[Stuart]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Thanks, seems odd that VM can contract out the work to one company, who in turn contract the work out to another.

That's often how contracts work..

The two companies must both be making a profit and VM must be getting the work done cheaper than doing it themselves

Personally, I don't see how the contractor's subcontractor can still be making a profit, but in terms of contractors, it could conceivably be cheaper for VM to use them purely because they don't need to maintain a load of depots for their vans. The contractors probably do, but they can share the cost amongst multiple customers (even though VM are the only cable company in the area, they can probably do works on other cables and pipes under the road, so the cost of each depot could be shared between VM, BT (or any other fixed line telco) and any of a number of other utilities..

There are also other costs (such as credit control, accounts, payroll management) that can be shared amongst multiple customers. Customers, in this case, being the companies that employ the contractors

---------- Post added at 21:59 ---------- Previous post was at 21:19 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

It's not really clear whether this is an actual cable company (if it is there's a good chance that it's VM as they own the vast majority of UK cable companies now), or a contractor. IIRC, there's only one tiny cable operator that VM don't now own.

The defendant was called Paul, but it didn't reveal any more details than this.

An installer refused to return the van and installation equipment after he claims that he was still owed wages. The van was eventually let go as it was owned by a fleet lease company, but he took all the equipment out.

Do VM lease their vans?

Is not being paid a common problem for installers? I'm wondering if it is for this man to go to such extraordinary lengths.

The relevant case starts halfway through after the second break:

http://www.itv.com/hub/judge-rinder

I saw the case and both sides failed to provide proof of their argument. The installer failed to prove he had returned the equipment, and the contract failed to prove he hadn't. As such, the Judge was force to assume the equipment had been returned (presumably the old innocent until proven guilty idea).