We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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!
Dispute over plumber call out charge
Options
Comments
-
Shaka_Zulu wrote: »Unholyangel, you are one of the better posters on here but this is just not the way to about things.
The correct procedure is do as you would be done by and in this case a quick call (or at worst a text) to the plumber to explain the situation and that you won't be requiring his service and then a quick thank you for his time.
Easy no and no hassle. OP just couldn't be bothered doing the right thing.
But this is my point. Nothing was agreed. The plumber said he may be able to visit (aka he may not be able to visit) and would call later to confirm. Nor did he inform OP of any call out charge. From everything OP has said, there is no way a legally binding contract existed (which requires offer, acceptance, consideration, intent, capacity, certainty). There was no consideration agreed by OP and there was no certainty as to the terms of the contract (largely created by the plumber himself saying he wasn't sure if he could make it out and would call to confirm). So what if he hadn't been able to make it out? You cannot have a contract thats binding on just 1 party - binding the consumer to their obligations (ignoring for the moment that consumers cannot be bound to obligations they had no knowledge of at the time of entering the contract - such as a call out fee) but allowing the other party to decide when it suits them to perform theirs.
You're basically saying the OP should pay because this guy is incompetent at running a business.
Its people like him that the CCRs are designed for - requiring them to give the necessary information before a consumer is bound by the contract so the consumer can make an informed decision and the trader can't then change the goalposts.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
I'm with unholyangel on this one.
There was no contract. The OP asked if he could come round, but he said he didn't know so would confirm. He did not confirm.
He may have tried phoning, but as the OP did not answer, he should have moved onto the 'other' jobs he had. He took a gamble turning up with no appointment.
I'm guessing there were no other jobs, and he is pulling a fast one...Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')
No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)0 -
Thanks for all of the replies. To be clear to those asking why I didn't call to cancel, it is exact as unholy angel says, I didn't see that anything had been arranged, so what would I have been cancelling? We had agreed that he would call me later so I didn't see any issue in telling him then.
As for the person querying whether I was otherwise engaged when he called, does that mean you are never busy and answer every phone call? In his shoes I would have left a voicemail or sent a text asking if I still needed him.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards