Boiler not correct spec. Threatened with court action

dandl

I ordered a boiler from Help Link and the salesman assured me that the new boiler we ordered would be as good as if not better than the one we already had installed.
It was installed on the 4th May and as well as other issues like mess left and theft of items from our attic! we found the boiler did not supply hot water as fast as our old one.
Part of the sale was an agreement that I did not have to pay for the installation until I was completely satisfied so I would not sign the satisfaction form.
After lots of correspondence and non attendance at arranged dates from Help Link I asked for the boiler to be removed on the 19th May.
They replied by saying that a higher spec boiler would not improve the flow as the mains pressure was too low (they said it was 11 lpm) but that they didn't want to remove the boiler.
I had the water independantly measured and it was 13 lpm which meant that the next higher spec of boiler would meet our needs.
They agreed this would solve our issue but wanted me to pay for the replacement. I then said I wouldn't pay it as they had not originally fitted a boiler to my requirements and they should cover the costs.
To cut a long story short I have been asking since May for the boiler to be removed as it is not fit for purpose, but they won't remove it, instead they have been asking me to pay another £400 to fit another boiler.
I had not heard anything since my last letter asking for it's removal back in October until I received a letter this week from their solicitor demanding immediate payment of the full installation or I will be taken to court.
Has anyone got any advice as I won't be able to consult a solicitor until the new year?
Thanks

shocky_2

It is difficult to give a clear answer to this. In most situations a boiler would only have to do its job as a boiler and meet the advertised specifications. It does not necessarily have to be better than your existing boiler. You would only have a claim if you could prove that the salesman said the new boiler would be as good as if not better than your current one.

The other issue is this satisfaction guarantee. If the company advertise an arrangement under which you don't have to pay if you aren't satisfied, then of course they are bound by this. You will need to carefully read what the T&Cs of the satisfaction guarantee actually say you can do.

Unless you can rely on the satisfaction guarantee, personally I think you should pay the money. Realistically it will be very difficult to prove what you were told by the salesman some time ago.

dandl

Thank you for your reply. I will look in to the T and Cs.

dandl

Just read the T and Cs and it states:
"Payment of the Contract balance is due immediately upon completion of the work to your reasonable satisfaction"
I have been absolutely clear to them that I am not satisfied at all.

shocky_2

dandl wrote: »

Just read the T and Cs and it states:
"Payment of the Contract balance is due immediately upon completion of the work to your reasonable satisfaction"
I have been absolutely clear to them that I am not satisfied at all.

This is good. However, I am still slightly concerned by the word "reasonable". This means you can't just refuse to pay for any reason, you need to have a good reason to be unsatisfied. Again, it comes back to proving what the salesman said - if you can't prove what the salesman promised it will be very difficult to show that your lack of satisfaction is reasonable.

Personally I would offer to meet them halfway. Perhaps write back to them explaining that you are not satisfied because the boiler does not meet the promised specifications but are prepared to offer £200.

pinkshoes

I wouldn't promise to pay anything!!

What was wrong with your old boiler? Why did you have it replaced? (Your post reads like the old boiler was fine, but you wanted a better one...)

Equaliser123

pinkshoes wrote: »

I wouldn't promise to pay anything!!

then I think you would find yourself losing at Court.

OP has to pay something as a product has been supplied and is, apparently, working.

OP - you are wrong to be relying upon fitness for purpose. Clearly it is fit for purpose as, if I read your post correctly, it is working. Your argument may be that it doesn't correspond with what the contract requires as to the specification.

I think youngsolicitor is probably right. You need to find a way to resolve this.

dandl

pinkshoes wrote: »

I wouldn't promise to pay anything!!

What was wrong with your old boiler? Why did you have it replaced? (Your post reads like the old boiler was fine, but you wanted a better one...)

Hi, the original boiler kept losing pressure after a couple of days and was just a pain having to keep pressurising it.
At the initial meeting with the salesman we asked for a boiler that was reliable and was as good a performer as our original one when it worked.He agreed and it was him who stated that it would be as good if not better than the original, which it clearly isn't.

dandl

Equaliser123 wrote: »

then I think you would find yourself losing at Court.

OP has to pay something as a product has been supplied and is, apparently, working.

OP - you are wrong to be relying upon fitness for purpose. Clearly it is fit for purpose as, if I read your post correctly, it is working. Your argument may be that it doesn't correspond with what the contract requires as to the specification.

I think youngsolicitor is probably right. You need to find a way to resolve this.

Thanks for reply.

Fit for purpose means achieving what was agreed at point of sale.
I have had various conversations with the Customer Service manager and he in fact told me over the phone that Help Link had agreed to replace the boiler free of charge and that I would receive an appointment soon. The next correspondence I received was from their solicitor.
As for trying to resolve this I have written to them over a dozen times, telephoned several times and each time they apologise for the problems and vow to resolve it. I have no problem paying for this once I have a boiler performing to the specification agreed at the point of sale.

pinkshoes

Equaliser123 wrote: »

then I think you would find yourself losing at Court.

OP has to pay something as a product has been supplied and is, apparently, working.

OP - you are wrong to be relying upon fitness for purpose. Clearly it is fit for purpose as, if I read your post correctly, it is working. Your argument may be that it doesn't correspond with what the contract requires as to the specification.

I think youngsolicitor is probably right. You need to find a way to resolve this.

Why should they pay?? They requested a boiler the same or better than the one they originally had, but the one supplied and fitted isn't. It may work, but that's irrelevant.

They may only be charging the OP for a lesser model, but that's not what they wanted.

OP, you need to negotiate. Clearly the boiler you do want will be more expensive, so you should expect to pay the difference in boiler prices, but you should NOT have to pay any re-installation costs.

Equaliser123

pinkshoes wrote: »

Why should they pay?? They requested a boiler the same or better than the one they originally had, but the one supplied and fitted isn't. It may work, but that's irrelevant.

They may only be charging the OP for a lesser model, but that's not what they wanted.

OP, you need to negotiate. Clearly the boiler you do want will be more expensive, so you should expect to pay the difference in boiler prices, but you should NOT have to pay any re-installation costs.

Because as has been demonstrated, there is a debate about the performance. Withholding all money will be counter-productive. Even if the fitter cannot justify the full charge, if they can demonstrate a benefit (i.e. a new boiler which is working) and that they are working to put things right, they will be entitled to payment on a quantum meruit basis.