Traders refusing proper invoice for emergency boiler replacement

src93

Section62 said:

 How much do you think a boiler replacement carried out on an 'emergency' basis should cost?

What would you seek to claim in the court action?

Is the boiler cover an insurance product for which you could make a complaint to the FOS?

High-end boilers can indeed fetch over £2000, but I've had qualified tradesmen come out on short notice on a variety of jobs for less than £100ph, well below the £170+ph the cover provider handed themselves on wages for this one. Not sure what you were getting at with the scare quotes but when an elderly couple (including one extremely clinically vulnerable) loses heating at the tail end of winter in an old, poorly insulated property then it is an emergency to restore it.

I would claim for the monies lost  (= the cost of the boiler replacement) as a result of their negligent record-keeping and failure to provide an agreed-upon service (itemised invoice/receipt/cost breakdown). 

Thanks for the last point, I will investigate that with the main provider. 

src93

theoretica said:

Is there a possibility that simply changing what you ask for could solve this - as they have already been paid, an invoice may not be appropriate - but an itemised receipt might be easier for them to produce.

Good thinking but unfortunately I've tried this & everything under the sun - including asking for a 'report' or even just an email listing the cost per item. No luck.

Section62

rach_k said:

If they're saying it's IT problems preventing it, have you offered to do it for them?!  Get them to give you a verbal breakdown of the costs (they must know, or at least be able to tell you roughly).  Type it up yourself and then take it to them and get somebody to photocopy it onto headed paper and sign it, or just sign it.  

It's maybe a bit dodgy, but it sounds like the cover provider is being intentionally difficult too, so I wouldn't feel guilty about it.  

The words "insurance fraud" come to mind.

If the OP can confirm the boiler cover is an insurance product.... they may have a much easier route to follow.

Section62

macman said:

OP, why didn't you let the building insurers deal with this from the outset under fire damage? That's what the premium is paid for.

TBH it doesn't sound like a "fire".

An engineer's report on exactly what went wrong with the old boiler would be useful.... but by the sound of things not likely to be available.

src93

macman said:

OP, why didn't you let the building insurers deal with this from the outset under fire damage? That's what the premium is paid for.

Firstly, as I said, this was not my property, I began helping when my grandparents were first refused the compensation they had been promised by their cover provider - well after the replacement job was done. 

Secondly, there was no need to pursue an insurance claim as it soon looked obvious that they would get the compensation - as any reasonable person would believe given the assurances (all in writing) received from the cover provider and the 3rd-party engineers.

I can see why you'd ask this with the benefit of hindsight, but it would have been bizzarre to pursue such a claim when they'd been promised the solution and repeatedly led to believe it was around the corner. Plus, no doubt the building insurers would also have refused to pay for powerflush + new radiators.

src93

Section62 said:

macman said:

OP, why didn't you let the building insurers deal with this from the outset under fire damage? That's what the premium is paid for.

TBH it doesn't sound like a "fire".

An engineer's report on exactly what went wrong with the old boiler would be useful.... but by the sound of things not likely to be available.

Both the third-party engineers and (eventually) the cover provider agreed that the boiler caught fire. The engineer's original invoice stated that that was their assessment, and the photos of the damage provided provoked an identical assessment by the cover provider.

Healthy scepticism is welcome but I'm not sure how it contributes to the thread if it ignores information available in the original post.

Section62

src93 said:

Section62 said:

 How much do you think a boiler replacement carried out on an 'emergency' basis should cost?

What would you seek to claim in the court action?

Is the boiler cover an insurance product for which you could make a complaint to the FOS?

High-end boilers can indeed fetch over £2000, but I've had qualified tradesmen come out on short notice on a variety of jobs for less than £100ph, well below the £170+ph the cover provider handed themselves on wages for this one. Not sure what you were getting at with the scare quotes but when an elderly couple (including one extremely clinically vulnerable) loses heating at the tail end of winter in an old, poorly insulated property then it is an emergency to restore it.

'Quotes' because people's definition of "emergency" varies.  We had a thread recently where someone was unhappy that a trader had treated a job as an 'emergency'.  It isn't unusual for people to want an 'emergency' service but then quibble over the charges made.

In this case I don't disagree with your definition - but as a genuine emergency, and given a 'Big 6' organisation lacked the resources to respond in an appropriate timescale, the ultimate cost of the work on an emergency basis during the peak period for heating engineers has to reflect the service you received.

