Plumber invoice query

caro69

Hi

Is it unreasonable to ask my plumber to break down his invoice to show parts and labour?

Basically I had a problem with my toilet that was a. leaking from the valve and b. water was running down the pan. I advised him of both these problems.

Plumber came told me it was fixed and it took his 15 minutes, new valve duly installed.

A few hours later I realised there was hardly any water in the cistern as the water was still running down the pan. He came again and replaced the syphon. This took him an hour.

I get the invoice - £65 for the valve replacement and £65 for the syphon replacement.

So £130 plus VAT for this. I've asked for the invoice to be broken down to show parts and labour because I think I am paying for two visits rather than one if the whole job was completed on one visit. He has refused to do this.

On top of all this he had to make a third visit because he hadn't tightened the nut underneath the value so it was still leaking.

Does the charging sound reasonable to any plumber out there? I live in Dorset. He is based 15 minutes from me.

Any guidance gratefully received.

Risteard

If you had wanted parts and labour broken down you should have stated this beforehand.

Personally I would refuse to break them down in most cases. £65 for a visit (including parts) certainly doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Whether two visits should have been required is harder to speculate on without having seen the property in question. Also, I'm not a plumber - so couldn't really opine on that anyway.

phill99

I occasionally get asked to break down quotes and invoices into parts and labour. Simply refuse to do it as it wont make the job any cheaper.

tacpot12

It's not unreasonable, but it shows that you don't trust him, and so it may not be the best way to deal with the issue you have.

Were you able to give him enough information so that he could arrive on site with both the valve and the siphon needed to do the job? Or did he guarantee to have all the parts needed to resolve both problems so that he could do the job in one visit?

If not, you were probably always going to have to pay his time & fuel to go for the right part, having ascertained what part was needed on the first visit. He should have explained and agreed this with you, that there would be a charge to come to site, and if he needed to go for something, a further charge. You might complain to him that he didn't give you a fair idea of the cost.

If he said he would come to site with all the part, but didn't fit the syphon for some reason, this looks like his mistake, and hence some element of cost sharing might be negotiable. Perhaps you pay for the syphon plus half the labour cost. Ask him what he will agree to.

caro69

tacpot12 wrote: »

It's not unreasonable, but it shows that you don't trust him, and so it may not be the best way to deal with the issue you have.

Were you able to give him enough information so that he could arrive on site with both the valve and the siphon needed to do the job? Or did he guarantee to have all the parts needed to resolve both problems so that he could do the job in one visit?

If not, you were probably always going to have to pay his time & fuel to go for the right part, having ascertained what part was needed on the first visit. He should have explained and agreed this with you, that there would be a charge to come to site, and if he needed to go for something, a further charge. You might complain to him that he didn't give you a fair idea of the cost.

I'm surprised that he is not willing to declare his hourly rate when asked so that has made me suspicious, rightly or wrongly.

If he said he would come to site with all the part, but didn't fit the syphon for some reason, this looks like his mistake, and hence some element of cost sharing might be negotiable. Perhaps you pay for the syphon plus half the labour cost. Ask him what he will agree to.

Thanks for replying. I told him the toilet was leaking from underneath and that water was running into the pan. I told him this on the phone prior to his visit and again when he arrived.

I suppose the crux of the matter is knowing that the water was running into the pan should this not have screamed syphon to him and why did he not test the toilet after having fitted the new valve? He said the syphon issue did not come apparent on the first visit.

You are right, I certainly don't trust him with any further work. Even after the second visit to the fit the syphon I had to call him back again because he hadn't tightened the nut underneath the valve so this was dripping.

Admittedly, I didn't ask him in advance what his charge was, but he is a local plumber and I am very happy to pay a sensible price for a good job done.

phill99

caro69 wrote: »

I suppose the crux of the matter is knowing that the water was running into the pan should this not have screamed syphon to him and why did he not test the toilet after having fitted the new valve? He said the syphon issue did not come apparent on the first visit.

But you are incorrect.


the main reason water runs into the pan is not the syphon. It is actually the inlet valve not cutting off properly as a result of lime scale or debris causing the float valve to 'let-by'. So water continues to trickle into the cistern and it is designed to overflow into the pan. Most of the time, changing of the inlet valve stops this. However, occasionally, the base rubber on the syphon also gets lime-scaled up, and it stops the syphon closing properly, which allows water to escape from the cistern into the pan.

Carrot007

caro69 wrote: »

Is it unreasonable to ask my plumber to break down his invoice to show parts and labour?

Unfortunatly yes.


Some may do so anyway, they do not get as much custom.


And this applies to many jobs, not just plumbers.


Having worked in IT, the little jobs customers think are hard they want to pay for and the hard jobs they think are nothing.


This applies all across the field with people not understanding the line of work.


As such requests for breaking it down, especially a lot are met with thought of thins customer just wants to argue and I do not really want them.


A least that is the legitimate side of not wanting to do it. There are other sides. But for the work it seems resonable.


When I moved in here 4 years ago the toilet broke. Having moved and not got a lot of spare cash I repalced it myself. Full toilet that was not bad cost £60 from wickes, even had the parts already in the cistern (cheaper and better than lasty time then!). Just made me realise how !!!!!! plumbing is! Annoying painful (and often wet) work in small places where it is a pain. All the removing this and that to get to things that no one considers. All the expensive tools to do it right. I have them as I did the previous house up from a 50s state!


So what I am saying is, it you expected him to do it right first time it would have cost more because that means hours of fault finding, and the time is the big cost.

caro69

Thank you all for replying. I just needed to run it past someone to clarify the situation.

I am paying him tonight - I am wiser for your words. It is often difficult to see the different side of a situation without experience.

I just don't want to get ripped off like everyone else.

Much appreciated.

southcoastrgi

You prob have around £30 worth of parts so £100 isn't unreasonable for two visits, should he have noticed the syphon needed a new washer or replacement maybe but only he will know, you will pay for the 1st hour even if he was only there 15 mins