We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
British Gas/Dynorod HomeCare - comedy of errors
inspectorlund
Posts: 14 Forumite
Hi all
I have a dispute with British Gas/Dynorod and wondered if members on this forum could have a read of the below and let me know their thoughts. Apologies that it's rather long.
I have had a blocked drain at the back of my flat for over 1 year, despite 6 visits from Dynorod and hours of phone calls and time wasted in terms of having to take time off work repeatedly to let operatives into the house, all while paying £40/mth for the privilege.
I have had British Gas HomeCare since 14/12/00, extending to Plumbing and Drains Care on 14/12/01 and then Electrical on 3/8/04, at which point it became BG HomeCare 400 before changing to Home Cover 400 insurance on 13/12/10. I have called on the plumbing and drains cover when they attended and (satisfactorily) fixed a drain blockage some time in 2007/08. The plumbing and drains cover is provided by Dynorod, which is now owned by British Gas (BG).
The Home Care 400 doco also makes reference to an annual plumbing inspection carried out at the same time as the annual boiler service. This plumbing inspection has never happened.
My flat is on the ground floor of a 1900-built terraced house with separate rain water and foul water drains. I am told that in my Northfields area of Ealing, rainwater from the roof and concreted ground areas runs into the rain water drain which goes into its rain water counterpart in the road and then into rivers, while waste water from everything else runs into the foul water drain which goes into its sewer counterpart in the road and then to the sewage treatment plant.
I have been thinking for some time about switching my boiler and plumbing electrical cover from BG to a cheaper. The renewal date was 13/12/12 and when the drain blocked at the back of the house in mid-Nov, I attempted to get it sorted out before the renewal date so that I could still cancel on that date and not get hit with penalties for cancelling after it had passed.
Chronology of events:-
- 21/11/12 - Discovered an overflow from the drain at the back of my property (same as the one in 2007/08). Called BG/Dynorod and they sent an operative who I’ll call ‘RT’ who turned up later the same day - job no 06133. RT spent a good 2 hours at the property attempting to fix what turned out to be a blocked rainwater drain. First he attempted to dyno-rod it from the manhole in the front garden, then from the rear of the property where the rainwater downpipe met the entrance to the rainwater drain at ground level, both without success.
He then attempted another solution - in the manhole at the front, the foul drain opens out where it enters the bottom of the manhole while the rainwater pipe runs parallel through the manhole but without opening out. Believing the blockage might have been between the manhole and the sewer in the street, he smashed a hole in the rainwater pipe with a hammer in order to divert the rainwater into the foul drain. This didn't work and therefore he concluded that the blockage was caused by roots that had grown into the rainwater pipe somewhere between the front manhole and the rear of the property.
He then announced that what was needed was an underground connection between the rainwater drain and the foul drain at the rear of the property, which would need authorisation because it cost about £600, but that this would just be a formality and British Gas would get back in touch within the week to return with the right equipment to do the underground join. He did also comment that there was a foul pipe leading from the bathroom sink into the rain water drain at the rear and that this should not be there, “but not to worry as it all goes to the same treatment plant nowadays and the rain water's going to be diverted into the foul anyway”. I didn't understand this rain water / foul water drainage business until recently, but that pipe has certainly been there for the past 30 or 40 years. Moreover, it was not mentioned when BG/Dynorod attended in 2007/08.
- No contact until 8/12, when I called BG back and spoke to a call handler named ‘BW’ only to be told 'the job had only now been passed for authorisation because they'd lost it' and promising a call back within 24 hours. I advised BW that the call was being recorded, stating that I'd expected the job to be sorted out a lot sooner and advising that if I had to keep the cover going after 13 December because BG hadn't done the unblocking in a timely fashion then I would resist having to pay a cancellation fee.
- Later on 8/12, a voicemail message from someone named G promising a call back on 9/12. This never happened.
- 14/12 - I called and spoke to a ‘J’ asking why I hadn't been called back, repeating what I'd said to BW.
