New floor - credit card refund, company still want payment

pedro789

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

pedro789 said:

If we can reach agreement, would this go to court or ombudsman?

Usually a consumer would raise an issue to an ombudsman, I'm not sure if there is one that covers this type of thing or if there is that you'd gain anything from it.

Regarding court the company has the opportunity to file through small claims in an attempt to recover anything they think is due, you'd obviously be able to submit a defence, a counter-claim if one was due and I think these things go to mediation before getting to a court. 

pedro789 said:

It's Karndean flooring which was poorly fitted - bad cuts, joins, wrong border trim used + not level.

This was all detailed in the independent report, so my dissatisfaction was validated in the report.

I checked with Karndean and they said boards shouldn't be reused after fitting, as it compromises integrity of product.

I'm quite happy for them to take it up + I'll have it redone. But I don't want to do that until I know if I have to pay. I can't afford to pay twice!

OK so if you want the floor up and laid again then you'd look at a price reduction for the service, full fee minus anything that did that was OK, (as above removal ,etc)

For the goods I'm assuming this isn't a glue down floor. Although Karndean may recommend not to reuse the boards whether the small claims process would agree is another matter really. In my view the manufacturer has a vested interest in saying this but then you could argue they know more than the flooring company who didn't fit the floor to a decent standard! 

On reflection regarding the goods, I'm not sure if it's a case of them not conforming to the contract or the company causing you a loss by damaging them. @Jenni_D might have an opinion on this  

Personally I'd send them a letter along the lines off:

Dear Flooring Company

With regards to your request for payment, as discussed and as detailed in the independent report commissioned (please find a copy of this attached), the service of laying the floor was not carried out with due care and skill, as a repeat performance has already been carried out, having sought advice, I am exercising my right to a price reduction. As the floor will be required to be lifted and refitted in full this price reduction shall be the full fee. 

Your obligations and my entitlements are detailed in section 4 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, linked to below for your reference:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/1/chapter/4/enacted

With regards to the goods as they have been damaged due to poor fitting and the manufacturer advises against refitting once laid you may remove the floor and collect the goods at your expense and at suitable time for both of us.  

Thank you in advance and I look forward to seeing an end to this matter,
Sincerely,
pedro789 

If it was S75 the company may think they've got 50% safe in their pocket and walk away. If it was a chargeback they may be more resistant or some payment may be due to them. 

You need to make sure you are as reasonable as possible in what you claim, I understand you aren't happy with the whole situation and are probably annoyed at all the headache but it's important to view this from an emotionless position. You need to be fair and pay for things you have received and sadly dismiss any claims to things you can't quantity (such as time, stress, etc). I only mention this as in the unlikely event they do go via small claims having acted fair and reasonable will put you in a stronger position  


Just to add my replies are assuming you purchased the floor from the same company that fitted it.

Thanks so much, really appreciate it 👍

Jenni_D

I believe this was a S75 claim ... I don't think the CC company would ask for a report if it was a chargeback (as they'd just swipe the funds from the company's merchant bank and then deal with it if it was challenged).

(IMHO / IANAL etc.) If the goods originally conformed to contract, but the seller's actions (fitting) have caused them to no longer conform (per the manufacturer's instructions), then they are no longer conforming. As the seller has had their opportunity to make the "goods" conform but they don't, then the OP is entitled to exercise their Final Right to Reject for a full refund. Since S75 has refunded the OP their initial payment, and they have yet to make any further payment, then the rejection should lead to no further payment being required.

This S75 route has actually netted the seller more than they would have been entitled to under the Consumer Rights Act (as long as the CC company doesn't pursue them for the S75 pay-out).

pedro789

Jenni_D said:

I believe this was a S75 claim ... I don't think the CC company would ask for a report if it was a chargeback (as they'd just swipe the funds from the company's merchant bank and then deal with it if it was challenged).

(IMHO / IANAL etc.) If the goods originally conformed to contract, but the seller's actions (fitting) have caused them to no longer conform (per the manufacturer's instructions), then they are no longer conforming. As the seller has had their opportunity to make the "goods" conform but they don't, then the OP is entitled to exercise their Final Right to Reject for a full refund. Since S75 has refunded the OP their initial payment, and they have yet to make any further payment, then the rejection should lead to no further payment being required.

