[Marc Stock]

If the debt is older than say 6 months; and you havent actively tried to collect or send payment reminders; then tbh they may not even know they owe you the money.

Lets be honest i doubt very much our customers are sitting down thinking about weather they are upto date with the window cleaning payment.

Plus never let one clean go overdue.

Like daz said. Go and collect it using your card reader.

[John Mart]

I find it amusing that whenever debts come up there's a sudden rush of barrack-room lawyers appearing who fire off their opinions about the law.

Forget the law. Look at your time and quality of life. Do you really want to spend time on legal shenanigans that, with a following wind, hours of effort and a court case regarding the exact contract you have with your customer (taking previous case law and precedent into account) might get you twenty or thirty quid out of a customer?

No. Take reasonable steps (I set the limit at about 15 minutes total) to get the money out of people whose windows you actually cleaned and who didn't pay.  Then dust yourself down, forget the money you didn't collect and move on to customers who want you to clean and who want to pay you.  Don't spend time chasing them to court, spend the time with your family, watching TV, picking your backside or even looking for good customers.

Life really is too short.

Vin

I wish Tesco would adopt this attitude. I reckon I could outrun them for 15 minutes, even with £30 worth of shopping.

If Tesco where only losing £300 a year on theft then that's exactly the attitude they would take, never confuse a business decision with the need to get the money back because its become personal.

You need to scale it. If a window cleaner loses £300 a year that’s 0.1%. Say Tesco turnover £1bn that’s 1m. I think.  Damn sure they’ll be chasing that up.

No they wouldn't as chasing debt costs in both time and money, Tesco's 1 million might sound like a large amount to let drop but spending millions on the chance of getting it back is a lot more, they would make a business decision based on whats best for profit.

I’ll bet you £300 you are wrong.

[Arnold Palmer]

I find it amusing that whenever debts come up there's a sudden rush of barrack-room lawyers appearing who fire off their opinions about the law.

Forget the law. Look at your time and quality of life. Do you really want to spend time on legal shenanigans that, with a following wind, hours of effort and a court case regarding the exact contract you have with your customer (taking previous case law and precedent into account) might get you twenty or thirty quid out of a customer?

No. Take reasonable steps (I set the limit at about 15 minutes total) to get the money out of people whose windows you actually cleaned and who didn't pay.  Then dust yourself down, forget the money you didn't collect and move on to customers who want you to clean and who want to pay you.  Don't spend time chasing them to court, spend the time with your family, watching TV, picking your backside or even looking for good customers.

Life really is too short.

Vin

I wish Tesco would adopt this attitude. I reckon I could outrun them for 15 minutes, even with £30 worth of shopping.

If Tesco where only losing £300 a year on theft then that's exactly the attitude they would take, never confuse a business decision with the need to get the money back because its become personal.

You need to scale it. If a window cleaner loses £300 a year that’s 0.1%. Say Tesco turnover £1bn that’s 1m. I think.  Damn sure they’ll be chasing that up.

No they wouldn't as chasing debt costs in both time and money, Tesco's 1 million might sound like a large amount to let drop but spending millions on the chance of getting it back is a lot more, they would make a business decision based on whats best for profit.

They would. And that decision would be "thieves will be prosecuted".

[Perfect Windows]

They would. And that decision would be "thieves will be prosecuted".

They would indeed, because knowing they do that has a deterrent effect against people thinking about committing a criminal act.

Whereas my taking Mrs Grottles to court over an £18 civil debt will take far more time than it's worth and, if I win, won't deter anyone.  Unless I start a newsletter shaming all the people I beat in court.  With a photo of them in the stocks, maybe.

Anyway, I suggest that everyone does what they want.  Enjoy your days in court.

Vin

[Arnold Palmer]

They would. And that decision would be "thieves will be prosecuted".

They would indeed, because knowing they do that has a deterrent effect against people thinking about committing a criminal act.

Whereas my taking Mrs Grottles to court over an £18 civil debt will take far more time than it's worth and, if I win, won't deter anyone.  Unless I start a newsletter shaming all the people I beat in court.  With a photo of them in the stocks, maybe.

Anyway, I suggest that everyone does what they want.  Enjoy your days in court.

Vin

Sarcasm is no fun in written form.

Anyway, as long as you don't go publishing your lax attitude to bad debt on a public forum under your "registered trademark", where you "advise" others in the industry to do the same; I'm sure it's fine.

[Perfect Windows]

They would. And that decision would be "thieves will be prosecuted".

They would indeed, because knowing they do that has a deterrent effect against people thinking about committing a criminal act.

Whereas my taking Mrs Grottles to court over an £18 civil debt will take far more time than it's worth and, if I win, won't deter anyone.  Unless I start a newsletter shaming all the people I beat in court.  With a photo of them in the stocks, maybe.