- 15/12 - Call from someone named ‘V’ promising a visit on 19/12
- 19/12 - phone call from the operative telling me he was on his way with a root-cutter, followed by another one telling me he couldn't do the job because there was no parking near my house. Him - 'someone will be in touch from Dyno-Rod to rearrange a visit'. Me - 'why wasn't I told by Dyno-rod to ensure there was parking?' Him - silence.
- 4/1/13 - I called and spoke to ‘J’ asking why I hadn't been called back. ‘J’ booked me in for a visit on 5/1/13
- 5/1/13 - I made sure there was a parking space outside my house. Operative turned up, but parked at the end of the road showing no interest in parking anywhere near my house. I asked why this was. Him - 'I've turned up to see what needs to be done'. Me - 'you colleague's already done that on 21 November and specified an underground pipe join, then someone else turned up on 19 December to do a root cut but couldn't do it because there wasn't parking'. Him - 'I don't know about any of that'. Operative looked in front manhole and I explained about the smashed rainwater pipe. He said nothing.
At the back of the house, immediately he homed in on the waste pipe from the bathroom sink feeding into the rain water drain, telling me it was illegal and that therefore clearing the blockage probably wasn't covered. I said the foul pipe had been there for the past 30 or 40 years and asked why RT on 21/11 hadn't said this - he replied that RT had moved elsewhere within Dyno-Rod. When he took pictures of the piping, I observed that they seemed to be looking for ways to avoid doing the job and he said he didn't appreciate being spoken to like an idiot. Sensing matters beginning to deteriorate, I immediately took out my mobile phone and started recording what was being said - I could see myself being accused of being abusive, that good old chestnut wheeled out these days whenever anyone dares to question a minor official. He saw me doing this and wasn't happy, but never specifically said he didn't consent to the recording. I said that even if the foul pipe was leading wrongly into the rainwater drain, it wasn't the reason for the drain being blocked and that it shouldn't matter anyway as the rain water and foul water all went to the same treatment plant (remember I had been told this by RT on 21/11, and that he had tried to divert the rainwater drain into the foul). He said that wasn't correct. He also called his supervisor, telling him the above. I asked to speak to the supervisor but the supervisor hung up without having the courtesy to talk to me. The operative then stormed out of the house.
11/1/13 - I called Thames Water and was told that the operative who turned up on the 5th was right and that RT was wrong. In an area with separate surface/rain and foul water systems such as Northfields, what goes into the rain water drains and what goes into the foul water drains is still treated separately, so that smashing the pipe in the manhole to divert rain water into the foul was definitely the wrong thing to do. This is because of backflow and is a criminal offence under Section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991, subjecting me to the imminent threat of prosecution attracting a maximum fine of £20,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 3 months or both.
End Jan 2013 – Thames Water attended the property, but stated that my type of drain was not their responsibility.
25/1/13 - BG/Dynorod people came to do a root cut. They showed me the root cutter and the CCTV unit. I saw the roots they had cut and was surprised how few there were. I put them in my garden waste bag. I suspect they also did a CCTV survey but did not witness this. However they concluded by saying the root cut hadn't worked because the pipe was blocked by something else more serious and costly - probably collapsed towards the back of the house - and explained that a mandate form would need to be filled out by me authorising BG/Dynorod to deal directly with my own buildings insurance company so that it would pay the extra over the £600 ceiling allowed by the BG/Dynorod insurance policy. They said they would bring me a copy by hand and I said it was OK to post it but this never happened. It is my belief that they smashed the rainwater pipe all along its length on this or one of their other visits in order to get their CCTV and root cutting equipment into that pipe.
10/05/13 – called BG/Dynorod again requesting a cc of this mandate form.
Form arrived by post shortly after but was lost by me (thought I’d better point that out!)
21/05/13 and 22/05/13 – called BG/Dynorod again requesting an email cc of this mandate form.
7/6/13 – mandate form arrived by email.
12/6/13 - mandate form completed by me and emailed to my freeholder’s solicitors.
15/6/13 - mandate form completed by my freeholder and sent off to BG/Dynorod by his solicitors.
9/7/13 – Claim confirmed to my buildings insurers (Co-Op) by my freeholder. Co-Op approved works up to the value of £683.
14/8/13 – Email from a ‘MR’ at BG/Dynorod confirming works booked for 30/8/13
30/8/13 - BG/Dynorod people turned up but went away again, confirming that they needed ‘confined space entry equipment’ (why didn’t the people who turned up on 21/11/12, 5/1/13 or 25/1/13 need this OR communicate this to them?) and rebooked for 05/09/13.
05/09/13 – BG/Dynorod people turned up. Result – an email was sent by me to MR stating as follows:-
‘Dear MR
Your team arrived today. My lodger who was at home the entire time has just reported back to me on the morning's events. They have done another root cut at the front garden end of the pipe (which raises the question of what happened on 25 January) which they are now apparently describing as "Phase 1" and have then stated that there is another blockage in the pipe at the rear garden end which they "cannot" deal with without getting further permission from yourselves / British Gas / my insurance company.
This is apparently "Phase 2" and my lodger tells me one of your team also mentioned that the pipe underneath the back of the house, just below the concrete trap where the rainwater downpipe meets the ground, may have collapsed and require digging up and replacing. This also tallies with what I was told by the men on 25 January, as described below in a previous email from me, and is what I thought your team was coming to sort out last week and today.
My pipe remains blocked and this has merely heightened my dissatisfaction with yourselves / British Gas. I also get the distinct impression that yourselves / British Gas are using this as an opportunity to milk my insurance company. I have not heard of a drain blockage clearance company that charges twice to clear blockages in the same pipe.
Yours XX
05/09/13 – phone conversation with BG/Dynorod. Supposed explanation that MR, the manager I had been dealing with, was not aware of the history of this issue (“only involved when job passed to us in July”) and that BG/Dynorod would pass the report of the day’s activities across to Co-Op for them to assess whether to appoint BG/Dynorod or another contractor to finish the works.
14/09/13 – phone call from MR at BG/Dynorod, stating that he was now aware of the history of my blockage. MR said that the Phase 2 works had been identified and would cost IRO £1.5-£2K. This report was to be passed to Co-Op for them to give the go-ahead and appoint another contractor. He added that the work they had done on 05/09 had been worth £5-600 and should have been billed to Co-Op but would not be as “we’re a reputable company and we won’t be doing any more work at your place as we’re offended by the remarks in your email (of 05/09)”.
Isn’t there an inherent contradiction in this? The very last thing a ‘reputable company’ should be doing is dumping a customer, rather than putting things right. Moreover, given that I have been paying £40/month all this time perhaps the act of doing this = failure to perform a service with reasonable care and skill. And it’s interesting how he didn’t say anything about being offended on 5/9.
26/9/13 – I emailed BG/Dynorod chasing progress. A different person to MR (a ‘JP’) emailed me saying he’d chased it up with Co-Op and that they had agreed to appoint different contractors.
27/9/13 - Email from me back to JP to preserve my position:-
‘Dear JP
Thanks. I have spoken to Co-Op insurance. They confirmed that Dyno-Rod had asked them to instruct another company to do the works and this now looks to be in progress.
Incidentally, Co-Op also mentioned that Dyno-rod had requested another company to do the works "because we (Dyno-rod) cannot complete the works in the timescale that the policyholder is expecting us to". I feel I should put on record what actually happened, which is that MR told me by phone on 14 September that Dyno-rod would be refusing to carry out any further works because he was offended at my complaining about the length of time my drain has remained blocked and about the quality of Dyno-rod's service. It is not correct that I imposed or tried to impose any kind of timescale on Dynorod going forward and indeed this was never even discussed.
I do not believe I have behaved any differently to how anyone else would have done whose drain had remained blocked since November 2012, despite 6 visits by Dyno-Rod and whilst paying £40/month for plumbing and drains cover. It is not even as if I have been rude or abusive and, in my opinion, MR's actions owe more to the adage 'attack is the best form of defence' than to any wrongdoing on my part.’
