Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • tiptop77
    • By tiptop77 8th Sep 17, 4:20 PM
    • 9Posts
    • 4Thanks
    tiptop77
    Question on tradesman labour charges outside item guarantee period
    • #1
    • 8th Sep 17, 4:20 PM
    Question on tradesman labour charges outside item guarantee period 8th Sep 17 at 4:20 PM
    I'm a tradesman and fitted some items for a customer in their house 2 years ago. There is no issue with my own workmanship, which I guarantee for a year (but will try and sort out any rare issues longer than that on a case-by-case basis). Most materials that I fit also have a 1 year guarantee as standard but the particular ones in this case have a free extended manufacturer warranty of 5 years.

    One of these items has gone faulty after 2 years, so under the normal manufacturer's terms and conditions the customer would contact them directly to obtain a free replacement and the customer would just pay us for our labour if we were needed to swap any items over. However, unfortunately in this case the customer is (and always has been) particularly difficult. He is refusing to 'go to the trouble' of contacting the manufacturer and wants us to deal with it. I'm perfectly willing to contact the manufacturer for him and get a replacement sent to him, but he also wants us to go back to his property to fit the new one free of charge. The location is not in our usual area and is nearly 2 hour's drive away each way so while I would usually pop in to a local customer to fit the item as general customer service I don't feel inclined to help this particular customer any further than I absolutely have to, due to both the distances involved and the terrible bullying attitude that seems to be standard practice for this guy.

    Am I obligated to go back to his house free of charge to fit replacements supplied under a manufacturer's extended warranty once my original 1 year workmanship guarantee has expired? Surely a tradesman can't be expected to provide free labour for however long a manufacturer decides to offer extra guarantees for (up to 25 years in the case of some building materials)?
Page 2
    • bris
    • By bris 10th Sep 17, 9:25 PM
    • 6,817 Posts
    • 5,850 Thanks
    bris
    Tiptop..........Not every issue has to be resolved how people tell you it has to.


    You can always send the replacement. I assume you supplied it. With a cheque for reasonable labour for it to be to refit by someone else. This saves the travelling and you dealing with him. You will be an exception to the builders I know and its not what I would do but there you go with a solution. Without all the drama some love.


    Out of interest, what did you fit?
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    You really should stop posting now, both ,myself and Unholyangel are right.


    If the OP supplied the part and the customer can prove fault is inherent then he is liable for all cost including the cost of the report. But as I said the customer has to go to court to uphold those rights.


    You can't change the law or make it up as you go along, facts are facts and that's what the OP was asking for a legal position is what he wanted and now he has it..
    • mo786uk
    • By mo786uk 10th Sep 17, 11:06 PM
    • 1,344 Posts
    • 570 Thanks
    mo786uk
    It would help significantly if you told us what this item was

    If you supplied and fitted a washing machine for example then you probably could be liable for repairs to the customer as one would expect that product to last longer.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 11th Sep 17, 7:26 AM
    • 283 Posts
    • 259 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    How about you try reading what I actually said rather than just the part you selectively quoted. Here it is again:



    You see that important word in bold? IF the op supplied the goods and they don't conform to contract (faulty doesn't necessarily mean they don't conform).

    However I notice what you've said in your latest post on this thread is just paraphrasing what I said in the quoted paragraph - telling the OP to send a cheque to cover the costs of refitting.

    If all you have experience of is cowboy traders, perhaps you need to re-evaluate how you select traders to do work for you.
    Originally posted by unholyangel

    No I gave him a solution without the 4 hours travelling. Something simple you missed with all your waffle. But made it clear I would not.

    Never had a cowboy but I have heard about them as I have a TV and internet, friends and family, oh and I read the odd paper. I know human nature.

    Its taken as read if you have a kitchen fitted by BnQ where you go to for redress.

    Good luck with getting a one man band to return 5 years later on some faulty shower or taps. lol
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 11-09-2017 at 1:05 PM.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 11th Sep 17, 7:31 AM
    • 283 Posts
    • 259 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    You really should stop posting now, both ,myself and Unholyangel are right.


    If the OP supplied the part and the customer can prove fault is inherent then he is liable for all cost including the cost of the report. But as I said the customer has to go to court to uphold those rights.


    You can't change the law or make it up as you go along, facts are facts and that's what the OP was asking for a legal position is what he wanted and now he has it..
    Originally posted by bris
    No, we can stop when we have all the facts. Not when you think we do or you say we do.

    The advice he has been given by others is also right. He has to do nothing at the moment. You have confirmed that. The onus is now on the customer. I hope you are reading that part OP.


    Interestingly he asked was he obligated. He did not ask for legal advice. If he wants that he should go to them that are qualified.

    To the OP; Customers damage or misuse items. You dont want a four hour trip to find out I assume. Maybe just send the part. And then leave the rest with him. That is more than your "obligation" which was the question right at the start.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 11-09-2017 at 2:41 PM.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 11th Sep 17, 2:59 PM
    • 11,276 Posts
    • 8,492 Thanks
    unholyangel
    No I gave him a solution without the 4 hours travelling. Something simple you missed with all your waffle. But made it clear I would not.