Anyway, I suggest that everyone does what they want.  Enjoy your days in court.

Vin

Sarcasm is no fun in written form.

Anyway, as long as you don't go publishing your lax attitude to bad debt on a public forum under your "registered trademark", where you "advise" others in the industry to do the same; I'm sure it's fine.

Are you seriously suggesting (in your utterly sarcastic manner in that post) that our customers will read this and decide not to pay us on the basis of what I've said on here?

Vin

[Arnold Palmer]

They would. And that decision would be "thieves will be prosecuted".

They would indeed, because knowing they do that has a deterrent effect against people thinking about committing a criminal act.

Whereas my taking Mrs Grottles to court over an £18 civil debt will take far more time than it's worth and, if I win, won't deter anyone.  Unless I start a newsletter shaming all the people I beat in court.  With a photo of them in the stocks, maybe.

Anyway, I suggest that everyone does what they want.  Enjoy your days in court.

Vin

Sarcasm is no fun in written form.

Anyway, as long as you don't go publishing your lax attitude to bad debt on a public forum under your "registered trademark", where you "advise" others in the industry to do the same; I'm sure it's fine.

Are you seriously suggesting (in your utterly sarcastic manner in that post) that our customers will read this and decide not to pay us on the basis of what I've said on here?

Vin

Sarcasm?

I've nooooo idea what you're on about...


Vin

[Arnold Palmer]

Are you seriously suggesting (in your utterly sarcastic manner in that post) that our customers will read this and decide not to pay us on the basis of what I've said on here?

Vin

Not as a general rule no.

I wouldn't put it beyond the realm of possibility that after a letter from you threatening court action somebody might Google say "perfect windows" debt collection where they'll find this thread on the first page.

[Arnold Palmer]

They might try "perfect windows" court action where they'll find you from 2011.

http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=128161.msg1110495#msg1110495

Again on page one.

I'm not saying it's going to change the behaviour of your customer base, it'll probably have no noticeable effect whatsoever. Still, it's not exactly very bright is it?

[Marc Stock]

I agree with soupy.

Everything on this forum is indexable.

Everything you say on here Google will pick it up.

I took the smarter option , and removed my business information from here. Same as GOMO.
Hopefully the google bots will re index the text and drop the business association.

[Arnold Palmer]

The "mathematical approach" may well tell you to spend only 15 minutes chasing bad debt. The "don't be a wally approach" tells me not to advertise that fact on a public forum.

I dunno if you've ever been threatened with court action before, I have. I can assure you that a Google search of the claimant along with the claim is invariably the first port of call for most people. If I were to find this:



My mind would be put to rest and I would be paying nowt.

[Arnold Palmer]

And if you think that maybe this is just a Google search tailored for me, here's the same search carried out in explorer [boke] with absolutely no cookies or search history.

[Dry Clean]

I googled it and got similar, but what was just in  front of it on the list was a money saving forum telling customers why they shouldn't  worry if a shiner threatens court action, I don't think this make the slightest bit of difference to somebody that has no intention of paying, he's just confirming what they already believe about us all.

[John Mart]

I googled it and got similar, but what was just in  front of it on the list was a money saving forum telling customers why they shouldn't  worry if a shiner threatens court action, I don't think this make the slightest bit of difference to somebody that has no intention of paying, he's just confirming what they already believe about us all.

Gomo was talking about 150 non payers. I’ll bet 130 would pay with a letter before action.

[Arnold Palmer]

I googled it and got similar, but what was just in  front of it on the list was a money saving forum telling customers why they shouldn't  worry if a shiner threatens court action, I don't think this make the slightest bit of difference to somebody that has no intention of paying, he's just confirming what they already believe about us all.

And why on earth would anyone willingly confirm that?

[Dry Clean]

I googled it and got similar, but what was just in  front of it on the list was a money saving forum telling customers why they shouldn't  worry if a shiner threatens court action, I don't think this make the slightest bit of difference to somebody that has no intention of paying, he's just confirming what they already believe about us all.

And why on earth would anyone willingly confirm that?

He's just giving his opinion on this forum, its you who's making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Arnold Palmer]

He's just giving his opinion on this forum, its you who's making a mountain out of a molehill.

I notice that you don't put your name to anything on here either.

Sensible.

[Shrek]

He's just giving his opinion on this forum, its you who's making a mountain out of a molehill.

I notice that you don't put your name to anything on here either.

Sensible.

I think there’s only a few of us on here now that use our real names 

[Arnold Palmer]

He's just giving his opinion on this forum, its you who's making a mountain out of a molehill.

I notice that you don't put your name to anything on here either.

Sensible.

I think there’s only a few of us on here now that use our real names 

Just you, Vin and Lee.