We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Taking a flooring company to the small claims - what to claim?

Options
In a nutshell -

We had an engineered oak floor supplied and fitted by a local company.
Within a week, the floor showed expansion problems. Fitters came out and trimmed it back.
5 months later, the same problem appeared in another area. Fitters came out again, trimmed it back, told us that would be the end of it.
Same thing happened AGAIN. Only then 9 months after initial fitting, was it discovered that the expansion bars at every threshold (4 in total) had been glued to the floor, rendering them useless.
This was remedied, but a week later a large gap appeared down the length of the floor and boards started to lift.

So, after 12 months and 4 attempts to correctly lay the floor, we requested a refund.
This was initially agreed by the owner, but then he refused to refund the fitting costs because although it was "his team", ie his brother and a mate, he had asked us to pay them cash - so he denied having anything to do with that part of the job.

When we tried to argue this, pointing out that the last 2 attempts to remedy the floor issues had been carried out by him, he withdrew his offer of a refund and said he would only replace the floor - at this point, we declined on the basis that he hadn't been able to sort the floor out thus far and we had lost confidence that he had the neccesary skills to be able to do so.

Once it became apparent that we were in deadlock, with him trying to suggest that we'd simply changed our mind about having the floor because it didn't suit our lifestyle, suggesting that we'd left the floor to get worse deliberately to further our case (we went on a pre-booked holiday for 2 weeks between problems!), the problem had been caused by our then puppy having an accident etc, we offered to get an independent expert inspection and report done to settle the matter - with both parties splitting the cost.
Again, this was refused on the basis of being too expensive, not neccesary, unfair because it was by then nearly 2 years after the initial laying etc.

So, we paid to have the report done ourselves. The expert consulted the supplier to get info on the exact details of the fitting, prep etc and his findings showed absolutely that all the problems were caused by lack of proper preparation and poor fitting.

We forwarded this info to the company, in the form of a final LBA, requesting full refund of the floor, fitting and report. It was ignored.

We feel we have no option but to now take this to small claims, but are unsure what exactly we should claim.
Can we claim the full cost of the report, or am I right in thinking we can only do that if the judge requests it? In which case, should we attach the report to the claim or not?

Regarding interest, what dates do we claim it from and to?

Is the fact that we have no receipt of the fitting costs (paid in cash) a problem?

The total cost of the floor, supply and fitting, plus report is just under £2k.
(There us also a small possibility that the underfloor heating mat system underneath the floor may have been damaged during the attempts to rectify the floor issues - we won't know that fully until the floor is taken up).

Comments

  • daytona0
    daytona0 Posts: 2,358 Forumite
    edited 3 October 2014 at 10:11AM
    So let me get this straight, he offered you a full refund minus the costs of the fitting which was paid cash in hand?
    We requested a refund. This was initially agreed by the owner, but then he refused to refund the fitting costs because although it was "his team", ie his brother and a mate, he had asked us to pay them cash - so he denied having anything to do with that part of the job.

    I would have bit their hand off for this! Especially when you've had fair use of the item for a while too. Chances are that the fitter money paid their wages directly and probably didn't go through the books if i'm being honest.... that is the danger of paying cash in hand (especially if you dont get a receipt). There is likely no proof that you paid the money and it will just turn into a "your word against ours" situation.


    The funny (good) bit is;
    he withdrew his offer of a refund and said he would only replace the floor

    This is a suitable remedy under the sales of goods act, along with a partial refund and a repair. The seller can choose which one to do.


    At this stage two resolutions have been offered, which conform to the Sales of Goods Act. The fault report issue;
    Again, this was refused on the basis of being too expensive, not neccesary, unfair because it was by then nearly 2 years after the initial laying etc.

    So the seller told you that a fault report was not necessary and yet you've gone ahead and got one on your own dime with the expectation of having it reimbursed? Seems unfair on the seller to be honest. They've offered you two suitable resolutions and you've declined, effectively forcing a deadlock when it is not appropriate to do so.






    So all in all I'd like to see you approach small claims court with your post in mind. You may get penalised because they've made two suitable offers under the Sales of Goods Act. Also, unless there is more information, the fault report was completely unnecessary and you'd be lucky to get this reimbursed. I would hope that the seller retains enough proof to corroborate what you have discussed here because I think you have dealt with this wrongly.
  • I take on board what you've said and appreciate your advice.

    The issue we have with the points you've made is that the seller constantly changed what he was prepared to offer.
    Initially, he offered to replace our stair carpet "to apologise for the inconvenience" of having to have the floor repaired 4 times in a year.
    Then he offered a refund, but withdrew that and said he'd replace the floor "and do a really good job this time". We spoke to Trading Standards at this point, and they said we had given him more than enough chances to correct the problem and that it was understandable why we had no faith that he was actually competent to do the job (particularly since the reason he didn't fit in the first place is because he told us he wasn't a wood floor fitter). In actual fact, the report highlighted the question of the suitability of the product for our property - so there is a good chance that any replacement floor of the same would have similar problems.

    We went ahead with the report to be sure that we had a case - at that point, we believed the floor had failed due to poor fitting but the supplier was arguing it was our fault. Had the report said it wasn't down to the fitting, we would not have gone any further.



    It was on the advice of the CAB that we had the report done, and we were advised to approach the supplier to share the cost as a way of mediation.
  • What was the expert report's recommendation to resolve the issue? Can the floor be fixed with no/minimal damage to the flooring? What was the cost estimate for doing this?

