Dear Forum,
We are currently building a house through a construction company. The building specifications state there will be 4 sockets per room. Since this is not sufficient for us, we have chosen to add extra sockets in some places. Price according to the electrician: 90€ for a single socket, 120€ for a double socket.
I would like to explain our issue using the following example:
For one room, we selected
- 1x single socket
- 3x double sockets
According to our understanding, we should pay the extra cost compared to the building specification as follows:
3x surcharge from single to double socket = 3x(120€ - 90€) = 90€.
However, the electrician calculates the cost as follows:
- 2x double sockets cover the 4 sockets per room specified in the building description
- in addition, extra costs apply for 1x double socket + 1x single socket = 120€ + 90€ = 210€.
=> The electrician is charging more than twice what we expected—solely due to a different calculation method.
My question to the forum is:
Is the electrician using a common calculation method, or is this a case of overcharging?
We are currently building a house through a construction company. The building specifications state there will be 4 sockets per room. Since this is not sufficient for us, we have chosen to add extra sockets in some places. Price according to the electrician: 90€ for a single socket, 120€ for a double socket.
I would like to explain our issue using the following example:
For one room, we selected
- 1x single socket
- 3x double sockets
According to our understanding, we should pay the extra cost compared to the building specification as follows:
3x surcharge from single to double socket = 3x(120€ - 90€) = 90€.
However, the electrician calculates the cost as follows:
- 2x double sockets cover the 4 sockets per room specified in the building description
- in addition, extra costs apply for 1x double socket + 1x single socket = 120€ + 90€ = 210€.
=> The electrician is charging more than twice what we expected—solely due to a different calculation method.
My question to the forum is:
Is the electrician using a common calculation method, or is this a case of overcharging?
B
boxandroof17 Sep 2019 13:19hampshire schrieb:
Every change causes logistical and administrative effort. Most builders don’t notice this. However, these costs are real. That is why changes are more expensive than just the additional material and labor costs. That goes without saying. The OP feels misled because, from their point of view, the costs were not presented transparently—or let’s say fairly—beforehand.
It’s pretty obvious, he’s trying to make a fool of you.
The (overpriced) base price of €90 vs. €120 reflects the different effort required for single versus double junction boxes.
Tell him you’re not falling for that and that he should bill properly, otherwise you’ll find someone else—or better yet, just do it yourselves and have him only lay the cables and connect them in the breaker panel.
@hampshire Respect goes both ways; putting this guy on a pedestal now is just ridiculous. It’s simply disrespectful for a tradesperson to try to fool their customers, and that has nothing to do with his cost calculation.
Logistical and bureaucratic effort… yeah, right.
The (overpriced) base price of €90 vs. €120 reflects the different effort required for single versus double junction boxes.
Tell him you’re not falling for that and that he should bill properly, otherwise you’ll find someone else—or better yet, just do it yourselves and have him only lay the cables and connect them in the breaker panel.
@hampshire Respect goes both ways; putting this guy on a pedestal now is just ridiculous. It’s simply disrespectful for a tradesperson to try to fool their customers, and that has nothing to do with his cost calculation.
Logistical and bureaucratic effort… yeah, right.
H
HilfeHilfe17 Sep 2019 14:38boxandroof schrieb:
The electrician comes up afterward with a "calculation method" that the original poster couldn’t have anticipated. Honestly, I’m surprised by the reactions here. Maybe the electrician gets away with it, but I don’t think it’s acceptable.
The electrician’s cross-subsidization can already be balanced by charging €90 or €120 for the junction boxes. That’s not a small amount, it’s known in advance, and therefore completely legitimate. If that’s not enough, then he simply has to charge €200. If the original poster only opts for the house’s basic electrical setup, the electrician’s cross-subsidization no longer adds up. Again! The original poster has a contract with the general contractor, who restricts their subcontractors. The original poster now wants more work and finds it unfair. They should address this directly with the general contractor! I don’t see anything wrong with this approach at all!
B
boxandroof17 Sep 2019 14:58He was previously given prices that, in his view, are no longer being met.
He is also more or less tied to the general contractor’s electrician.
This is not about subcontractor constraints, but about fair treatment between the parties. The original poster apparently is willing to pay the expected surcharge for the additional work.
He is also more or less tied to the general contractor’s electrician.
This is not about subcontractor constraints, but about fair treatment between the parties. The original poster apparently is willing to pay the expected surcharge for the additional work.
Many seem to be fixated on the word "fraud."
Yes, that was probably a bit too harsh said in the heat of the moment – I would rather call it extortion.
We have now significantly reduced the number of power outlets with the electrician and revised the plan so that as many single sockets as possible are distributed in all rooms, exceeding the target number by a maximum of 1.
Yes, that was probably a bit too harsh said in the heat of the moment – I would rather call it extortion.
We have now significantly reduced the number of power outlets with the electrician and revised the plan so that as many single sockets as possible are distributed in all rooms, exceeding the target number by a maximum of 1.