Maybe that is why the proch
roof doesn't appear to be attached to the building...

I was intreagued that when the porch roof hit the ground,
all the tiles just fell away as a single solid sheet.
Presumably you can buy large sheets of plastic which look
like a roof of redland tiles? Never seen that before.

Maybe the tile batten came un-nailed from the roof in preference to the
tiles unailing from the batten?

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"fred" wrote in message ...
In article , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
fred writes:
In article , nightjar
writes
The demolition was carried out with the permission of the property
owners -
the local Council - and with the Police in attendance.

Nothing like that in the referenced Mail article or those I have found
on searching.

It said that on the news last night (about the council having
given permission for him to demolish it). However, she is now
liable for putting the house back as it was, which was estimated
will cost some more thousands.

I was questioning whether the council, having given permission for the
building of the porch/conservatory,

That's a big assumption! Wihout knowing the exact address - 'Shoreham' is a
bit vague- it's not possible to btoese the 'planning' sction of
www.addur.gov.uk and determine whether planning consent and/or building
reg apporval was given for the porch/conservatory. Do you know somethng I
don't? Can you share it?

By and large 'porches' do not need planning consent (with some constraints)
and a _true_ consevatory may be within the 'Permitted Development' volume
for a dwelling



.....had the authority to give the builder permission to remove it based
on the issue of the debt alone.

Was that the basis? Do you know somethng I don't? Can you share it?


If they gave permission for it to be removed then I believe any damage
caused to the (their) property is their own responsibility.

The dwelling may have had (and seems from the 'photos) to have some of the
rendering temoved from the dwelling and to have a lead flashing above the
porch. One wonders whether the conservatory has broached the integrity of
the rear external walla. The erecions may have 'damaged' (= made alterarion
to) the dwelling which may require restoration to the previous status. Do
you know somethng I don't? Can you share it?


I would add that I have no time for the woman at the centre of the row but
that doesn't make the behaviour of the builder or the council right or
lawful.

IANAL
--
fred
Plusnet - I hope you like vanilla

--

Brian

"Tanner-'op" wrote:

I'm sorry Dave, but if you asked me for a 50% deposit for materials then my
response would be "on yer bike"

Mine wouldbe a lot stronger. Only a mug pays a 50% deposit before work
starts, 10-15% yes. But only pikey builders can't afford the materials -
not that they have to pay for them up front either. And if a builder can
get a line of credit with a builder's merchant avoid them like the
plague.

On 2008-04-24 20:16:54 +0100, (Steve Firth) said:

"Tanner-'op" wrote:

I'm sorry Dave, but if you asked me for a 50% deposit for materials then my
response would be "on yer bike"

Mine wouldbe a lot stronger. Only a mug pays a 50% deposit before work
starts, 10-15% yes. But only pikey builders can't afford the materials -
not that they have to pay for them up front either. And if a builder can
get a line of credit with a builder's merchant avoid them like the
plague.

Do you mean "can"?

In article , Brian Sharrock
writes

"fred" wrote in message ...
In article , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
fred writes:
In article ,
nightjar
writes
The demolition was carried out with the permission of the property
owners -
the local Council - and with the Police in attendance.

Nothing like that in the referenced Mail article or those I have found
on searching.

It said that on the news last night (about the council having
given permission for him to demolish it). However, she is now
liable for putting the house back as it was, which was estimated
will cost some more thousands.

I was questioning whether the council, having given permission for the
building of the porch/conservatory,

That's a big assumption! Wihout knowing the exact address - 'Shoreham' is a
bit vague- it's not possible to btoese the 'planning' sction of
www.addur.gov.uk and determine whether planning consent and/or building
reg apporval was given for the porch/conservatory. Do you know somethng I
don't? Can you share it?

There is no mention in any of the articles I have read of this being a
planning issue. There are many quotes however from council spokespersons
describing that, "Council tenants are allowed to make improvements to
their home" and that, "a private agreement has gone wrong". If there was
some planning issue, I would have expected the council to play it large.

.....had the authority to give the builder permission to remove it based
on the issue of the debt alone.

Was that the basis? Do you know somethng I don't? Can you share it?

That is certainly the position stated by the builder and not
contradicted by the council's statements.

If they gave permission for it to be removed then I believe any damage
caused to the (their) property is their own responsibility.

The dwelling may have had (and seems from the 'photos) to have some of the
rendering temoved from the dwelling and to have a lead flashing above the
porch. One wonders whether the conservatory has broached the integrity of
the rear external walla. The erecions may have 'damaged' (= made alterarion
to) the dwelling which may require restoration to the previous status. Do
you know somethng I don't? Can you share it?

The spokesperson's statement that Council tenants are allowed to make
improvements to their home implies that they have not had any issue with
the building work.
--
fred
Plusnet - I hope you like vanilla

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:33:21 UTC, "Brian Sharrock"
wrote:

But; you wrote; "the council, having given permission for the building of
the porch/conservatory" !
Exactly _how_ does a council _give permission_ for any buillding work to be
done? Please elaborate; I'm confused by your statement.

