Leaking toilet - B&Q vs manufacturer

IM

Hi there.

We had our bathroom and lavatory replaced a month or two ago.

Pretty soon after, we noticed a discolouration in a small (1"-2") line of grout on the floor, by the loo.

Our initial thought was that either we had spilled something which the grout had absorbed, or that dirt of some sort had got in the grout when it was being applied to the floor tiles.

Over the last couple of days however, the line of dark grout has spread, and a 'tide mark' has become visible on the tiles themselves.

My suspicion was that a slow drip had got under the tiles (probably via the hole drilled for the fitting to secure the pan), and that over time, this ingress had ‘wicked’ until the tiles became sufficiently saturated as to be visible through the glazed top surface.

The plumber has looked at the toilet today. He confirmed that all the fittings are dry, but found a hole in the pan itself – probably an air-hole from the manufacturing process.

I visited the B&Q store today, and was told to speak to the manufacturers, PJH Group.

After one of those calls punctuated by regular use of the terms “obviously”, “you know”, “basically” and “I’ve worked here 10 years”, I’ve been left with two options.

They will replace the pan ‘as a gesture of goodwill’, on condition that I don’t want to claim compensation for the cost of re-fitting and making good the floor. Alternatively, they will charge me £70 + VAT for a visit by their representative to assess whether or not there is a manufacturing fault.

To be honest, I’m not entirely bothered whether it was a faulty pan, or a bad installation – although I was really impressed by my plumber, and believe he’d put his hands up if he’d messed up – all I want is things putting right. (Especially as I’m concerned the ingress of water under the floor tiles may soon reach the walls).

A couple of questions….

• My understanding was that my relationship was with the retailer (B&Q) not the manufacturer (PJH), and that it was incumbent on them to resolve the matter – not get me to contact their supplier. If the seams on a pair of jeans gave out, the store I bought them from would replace them, not expect me to get on the ‘phone to Levis…
• If I accept the ‘gesture’ of a free replacement pan, from PJH, where does this leave me with B&Q?
  
• Given the general tone of the conversation with PJH – “your plumber should have noticed any hole….you’d have noticed a problem long before now…I’ve worked here 10 years you know…” – they have a starting position that the customer is wrong. What is the likelihood of their inspector confirming the presence of a hole – at which point presumably I could then put in a claim against B&Q, including the £70+VAT I’d have had to fork out?
• If I just go for a buildings’ insurance claim, will my insurance company put in a counter claim against B&Q?

Any observations gratefully received.

AdrianW2

Observations.

Your contract is with B&Q, although your credit card company may also be liable if you used them.

You've got an expert assessment - is he prepared to make a statement? PJH are talking rubbish if they want to charge you for their expert to make an assessment. It's also in their interest (well B&Q's) since the burden of proof is on them for the first six months.

Edit - For some balance; when I had trouble with missing parts from the bathroom I bought from Screwfix (another Kingfisher company) and supplied, I think, by PJH it was resolved quickly by Screwfix without me needed to do anything and I was very impressed with the service.

loulou41

I had the same problem with a leaking toilet, everybody was puzzled why it leaked, I had the plulmber, dynorod plumbers in and everything inside the cistern was replaced and it still leaked. The manufacturer Armitage shanks was not helpful. I was told to return the cistern but will have to pay for it on my credit card first and then get my monoey back after it has been tested. It was only when I asked for help on this forum that somebody who happened to work for that company helped me by arranging for a technical engineer to examine the toilet. He thought there was a fault in the toilet and if it still leaked after he had put it together I should ask for a replacement one,and only after it was replaced that the leak stopped. I was so relieved and did not ask for compensation for all the hassle and headache. Hope this helps.

IM

If it was just a question of replacing the toilet, I'd not be too bothered. The issue is the floor. The tiles will need lifting, along with the plywood base underneath, then replacing/grouting before the new loo can be fitted - a couple of days' labour (plus cost of tiles themselves) that I can't afford right now.

I think I'll just see what the insurance company have to say...

IM

I need to get on the case with this...

Am going to try emailing B&Q customer services, rather than going back to the guy in store who fobbed me off to the manufacturer.

Can someone do me a favour and give me some nice legalese to quote at them, so that they neither try to make me go to PJH with the complaint, nor charge me (even with the promise of a refund) £90+ for an inspection.

Thanks in advance.

Iain

AdrianW2

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

Steve_xx

The problem is B&Q's to resolve. If they supplied a toilet with a hole in it and it has caused damage to your floor then they must pay the bill to put it right. Your contract is with B&Q, not the manufacturer of the product. B&Q may well want to recover their loss from whoever supplied it to them. If so, that's their business and you need not be concerned about that.

Get a quote, not an estimate, for all of the work needed to put it right and then inform B&Q that will have to pay for it.

Do not claim on your household insurance because you may face a hike in the cost of the policy when you renew it.

Put everything in writing to B&Q and be sure to retain a copy of the correspondence between you and they. Take photos of the hole if you can so that they cannot say that you dropped and cracked the item.

IM

Many thanks for the replies.

The pertinent point from the BERR website, is the fact that in the first 6 months, it is the retailer's responsibility to dis-prove a fault - only after that, it is down to the consumer.

Q13. What does the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer?

It means that for the first six months the consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time of sale. If a consumer is seeking any other remedy the burden of proof remains with him/her.
In such a case, the retailer will either accept there was an inherent fault, and will offer a remedy, or he will dispute that it was inherently flawed. If the latter, when he inspects the product to analyse the cause, he may, for example, point out impact damage or stains that would be consistent with it having been mistreated in such a way as to bring about the fault.
This reversal of the usual burden of proof only applies when the consumer is seeking a repair or replacement. After the first six months the onus of proof is again on the consumer.

This confirms that I should not have to pay out for an inspection - and that I should not be expected to deal with the manufacturer at all.

Steve_xx

IM wrote: »

Many thanks for the replies.

The pertinent point from the BERR website, is the fact that in the first 6 months, it is the retailer's responsibility to dis-prove a fault - only after that, it is down to the consumer.

Q13. What does the "reversed burden of proof" mean for the consumer?

It means that for the first six months the consumer need not produce any evidence that a product was inherently faulty at the time of sale. If a consumer is seeking any other remedy the burden of proof remains with him/her.
In such a case, the retailer will either accept there was an inherent fault, and will offer a remedy, or he will dispute that it was inherently flawed. If the latter, when he inspects the product to analyse the cause, he may, for example, point out impact damage or stains that would be consistent with it having been mistreated in such a way as to bring about the fault.
This reversal of the usual burden of proof only applies when the consumer is seeking a repair or replacement. After the first six months the onus of proof is again on the consumer.

This confirms that I should not have to pay out for an inspection - and that I should not be expected to deal with the manufacturer at all.

Your contract is with B&Q. They must sort the problem out for you. They may well seek to recover the cost of the fix from whoever supplied the item to them, and so it goes on up the supply chain until eventually the claim gets back to the manufacturer.

IM

Have just emailed claim via website - will keep you posted.

Thanks once again for the guidance.

Fire_Fox

You should really be writing a letter to B&Q, sent recorded delivery so you have a paper trail of contact.