Householders: It's Wise to Insist on Written Quotes from First-Time Service Providers
Jordan Kelly • 17 January 2024

The moral of the following story is:  Don’t be fooled by how 'nice' a service provider or tradie seems, such that you forego the wise move of asking for (and insisting upon) a written quote if you’re using them for the first time.

 

It’s long since become my Golden Rule. Until I bent my own rule last week. And have lived to regret it – and the insult it delivered to my intelligence and self-respect.

 

Here’s how it went down:

 

I called someone I was given to believe provided handyman services. He came around, we went through the tasks on-site and in detail.

 

Shortening the story from this point for a moment:  Several confusing phone calls later, the $50 per hour “qualified tradesperson” that was to be assigned to attend on a specific day to work through the various jobs, suddenly was off on another project, apparently. The company owner ( i.e. the bloke I’d originally called and with whom the liaising had been) had taken it upon himself to change the job to one where lawnmowing / rubbish removal / gardening tasks only, would be performed.

 

When Confusion Is Currency

 

Keen to not involve myself in any further confusion and happy to get the lawns sorted, I was easy-going and told him to rock on in and get it done. But not before asking – several times – for a quote or, at least, the hourly rate of one of the intended two workers (an hourly rate of $25 was cited for the “old, retired guy” who was to be one of the two).


A whole host of different reasons (for not providing a quote or even an hourly rate) were given across the various seemingly necessary pre-work conversations, and I was assured that whatever the cost would be, it would be more favorable than the industry average . . . and that I should just trust what a good, honorable, cost-effective operator he says he is. Between my typical single woman’s soft-hearted gullibility (come on ladies, we’ve all been duped more than once) and the fact that during his original site visit to provide handyman services, he’d looked at the lawns and said “they’re a $40 job”, I thought things couldn’t go too far wrong.

 

Now, I DID add to the lawn moving brief, some weeding (which wasn’t huge, as I’ve only just bought this very well-presented property), the removal of a load of empty cardboard packing boxes and newspaper (that he said he “knows someone who would want those”), moving a kennel, and planting two tiny rosemary cuttings and a small potted fig tree plant.

 

Several times during the course of their attendance (which seemed to be mushrooming in time), I’d said how happy I’d be to have them back, “if I could afford it”, and did they know how much they were charging me? I was simply reassured, again, that “I’d be very happy with the invoice”.

 

A day or so later I received a call, assumedly to see if I wanted to give them a regular gig. I asked for the invoice ASAP, so I could be sure they were indeed affordable.

 

Actually, NOT Happy

 

Well, they certainly were NOT affordable. At all. What had originally started off as a small $40 lawnmowing side gig (to which I'd added a few genuinely minor items), had turned out to be a $730 invoice!!

 

The lady did protest. And Mr Nice Guy suddenly became, Mr We-Did-It,-Too-Bad,-You-Pay-For-It.


Now, given that I had been sufficiently duped as to what a nice, trustworthy operator he was and that I would be so happy with the bill that I didn't need a quote, I felt it was a case of "more fool me" and decided I'd just have to pay it. BUT . .  . I DID have a real issue with the $90 tip fee reimbursement he'd charged me for 100% recyclable materials (that he'd previously told me he had a friend wanting, anyway).


So I paid $640 promptly, but emailed him, insisting on a copy of the $90 tip fee receipt.

 

I received a threatening reply saying that he wouldn’t be responding to my questions or providing anything. I had no right to question anything, was basically the gist of his highly threatening, chauvinistic response. And if I didn’t pay the $90 tip fee (i.e. without any proof that he'd incurred that expense) without asking any questions, it was off to the debt collectors for me. Forthwith.


Fraudulent On-Charging

 

He probably didn't expect me to do what I did in response to his heavy-handed threat:  I researched his address (not provided on his "invoice" - another red flag and another reason to insist on written quotes), drove past his house and noted his rego plate. I then - through means I prefer to keep private - ascertained authoritatively that his rego plate didn't appear on any of the tip records for the the date/s in question. In short, the $90 "tip fee" was bogus.


Unbelievably, when I sent him a further email challenging him on my findings, he ignored the fact that I'd caught him out, and simply doubled down on his threats.


The short version of this unsavoury experience is that, (a) he got paid his highly inflated, opportunistic invoice, but (b) minus the bogus $90 tip fee.

 

The reason I ensure I recount this experience for readers is this:  How many other victims might this character rack up if someone doesn't shine a spotlight on this sort of behaviour?


THE LESSON:


There's an old marketing maxim - and it will always remain true - that the customer that costs you the least to acquire, is the customer you already have.


It's called the value of repeat business. Over months, let alone years, my business would have been worth far more to him than his one-off, opportunistic plunder.

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 15 March 2026
Editor’s Conclusion : Unqualified. Unsupervised. Unaccountable. And Still Accredited.
by Jordan Kelly 10 March 2026
UPDATED: 10.3.26 Will This Badly Behaving Institution Finally Allow the Full Truth to Be Revealed?
by Jordan Kelly 8 March 2026
Hidden in Plain Sight: Unashamed Conflicts of Interest to Make Your Head Spin
by Jordan Kelly 4 March 2026
Time for Change : New Zealand's Pet Parents Say NO MORE to the Poor Standards, Compromised Care & Outright Contempt We Put Up With from the 'Products' of the Massey Veterinary Degree Factory
by Jordan Kelly 27 February 2026
Readers following the coverage of my attempts to get to the bottom of what happened to my beloved little papillon, Harry, with whom I was extraordinarily closely bonded, will know that: (A) The rot in Massey University’s Companion Animal “Hospital” (CAH) runs deep. (B) Honesty and transparency is not their policy. Denial, dismissal, stonewalling, legal threats and intimidation are. (C) Animals aren’t safe there, with cruelty embedded in “care”, and your property (as your pet legally is) not considered your property at all, as far as Massey, its CAH staff and management are concerned. Your pet is theirs ; to do with as they please, according to their mindset and their modus operandi. And if that involves catastrophic levels of unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience sedation to facilitate their use of your pet in monetised student video collections (including on private cell phones, and to which you will be given no access), this too, according to Massey, is its own God-given right and “best practice” Standard Operating Procedure. (D) “Informed Consent” has a very different meaning in the Massey playbook to that which is generally deemed its accepted definition. (E) “Accountability” is a foreign concept and not one with which they have any intention of becoming acquainted. (F) Laws – including those governing animal welfare, property conversion and more – are not only optional, in Massey’s case, they simply don’t apply. In fact, they appear blissfully ignorant of them according to my (and Harry's) experience. You know all that. You’ve read about it here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here and in most of my other now 30+ articles covering the numerous different sub-atrocities within the overall atrocity that was the demise and disposal of my precious little Harry. Actually, "atrocious" doesn't come anywhere near to being an adequate adjective. Despite having been a professional writer since I was 16 and having upwards of 25 published books under my belt, I don't actually have an adjective that's adequate for the pure evil that was perpetrated upon Harry . . . and, by extension, me . There is not one word or one phrase that can sufficiently convey the depth and breadth of the sheer, unadulterated wickedness that festers without restraint within the walls of Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital". What you, my readers (or those of you not on Massey's massive legal team payroll) didn’t yet know – because I didn’t yet know – is that record and evidence tampering (which, for any other New Zealand citizen would attract jail time of up to 10 years under the Crimes Act 1961 Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) or Section 260 (Falsifying registers) , and/or a $10,000 fine under the Privacy Act Section 212(2)(b) - appears also to be included in the “we’re exempt” culture of Massey and its veterinary “hospital” staff. Note to Readers: The above laws aren't some hypothetical, bottom-drawer, dusty old legal tracts in archaic library textbooks. They're real, "living" laws that apply to every individual in our country. And today, they are being made to apply to Dr Stephanie Rigg and her "colleagues" who falsified Harry's records to create a cover-up of what they did to him . . . and to me. I will, duly, see Dr Rigg and her associates in Court. Dissecting the Cover-Up: Massey’s Metadata of Deception But back to what readers do know for a moment: You’ll know that I’ve been in the battle of battles for the past two months to extract Harry’s full records (or anything approaching them) from Massey’s Legal and Governance department. HOWEVER . . . there was one thing I hadn’t known how to decipher that they actually had finally drip-fed to me. It was File Name: Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) . I’ve been learning a lot about veterinary science, record-keeping, and law in general lately. Not because I wanted to. But because if you want to figure out how deep the rot really runs at Massey, you kind of have to. So I’ve learned a bit about how to decipher clinical metadata. Just e nough to realise that this Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) is exactly where the digital fingerprints of a cover-up are hiding. Despite the fact that this document has as much redacted as it shows (probably more), with ALL staff names and positions blacked out, for example -I still found four distinct “smoking gun” entries in these otherwise heavily-redacted metadata logs. BIG. FAT. SMOKING. GUNS. that amounted to one undeniable overall conclusion: This document isn’t a clinical record so much as it’s a literal crime scene . There were already so many dodgy inconsistencies in the few items I'd managed to pull out of Massey to that point (as I've documented in various of my preceding articles). But this document is where, undeniably, the bodies are buried. You just need to know which clod of dirt to look under. Hidden in Plain Sight . . . In A Little Thing Called the Metadata (That the Average Pet Owner Wouldn't Even Know Existed ) There are four hidden but key findings demonstrating that the entire timeline of Harry’s “experience” in that hellhole were was orchestrated, and the sudden "neurological event/decline" exit strategy planned for him were a total fabrication. And that fabrication had a start time. (For this start time we will initially revert our focus back to Massey's previously-supplied "Clinical Summary" (in all its dodginess) . . . We will then lead from the immediately below into the afore-mentioned "Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)". Bear with me. I promise not to let this get boring). Well, one of two start times. Either: (1) The 8.38am disconnection of his (with, by-then, the TWO 750% overdoses of the renally contraindicated convenience sedative with which the "crying dog"-sensitive ICU staff had plied him overnight) now life-essential IV fluids (8.5 hours into the prescribed 24-hour protocol that they charged me for). And/or: (2) When the day shift ICU "vet" arrived at 9am and decided a THIRD 750% overdose would be a strategic way do deal with a clearly already massively overdosed little 3.8kg, 15-year-old, dehydrated dog. Now WHY would any vet take such a decision? Well, for legal purposes, of course (remembering that the Venerable Dean Jon Huxley and the obviously not- so-new-broom Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, have all the money in the public purse to pay their top-tier external legal counsel . . . and by gum, there are enough of the buggers, if this site's analytics are anything to be guided by), I will precede the following by stating that these are my conclusions, made on the basis of the collation and evaluation of the information before me. That said, what I know of my readers is this: You are no intellectual slouches. Feel free to let me know if you can come up with any other conclusion from the information (complete with now numerous "receipts") that I have thus far presented, most especially here and here , and most tellingly of all, in today's expose. R emember, though, I held the ultimate evidence in my arms at 6pm on December 1 . . . and, some 45 minutes later, I let them take it (safely, for them) away from me, just like Harry's (the literal body of evidence) life had just been taken from him. Little Numerals that Tell A BIG Story The plan for Harry's manufactured exit is not so much written into the records, as it is revealed by the tampering with the logs. They lay bare the lead vet’s apparent plan that his life would come to an abrupt end by the pre-scheduled time of (well, they couldn't quite get consistency in the logs regarding the exact minute, but by the absolute latest time of) 17:00 hours i.e. 5pm . . . assumedly, the end of the day shift on December 1. Just in time to mark him "Deceased" and seal off the records of this catastrophically overdosed patient, before the next shift came on, saw his records, and someone started asking the immediately necessary, and certainly appropriate, questions. And those questions would (0R SHOULD ) have included , but would certainly not have been limited to: How long has this dog been in this state? Why hasn't any rescue and remediation protocol been undertaken? Why was he given yet ANOTHER administration of 50mg of Gabapentin at 09:00 hours after the preceding two during night shift? Why is he disconnected from his IV fluids? Who approved that and why? (And if they knew he'd starred in a multi-video student film festival that morning): Was he taken out of his cage and handled in this state? When did he last drink? Was he given any food before he entered this near-comatose state? Does the owner know of the overdoses and the state he's in? Have you filled in an incident report? Have any emergency specialists been called in for advice? and, no doubt, many more questions. OR . . . maybe not. It depends if the rot in that ICU is fully immersive, or if it's concentrated on Dr Stephanie Rigg's day shift and the ICU shift staff of the preceding (November 30) night. But none of those questions could be asked and none of that could happen. The day shift - led by "Dr" Rigg ("Steffi") - wasn't about to let it happen. Thus, the pre-timestamped, just before end-of-shift, Time of Death entered into the "Euthanasia Authorisation" form that they had all queued up for me long before I ever arrived at that Godforsaken facility that fated December 1 afternoon.
by Jordan Kelly 17 February 2026
Harry WAS A Marked Dog. I Had Hoped Massey Vet Staff Couldn't Have Been Any More Wicked Than They'd Already Been Caught Out Being. But YES , Actually, They COULD . 
by Jordan Kelly 15 February 2026
This Is What Happens When Massey Thinks THEY Own Your Dog & Can Do With Him As They Please (You Just Pay the Invoice) At This Appalling, Unaccountable Veterinary House of Horrors (LATEST PROOF OF 'LAB RAT' TREATMENT HERE )
by Jordan Kelly 12 February 2026
FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS: GO HERE . My Precious Little Boy Died Needlessly, In Intense Physical, Mental & Emotional Agony . . . After Massive Overdosing, Intense Cruelty & Intentionally False Diagnosis by Massey 'Vet' (So Called) to Enable His 'Disposal' After Lab Rat-Style Experimentation
by Jordan Kelly 11 February 2026
While my focus is on the 750% overdosing of my precious little dog, Harry, with an unauthorised, contraindicated convenience sedative, his conversion from patient to live specimen, and the subsequent destruction of evidence (HIM), Massey’s focus is on deploying a taxpayer-funded legal hit squad to 'profile' me.
by Jordan Kelly 8 February 2026
An Expert Contributed Commentary (FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE .)
Show More