They own it. It's a council house. Different kind of permission, of
course.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

"fred" wrote in message ...
In article , Brian Sharrock
writes

"fred" wrote in message ...
In article , Andrew Gabriel
writes
In article ,
fred writes:
In article ,
nightjar
writes
The demolition was carried out with the permission of the property
owners -
the local Council - and with the Police in attendance.

Nothing like that in the referenced Mail article or those I have found
on searching.

It said that on the news last night (about the council having
given permission for him to demolish it). However, she is now
liable for putting the house back as it was, which was estimated
will cost some more thousands.

I was questioning whether the council, having given permission for the
building of the porch/conservatory,

That's a big assumption! Wihout knowing the exact address - 'Shoreham' is
a
bit vague- it's not possible to btoese the 'planning' sction of
www.addur.gov.uk and determine whether planning consent and/or building
reg apporval was given for the porch/conservatory. Do you know somethng I
don't? Can you share it?

There is no mention in any of the articles I have read of this being a
planning issue.

But; you wrote; "the council, having given permission for the building of
the porch/conservatory" !
Exactly _how_ does a council _give permission_ for any buillding work to be
done? Please elaborate; I'm confused by your statement.


... There are many quotes however from council
spokespersons describing that, "Council tenants are allowed to make
improvements to their home" and that, "a private agreement has gone
wrong". If there was some planning issue, I would have expected the
council to play it large.


You've lready said (writen) that the council 'had given permission' ... I'd
have expected the 'client' to 'play it large' and brandihing a Certificate
of Occupancy off the Council ... wondered why that doesn't seem yo have been
played (little or large)?


.....had the authority to give the builder permission to remove it based
on the issue of the debt alone.

Was that the basis? Do you know somethng I don't? Can you share it?

That is certainly the position stated by the builder and not contradicted
by the council's statements.

If they gave permission for it to be removed then I believe any damage
caused to the (their) property is their own responsibility.

The dwelling may have had (and seems from the 'photos) to have some of the
rendering temoved from the dwelling and to have a lead flashing above the
porch. One wonders whether the conservatory has broached the integrity of
the rear external walla. The erecions may have 'damaged' (= made
alterarion
to) the dwelling which may require restoration to the previous status. Do
you know somethng I don't? Can you share it?

The spokesperson's statement that Council tenants are allowed to make
improvements to their home implies that they have not had any issue with
the building work.
--
fred
Plusnet - I hope you like vanilla

The council's spokesperson's remarks are non-specific and can't be
interpreted to imply that this particular tenant and/or builder had adhered
to the building control requirements.

--

Brian

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2008-04-24 20:16:54 +0100, (Steve Firth) said:

"Tanner-'op" wrote:

I'm sorry Dave, but if you asked me for a 50% deposit for materials then my
response would be "on yer bike"

Mine would be a lot stronger. Only a mug pays a 50% deposit before work
starts, 10-15% yes. But only pikey builders can't afford the materials -
not that they have to pay for them up front either. And if a builder can't
get a line of credit with a builder's merchant avoid them like the
plague.

Do you mean "can"?

Corrected above, I think.

On 2008-04-25 00:21:05 +0100, (Steve Firth) said:

Andy Hall wrote:

On 2008-04-24 20:16:54 +0100, (Steve Firth) said:

"Tanner-'op" wrote:

I'm sorry Dave, but if you asked me for a 50% deposit for materials then my
response would be "on yer bike"

Mine would be a lot stronger. Only a mug pays a 50% deposit before work
starts, 10-15% yes. But only pikey builders can't afford the materials -
not that they have to pay for them up front either. And if a builder can't
get a line of credit with a builder's merchant avoid them like the
plague.

Do you mean "can"?

Corrected above, I think.

OK. It was what I thought you meant but thought I'd ask in case you
had a different perspective that I hadn't considered before.

Steve Firth wrote:
"Tanner-'op" wrote:

I'm sorry Dave, but if you asked me for a 50% deposit for materials
then my response would be "on yer bike"

Mine wouldbe a lot stronger. Only a mug pays a 50% deposit before work
starts, 10-15% yes. But only pikey builders can't afford the
materials - not that they have to pay for them up front either. And
if a builder can get a line of credit with a builder's merchant avoid
them like the plague.

Far from being a pikey builder, I have a near perfect credit score & a 100%
positive bank reference. Since I started 2 years ago I have always paid my
suppliers when ordering materials using my business acount debit card. I
prefer this method as I know exactly where I am finacially.

This means however that I don't have any suppliers I can use as 'trade
references', therefore opening a credit acount with my timber supplier is
likely to be a problem.

Hoist by my own petard?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 2008-04-25 08:09:14 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:



Steve Firth wrote:
"Tanner-'op" wrote:

I'm sorry Dave, but if you asked me for a 50% deposit for materials
then my response would be "on yer bike"

Mine wouldbe a lot stronger. Only a mug pays a 50% deposit before work
starts, 10-15% yes. But only pikey builders can't afford the
materials - not that they have to pay for them up front either. And
if a builder can get a line of credit with a builder's merchant avoid
them like the plague.

Far from being a pikey builder, I have a near perfect credit score & a 100%
positive bank reference. Since I started 2 years ago I have always paid my
suppliers when ordering materials using my business acount debit card. I
prefer this method as I know exactly where I am finacially.

This means however that I don't have any suppliers I can use as 'trade
references', therefore opening a credit acount with my timber supplier is
likely to be a problem.

Hoist by my own petard?

This is pretty easy to fix. Try opening accounts with a couple of
small suppliers (even in an unrelated or semi-unrelated area) - e.g.
the printer for your business cards. Once that has been in place for
a few months then use those as references for larger suppliers.
Having the facilities in place is the useful thing and with some
suppliers may earn you better pricing. There's nothing to stop you
from still paying as you always have done. Like anything else
involving a credit facility, the important thing is to be crisp about
and pay attention to what you are doing. If that means running with
net zero days balances then you can do it.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48118b7c@qaanaaq...
On 2008-04-25 08:09:14 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:
.....
Far from being a pikey builder, I have a near perfect credit score & a
100%
positive bank reference. Since I started 2 years ago I have always paid
my
suppliers when ordering materials using my business acount debit card. I
prefer this method as I know exactly where I am finacially.

This means however that I don't have any suppliers I can use as 'trade
references', therefore opening a credit acount with my timber supplier is
likely to be a problem.

Hoist by my own petard?

This is pretty easy to fix. Try opening accounts with a couple of small
suppliers (even in an unrelated or semi-unrelated area) - e.g. the printer
for your business cards. Once that has been in place for a few months
then use those as references for larger suppliers.

Exactly what I did with a new limited company I started a couple of years
ago. It now has credit facilities of up to £15k with all its suppliers.

Having the facilities in place is the useful thing and with some suppliers
may earn you better pricing. There's nothing to stop you from still
paying as you always have done. Like anything else involving a credit
facility, the important thing is to be crisp about and pay attention to
what you are doing. If that means running with net zero days balances
then you can do it.

I suspect there are quite a few people running small businesses who would
not understand that last sentence.

Colin Bignell

"fred" wrote in message ...


snip


Do give me a shout when you have anything that even hints that this is a
planning consent issue.
--
fred

That'll be shortly after you've demonstrated that " ... the council had
given permission ...".


BTW; I've forked out nearly a thousand quid to the self same Adur District
Council in planning application; building control submissions and BCO
service fees for my humble alterations yet I know of many illicit building
alterations for which 'the council has given permission _NOT_!


--

Brian

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message
...

"fred" wrote in message ...


snip


Do give me a shout when you have anything that even hints that this is a
planning consent issue.
--
fred

That'll be shortly after you've demonstrated that " ... the council had
given permission ...".


Follow up to my earler post:

According to the local / regional newpaper 'The Argus'; the property is in
Elizabeth Road, Shoreham.

The Adur District Council's webiste contains a planning application /
decision/ appeals series of pages which indicates that there are no
planning applications / approvals for any property in 'Elizabeth Rd'.
[A porch may not require planning consent and a 'conservatory' may be within
'Permitted development']



BTW; I've forked out nearly a thousand quid to the self same Adur District
Council in planning application; building control submissions and BCO
service fees for my humble alterations yet I know of many illicit
building alterations for which 'the council has given permission _NOT_!


--

Brian

--

Brian

The Medway Handyman wrote:

This means however that I don't have any suppliers I can use as 'trade
references', therefore opening a credit acount with my timber supplier is
likely to be a problem.

Hoist by my own petard?

IIRC, the first time we required a trade reference for something, I
simply listed our company bank as one source, and someone like CPC (with
who we had a couple of hundred credit limit at the time) as another.
Once you have one or two, its easy to step on to more (as long as your
ratings are sound).

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 2008-04-25 09:13:12 +0100, "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname
here.me.uk said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:48118b7c@qaanaaq...

This is pretty easy to fix. Try opening accounts with a couple of small
suppliers (even in an unrelated or semi-unrelated area) - e.g. the printer
for your business cards. Once that has been in place for a few months
then use those as references for larger suppliers.

Exactly what I did with a new limited company I started a couple of years
ago. It now has credit facilities of up to £15k with all its suppliers.

Having the facilities in place is the useful thing and with some suppliers
may earn you better pricing. There's nothing to stop you from still
paying as you always have done. Like anything else involving a credit
facility, the important thing is to be crisp about and pay attention to
what you are doing. If that means running with net zero days balances
then you can do it.

I suspect there are quite a few people running small businesses who would
not understand that last sentence.


Mmm...

Be it buying or selling.