Yours XX
End Sep – beginning Oct – correspondence between me and the new people, UK Drainage Networks (UKDN) arranging a visit.
03/10/13 – UKDN turned up to do a CCTV survey, without the need for any ‘confined space entry equipment’. They only got 6.2 metres from the manhole in the front garden before discovering the pipe was COMPLETELY blocked with roots. I watched the survey and have a cc of the report. They could not go further that day as they did not have root-cutting equipment, but arranged to send colleagues back with it in due course. This of course raises the question of what Dynorod did – or rather didn’t do, or didn’t do properly – on 25/1 and 5/9/13 (and perhaps also explains why MR did not charge Co-Op for the visit of 5/9). UKDN advised that, when doing a root cut, it was standard procedure to do the whole thing at once rather than divide it into phases as Dynorod appears to have done. Presumably this duplication of work and repeated going away and coming back by Dynorod also means that the £600 ceiling for the value of work covered by the BG/Dynorod insurance-based policy was reached rather sooner than it needed to be.
UKDN’s job sheet for this day states clearly that the pipe had already been smashed all along its length by Dyno/BG’s people before the 3rd of October. They also echoed the statement of Thames Water re the smashing of the pipe in the manhole to divert rain water into the foul ie that it should not have been done and can attract a fine.
28/11/13 – UKDN turned up to do a root cut, backed up by a CCTV survey, without the need for any ‘confined space entry equipment’. I watched all the work and have a cc of the CCTV survey report. Dan the operative completely cleared the main section of pipe of roots all the way back to where a spur of pipe leads off at a right-angle to the rainwater drain at the rear of the property. He established that it has not collapsed (although it does have a couple of small holes in the top along its length) and that the remaining blockage is due to roots in this spur of pipe. This, said Dan, will need to be dug up and cleared as it cannot be reached by the hydraulic root-cutter.
4/1/14 – I sent a complaint to British Gas. They admitted that in the beginning they had given poor service and that they had made the initial hole in the pipe but didn’t concede anything else. They offered me £308 and sent someone around to repair the smashed pipe, but when they found it was smashed all along its length refused to repair it and went away again on the basis that they did make a hole in it but hadn’t smashed it along its entire length. They also said that they were no longer liable to make good the pipe at all on the basis that the subsequent smashing by, according to them, UKDN supersedes their original hole. However, my position regarding the smashing of the rain water pipe was and remains that BG's people and nobody else smashed it open - firstly a little bit on 21/11/12 to attempt to divert the flow into the foul and then the rest on 25/01/13 and 05/09/13 in order to get their dyno-rod, root-cutting and CCTV equipment into the rain water pipe and consequently that, by the time of UKDN's first visit on 03/10/13, the smashing had already been done in its entirety by BG's people. I was there on 3/10/13 and did not see UKDN smashing this pipe.
Early Jan 14 – the pipe at the rear of the house was dug up and replaced by UKDN and the drain is now clear.
I sought advice from Thompsons Solicitors, who I can get access to due to my membership of UNISON, and the advice was that I DO have a valid claim against British Gas/Dynorod on the basis of a breach of ss 13 and 14 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (services carried out with reasonable care and skill and in a timely manner).
So I have launched a small claim on the above basis and their solicitors have lodged a defence. This isn't a problem by itself, but what is worrying me is that they have also told me I should seek my own legal advice as they believe my claim to be unreasonable, with attendant costs implications should the court agree.
If anyone has read this all the way to the end, I would be grateful to hear your thoughts on whether my claim is reasonable.
Thanks in advance
M
I have a dispute with British Gas/Dynorod and wondered if members on this forum could have a read of the below and let me know their thoughts. Apologies that it's rather long.
I have had a blocked drain at the back of my flat for over 1 year, despite 6 visits from Dynorod and hours of phone calls and time wasted in terms of having to take time off work repeatedly to let operatives into the house, all while paying £40/mth for the privilege.