This S75 route has actually netted the seller more than they would have been entitled to under the Consumer Rights Act (as long as the CC company doesn't pursue them for the S75 pay-out).

Thanks Jenni, very helpful.

I'm going to check if it's S75 or chargeback with CC company + if they are going to pursue.

Would that make any difference to Right to Reject letter I send?

 

Alderbank

pedro789 said:

Jenni_D said:

I believe this was a S75 claim ... I don't think the CC company would ask for a report if it was a chargeback (as they'd just swipe the funds from the company's merchant bank and then deal with it if it was challenged).

(IMHO / IANAL etc.) If the goods originally conformed to contract, but the seller's actions (fitting) have caused them to no longer conform (per the manufacturer's instructions), then they are no longer conforming. As the seller has had their opportunity to make the "goods" conform but they don't, then the OP is entitled to exercise their Final Right to Reject for a full refund. Since S75 has refunded the OP their initial payment, and they have yet to make any further payment, then the rejection should lead to no further payment being required.

This S75 route has actually netted the seller more than they would have been entitled to under the Consumer Rights Act (as long as the CC company doesn't pursue them for the S75 pay-out).

Thanks Jenni, very helpful.

I'm going to check if it's S75 or chargeback with CC company + if they are going to pursue.

Would that make any difference to Right to Reject letter I send?

 

If it's S75 it's a commercially confidential matter between the bank and a third party. Don't expect an answer.

It doesn't affect your legal entitlement to reject or the grounds for a rejection. It could however affect what financial agreement you and the company might come to further down the line.

Gavin83

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

pedro789 said:

If we can reach agreement, would this go to court or ombudsman?

Usually a consumer would raise an issue to an ombudsman, I'm not sure if there is one that covers this type of thing or if there is that you'd gain anything from it.

Regarding court the company has the opportunity to file through small claims in an attempt to recover anything they think is due, you'd obviously be able to submit a defence, a counter-claim if one was due and I think these things go to mediation before getting to a court. 

pedro789 said:

It's Karndean flooring which was poorly fitted - bad cuts, joins, wrong border trim used + not level.

This was all detailed in the independent report, so my dissatisfaction was validated in the report.

I checked with Karndean and they said boards shouldn't be reused after fitting, as it compromises integrity of product.

I'm quite happy for them to take it up + I'll have it redone. But I don't want to do that until I know if I have to pay. I can't afford to pay twice!

For the goods I'm assuming this isn't a glue down floor. Although Karndean may recommend not to reuse the boards whether the small claims process would agree is another matter really. In my view the manufacturer has a vested interest in saying this but then you could argue they know more than the flooring company who didn't fit the floor to a decent standard! 

See I assumed it was glue down, although I'm not sure why they'd be using a border trim if it was.

OP, could you clarify whether it was glue down or click? If it was the click version I'd have to disagree with Karndean and I see no reason it can't be reused (assuming it isn't damaged otherwise) but it would be difficult to reuse the glue down version. Whether a judge would agree with this or not is up for debate.

pedro789

Gavin83 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

pedro789 said:

If we can reach agreement, would this go to court or ombudsman?

Usually a consumer would raise an issue to an ombudsman, I'm not sure if there is one that covers this type of thing or if there is that you'd gain anything from it.

Regarding court the company has the opportunity to file through small claims in an attempt to recover anything they think is due, you'd obviously be able to submit a defence, a counter-claim if one was due and I think these things go to mediation before getting to a court. 

pedro789 said:

It's Karndean flooring which was poorly fitted - bad cuts, joins, wrong border trim used + not level.

This was all detailed in the independent report, so my dissatisfaction was validated in the report.

I checked with Karndean and they said boards shouldn't be reused after fitting, as it compromises integrity of product.

I'm quite happy for them to take it up + I'll have it redone. But I don't want to do that until I know if I have to pay. I can't afford to pay twice!

For the goods I'm assuming this isn't a glue down floor. Although Karndean may recommend not to reuse the boards whether the small claims process would agree is another matter really. In my view the manufacturer has a vested interest in saying this but then you could argue they know more than the flooring company who didn't fit the floor to a decent standard! 

See I assumed it was glue down, although I'm not sure why they'd be using a border trim if it was.

OP, could you clarify whether it was glue down or click? If it was the click version I'd have to disagree with Karndean and I see no reason it can't be reused (assuming it isn't damaged otherwise) but it would be difficult to reuse the glue down version. Whether a judge would agree with this or not is up for debate.

Glue down, thanks 

born_again

Jenni_D said:

I believe this was a S75 claim ... I don't think the CC company would ask for a report if it was a chargeback (as they'd just swipe the funds from the company's merchant bank and then deal with it if it was challenged).

(IMHO / IANAL etc.) If the goods originally conformed to contract, but the seller's actions (fitting) have caused them to no longer conform (per the manufacturer's instructions), then they are no longer conforming. As the seller has had their opportunity to make the "goods" conform but they don't, then the OP is entitled to exercise their Final Right to Reject for a full refund. Since S75 has refunded the OP their initial payment, and they have yet to make any further payment, then the rejection should lead to no further payment being required.

This S75 route has actually netted the seller more than they would have been entitled to under the Consumer Rights Act (as long as the CC company doesn't pursue them for the S75 pay-out).

This type of chargeback would be best with a supporting report. Would also really require produce to be back with retailer. Although given what Op said, there is a work round.

Add in chargeback does not require any contact with retailer from bank. 

So this has to be a S75. But would expect op to sign a fully & final settlement letter as well.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

pedro789 said:

Gavin83 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

pedro789 said:

If we can reach agreement, would this go to court or ombudsman?

Usually a consumer would raise an issue to an ombudsman, I'm not sure if there is one that covers this type of thing or if there is that you'd gain anything from it.

Regarding court the company has the opportunity to file through small claims in an attempt to recover anything they think is due, you'd obviously be able to submit a defence, a counter-claim if one was due and I think these things go to mediation before getting to a court. 

pedro789 said:

It's Karndean flooring which was poorly fitted - bad cuts, joins, wrong border trim used + not level.

This was all detailed in the independent report, so my dissatisfaction was validated in the report.

I checked with Karndean and they said boards shouldn't be reused after fitting, as it compromises integrity of product.

I'm quite happy for them to take it up + I'll have it redone. But I don't want to do that until I know if I have to pay. I can't afford to pay twice!

For the goods I'm assuming this isn't a glue down floor. Although Karndean may recommend not to reuse the boards whether the small claims process would agree is another matter really. In my view the manufacturer has a vested interest in saying this but then you could argue they know more than the flooring company who didn't fit the floor to a decent standard! 

See I assumed it was glue down, although I'm not sure why they'd be using a border trim if it was.

OP, could you clarify whether it was glue down or click? If it was the click version I'd have to disagree with Karndean and I see no reason it can't be reused (assuming it isn't damaged otherwise) but it would be difficult to reuse the glue down version. Whether a judge would agree with this or not is up for debate.

Glue down, thanks 

Thanks OP, makes more sense it can’t be used again if it’s been glued down given there must be stress placed on the boards as they are ripped up. 

Jumblebumble

 Although Karndean may recommend not to reuse the boards whether the small claims process would agree is another matter really. In my view the manufacturer has a vested interest in saying this but then you could argue they know more than the flooring company who didn't fit the floor to a decent standard! 

So you imagine  Karndean are going to honour their lifetime warranty if the OP reuses the boards and if it was your house would you be wanting to take the chance? ?
The OP has can tell the small claims court that they paid the supplier for a product that has a lifetime warranty and this has been voided

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Jumblebumble said:

 Although Karndean may recommend not to reuse the boards whether the small claims process would agree is another matter really. In my view the manufacturer has a vested interest in saying this but then you could argue they know more than the flooring company who didn't fit the floor to a decent standard! 

So you imagine  Karndean are going to honour their lifetime warranty if the OP reuses the boards and if it was your house would you be wanting to take the chance? ?
The OP has can tell the small claims court that they paid the supplier for a product that has a lifetime warranty and this has been voided

What I had "imagined" was that the floor was loose lay (the one sentence of my paragraph stripped out the quote) because I assumed a glued down floor would get wrecked during removal but loose lay is just click together and when the manufacturer said not to lay again that meant don't use your floor for 5 years and then lay it somewhere else rather than don't lay it again after 5 minutes because of a technical issue with the install. 

Perhaps a glued down floor can easily be lifted, I'm not a flooring expert