Fairview New Homes - Bathroom

Ksparkle00

This is my account of events whilst dealing with Fairview New Homes regarding the main bathroom in my new build flat, it also includes Small Claims court judgement. This account is posted as it may be useful to other customers with similar issues.

I moved into a Fairview New Homes new build 2 bed flat in August 2013. The main bathroom was provided with a flexible hose with shower head attachment. The bathroom had 1 tile height around bath tub (they brochure had stated full tile height around bathtub would be provided; however, the contract did make clear specifications were subject to change). Within months the paint was peeling (and plaster lifting) above the tiled area. Fairview maintenance man attended (June 2014) and repainted bathroom with same paint. The paint used was a Dulux trade fast mat emulsion. The paint was not waterproof and its information leaflet stated ‘ where frequent heavy condensation is likely, such as some kitchens and bathrooms, Dulux Trade Diamond Eggshell is more suitable’ (search for deluxe trade diamond eggshell to see their official data sheet)

I repeatedly asked Fairview to make repairs and with repaint or tile bathroom walls around tub but they repeatedly refused. In September 2015, I brought a claim against them for just under £600 (the cost of tiling around the tub up to the ceiling). Telephone medication failed and the claim was not settled.

In March 2016 I attended my local County Court for the hearing of my small claims against Fairview. I represented myself, Fairview were represented by a solicitor (also present at the hearing was their CEO, customer care director, customer care manager and another senior employee whose role I was not clear about).

Here is a summary of the hearing.

Fairview’s defense was: That the paint they used was suitable for the bathroom. That I had used the bathroom for a use not intended (they claimed I had used the bathtub and shower hose attachment standing up - I had not) and that was what had caused the damage to the walls.

The judgment was: The Judge found that Fairview had breached our contract. The contract stated that the bathroom would be ‘erected and installed… in a good and workman like manner… to the reasonable satisfaction of the buyer’. He found that by using matt emulsion, they have breached the contract as this was not a suitable paint for the area surrounding the bath tub. My case was supported by this case (1317 Hancock and others v B. W. Brazier (Anerley) Ltd.) and the Defective Premises Act 1972. He found that Fairview should have provided a waterproof surface to a higher height. But did not think they were obliged to provide waterproof surface upto the ceiling. He believed that because I had installed a shower curtain I had used the bathtub and shower hose attachment standing up (he found in support of Fairview’s defense on this point). I was awarded £220 by the judge (compensation plus some of my costs).

marksoton

So a waste of everyone's time then....

And since when did people not stand up to have a shower?!