Faulty bath - who has to pay?

sbock

In May last year I had a new bathroom installed. The bath suite was from B&Q (manufacturer PHJ) and I used a local fitter I know and trust having used him multiple times before.

In October, I noticed there was water coming through the kitchen ceiling. The fitter came out several times to try to fix the leak, and after numerous attempts trying to reseal etc he discovered that the bath had a hole in the bottom. He claimed this to be a manufacturing fault and billed me for his time (fair enough).

I contacted B&Q and they sent an independent plumber to assess this. I spoke to the plumber after his assessment, and he said it was definitely the manufacturer and not the fitters fault. He submitted his report to the manufacturer. Today they come back to me and say that although it looks like it possibly is a manufacturing fault (but from the report they could not be certain) they will replace the bath as a ‘goodwill gesture’, but not fit it, nor repair any damage caused to my floor/kitchen ceiling. They blame my fitter, saying he should have tested the bath was fit for purpose before installing it. I did point out to them that the independent plumber said it was a manufacturing problem, their response was that he was not allowed to tell me this and that they would take action against him as a consequence (but boy am I glad he did speak to me!).

As the leak manifests itself about 5 minutes after the bath is filled it hardly looks like my fitter could have spotted it then. Besides, it appears the problem has gradually got worse with use as the wet patches in the kitchen have gradually become bigger.

Meanwhile by now I am having cracks in my kitchen ceiling, and my bathroom smells mouldy.

I feel caught in the middle. Manufacturer say it’s the fitters fault. Fitter says it’s the manufacturers fault. Who has to pay for this? Would my buildings insurance help me out if nobody gives in? And what about my £250 excess on the buildings insurance? I just don’t feel like it should be me who is paying for this.

The bath has a 1 year guarantee. Still well within that time.

Any advice appreciated.

thanks,
S

CoolHotCold

You have a contract with B&Q not the manufacter. I would suggest to chase them.

I would be wary of trying anything on with fitter, if it was him who you contracted to order the bath on yourbehalf and install it then yes he would be liable, but it doesn't sound like this and doesn't sound like incompetence on the fitter either.

Besides when the bath was first filled and ensured for leaks there might not of even been a hole and the hole appeared after X days etc etc.

B&Q are liable, but I'll leave the floor open to others to suggest ideas.

Valli

My understanding of this is that B&Q are liable for the fault in the bath itself but not for the damage which occurred after fitting and that the fault should have been picked up earlier, by the fitter - I don't think B&Q can be held liable for the consequences of fitting the bath and the subsequent damage.
You might have to go back to your contractor (plumber) or even try your household insurance for redress; especially if it was a fault that was not immediately obvious to the naked eye. Was your plumber insured?

It might also be worth checking with consumer direct about this, not least because it's not going to be a quick fix and I doubt anyone involved will happily bear the full cost of the repair.

It might be, however, that, now it has been established that it was a manufacturing fault and that it would have been almost impossible for anyone to pick up prior to installation because the hole/crack was so tiny then you can hold B&Q responsible for repair and replace. Given they probably have the wherewithall to fund the necessary repairs I think, if it were me, I would still be pursuing them, looking along the lines of 'goods not fit for purpose' and that the fact that they weren't fit for purpose causing damage to a previously sound property.

agrinnall

Good luck with claiming anything other than a refund (or replacement) from B&Q, I had a protracted battle with them that eventually I gave up on because they were such a nightmare to deal with. While I still buy small items from them I would never buy anything that needs to be fitted again.

jaydeeuk1

Guess its part of the risk you take having it fitted by a 3rd party rather than b&q. We had a kitchen fitted a few years ago, and they made it pretty clear that if the sink snapped or something, if fitted by b&q they would take the old one out and replace FOC, whereas if someone else fitted, b&q would only replace the sink. In the end, we therefore had b&q (who subcontract it anyway) fit it for peace of mind over the next 5 years.

Seems fair enough imo.

bris

There is something in SOGA that states the fitter takes responsibility for the product when they fit it, you may have to chase the fitter for any losses.

If a customer arranges for the item to be installed themselves, then the agent they appoint is responsible for any problems from the installation, not the retailer. However, the customer may be able to claim against the retailer that the item was not fit for purpose if the installation instructions had serious shortcomings. The customer then has the same rights as outlined above.

arcon5

bris wrote: »

There is something in SOGA that states the fitter takes responsibility for the product when they fit it, you may have to chase the fitter for any losses.

What part is that?

The fitter is responsible for the work they undertook. If the bath is faulty and not caused by poor workmanship then the responsibility lies with whomever op purchased it from - B&Q.

Same if you got a builder to install a television to the wall - the builder isn't responible if the TV suffers from an inherent fault

If a customer arranges for the item to be installed themselves, then the agent they appoint is responsible for any problems from the installation, not the retailer.

An agent is merely someone who acts on somebody elses behalf and rarely carry any liability. For example, if you have an issue with a Landlord, you sue the landlord and not the lettings agency managing the property.


I don't see you having a claim with the fitter op.

vaio

yep, contract is with B&Q and they are responsible for consequential costs too.

They might argue that the damage is worse because the plumber didn't spot the fault earlier

sbock wrote: »

......." numerous attempts trying to reseal etc he discovered that the bath had a hole in the bottom. He claimed this to be a manufacturing fault and billed me for his time (fair enough). ......

although i'd counter that soaked plasterboard needs replacing and it doesn't matter whether it's been soaked twice or twenty times

think about that when you are wording your claim

sbock

thanks for all your advice. I will post once a resolution has been found - whatever the outcome might be. Meanwhile, if you have anything else to add, please let me know. I need as much ammunition as possible.

thanks!
S

bris

arcon5 wrote: »

What part is that?



I don't see you having a claim with the fitter op.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-customers-fairly/sogahome/sogaexplained

Read number 7
I agree the retailer should replace the faulty bath but
the way I see it the fitter did not check for problems after they fitted it, so consequential losses will be their liability and not the retailers. It's not exactly rocket science for the fitter to turn on the tap and see water pouring out of it, it should have been caught before the damage was done.

sbock

The fitter carried out the tests, but the problem did not manifests itself until October. And has gradually become worse since then.

Can't see how he could have spotted it when there wasn't a problem?

thanks,
S