I have had British Gas HomeCare since 14/12/00, extending to Plumbing and Drains Care on 14/12/01 and then Electrical on 3/8/04, at which point it became BG HomeCare 400 before changing to Home Cover 400 insurance on 13/12/10. I have called on the plumbing and drains cover when they attended and (satisfactorily) fixed a drain blockage some time in 2007/08. The plumbing and drains cover is provided by Dynorod, which is now owned by British Gas (BG).
The Home Care 400 doco also makes reference to an annual plumbing inspection carried out at the same time as the annual boiler service. This plumbing inspection has never happened.
My flat is on the ground floor of a 1900-built terraced house with separate rain water and foul water drains. I am told that in my Northfields area of Ealing, rainwater from the roof and concreted ground areas runs into the rain water drain which goes into its rain water counterpart in the road and then into rivers, while waste water from everything else runs into the foul water drain which goes into its sewer counterpart in the road and then to the sewage treatment plant.
I have been thinking for some time about switching my boiler and plumbing electrical cover from BG to a cheaper. The renewal date was 13/12/12 and when the drain blocked at the back of the house in mid-Nov, I attempted to get it sorted out before the renewal date so that I could still cancel on that date and not get hit with penalties for cancelling after it had passed.
Chronology of events:-
- 21/11/12 - Discovered an overflow from the drain at the back of my property (same as the one in 2007/08). Called BG/Dynorod and they sent an operative who I’ll call ‘RT’ who turned up later the same day - job no 06133. RT spent a good 2 hours at the property attempting to fix what turned out to be a blocked rainwater drain. First he attempted to dyno-rod it from the manhole in the front garden, then from the rear of the property where the rainwater downpipe met the entrance to the rainwater drain at ground level, both without success.
He then attempted another solution - in the manhole at the front, the foul drain opens out where it enters the bottom of the manhole while the rainwater pipe runs parallel through the manhole but without opening out. Believing the blockage might have been between the manhole and the sewer in the street, he smashed a hole in the rainwater pipe with a hammer in order to divert the rainwater into the foul drain. This didn't work and therefore he concluded that the blockage was caused by roots that had grown into the rainwater pipe somewhere between the front manhole and the rear of the property.
He then announced that what was needed was an underground connection between the rainwater drain and the foul drain at the rear of the property, which would need authorisation because it cost about £600, but that this would just be a formality and British Gas would get back in touch within the week to return with the right equipment to do the underground join. He did also comment that there was a foul pipe leading from the bathroom sink into the rain water drain at the rear and that this should not be there, “but not to worry as it all goes to the same treatment plant nowadays and the rain water's going to be diverted into the foul anyway”. I didn't understand this rain water / foul water drainage business until recently, but that pipe has certainly been there for the past 30 or 40 years. Moreover, it was not mentioned when BG/Dynorod attended in 2007/08.
- No contact until 8/12, when I called BG back and spoke to a call handler named ‘BW’ only to be told 'the job had only now been passed for authorisation because they'd lost it' and promising a call back within 24 hours. I advised BW that the call was being recorded, stating that I'd expected the job to be sorted out a lot sooner and advising that if I had to keep the cover going after 13 December because BG hadn't done the unblocking in a timely fashion then I would resist having to pay a cancellation fee.
- Later on 8/12, a voicemail message from someone named G promising a call back on 9/12. This never happened.
- 14/12 - I called and spoke to a ‘J’ asking why I hadn't been called back, repeating what I'd said to BW.
- 15/12 - Call from someone named ‘V’ promising a visit on 19/12
- 19/12 - phone call from the operative telling me he was on his way with a root-cutter, followed by another one telling me he couldn't do the job because there was no parking near my house. Him - 'someone will be in touch from Dyno-Rod to rearrange a visit'. Me - 'why wasn't I told by Dyno-rod to ensure there was parking?' Him - silence.
