Gas leak caused by incompetant cooker installation

George_Michael

bulletproof_1979 wrote: »

Irrespective of my specific case and any refund, I'll want some confirmation of what action has been taken regarding the installers. AO (and/ or the contractors it uses) have an obligation to ensure that the people it sends to install potentially lethal equipment are qualified and competent. I didn't die as a result of their negligence, but what of the next person?

As BG have visited your house and stated that the installation was dangerous, they are legally obliged to put in a report (RIDDOR) to the Health and safety executive and they will follow it up.
It's very unlikely that you will be told what action has been taken as this will probably be confidential.

unholyangel

OP 2 things to bear in mind. The first is that the law is not one sided. It tries to strike a balance between parties so that one party is not unduly punished or rewarded for a breach of contract.

Imagine every time you made a mistake at work, your employer being able to with hold your wage for the entire day or week. Or if you break something in a shop, the shop claiming compensation for stress and inconvenience. Or any breach of contract & the supplier claiming stress & inconvenience because of your breach.

And the other thing to consider....you said:

AO (and/ or the contractors it uses) have an obligation to ensure that the people it sends to install potentially lethal equipment are qualified and competent.

While AO can't disclaim liability for their subcontractors (not that they're trying to), arguably, they did do the above if the engineer they sent was gas safe registered to work on that particular appliance.

Not sure what extra steps you think they could take to ensure that each and every single job is carried out correctly.

Marktheshark

Actual loss law is DEAD.
"Justifiable loss" is now law as of supreme court Beavis vs parking eye.
UKSC 2015/0116

Use the new law to fill yer boots !

unholyangel

Marktheshark wrote: »

Actual loss law is DEAD.
"Justifiable loss" is now law as of supreme court Beavis vs parking eye.
UKSC 2015/0116

Use the new law to fill yer boots !

Sure, a judgement that a contractual pre-estimate of loss can be enforced is totally a green light to claim any amount of damages you fancy

bod1467

But that's exactly why the Consumer Association joined the case (on the side of Beavis) ... this SC ruling has the potential to open the flood gates for "penalty" charges to be legally enforced (commercially justified).

Left the hotel room more messy then the hotel judges reasonable? £50 charge please. (If that is mentioned in the T&Cs then they'd be able to make that claim now, reference Beavis, and a court would likely uphold the claim).

Marktheshark

unholyangel wrote: »

Sure, a judgement that a contractual pre-estimate of loss can be enforced is totally a green light to claim any amount of damages you fancy

They threw the pre estimate out as well.
It is really a ground breaking change of law on many aspects.

Now the loss is not a loss but a "justifiable cost"

unholyangel

Marktheshark wrote: »

They threw the pre estimate out as well.
It is really a ground breaking change of law on many aspects.

Now the loss is not a loss but a "justifiable cost"

I believe the rule that was actually challenged is that the loss must arise from that particular breach - rather than being an ordinary business expense they would have paid out even if the contract had not been breached. That is usually the basis for challenging parking invoices - that it amounts to a penalty and not a pre-estimate of loss because none of the costs they claim arise from the breach itself - rather its a normal business cost of their business model.

I believe the original case, the solicitor for parking eye used commercial deterrent as the reason the costs should be upheld.

This is from the summary judgement:

The concepts of ‘deterrence’ and “genuine pre-estimate of loss” are unhelpful. The true test is
whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the
contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the
enforcement of the primary obligation [32].


Lord Mance agrees with that test. The first step is to consider whether any (and if so what) legitimate
business interest is served and protected by the clause, and if so and secondly, whether the provision
made for that interest is extravagant, exorbitant or unconscionable [152]. The penalty doctrine has
been applied to clauses withholding payments, and transfers of moneys worth [154-159], and may be
considered alongside relief against forfeiture [161]. It should not be abolished or restricted: its
existence is justified by its longstanding invocation and endorsement in the United Kingdom, Europe
and across common law jurisdictions [162-170].

Not saying I agree with the judgement. It goes against many principles in law - including that someone should have to make an excessive payment simply for doing something that the other party has an interest in deterring him from doing (rather than any loss actually arising from them doing so). I believe they've said that £85 isnt excessive so thats all good. But IMO something is excessive when compared to the actual losses incurred or the actual contract price. IE paying £2 for an hours parking (for example) and then being required to pay £85 because you overstayed by 10 mins due to shops being busy is certainly excessive when compared to the £2.


However it still doesn't change that you can't take a judgement based on a contractual provision and apply it where no such provision exists (ie try to retrospectively add terms).

magpiecottage

bulletproof_1979 wrote: »

That may be necessary, but hopefully not.

You can take legal action against AO if you wish but this will be a civil, not a criminal, matter.

AO will be required to redress any demonstrable (and reasonably foreseeable) loss. However, as others have inferred, demonstrating a loss may prove easier said than done.

Irrespective of my specific case and any refund, I'll want some confirmation of what action has been taken regarding the installers. AO (and/ or the contractors it uses) have an obligation to ensure that the people it sends to install potentially lethal equipment are qualified and competent. I didn't die as a result of their negligence, but what of the next person?

That is a criminal matter. BG has confirmed it has reported its findings to the appropriate authority, which will act accordingly. Ths could, if appropriate, include criminal prosecution. However, this will not normally involve compensating you and, if AO admits fault, may not be released into the public domain.

If that is the case, the only way you might obtain details could be a Freedom of Information request. Even then it might be legitimately refused.

So you are probably banging your head against a wall here.

bulletproof_1979

Just an update for those interested in these issues...

The alternate fitters I arranged came out on Saturday afternoon, fitted the cooker and invoiced me. I sent this invoice, along with an lengthy email explaining the whole situation and that I didn't feel that the suggested 'goodwill' payment adequately covered the seriousness of the situation. I asked as part of the email that the case was looked at by a senior/ complaints manager.

They replied within the hour and offered £200 (half the price of the oven) in addition to paying the cost of the installation. They've also assured me that the case has been passed to the relevant professional authority for investigation.

I'm happy all in all with the way they have dealt with the situation and view it as a pretty fair outcome - yes, they are more out of pocket than me, but it was their failure to deliver on what was purchased after all.

Alter_ego

AJXX wrote: »

P.S put the 35 quid towards a gas detector alarm - everyone should have one.

Where can I buy one of those then?