What happened to decency
Quite disappointed with the service provided by jones scaffolding. We had them provide access for a roofing job for which I was shortly notified after its erection that a section of it would be an additional cost the the original quote. Then we’re told that there’s a 30 day policy on payment after the contract agreement which was fine but a couple of days after paying a substantial sum the client contacts me distressed that someone from jones scaffolding is at her property demanding monies with threats of bailiffs etc.
This I found to be particularly troubling as the client is a nice lady who lives alone and seems to have been really alarmed at this kind of behaviour.
Then I am told it was because we still owed from a previous project for which I had paid a sum but the was an outstanding amount for which we had received no invoice or reminder and certainly had nothing to do with the current client.
Bit I made an immediate payment towards the previous project despite having had no recollection of this outstanding dept but accepted it anyway only to be then threatened with the removal of the scaffolding midway through a project unless payment was made, which of course it was.
Believing that jones scaffolding wanted there kit back for another job I notified them that it was ready for removal to which they replied it would not be removed until further payments are met which of course is fine once the project can be competed and payment for that project accepted upon completion.
An indication that the client had had difficulty moving funds between accounts seemed to offer no reprieve or understanding from jones scaffolding who continued to demand with menace.
It was my understanding that payment is met upon completion of a service? Like when you order a meal at a restaurant or have collected the required items at an outlet for example. You don’t threaten the customers
One star is generous for what amounts to threatening behaviour and demands by menace.
Response to reply.
I thank you for your response, and would clarify that my review is accurate to the word.
And i have paid £2,000 toward a £2,600 quote for a scaffolding that was still in use.
It was that payment is due on completion, given that policy’s change I made payments to elevate the pressure for the customer who had wished to see her project finished before making full payment but the unforeseen weather of this summer dictated otherwise.
All we have seen is additional cost being added.
However. The customer was clearly shaken after your visit to her property to which I
promptly explained that I am responsible for the contract between Inobuild & jones scaffolding
And that any contact should have been conducted directly to me.
And this was 3 days after a substantial payment and a receipt of which having been the only correspondence since at that point
There is no excuse for your visit and threatening behaviour towards my client.
My review is accurate. Your conduct was negative. And Iwould suggest taking positive steps to improve procedures rather than attempting to justify ill manor.
N.m.
Inobuild Ltd
Reply from Jones Scaffolding
For clarity, this review relates to a commercial account for Inobuild Ltd of St Owen Street, Hereford, operated by Mr Nathan Meyler.
We are disappointed to read this review, as it does not accurately reflect the circumstances or the communication that took place.
Our quotes and terms clearly set out our payment terms of 30 days. The original invoice for this job was raised on 23 July 2026 and was due for payment on on 22 August 2026. This invoice remains outstanding as of 9 November 2026.
Our accounts team had already made numerous calls and sent email reminders before the matter was eventually passed to our manager, Alan Watkins, to chase directly.
We have kept the messages between Alan and Mr Meyler. They show polite requests for payment and several replies confirming that money was still owed and that payments would be made once Inobuild had been paid by their customer. There is nothing threatening or menacing in those messages.
We also strongly reject the suggestion that our manager attended the homeowner’s property making threats about bailiffs or behaving in a threatening way.
We understand that cash flow can sometimes be difficult, and we had already allowed a number of part-payments. However, agreed payment terms still need to be honoured.
We are happy to deal with genuine concerns, but we cannot accept allegations of threatening behaviour or “demands by menace” when the written correspondence do not support that version of events.