£6k doesn't seem at all unreasonable for an 'emergency' boiler replacement job in Winter.

src93 said:

I would claim for the monies lost  (= the cost of the boiler replacement) as a result of their negligent record-keeping and failure to provide an agreed-upon service (itemised invoice/receipt/cost breakdown). 

I don't think you have a hope of getting that.  I also think you'd have quite a problem demonstrating that their record keeping was "negligent".

They have provided you with a "proper" invoice, just not one itemised in the specific way you want.

They have (verbally?) agreed to re-issue the invoice in the form you want, but not done so. That is a failure on their part, but unlikely (if you can prove it) to give you grounds to claim a substantial amount in losses. (INAL)

The issue is going to be demonstrating how you have mitigated your losses.  Given the boiler cover provider's grounds for not covering the full cost are shaky, and the reason why you need the invoice in a different form is solely due to the cover provider's (challengeable) requirements, I don't believe you'd be able to persuade a court the losses have been mitigated. (again, INAL)

I'd concentrate on getting the cover provider to see sense.  Their pockets are deeper, and you potentially have the FOS to do the hard work for you (for free).

rach_k

Section62 said:

rach_k said:

If they're saying it's IT problems preventing it, have you offered to do it for them?!  Get them to give you a verbal breakdown of the costs (they must know, or at least be able to tell you roughly).  Type it up yourself and then take it to them and get somebody to photocopy it onto headed paper and sign it, or just sign it.  

It's maybe a bit dodgy, but it sounds like the cover provider is being intentionally difficult too, so I wouldn't feel guilty about it.  

The words "insurance fraud" come to mind.

If the OP can confirm the boiler cover is an insurance product.... they may have a much easier route to follow.

Doing some admin for the company, definitely!  Not sure about fraud.  

Paper is probably old-fashioned anyway.  OP, have you tried getting a verbal breakdown and then emailing it to the company asking them to confirm it is correct?  If they reply confirming, you could try submitting that to your insurer.  Not all tradesmen are good at their paperwork; I've had invoices that are scribbled on scraps paper so the insurer may allow some leeway.  It's not what they want, but may be better than nothing.  And with any luck, once the company you want the invoice from see it written down for them, they may decide it's easy enough to copy it into a document and email it to you properly!

Section62

src93 said:

Section62 said:

macman said:

OP, why didn't you let the building insurers deal with this from the outset under fire damage? That's what the premium is paid for.

TBH it doesn't sound like a "fire".

An engineer's report on exactly what went wrong with the old boiler would be useful.... but by the sound of things not likely to be available.

Both the third-party engineers and (eventually) the cover provider agreed that the boiler caught fire. The engineer's original invoice stated that that was their assessment, and the photos of the damage provided provoked an identical assessment by the cover provider.

Healthy scepticism is welcome but I'm not sure how it contributes to the thread if it ignores information available in the original post.

I think you missed the point.

A building insurer's definition of "fire" is likely to differ from a boiler insurer's definition of "fire".

Some flame/smouldering/charring contained within the boiler which caused no damage outside the boiler is not likely to lead to a successful buildings insurance claim, at least not when the damage is already covered by specific boiler insurance.

A claim on your grandparent's buildings insurance would probably have just resulted in another party to the merry-go-round of denial of responsibility.

src93

Section62 said:

'Quotes' because people's definition of "emergency" varies.  We had a thread recently where someone was unhappy that a trader had treated a job as an 'emergency'.  It isn't unusual for people to want an 'emergency' service but then quibble over the charges made.

.... 

I'd concentrate on getting the cover provider to see sense.  Their pockets are deeper, and you potentially have the FOS to do the hard work for you (for free).

Thank you for the constructive advice. I'm happy to park my concerns over the total pricing and have been careful not to hint at them with the heating engineers, I should really have focused my original post on the issue I was trying to tackle, which was getting some form of itemised pricing.

As I've said, they agreed in writing to provide the breakdown required. There's also an email trail showing they have been aware since very early on that that would directly unlock the compensation from the cover provider.  However you make a good point about mitigation. 

It's helpful to know that the cover provider's requirements are challeangeable - I'd be grateful if you could expand a little on that. On what other grounds could I argue that they should pay for the powerflush & radiators? I've already put it to them that the 3rd-party heating engineers' assessment that the powerflush was essential for the new boiler to function properly. As for the radiators, the only thing I can think of would be to stress that my grandparents were influenced to purchase new ones by the circumstances caused by the boiler breakdown.