    Do you have any evidence of the supply of the floor being part of the same contract as to the fitting of the floor?
  • tumbledowngirl
    tumbledowngirl Posts: 265 Forumite
    edited 3 October 2014 at 11:29AM
    What was the expert report's recommendation to resolve the issue? Can the floor be fixed with no/minimal damage to the flooring? What was the cost estimate for doing this?

    Do you have any evidence of the supply of the floor being part of the same contract as to the fitting of the floor?

    There were 2 parts to the expert's recommendations as to what could be done to remedy the floor issue.
    On the one hand, he suggested it could be taken up and damaged boards replaced and then re- laid. However, he did note that this would cause a problem due to the wear/marks etc on the original boards not matching with new boards and having to be replaced in the same position so as to look coherent (for example, where there's been any liquid spillage on the floor across more than one board).

    In addition, it appears the spec of the floor has been changed since it was originally supplied, and the expert questioned its suitability for our property, given moisture and humidity readings etc.

    We have no guide as to how much remedial work would cost, since we don't know how much of the floor has failed - it is a click system and the supplier himself wrote that it has irreparably damaged, since he has already tried to replace areas of it without success.

    No, we have no evidence to connect the fitting with the supply - other than the fact the supplier has said in writing that he did all the measuring, prep etc and then attempted to remedy the issues himself after the first 2 attempts by the fitters. Circumstantial only, I guess, and not much help.
  • In addition, it appears the spec of the floor has been changed since it was originally supplied, and the expert questioned its suitability for our property, given moisture and humidity readings etc.

    We have no guide as to how much remedial work would cost, since we don't know how much of the floor has failed - it is a click system and the supplier himself wrote that it has irreparably damaged, since he has already tried to replace areas of it without success.

    No, we have no evidence to connect the fitting with the supply - other than the fact the supplier has said in writing that he did all the measuring, prep etc and then attempted to remedy the issues himself after the first 2 attempts by the fitters. Circumstantial only, I guess, and not much help.

    So its the original floor or the new version that is unsuitable for your property? Assuming its the original floor, were you advised of the appropriate floor for it or did you select the one you wanted without professional advice?

    Your issue is going to be proving the seller of the floor is liable when the issue has been identified predominately one of fitting and there is no provable link that the seller also fitted it. The fact they attempted to help you deal with the fitting issues isnt a particularly strong argument in my mind. Obviously on the day in court, if it gets that far, then they may full admit to fitting it and so the problem goes away or deny having anything to do with fitting and say the rectification work was just trying to help a customer in distress as a gesture of goodwill.

    Thankfully the civil courts work on the balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt so the level of proof is much lower but you;d be on fairly thin ice if they argue fitting was your separate arrangement.

    Ideally the expert report should have estimated cost of rectification, said it was impossible to repair or stated that its impossible accurately estimate so without ripping up the existing flooring to see how many were irrevocably damaged but your range is X to Y

    General principals of law are you should mitigate your losses so if repair is cheaper than replacement that generally is how it should go. There are certain statutory rights that may overrule the common law obligations
  • So its the original floor or the new version that is unsuitable for your property? Assuming its the original floor, were you advised of the appropriate floor for it or did you select the one you wanted without professional advice?

    Your issue is going to be proving the seller of the floor is liable when the issue has been identified predominately one of fitting and there is no provable link that the seller also fitted it. The fact they attempted to help you deal with the fitting issues isnt a particularly strong argument in my mind. Obviously on the day in court, if it gets that far, then they may full admit to fitting it and so the problem goes away or deny having anything to do with fitting and say the rectification work was just trying to help a customer in distress as a gesture of goodwill.

    Thankfully the civil courts work on the balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt so the level of proof is much lower but you;d be on fairly thin ice if they argue fitting was your separate arrangement.

    Ideally the expert report should have estimated cost of rectification, said it was impossible to repair or stated that its impossible accurately estimate so without ripping up the existing flooring to see how many were irrevocably damaged but your range is X to Y

    General principals of law are you should mitigate your losses so if repair is cheaper than replacement that generally is how it should go. There are certain statutory rights that may overrule the common law obligations

    Thank you for your help.

    It's the original floor suitability that's in question, and it was the supplier who came out to the property to assess which flooring would be suitable and subsequently recommended the flooring we ended up buying. He also did the moisture reading, which the expert report says was inadequate - the expert spoke to the supplier about this and details of what the supplier said are contained in the report. We had no contact with the fitters at all before they came to fit and subsequently try to repair - it was all handled by the supplier as "his team."
    When we asked the supplier to give us contact details for the fitters, he refused and actually admitted they were no longer working for him because of issues with the standard of their work.
  • InsideInsurance
    InsideInsurance Posts: 22,460 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Generally with court cases you should throw as much mud as possible in the hope that some of it sticks - hence you see people dont just sue for unfair dismissal but add on sexual discrimination, racial discrimination and any other possible box they can tick.

    If the vendor recommended this item and the manufacturer and engineer have both said it was inappropriate then this should certainly be included in the case in addition to the poor fitting which certainly would add weight to the case
  • Generally with court cases you should throw as much mud as possible in the hope that some of it sticks - hence you see people dont just sue for unfair dismissal but add on sexual discrimination, racial discrimination and any other possible box they can tick.

    If the vendor recommended this item and the manufacturer and engineer have both said it was inappropriate then this should certainly be included in the case in addition to the poor fitting which certainly would add weight to the case


    Thank you very much for all your help and advice - much appreciated.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.