- 4/1/13 - I called and spoke to ‘J’ asking why I hadn't been called back. ‘J’ booked me in for a visit on 5/1/13
- 5/1/13 - I made sure there was a parking space outside my house. Operative turned up, but parked at the end of the road showing no interest in parking anywhere near my house. I asked why this was. Him - 'I've turned up to see what needs to be done'. Me - 'you colleague's already done that on 21 November and specified an underground pipe join, then someone else turned up on 19 December to do a root cut but couldn't do it because there wasn't parking'. Him - 'I don't know about any of that'. Operative looked in front manhole and I explained about the smashed rainwater pipe. He said nothing.
At the back of the house, immediately he homed in on the waste pipe from the bathroom sink feeding into the rain water drain, telling me it was illegal and that therefore clearing the blockage probably wasn't covered. I said the foul pipe had been there for the past 30 or 40 years and asked why RT on 21/11 hadn't said this - he replied that RT had moved elsewhere within Dyno-Rod. When he took pictures of the piping, I observed that they seemed to be looking for ways to avoid doing the job and he said he didn't appreciate being spoken to like an idiot. Sensing matters beginning to deteriorate, I immediately took out my mobile phone and started recording what was being said - I could see myself being accused of being abusive, that good old chestnut wheeled out these days whenever anyone dares to question a minor official. He saw me doing this and wasn't happy, but never specifically said he didn't consent to the recording. I said that even if the foul pipe was leading wrongly into the rainwater drain, it wasn't the reason for the drain being blocked and that it shouldn't matter anyway as the rain water and foul water all went to the same treatment plant (remember I had been told this by RT on 21/11, and that he had tried to divert the rainwater drain into the foul). He said that wasn't correct. He also called his supervisor, telling him the above. I asked to speak to the supervisor but the supervisor hung up without having the courtesy to talk to me. The operative then stormed out of the house.
11/1/13 - I called Thames Water and was told that the operative who turned up on the 5th was right and that RT was wrong. In an area with separate surface/rain and foul water systems such as Northfields, what goes into the rain water drains and what goes into the foul water drains is still treated separately, so that smashing the pipe in the manhole to divert rain water into the foul was definitely the wrong thing to do. This is because of backflow and is a criminal offence under Section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991, subjecting me to the imminent threat of prosecution attracting a maximum fine of £20,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 3 months or both.
End Jan 2013 – Thames Water attended the property, but stated that my type of drain was not their responsibility.
25/1/13 - BG/Dynorod people came to do a root cut. They showed me the root cutter and the CCTV unit. I saw the roots they had cut and was surprised how few there were. I put them in my garden waste bag. I suspect they also did a CCTV survey but did not witness this. However they concluded by saying the root cut hadn't worked because the pipe was blocked by something else more serious and costly - probably collapsed towards the back of the house - and explained that a mandate form would need to be filled out by me authorising BG/Dynorod to deal directly with my own buildings insurance company so that it would pay the extra over the £600 ceiling allowed by the BG/Dynorod insurance policy. They said they would bring me a copy by hand and I said it was OK to post it but this never happened. It is my belief that they smashed the rainwater pipe all along its length on this or one of their other visits in order to get their CCTV and root cutting equipment into that pipe.
10/05/13 – called BG/Dynorod again requesting a cc of this mandate form.
Form arrived by post shortly after but was lost by me (thought I’d better point that out!)
21/05/13 and 22/05/13 – called BG/Dynorod again requesting an email cc of this mandate form.
7/6/13 – mandate form arrived by email.
12/6/13 - mandate form completed by me and emailed to my freeholder’s solicitors.
15/6/13 - mandate form completed by my freeholder and sent off to BG/Dynorod by his solicitors.
9/7/13 – Claim confirmed to my buildings insurers (Co-Op) by my freeholder. Co-Op approved works up to the value of £683.
14/8/13 – Email from a ‘MR’ at BG/Dynorod confirming works booked for 30/8/13
30/8/13 - BG/Dynorod people turned up but went away again, confirming that they needed ‘confined space entry equipment’ (why didn’t the people who turned up on 21/11/12, 5/1/13 or 25/1/13 need this OR communicate this to them?) and rebooked for 05/09/13.
