Am I entitled to a refund?

e_ryman

I ordered 2 bespoke patio awnings from a local company that I have used many times for internal blinds/shutters. It came to fit the awnings and the subcontractor wasn’t able as one of the walls (the middle one) was a cosmetic wall only.  To do the necessary structural work is going to cost a small fortune and may not even be possible.  I politely asked for my deposit back.  The guy that owns the company says he is unable to return the blinds as they are custom made.  He has told me I’ll have to pay cost price for them.  I feel he didn’t make the necessary assessment of the property before agreeing to the job.  Am I entitled to a refund or is he correct?  Thanks 

[Deleted User]

He sounds correct, unless a site visit and recommendation was part of the service. If he simply provided what you asked for, then he's done his job.

e_ryman

@Deleted_User He was installing the awnings as well.  He did do a site visit beforehand as well but he isn’t a qualified builder.

e_ryman

e_ryman said:

I ordered 2 bespoke patio awnings from a local company that I have used many times for internal blinds/shutters. It came to fit the awnings and the subcontractor wasn’t able as one of the walls (the middle one) was a cosmetic wall only.  To do the necessary structural work is going to cost a small fortune and may not even be possible.  I politely asked for my deposit back.  The guy that owns the company says he is unable to return the blinds as they are custom made.  He has told me I’ll have to pay cost price for them.  I feel he didn’t make the necessary assessment of the property before agreeing to the job.  Am I entitled to a refund or is he correct?  Thanks 

I should’ve said he inspected the property beforehand and the quote was to supply and fit the awnings.  He then has a guy that dies the installation for him.  

GeordieGeorge

If it’s to supply and fit, and it was a quote rather than an estimate then it’s really his problem if he’s under-quoted on the job, and if he’s now choosing to decline to carry the work out then he needs to refund you.

Was there definitely nothing said such as “subject to survey”? If not you are right to require they are fitted or you are refunded, but it’s quite likely to be an uphill struggle.

How did you pay? If on a debit or credit card your bank may be able to help

e_ryman

@GeordieGeorge Thanks very much for your reply.  No there was nothing stating “subject to survey” and I paid by bank transfer.  Tbf it’s does say estimate but he’s not offered to try and help to get them fitted.  Apparently it needs concrete posts but I’m not sure that’ll work and it’ll be much poorer aesthetically plus digging up of our 1 year old patio.  If I knew what building work would be required beforehand I wouldn’t have gone ahead.  I wonder if he’d sent the guy who fits the awnings beforehand he may have spotted the problem.  

Diamandis

GeordieGeorge said:

If it’s to supply and fit, and it was a quote rather than an estimate then it’s really his problem if he’s under-quoted on the job, and if he’s now choosing to decline to carry the work out then he needs to refund you.

Was there definitely nothing said such as “subject to survey”? If not you are right to require they are fitted or you are refunded, but it’s quite likely to be an uphill struggle.

How did you pay? If on a debit or credit card your bank may be able to help

They paid for the supply and fit of awnings, not any building work. What your suggesting is ridiculous,  it would be like buying a carpet and expecting the carpet fitter to fix issues with your floorboards.

beeg0d

Diamandis said:

They paid for the supply and fit of awnings, not any building work. What your suggesting is ridiculous,  it would be like buying a carpet and expecting the carpet fitter to fix issues with your floorboards.

hahah that made me laugh. Youll be supprised just how common that attude is. I am a carrpet fitter and every other day someone expects me to fix issues with their floorboards and starts throwing their toys out of their pram when i either tell them i cant or it will cost £x extra.

e_ryman

Haha!  I wasn’t expecting the building work to be done for nothing.  All I wanted to do was return the awnings as I don’t want the building work done.  It’s a bit like if you went to the dentist for a crown.  They did the prep work and by the time you went to get it fitted your tooth broke.  You could either have further work done to the tooth and the crown fitted or the tooth removed.  If you had the tooth removed, you would not expect to pay for the crown right?  Same here, no one assessed the building correctly so goods were supplied that can’t be fitted unless a load more work is done that I wasn’t warned about so I shouldn’t have to pay for the awning or am I missing the point? 

Aylesbury_Duck

e_ryman said:

Haha!  I wasn’t expecting the building work to be done for nothing.  All I wanted to do was return the awnings as I don’t want the building work done.  It’s a bit like if you went to the dentist for a crown.  They did the prep work and by the time you went to get it fitted your tooth broke.  You could either have further work done to the tooth and the crown fitted or the tooth removed.  If you had the tooth removed, you would not expect to pay for the crown right?  Same here, no one assessed the building correctly so goods were supplied that can’t be fitted unless a load more work is done that I wasn’t warned about so I shouldn’t have to pay for the awning or am I missing the point? 

Wrong.  Your analogy actually works against you!  In the procedure you've outlined, the dentist has done the prep work, which includes taking an impression of the tooth to be crowned, then that impression goes off to the lab and the crown is manufactured.  If your tooth is broken and removed, you still owe them for the manufacture of the crown, even if you won't pay them to fit it.  They can't use it on someone else because it's unique to the setting.

It's actually a very good analogy of your awning situation, but perhaps not one to use to bolster your case.

e_ryman

Aylesbury_Duck said:

e_ryman said:

Haha!  I wasn’t expecting the building work to be done for nothing.  All I wanted to do was return the awnings as I don’t want the building work done.  It’s a bit like if you went to the dentist for a crown.  They did the prep work and by the time you went to get it fitted your tooth broke.  You could either have further work done to the tooth and the crown fitted or the tooth removed.  If you had the tooth removed, you would not expect to pay for the crown right?  Same here, no one assessed the building correctly so goods were supplied that can’t be fitted unless a load more work is done that I wasn’t warned about so I shouldn’t have to pay for the awning or am I missing the point? 

Wrong.  Your analogy actually works against you!  In the procedure you've outlined, the dentist has done the prep work, which includes taking an impression of the tooth to be crowned, then that impression goes off to the lab and the crown is manufactured.  If your tooth is broken and removed, you still owe them for the manufacture of the crown, even if you won't pay them to fit it.  They can't use it on someone else because it's unique to the setting.

It's actually a very good analogy of your awning situation, but perhaps not one to use to bolster your case.

I am actually a dentist and I wouldn’t charge for the crown as I would assume an incorrect assessment regarding the quality of the remaining tooth had been done if the patient opted for the extraction so I think the analogy works