    Never had a cowboy but I have heard about them as I have a TV and internet, friends and family, oh and I read the odd paper. I know human nature.

    Its taken as read if you have a kitchen fitted by BnQ where you go to for redress.

    Good luck with getting a one man band to return 5 years later on some faulty shower or taps. lol
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    So you're just incapable of reading plain english then? All I have ever said is that if the OP supplied the goods and the goods dont conform, that OP would be liable for the labour & postage costs involved in a replacement.

    I know that a court won't order someone to perform a contract that they don't want to perform. What they will do is award damages for any losses incurred as a result of their breach of contract. Designed to put the innocent party into the position they would have been in (or as near as money can achieve it) had the contract not been breached. That is not just limited to the cost of labour & postage for a replacement though. Its any loss that was (or should have been) foreseeable.

    But any business supplying goods or services needs to be aware that everything has a failure rate and that the costs involved in those failures need to be worked into their pricing - at least they do if they want a successful business.

    ETA: As for having to prove the fault - well the manufacturer seem to have accepted that the part was faulty (usually warranties will exclude faults that have been caused by misuse or damage) so on the balance of probability, theres a very good chance the goods don't conform to contract. There is no requirement in law to obtain an independent report.
    Last edited by unholyangel; 11-09-2017 at 3:07 PM.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 11th Sep 17, 5:12 PM
    • 283 Posts
    • 259 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    So you're just incapable of reading plain english then? All I have ever said is that if the OP supplied the goods and the goods dont conform, that OP would be liable for the labour & postage costs involved in a replacement.

    I know that a court won't order someone to perform a contract that they don't want to perform. What they will do is award damages for any losses incurred as a result of their breach of contract. Designed to put the innocent party into the position they would have been in (or as near as money can achieve it) had the contract not been breached. That is not just limited to the cost of labour & postage for a replacement though. Its any loss that was (or should have been) foreseeable.

    But any business supplying goods or services needs to be aware that everything has a failure rate and that the costs involved in those failures need to be worked into their pricing - at least they do if they want a successful business.

    ETA: As for having to prove the fault - well the manufacturer seem to have accepted that the part was faulty (usually warranties will exclude faults that have been caused by misuse or damage) so on the balance of probability, theres a very good chance the goods don't conform to contract. There is no requirement in law to obtain an independent report.
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    There is an awful lots of ifs and buts...........bit like if me mum had wheels she would be a bike.

    Not interested in what the customer may do........many of us are answering and giving advise to what the OP may, could or want to do. Which still looks like he has to do nada for now if he wants or meet the customer half way like we have suggested from the start.. Nowhere has the OP even suggested the customer has mentioned court and the like. Lets all turn the drama dial back a bit and have a nice cup of tea.

    How about we wait and see if the OP adds any more info as it looks like he may be bored and run away........and I think I am starting to understand why.
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 11-09-2017 at 6:05 PM.
    • steampowered
    • By steampowered 11th Sep 17, 8:49 PM
    • 1,678 Posts
    • 1,605 Thanks
    steampowered
    OP supplied the goods and they don't conform to contract, he's liable for costs involved with a repair/replacement (including postage and labour).
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    Who said that? The only thing people here have said is that if the OP supplied the goods and they don't conform to contract, he's liable for costs involved with a repair/replacement (including postage and labour).

    Those rights are set out in the Sale of Goods Act for contracts entered into before 1st Oct 2015 and the Consumer Rights Act for contracts entered into on or after 1st Oct 2015.
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    The parts of the Consumer Rights Act you describe only apply to 'contracts for goods'. They do not apply to 'contracts for services'.

    The Consumer Rights Act does not allow for part-goods and part-services contracts. Every contract is either a goods contract or a services contract. There is no grey area in the middle.

    The Op says that he was engaged to do the installation. While we would need more information to be completely sure, it sounds like a 'contract for services' to me.

    If so, the Op's legal obligations are much limited than you describe. If the Op complied with their duty to perform the installation with reasonable care and skill, the customer would not have a claim under the Consumer Rights Act as a result of fault in the product. Even if the product was provided as part of the service.
    Last edited by steampowered; 11-09-2017 at 9:12 PM.
    • mo786uk
    • By mo786uk 11th Sep 17, 9:41 PM
    • 1,344 Posts
    • 570 Thanks
    mo786uk
    The parts of the Consumer Rights Act you describe only apply to 'contracts for goods'. They do not apply to 'contracts for services'.

    The Consumer Rights Act does not allow for part-goods and part-services contracts. Every contract is either a goods contract or a services contract. There is no grey area in the middle.

    The Op says that he was engaged to do the installation. While we would need more information to be completely sure, it sounds like a 'contract for services' to me.

