New Kitchen - Fitter not returned refund money

pinkshoes

Bradden said:

As the OP did not pay for the items in question then  I cannot see how they claim to own them. 

Have you read the post? The OP DID pay for them! They were included in the price of the quote he paid for.

He also paid separately for additional items that were fitted instead, hence these items were not used. 

photome

pinkshoes said:

The OP paid for a kitchen to be supplied and fitted.

The OP then bought an additional splashback and tap (and something else?) from elsewhere which the fitter installed instead of the original one.

The fitter then took the original splashback and tap and other item(s) away and got a refund for them which he kept. These items did not belong to the fitter. They should have been left in the OPs garage for the OP to sell on.

So the OP is legally entitled to the items he paid for back or an equivalent redund.

I agree , but the problem arises because it was Howdens . As the items did belong to the fitter as he bought and paid for them on his account. the kitchen was sold to the fitter and the fitter returned the items not required and got his refund 

OP then paid the fitter for the supply and fit and as they haven’t had an itemised bill how do they prove the fitter owes them that money

if the OP had used any non trade supplier it would have been a simple solution

pbartlett

the nub of the matter is that the op paid for, and received, a package.

much like a package holiday. if the hotel returns unused food at the end of the holiday, the traveller can't expect a refund.

warby68

OP didn't pay for the kitchen , fitter did, OP paid fitter.
Its down to whatever fitter agreed to supply and OP agreed to pay for. Surely there was a plan for the kitchen and when OP decided not to use the included splashback and tap a discussion was had about a price adjustment? I don't think there's an automatic right to a refund and certainly not from Howden's. 
I agree fitter has taken a bit of advantage  if there was a material change in the cost of the kitchen to him and items were refundable but not sure its outside whatever the contract said.
How was the change of splashback/tap discussed with fitter and why did you never think about a refund for the other bits at the time?
I can see why OP thinks they paid for all the items on the delivery note and should have them but it was not a direct sale. Fitter's argument will no doubt be you just changed your mind on certain fittings and he was good enough to fit them.

ivavoucher

The kitchen fitter fully expected to have to supply and fit the tap, splash back and other bits.
He would have priced up to include these parts.
The fact that these parts were supplied by the OP means that the fitter should have returned the items and given the refund to the OP.
Why the fitter thinks he is entitled to keep the refund is beyond me.
What would the doubters think if the OP has bought the sink and appliances? do you think the fitter should have kept that as well?  Mmmm! I don't think so.

pinkshoes

pbartlett said:

the nub of the matter is that the op paid for, and received, a package.

much like a package holiday. if the hotel returns unused food at the end of the holiday, the traveller can't expect a refund.

Not like that at all. The OP might not be due a refund, but the splashback, tap and other parts that were agreed as part of the package belong to the OP. They were not for the fitter to take...

Manxman_in_exile

I'm at a loss to understand why so many posters think the fitter is in the right...?

The OP pays the fitter to purchase the kitchen units and to fit them.  Included in the units is a splashback.  But the fitter decides the splashback he has purchased is unsuitable and advises the OP to buy a second splashback from a different supplier.  The OP does this and pays for it himself - meaning that he has now paid for the original splashback that the fitter has got from Howdens, plus he has also now paid for a second splashback the fitter has asked him to buy from a different supplier.  So the OP has incurred an additional £300 worth of expenditure over and above what he has already paid the fitter to buy the units.

The fitter uses the second splashback that he asked the OP to buy, meaning that the original splashback the OP funded the purchase of has not been used.

It's quite obvious to me that either the OP should still have possession of the original splashback that wasn't used or they ought to be credited with the refund the fitter has kept for himself.

Look at it this way - if the fitter decided when he was doing the job that the original splashback was unsuitable, he should have gone and paid for a replacement one himself.  He would then have been perfectly entitled to return the first one to Howdens and keep the refund himself.  But in this case he did not buy it himself - he told the OP to go and buy it!

If the fitter had bought the second splashback himself (from the fee paid to him by the OP) I could understand him keeping the difference if the second splashback was cheaper than the first, and I could also undersatnd him charging the OP extra if it had been more expensive.  But that isn't what happened.

Manxman_in_exile

Bradden said:

As the OP did not pay for the items in question then  I cannot see how they claim to own them. 

I suggest you try to read the thread again to understand what the OP paid for.

sharpj

UPDATE:- I sent another nice email letter to the fitter on Easter Monday, asking him if he intends to pay me or not.
Today he replied offering to send me a cheque for the items. 
Thanks for all your replies

Bradden

That's great news. @Manxman_in_exile .. I have re-read the thread... the op paid the tradesman for a job... which was done.

Whilst morally there is an argument about the unused items the legal aspect is that the op paid for a kitchen supplied and fitted and this is what they received. The fitter paid for the goods and therefore has ownership of them., I work for merchants and this is a common practice. Some customers even add extra goods on the order just to inflate the costs when they have no intention of using the materials.