New Kitchen - Fitter not returned refund money

Manxman_in_exile

pbartlett said:

Then that is the contract. It doesn't matter if:

1. the kitchen company supplying the units suddenly has a 50% off sale and the fitter gets everything half price.

I agree - it doesn't matter.

pbartlett said:

...
Then that is the contract. It doesn't matter if:

2. the fitter  originally based the estimate of 9k on his labour rates but unforseenly he can suddenly hire someone cheaply to do the work and save lots of money on labour bills.
...

I agree - it doesn't matter.

pbartlett said:

Then that is the contract. It doesn't matter if:

3. the OP says half way through the work 'I have changed my mind would you mind fitting this splashback I have bought myself instead'

This is where you start to go wrong.  Have you actually read the OP's posts?

The OP has never changed their mind.  It was the fitter who decided (according to the OP) that the splashback that the fitter himself had supplied was not large enough and that a bigger one was required.  The OP says that the fitter asked them (the OP) to buy a bigger splashback from a different supplier, which the OP did.

That was where the fitter went wrong.  They'd agreed to SUPPLY and fit the units - but here they had supplied a splashback that was unsuitable for the job.  Instead of sourcing an alternative suitable splashback themselves (which is what they should have done under the contract) and then getting a refund from Howdens for the original splashback that was no longer necessary, they asked the OP to purchase another one and pay for it himself - which he did.

You seem to have formed the misapprehension at some stage that the splashback had to be changed because of some change of mind on the part of the OP.  You are wrong.  The splashback had to be changed because the fitter had supplied one that he subsequently decided was not big enough.  The supply of the wrong sized splashback was down to the fitter, not the OP.

The fitter is the expert - it's down to them to ensure that they supply units that are suitable for the job.  If they end up providing an unsuitable splashback it is down to them to absorb the cost of correcting that within the overall contract price.  They can't make the OP pay extra to put right their (the fitter's) error.

Your apparent argument simply gives incompetent tradesmen carte blanche not to fulfill their contracts properly and to make customers bear the cost of putting their incompetence right.

pbartlett said:

Then that is the contract. It doesn't matter if:

2. the OP says half way through the work 'I have changed my mind would you mind fitting this splashback I have bought myself instead' (it doesn't matter where the original suggestion came from)

Of course it matters where the suggestion came from.  It came from the fitter because the fitter had supplied an unsuitable splashback - it's his error.  That's down to him to put right at his own expense.  If he ends up out of pocket on the job because he supplied unsuitable kit in the first place, that's his problem not the OP's.  Unless you want to suggest that the contract allowed the fitter to supply unsuitable units? 

You probably do...

Manxman_in_exile

pbartlett said:

I will try and give you another example. You buy a full-board package holiday in the UK - includes coach travel there and back, a room for 7 nights and full board. 

In anticipation of your visit, the proprietor orders in the food for the week from the local supplier.

On night 3 you chat with the proprietor who mentions there is an excellent restaurant nearby - people come from all over the country to eat there. You decide to go the next night and cancel your evening meal.

You are annoyed to find just before you leave that the proprietor has returned the fish he ordered for your meal that night and obtained a refund.

You demand he passes the refund on to you.

Discuss.

There is no need to discuss it as arguing by analogy is obviously not one of your strengths.

However - to humour you...

The correct analogy here is that on night 3 the hotel proprietor tells you that the ingredients they have purchased for that evening's meal are proving to be unsuitable (they aren't big enough or the fish is rotten) and they suggest that you would be better off having your evening meal in a nearby restaurant rather than dining in the hotel.  This you do.

In the circumstances I would certainly expect a refund from the hotel in respect of the evening meal that they had contracted to provide but had failed to produce.

What the amount of that refund should be may be debatable - but there is certainly no doubt that a refund is due.

If the fish was rotten I'm not interested in whether the hotel proprietor gets a refund from his supplier or not - I'm just interested in getting my refund from the hotel.

(You appear to base all your arguments on the additional expenditure being incurred because of some conscious decision made by the OP.  It wasn't.  The OP incurred additional expenditure because of the failure of the fitter to supply suitable units.  You seem to be unable to appreciate this ).

flea72

If i pay someone £1000 to supply and fit something, but they dont end up supplying the item and just fit another item i own.   Then the supply cost should be refunded from the fee paid.  The OPs fitted, still charged for supply and fit

We all know fitters manipulate their figures, so they make money from the customer, against what they pay at howdens (hence why the fitter wont show the customer the invoice).  As customerS we expect a slight markup, to cover time and effort in arranging the order of goods.

 Howdens prob have incentives too for the fitter to buy the accessories from them, hence the taps and splashback being part of the order, then the fitter encourages the customer to buy items elsewhere.  That way the fitter can hoodwink customers when he return items not used and make additional profit, as most customers wont link up that they have paid twice for something

unfortunately this time they left paperwork behind that caught them out.