    If so, the Op's legal obligations are much limited than you describe. If the Op complied with their duty to perform the installation with reasonable care and skill, the customer would not have a claim under the Consumer Rights Act as a result of fault in the product. Even if the product was provided as part of the service.
    Originally posted by steampowered
    Page 16 - example 12

    https://www.businesscompanion.info/sites/default/files/The%20sale%20and%20supply%20of%20goods_ALL_BIS_GOO DS_GUIDANCE_SEP15.pdf
    • steampowered
    • By steampowered 11th Sep 17, 10:03 PM
    • 1,678 Posts
    • 1,605 Thanks
    steampowered
    Link doesn't work.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 11th Sep 17, 10:07 PM
    • 11,276 Posts
    • 8,492 Thanks
    unholyangel
    The parts of the Consumer Rights Act you describe only apply to 'contracts for goods'. They do not apply to 'contracts for services'.

    The Consumer Rights Act does not allow for part-goods and part-services contracts. Every contract is either a goods contract or a services contract. There is no grey area in the middle.

    The Op says that he was engaged to do the installation. While we would need more information to be completely sure, it sounds like a 'contract for services' to me.

    If so, the Op's legal obligations are much limited than you describe. If the Op complied with their duty to perform the installation with reasonable care and skill, the customer would not have a claim under the Consumer Rights Act as a result of fault in the product. Even if the product was provided as part of the service.
    Originally posted by steampowered
    Next time, you might want to read the whole section before quoting it.

    (7)A mixed contract (see section 1(4)) may be a contract of any of those kinds.
    Section 1 tells us:
    (4)In each case the Chapter applies even if the contract also covers something covered by another Chapter (a mixed contract).
    (5)Two or all three of those Chapters may apply to a mixed contract.
    And the explanatory notes even clarify for section 1:
    32.Subsections (4) to (6) set out the position with regard to “mixed contracts”. There are many examples of mixed contracts, for example contracts involving the supply of both goods and services (e.g. a car service where parts are fitted) or digital content and a service (e.g. supplying and installing anti-virus software). In such contracts, under the Act, the service element of the contract attracts service rights and remedies, the goods elements attract goods rights and remedies and the digital content elements attract the digital content rights and remedies. Subsection (3) therefore makes clear that, for such mixed contracts, it will be relevant to look at the rights and remedies for each element of the mixed contract. In most cases it will be relevant to look at the appropriate chapter of the Act (Chapter 2 for goods, 3 for digital content and 4 for services). Subsection (6) sets out that for particular mixed contracts (goods and installation services, and goods and digital content) it may also be relevant to look at sections 15 and 16.

    And for section 3:
    55.Subsection (7) provides that with regard to any of the specific types of contracts defined in the following sections, the provisions apply whether goods are supplied alone or alongside a service and/or digital content.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 11th Sep 17, 10:14 PM
    • 11,276 Posts
    • 8,492 Thanks
    unholyangel
    There is an awful lots of ifs and buts...........bit like if me mum had wheels she would be a bike.

    Not interested in what the customer may do........many of us are answering and giving advise to what the OP may, could or want to do. Which still looks like he has to do nada for now if he wants or meet the customer half way like we have suggested from the start.. Nowhere has the OP even suggested the customer has mentioned court and the like. Lets all turn the drama dial back a bit and have a nice cup of tea.

    How about we wait and see if the OP adds any more info as it looks like he may be bored and run away........and I think I am starting to understand why.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    Theres an awful lot of ifs and buts because thats how the law works. Its dependent on circumstance, there is no one answer fits all.

    Not sure what else OP could add that would change the advice given rather than just satisfying our own curiosity. We might not know which advice fits the circumstances but he will.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • steampowered
    • By steampowered 11th Sep 17, 10:17 PM
    • 1,678 Posts
    • 1,605 Thanks
    steampowered
    ...
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    None of the bits you have quoted apply under SOGA (which is the applicable legislation if, as the Op said, the job was done 2 years ago). SOGA has no concept of mixed contracts.
    • mo786uk
    • By mo786uk 11th Sep 17, 10:24 PM
    • 1,344 Posts
    • 570 Thanks
    mo786uk
    None of the bits you have quoted apply under SOGA (which is the applicable legislation if, as the Op said, the job was done 2 years ago). SOGA has no concept of mixed contracts.
    Originally posted by steampowered
    Its covered by the supply of goods and services act 1982 under 'old law' - which talks about supply of services with transfer of property.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 11th Sep 17, 10:28 PM
    • 11,276 Posts
    • 8,492 Thanks
    unholyangel
    None of the bits you have quoted apply under SOGA (which is the applicable legislation if, as the Op said, the job was done 2 years ago). SOGA has no concept of mixed contracts.
    Originally posted by steampowered
    Thats not what you said though (nor did you even mention it). You claimed CRA had no concept of mixed contracts and that a contract must be either service or goods, it could not be both.

    Which as my quoted paragraphs above show, is completely false.

    As for the SOGA, no it doesn't. However the Supply of Goods & Services Act does. Would you care to take a guess what it says in relation to costs in providing a repair or replacement?
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • scd3scd4
    • By scd3scd4 12th Sep 17, 10:27 AM
    • 283 Posts
    • 259 Thanks
    scd3scd4
    There is no way the OP is not confused!

    Looks like he has done a runner! lol
    Last edited by scd3scd4; 12-09-2017 at 1:28 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,367Posts Today

8,098Users online

Martin's Twitter