05/09/13 – BG/Dynorod people turned up. Result – an email was sent by me to MR stating as follows:-
‘Dear MR
Your team arrived today. My lodger who was at home the entire time has just reported back to me on the morning's events. They have done another root cut at the front garden end of the pipe (which raises the question of what happened on 25 January) which they are now apparently describing as "Phase 1" and have then stated that there is another blockage in the pipe at the rear garden end which they "cannot" deal with without getting further permission from yourselves / British Gas / my insurance company.
This is apparently "Phase 2" and my lodger tells me one of your team also mentioned that the pipe underneath the back of the house, just below the concrete trap where the rainwater downpipe meets the ground, may have collapsed and require digging up and replacing. This also tallies with what I was told by the men on 25 January, as described below in a previous email from me, and is what I thought your team was coming to sort out last week and today.
My pipe remains blocked and this has merely heightened my dissatisfaction with yourselves / British Gas. I also get the distinct impression that yourselves / British Gas are using this as an opportunity to milk my insurance company. I have not heard of a drain blockage clearance company that charges twice to clear blockages in the same pipe.
Yours XX
05/09/13 – phone conversation with BG/Dynorod. Supposed explanation that MR, the manager I had been dealing with, was not aware of the history of this issue (“only involved when job passed to us in July”) and that BG/Dynorod would pass the report of the day’s activities across to Co-Op for them to assess whether to appoint BG/Dynorod or another contractor to finish the works.
14/09/13 – phone call from MR at BG/Dynorod, stating that he was now aware of the history of my blockage. MR said that the Phase 2 works had been identified and would cost IRO £1.5-£2K. This report was to be passed to Co-Op for them to give the go-ahead and appoint another contractor. He added that the work they had done on 05/09 had been worth £5-600 and should have been billed to Co-Op but would not be as “we’re a reputable company and we won’t be doing any more work at your place as we’re offended by the remarks in your email (of 05/09)”.
Isn’t there an inherent contradiction in this? The very last thing a ‘reputable company’ should be doing is dumping a customer, rather than putting things right. Moreover, given that I have been paying £40/month all this time perhaps the act of doing this = failure to perform a service with reasonable care and skill. And it’s interesting how he didn’t say anything about being offended on 5/9.
26/9/13 – I emailed BG/Dynorod chasing progress. A different person to MR (a ‘JP’) emailed me saying he’d chased it up with Co-Op and that they had agreed to appoint different contractors.
27/9/13 - Email from me back to JP to preserve my position:-
‘Dear JP
Thanks. I have spoken to Co-Op insurance. They confirmed that Dyno-Rod had asked them to instruct another company to do the works and this now looks to be in progress.
Incidentally, Co-Op also mentioned that Dyno-rod had requested another company to do the works "because we (Dyno-rod) cannot complete the works in the timescale that the policyholder is expecting us to". I feel I should put on record what actually happened, which is that MR told me by phone on 14 September that Dyno-rod would be refusing to carry out any further works because he was offended at my complaining about the length of time my drain has remained blocked and about the quality of Dyno-rod's service. It is not correct that I imposed or tried to impose any kind of timescale on Dynorod going forward and indeed this was never even discussed.
I do not believe I have behaved any differently to how anyone else would have done whose drain had remained blocked since November 2012, despite 6 visits by Dyno-Rod and whilst paying £40/month for plumbing and drains cover. It is not even as if I have been rude or abusive and, in my opinion, MR's actions owe more to the adage 'attack is the best form of defence' than to any wrongdoing on my part.’
Yours XX
End Sep – beginning Oct – correspondence between me and the new people, UK Drainage Networks (UKDN) arranging a visit.
03/10/13 – UKDN turned up to do a CCTV survey, without the need for any ‘confined space entry equipment’. They only got 6.2 metres from the manhole in the front garden before discovering the pipe was COMPLETELY blocked with roots. I watched the survey and have a cc of the report. They could not go further that day as they did not have root-cutting equipment, but arranged to send colleagues back with it in due course. This of course raises the question of what Dynorod did – or rather didn’t do, or didn’t do properly – on 25/1 and 5/9/13 (and perhaps also explains why MR did not charge Co-Op for the visit of 5/9). UKDN advised that, when doing a root cut, it was standard procedure to do the whole thing at once rather than divide it into phases as Dynorod appears to have done. Presumably this duplication of work and repeated going away and coming back by Dynorod also means that the £600 ceiling for the value of work covered by the BG/Dynorod insurance-based policy was reached rather sooner than it needed to be.
