Laminate floor ruined by Fitters. Liabilty denied

photome

Moleyredcrow wrote: »

I know I would have a hard time proving it. But I was not in the house at the time they fitted it, so I could hardly stop them. It is hardly the same as letting a window cleaner fix a gas boiler. Most people plumb in washing machines themselves. It is an extemely simple procedure.

I think the the analogy of the window cleaner and and gas bolier does apply

You have to ask yourself if it is that simple why didnt you check the fitting of the jubilee clip?

I think your only solution is house insurance but even then they may not pay out as it wasnt accidental and had been dripping for a while so they may say you should have spotted it sooner

sunflower_2

what a nightmare

OP whether you asked them to plumb your washer or not - they did it!
they have came into your home and caused damage.

i would be demanding the details of their public liability insurance policy.

why should you have to try claim on your insurance when the company responsible have specific insurance for these situations.

the fitter was only doing u a favour so feel for him a bit tho

good luck x

Hintza

sunflower wrote: »

i would be demanding the details of their public liability insurance policy.

And if I owned the company I would be telling you to bog off!

The OP is making an assumption it was the laminate fitters, the owner disagrees, now the OP has to prove the were negligent.

martinthebandit

Household insurance is the way to go, just tell them the damage has been caused by a leaking connection and forget about the rest.

Job done

iamcornholio

tizerbelle wrote: »

- the company has no liability to you for plumbing - your contract with them was to fit a floor only.

Totally wrong

There is an implied duty of care for anything which the contractor did as part of the contracted work.

If they were not competent then they should have simply refused to fit the machine. By agreeing to take on the work, then effectively the contract is extended, and the liability attaches

With regards to the OP checking the pipe connections, then again wrong.

The client OP employs skilled people to do a skilled job. It is not expected that the client should get down and check the fittings behind the units and any other detail of the work done. What is expected is that the contractor check his own work (as he is the supposedly skilled and qualified person) and deliver a job without defects.

laurz121

Working as a joiner who regularly fits kitchens I will occasionally connect a washing machine back up after fitting the kitchen. I'm not a plumber and am not plumbing trained but you don't have to be because it isn't a plumbing job as such, it is a general diy task.

If a customers home was flooded because I had incorrectly connected up a washing machine then it would be my fault and I would pay up (or find a way to repair or replace).


There are some frankly bizarre analogies and points in this thread. One being that because the company boss asks his fitters not to do the washing machines that this somehow means that the company isnt responsible for what its employees do. Not the case at all. The fitters were working for the company, they were doing a paid job and they messed it up. It is not the customers responsibility to check with the managing director of a company to find out if the employees are supposed to do something. Could you imagine if it were?

"Hi, Mr Manager. It's Dave here, you're fitting my laminate today. Can I ask are your fitters allowed by you to remove the old laminate only theyre doing it. Are they allowed by you to use a jigsaw? How about a circular saw? Mr Manager they've started using nails, are they allowed by you to do that? Ok good. Are they allowed to put the trim on too? Are they allowed to use mitre joints? Do they have your permission to move the doormat? Mr Manager? Have you hung up? Hello?"

If you hire a company to do a job for you and their employee starts doing something related to that job then you assume that their manager allows them to do it. You don't question it.

If you took your car to a garage for some work, parked it in the customer carpark, went into the reception to book the car in and an employee asks you for your keys so he can move your car round the back then you give him your keys. If he then drove into a wall on his way round the back and the manager came out and said 'sorry our employees arent allowed to move the cars, it's your own fault' then you would go absolutely mental and not a single person on here would be blaming the customer yet because it is in the home the rules have suddenly changed just because the manager says so?

Someone compared the situation with a window cleaner fitting a gas fire or something. Total nonsense. There is no reason at all for a window cleaner to go near a gas fire. The task is not related to his job at all. This is not the case with a laminate floor fitter and a washing machine is it. Laying a kitchen floor inevitably involves working around appliances and more often than not removing appliances. I don't think that it is a giant leap to say that replacing the appliance is a reasonable task in relation to that job. If he was laying the laminate in the living room yet for some reason went into the kitchen and started messing around under the sink then fair enough but that isnt the case. The COMPANY was fitting the floor in the kitchen and replacing appliances taken out to do their job is a reasonable expectation. If they said no and explained why not then fair enough but that isnt the case is it. They did the job, a job that they should be familiar with and it isnt up to the customer to go checking their work for faults, that is why they paid the company.

If the laminate started to move and peel up due to the company not leaving an expansion gap around the edge would anybody on here defend the company and blame the customer for not inspecting the job and identifying the lack of expansion gap? No I didn't think so. They paid the company to fit the floor and as part of that (whether it was with the company owners consent or not) the employees or contractors connected the appliance. A connection that failed. That is not the customers fault at all.

The only problem the customer will have is proving that the leak was caused by being badly fitted although I personally think that a leak due to a fitting that WAS touched during the installation less than Two months later is most likely the fault of the installation and I don't think many people would argue with that to be honest.

sunflower_2

Hintza wrote: »

And if I owned the company I would be telling you to bog off!

The OP is making an assumption it was the laminate fitters, the owner disagrees, now the OP has to prove the were negligent.

the company's employees entered the OP's property - FACT!!

OP is enitled to confirmation of their P.L.Insurance policy (EVEN BEFORE THEY ENTER THEIR HOME) - FACT!!

Hintza my friend - if u told me to bog off i would be laughing at you in a loud manner

enter a property to carry out work = produce public liability docs on demand = THE LAW

vaio

Don't suppose you have a link to this particular law?

My understanding is that the only two statutorily required insurances are motor & employer liability but I'm always happy to be corrected

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

martinthebandit wrote: »

Household insurance is the way to go, just tell them the damage has been caused by a leaking connection and forget about the rest.

Job done

I'd agree, and don't mention the floor fitters or anything else or it will just open a can of worms and they'll take longer with your claim while they look into it.

keystone

sunflower wrote: »

the company's employees entered the OP's property - FACT!!

OP is enitled to confirmation of their P.L.Insurance policy (EVEN BEFORE THEY ENTER THEIR HOME) - FACT!!

Hintza my friend - if u told me to bog off i would be laughing at you in a loud manner

enter a property to carry out work = produce public liability docs on demand = THE LAW

So following your train of thought absolutely anything that happens in the house when the contractor is in the building is their fault and claimable against their PLI. I don't think so.

PLI is there to protect the insured person NOT to protect the housholder.

You (and others) do not seem to comprehend the difference between "its a fair cop gov we did it" and "sorry I do not accept liability for that event - we were not responsible". Its a stalemate until proof is established one way or the other and one persons word against the other.

The answer remains in Post No 8. OP should claim on their house hold insurance. OP has to decide if he just says "we had a leak" or tell the story as he has recounted it here and let his insurers deal with it with the contractors insurer.

And please don't shout.

Cheers