Sandy’s Garden ... Choices ... Choices?

“Oh, Ashtabula!!” These are the very words which ended last week’s column.
Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now

They were a comment on a saga which is unfolding above my garden. But let me tell the story so far before I reveal the contents of the next chapter.

We … Ailsa and I … have arranged for a specialist contractor to renew the fascia boards, soffits, guttering and downpipes of our house. That contractor said we should loosen the several cables which, over the past fifty years, have been stapled to the fascia boards. Our ever-willing handyman, who can work on ladders far better than I, removed some redundant cable and loosened other cabling according to our instructions. But, last weekend, checking that the house had survived a wild night unscathed, I saw a forgotten co-axial cable stapled to a different part of the fascia. Now read on …

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

This co-axial cable links our television aerial, which is attached to our disused chimney, to the socket inside the house. It has been in place since the house was built, has been painted every time the fascia board has been painted and is now as near as dammit an integral part of that fascia board, as I discovered when I inspected it. I also discovered that, after fifty-plus years, its protective sheathing is very much past its best in places, showing signs of splitting open and general deterioration. To have our handyman separate this cable from its longtime partner the fascia board might very well be the death of it; and, since renewing it before the fascia boards are replaced seems to be the more sensible option, I set about finding an aerial fitting and repair contractor. (In case you are wondering what this has to do with my garden, the storms of the past ten days and their attendant flood-inducing torrents of rain have meant that what little time I have spent in the garden has been wholly devoted to this project.)

Sandy SimpsonSandy Simpson
Sandy Simpson

I turned to local advertising to find the names of companies which offer the services I require. “Call the cheapest and best!” exhorted one. “Friendly local fully insured engineers in your area today,” promised another. A third combined the virtues of the previous two: “Call the cheapest and best now. Friendly local engineers in YOUR area today!” And a fourth claimed, “We guarantee to beat any quote.” Well, there are four which all sound worthy of our custom. So which one shall we invite to give us a quote first? Let’s see how local they really are, for I’d rather not meet the cost of a man … or men … driving to and from, say Balfron, when one … or more … could perfectly well come from Falkirk or Grangemouth. Now there’s a pleasant surprise; all four have 01324 landlines; in fact, all four have 01324 461xxx landlines, albeit the final three digits are different: but look, all four offer an identical mobile telephone number! And, sure enough, in the small print all four admit to sharing a single company name!

There’s nothing unlawful, or dishonest or reprehensible about these four advertisements, let’s be perfectly clear about that. I have arranged for a representative from one of them … chosen at random … to visit tomorrow to inspect the work which we want done and to give us a quote. In the light of what I know now, I expect that we shall probably accept his or her … why should it not be ‘her’ … estimate. I hope it will be ‘cheapest and best.’ But I do wonder how the claim made in one of these advertisements … ‘We guarantee to beat any quote’ … is honoured when there is a distinct possibility that other quotes have come from engineers who share the same mobile telephone number. A penny off, perhaps?

Related topics: