Tradesman error - who should pay for repairs?

frugalfiz

I had a water leak in the loft, and called a plumber who caused damage trying to track and trace and finally advised it was a roof problem. I called a general builder out advising him it was the roof, but within 10 minutes he diagnosed the problem as the ballcock. He put in a new ballcock and a new overflow and the mornings work cost £170 which was acceptable as he did emergency call out and had to go out to get parts etc. I asked the original plumber to make good the damage caused by his track and tracing, and have received a bill for over £300. As it was a basic plumbing job I think he should have diagnosed this immediately, as the general builder did, without causing the damage; and therefore it was his error and shouldn't bill me. Advice please?.

keystone

There is no reason to pay for incompetance. However, what were the terms of your (verbal?) contract with him? Unless it was no cure no pay you may have to pay him something. Did you give him the opportunity to sort it out (incompetance not withstanding)? If you didn't and just called the other guy to it then it may be argued that you repudiated the contract which will most likely give him the right to claim from you / invoice you for something.

How long was he there and what did he actually do? What does the invoice say? Can he justify the £ 300? My suspicion, somehow, is that he will be unable to.

If he caused damage thats what he carries Public Liability Insurance for and its for him to claim against it not you. Was the damage recification included in the £ 170?

This needs sorting out amicably not aggressively or confrontationally. That applies to both of you. Have a meet and negotiate. If he's got any sense he really should back off and withdraw his invoice in its entirety in return for you dropping any claim for damage - particularly if £ 170 covered all of the necessary work.

Cheers

frugalfiz

keystone wrote: »

There is no reason to pay for incompetance. However, what were the terms of your (verbal?) contract with him? Unless it was no cure no pay you may have to pay him something. Did you give him the opportunity to sort it out (incompetance not withstanding)? If you didn't and just called the other guy to it then it may be argued that you repudiated the contract which will most likely give him the right to claim from you / invoice you for something.

How long was he there and what did he actually do? What does the invoice say? Can he justify the £ 300? My suspicion, somehow, is that he will be unable to.

If he caused damage thats what he carries Public Liability Insurance for and its for him to claim against it not you. Was the damage recification included in the £ 170?

This needs sorting out amicably not aggressively or confrontationally. That applies to both of you. Have a meet and negotiate. If he's got any sense he really should back off and withdraw his invoice in its entirety in return for you dropping any claim for damage - particularly if £ 170 covered all of the necessary work.

Cheers

Thanks for your comments. The verbal contract was to come and repair a water leak, but he failed to diagnose a very basic plumbing problem, and left the property advising I needed a roofer/builder. The builder diagnosed the ballcock and repaired it immediately, with no need to cause any damage. I don't think the £300 is excessive as the plumber cut holes in the plasterboard walls and damaged several floorboards all of which he has repaired/replaced. He is normally a very good plumber and does lots of work for us as we have several properties. He just made an error on this one. I am sure we can sort it amicably but I wanted general opinions as to whether this invoice is fair or not.

macman

The cause of such a leak is often not obvious, and may require some dismantling. The fact that the builder spotted the problem quickly may have in part been down to the work already done by the plumber, even if he didn't identify the problem himself. So a bit of a grey area.

cyclonebri1

keystone wrote: »

If he's got any sense he really should back off and withdraw his invoice in its entirety in return for you dropping any claim for damage - particularly if £ 170 covered all of the necessary work.

Cheers

:T:T:T
The only other question I have is why should a general builder be able to fix the problem for £170 then a plumber want to charge £300 for an initial failed diagnosis.?


Embarrassment on the plumbers part should have prevented the bill in the 1st place.

spacey2012

I would ignore his bill and instruct him to proceed to county court if he thinks he has half a chance.
Ask the first builder for a simple report letter to the fault.
I think he would be very hard pressed to find any judge to give him £300 for expert services, when he could not even fix the ballcock.

nickj_2

i would have thought that finding the ballcock was leaking would have been the no 1 suspect before he started looking anywhere else ,

maninthestreet

A leak in the loft, and he failed to discover it was the ballcock - sounds like he is grossly incompetent - how long was he faffing about in the loft over-looking the obvious cause before he declared the roof was leaking?

southcoastrgi

yes i have to agree if he can't find a faulty ballvalve & overflow then he isn't to quote you "a very good plumber", i wouldn't pay his bill or give him anymore work unless he can justify his incompentance

frugalfiz

Thank you all for the advice. The bill has been withdrawn and all very amicably.

keystone

Result! Well done.

Cheers