Small Claims re kitchen & bathroom supply/installation - realistic expectations?

jimmy_g

Good evening folks.

Last year we entered into 2 contracts with one of the big retail park shops for the supply & installation of a kitchen and a bathroom.  They supplied it all ok and appointed a sub-contractor to install it all.  The sub-contractor did a terrible job, which we complained about to the sub-contractor (who disagreed) and to the retailer.

The retailer didn't respond to our emails and when we called them, we were always told that someone was looking at it and would come back to us.  Short version - we ended up getting the finance company involved and they got the Furniture Ombudsman involved.  12 months after the first installation, a different sub-contractor came and using lots of new materials (but not replacing everything), re-installed everything.

The work is now done to a satisfactory standard.

So, the obligation/right to a repeat performance under the Consumer Rights Act has been met.

However, looking at the CRA, it seems that 56(3)(b) comes into play: "the consumer has required repeat performance, but the trader is in breach of the requirement of section 55(2)(a) to do it within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer."

I.e. They didn't act within a reasonable amount of time.  Plus, we consider that the 12 months of distress caused by the poor installations, living with the poor installations, being ignored by the retailer and living through the re-installations, warrants a significant refund.  We're particularly irked that we've paid a load of money for a new, professionally installed kitchen and bathroom and the best we've ended up with is eventually professional installations comprised of a mix of new and 12 month old materials.

They have offered a "good will gesture" which amounts to about 10% of the amount paid to them for the 2 contracts.  We have asked for 75%.  Their approx 10% is their final offer.

I've tried to keep all that as brief as possible, whilst explaining sufficiently the context of the question which I'm finally getting to: if we were to take it to the Small Claims Court, what could we realistically expect to be awarded?  The CRA specifies that a refund can be up to 100%, but in practice what sort of figure does the Court award in cases like this?

bris

You are entitled  to your losses, what are they? Anything else is a goodwill gesture, 10% of a kitchen and bathroom? They wouldn't have been cheap so about a grand? Pretty good tbh.

You are on a hiding to nothing in the small claims court, 75% is wishful thinking, 100% from the court, that's dreaming.

jimmy_g

Thanks Bris - yes, you're about right with that figure.

I can't specify a monetary loss - the retailer eventually carried out the reinstallation, so we didn't have to pay someone else and we didn't have to pay for more materials.

But I go back to the Act which includes this:

Right to price reduction
(1)The right to a price reduction is the right to require the trader to reduce the price to the consumer by an appropriate amount (including the right to receive a refund for anything already paid above the reduced amount).
(2)The amount of the reduction may, where appropriate, be the full amount of the price.
(3)A consumer who has that right and the right to require repeat performance is only entitled to a price reduction in one of these situations—
(a)because of section 55(3) the consumer cannot require repeat performance; or
(b)the consumer has required repeat performance, but the trader is in breach of the requirement of section 55(2)(a) to do it within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

Aylesbury_Duck

75% is completely unrealistic.  If 10% is their final offer, you'd be gambling if you refused it and went to court because they might withdraw the offer and take their chances.  I wouldn't get hung up on the percentage, rather consider the absolute amount and whether you consider that suitable recompense for your trouble.  It sounds like their offer is about £1,000.  Not an insignificant sum, and pushing for more sounds greedy to me.

tacpot12

I agree, it would better to get £1000 than have all the hassle of going to court, and potentially not winning, or not winning much more. If you accept their offer you can move on with your lives. 

jimmy_g

Aylesbury_Duck said:

75% is completely unrealistic.  If 10% is their final offer, you'd be gambling if you refused it and went to court because they might withdraw the offer and take their chances.  I wouldn't get hung up on the percentage, rather consider the absolute amount and whether you consider that suitable recompense for your trouble.  It sounds like their offer is about £1,000.  Not an insignificant sum, and pushing for more sounds greedy to me.

Thanks both.  I accept that it could look greedy, but I've spared you the lengthy finer details - by any standard, we've been treated disgracefully and left with a poorly fitted, malfunctioning kitchen and bathroom for a year.  

Using the dictionary definition of reasonable and the various misconducts of the retailer and their sub-contractor, we do not consider that a 75% refund is an unreasonable request.  That doesn't mean we actually expect the retailer to pay that.

I'm not familiar with the normal positions in this type of negotiation, so have used the 75% as a negotiating position to test the retailer's position, whilst bearing in mind what the law specifically allows/requires, i.e. up to 100% refund as specified in the CRA.  

Having trawled the internet, I have been unable to find actual details of any cases which have gone through the Small Claims process, hence my question here about what "reasonable" actually translates into in the Court in these circumstances.

But, yes, we are keen to move on with our lives.

[Deleted User]

Countering at 75% will mean they won't bother to engage further as it's so far from a reasonable figure 

If you'd gone at 15%, or even 20%, you may have got an improved offer. But they know they can't get close to 75% so there's no point in them wasting any more time on it.

Sandtree

You already went to the Financial Ombudsman, what was their view on compensation for the matter? The FOS is traditionally more generous on these things than the court system as they are less bound by precedent and legislation (though strongly consider both)

jimmy_g

Deleted_User said:

Countering at 75% will mean they won't bother to engage further as it's so far from a reasonable figure 

If you'd gone at 15%, or even 20%, you may have got an improved offer. But they know they can't get close to 75% so there's no point in them wasting any more time on it.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.  Are you going by the dictionary definition of reasonable, or are you referring to knowledge of the Courts' interpretation of the CRA?  As it happens, the retailer did engage and the offer was increased in response to my request.

Sandtree said:

You already went to the Financial Ombudsman, what was their view on compensation for the matter? The FOS is traditionally more generous on these things than the court system as they are less bound by precedent and legislation (though strongly consider both)

Thanks.  We didn't go to the Financial Ombudsman, the finance company involved in the agreements went to the Furniture Ombudsman, or the Furniture & Home Improvements Ombudsman to give them their full title.  Their role at that stage was to assess the work, not to make any recommendation regarding refunds or compensation.

yellowelise

Hi I would like to know what hte final outcome was if possible as I have a similar issue again with one of the big home improvement retailers

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

jimmy_g said:

Thanks Bris - yes, you're about right with that figure.

I can't specify a monetary loss - the retailer eventually carried out the reinstallation, so we didn't have to pay someone else and we didn't have to pay for more materials.

But I go back to the Act which includes this:

Right to price reduction
(1)The right to a price reduction is the right to require the trader to reduce the price to the consumer by an appropriate amount (including the right to receive a refund for anything already paid above the reduced amount).
(2)The amount of the reduction may, where appropriate, be the full amount of the price.
(3)A consumer who has that right and the right to require repeat performance is only entitled to a price reduction in one of these situations—
(a)because of section 55(3) the consumer cannot require repeat performance; or
(b)the consumer has required repeat performance, but the trader is in breach of the requirement of section 55(2)(a) to do it within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

Hello OP

I think you are misunderstanding the wording, the price reduction isn't "compensation" for the trader failing to perform a repeat performance in a suitable time, it is an alternative remedy when they do not. 

At the point of this saga when it would be appropriate to say they hadn't acted within a reason time you could have sought a price reduction instead of a repeat performance 

I'd take the 10%  

OH I see it's an old thread! @yellowelise best to start a new thread with specific details of the problem