UKDN’s job sheet for this day states clearly that the pipe had already been smashed all along its length by Dyno/BG’s people before the 3rd of October. They also echoed the statement of Thames Water re the smashing of the pipe in the manhole to divert rain water into the foul ie that it should not have been done and can attract a fine.
28/11/13 – UKDN turned up to do a root cut, backed up by a CCTV survey, without the need for any ‘confined space entry equipment’. I watched all the work and have a cc of the CCTV survey report. Dan the operative completely cleared the main section of pipe of roots all the way back to where a spur of pipe leads off at a right-angle to the rainwater drain at the rear of the property. He established that it has not collapsed (although it does have a couple of small holes in the top along its length) and that the remaining blockage is due to roots in this spur of pipe. This, said Dan, will need to be dug up and cleared as it cannot be reached by the hydraulic root-cutter.
4/1/14 – I sent a complaint to British Gas. They admitted that in the beginning they had given poor service and that they had made the initial hole in the pipe but didn’t concede anything else. They offered me £308 and sent someone around to repair the smashed pipe, but when they found it was smashed all along its length refused to repair it and went away again on the basis that they did make a hole in it but hadn’t smashed it along its entire length. They also said that they were no longer liable to make good the pipe at all on the basis that the subsequent smashing by, according to them, UKDN supersedes their original hole. However, my position regarding the smashing of the rain water pipe was and remains that BG's people and nobody else smashed it open - firstly a little bit on 21/11/12 to attempt to divert the flow into the foul and then the rest on 25/01/13 and 05/09/13 in order to get their dyno-rod, root-cutting and CCTV equipment into the rain water pipe and consequently that, by the time of UKDN's first visit on 03/10/13, the smashing had already been done in its entirety by BG's people. I was there on 3/10/13 and did not see UKDN smashing this pipe.
Early Jan 14 – the pipe at the rear of the house was dug up and replaced by UKDN and the drain is now clear.
I sought advice from Thompsons Solicitors, who I can get access to due to my membership of UNISON, and the advice was that I DO have a valid claim against British Gas/Dynorod on the basis of a breach of ss 13 and 14 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (services carried out with reasonable care and skill and in a timely manner).
So I have launched a small claim on the above basis and their solicitors have lodged a defence. This isn't a problem by itself, but what is worrying me is that they have also told me I should seek my own legal advice as they believe my claim to be unreasonable, with attendant costs implications should the court agree.
If anyone has read this all the way to the end, I would be grateful to hear your thoughts on whether my claim is reasonable.
Thanks in advance
M
0
Comments
-
" what is worrying me is that they have also told me I should seek my own legal advice as they believe my claim to be unreasonable, with attendant costs implications should the court agree. "
Once you had taken out the small claims action, why did you need to communicate with them again? Who told you this?
I don't believe they can claim attendant costs at the county court, but someone else will need to confirm this.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/law_w/law_legal_system_e/law_taking_legal_action_e/small_claims.htm
Do you have this threat in writing? In any case it should be added as a comment on your claim, as it amounts to blackmail.
I would think it would be standard practice to show you the CCTV footage and give a recording of it.0 -
Post is far to long, but I did get to the part about it being a flat.
Won't the other flats be equally liable for any external problems, that's the way it usually works.
The solicitors will pick up on that very quickly, it's usually only the drains on your own property they insure.0 -
Hi all
didn't realise there'd been any replies to this - the email telling me about them went into the spam folder.
It's now been settled. Many thanks for replies and I will take on board the comment about the length of the OP.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.2K Spending & Discounts
- 243.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.6K Life & Family
- 256.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards