Recladding firm denies assertion

Press, 18 November 1981, Page 11

Recladding firm denies assertion

Telephone sales people are not used by Permastone Veneer Reclads to attract new business because tnat would only increase the cost ot recladding a client's home, according to a partner in.the firm, Mr D. Meredith. He was commenting on a statement by tne director of the Consumers’ Institute, Mr R. J. Smithies, who said that some companies, which he did not name, used misleading sales approaches. Mr Meredith said that by not naming the companies Mr Smithies was tarring all companies with the same brush. While not commenting on the possible dubious practices of other companies in the field of recladding, Permastone Veneer Reciads, of

Christchurch, categorically denied tnat it used highly paid telephone sales people wttn a weil-rehearsed sales script to obtain its business. Mr . Meredith also took issue with an assertion by Mr Smithies that the $5OOO to $9OOO which would be spent on recladding might be bet-. - ter used by investing it. and earning interest of between $2500 and $5OOO over five years, enough to pay a painter'to paint a house every five years. Mr Meredith said, “Mr Smithies, in his reference, to returns on a. sum of money invested for the purposes of repainting, must be using a crystal ball in regard to future prices. He fails completely to mention the tax which would be payable on income from this source.”