New floor - credit card refund, company still want payment

Jenni_D

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

To be fair, you're responding to a post that was made before the OP confirmed the floor fixing method.  

Grumpy_chap

pedro789 said:

Hi
Would appreciate any advice pls. 

I had new floor fitted in March, paid 50% upfront via credit card
The fitting was very poor and gave floor company chance to rectify
After second try, there were still lot of issues
I told company still wasn't satisfactory and would be making claim with credit card company (Section 75)
Credit card company asked for independent report, which supported claim and said work was unsatisfactory
Credit card company has tried to contact floor company without response
Credit company has agreed to repay 50% deposit, but said they will not be liable for any claim by company - suggested I get legal advice
Floor company are still emailing asking for balance to be paid

Grateful for any advice, thanks.

Initial reading was that the CC did chargeback and not S75. 
That is possible, but does not align with the report being required, which suggests S75.
Confirming which is important.  AIUI, chargeback can sometimes be the equivalent of stopping a cheque.

You say the CC repaid the 50% deposit.
Did you ever pay the second 50%?
Under S75%, AIUI, the CC would be liable for the full cost.  The fact they did not pay the full cost indicates chargeback not S75.
Is it the second 50% that the flooring company are now claiming?  If the CC refund was via S75, it is possible that the flooring company are not even aware it was refunded to you.

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.

Oh dear.
Karndean really is an awful product and made even worse by rubbish fitters - they simply are not skilled enough to get the floor correct first.
It sounds like you found the same company we used
I can't give you any words of advice or comfort, I can only suggest to leave the Karndean, cut your losses with the flooring company and get a nice carpet with thick underlay that takes up all the imperfections.  That's what we ended up doing.

bleepbloopblorp

Grumpy_chap said:

pedro789 said:

Hi
Would appreciate any advice pls. 

I had new floor fitted in March, paid 50% upfront via credit card
The fitting was very poor and gave floor company chance to rectify
After second try, there were still lot of issues
I told company still wasn't satisfactory and would be making claim with credit card company (Section 75)
Credit card company asked for independent report, which supported claim and said work was unsatisfactory
Credit card company has tried to contact floor company without response
Credit company has agreed to repay 50% deposit, but said they will not be liable for any claim by company - suggested I get legal advice
Floor company are still emailing asking for balance to be paid

Grateful for any advice, thanks.

Initial reading was that the CC did chargeback and not S75. 
That is possible, but does not align with the report being required, which suggests S75.
Confirming which is important.  AIUI, chargeback can sometimes be the equivalent of stopping a cheque.

You say the CC repaid the 50% deposit.
Did you ever pay the second 50%?
Under S75%, AIUI, the CC would be liable for the full cost.  The fact they did not pay the full cost indicates chargeback not S75.
Is it the second 50% that the flooring company are now claiming?  If the CC refund was via S75, it is possible that the flooring company are not even aware it was refunded to you.

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.

Oh dear.
Karndean really is an awful product and made even worse by rubbish fitters - they simply are not skilled enough to get the floor correct first.
It sounds like you found the same company we used
I can't give you any words of advice or comfort, I can only suggest to leave the Karndean, cut your losses with the flooring company and get a nice carpet with thick underlay that takes up all the imperfections.  That's what we ended up doing.

Realistically this could have been handled by the CC as a chargeback, the asking for proof is a red herring.  They may have been dotting their T's and then when it was put in front of a person, realised that chargeback was still an option so did that.

If it was a deposit, why would the company be chasing them for the rest of the payment?  That's the whole point of a deposit.  You forfeit it if you renege.  Chasing someone for the rest of the bill when you've just trousered 50% of the price for doing sod all seems a bit rich.

HampshireH

pedro789 said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

@pedro789

Hello OP

Firstly you need to clarify with the bank whether they performed a chargeback or a Section 75 claim.

If it was a chargeback the bank would have pulled the money back from the floor company.

If it was S75 the bank would have paid you from their funds (although they may seek to recover this from the floor company, I think it depends on the amount).

Moving on to the floor you have a contract for services (fitting) and goods (the floor). 

Regarding the service this must be carried out with due care and skill, where it isn't the service does not conform to the contract and you have the right to a repeat performance. As that repeat performance was carried out and the service still did not conform you have the right to a price reduction.

Should the floor require lifting and refitting then the price reduction should be the full fee. If the floor company carried out something else (as an example, taking up the old floor and disposal) this should be considered as they would likely be due payment for such aspects and this should be factored in to the value of the price reduction. 

With regards to the goods more details on the type of floor and what the specific problems were would be helpful for a full answer. 

Should the goods be in a state where they can't be reused then you'd be entitled to reject them for a full refund (final right to reject) or accept them as they are for a price reduction. 

Should you accept them as they are and leave the floor down this again may effect the value of the price reduction for the service aspect. 

If the goods are fine but just need to be laid again then payment for the goods would be due but the flooring company would have to cover the cost of any labour to get you back to where you was to begin with (but not the cost of being laid again and you effectively won't have paid first time around due to the price reduction). 

If it was something like laminate and 90% of the boards are fine but the cuts around the edges, as an example, need new boards, then you'd factor this as part of the price reduction for the goods, should you wish to keep them. 

It's your choice between rejecting the goods and a price reduction. 

If you have some more details a more specific answer can be given  

Thanks, really appreciate the response.

Chargeback/Section 75 - I'll find out from credit card company.

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!

The credit company tried to contact them on numerous occasions but they have ignored. If they think job is acceptable, why not commission their own assessment?

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

Thanks for your advice.

We had very poor quality carpets sold to us as hard wearing for high tread areas. It was a large carpet company and they insisted we were in the wrong (wear and tear after 8 weeks of low use).

Had a report done by their "independent" surveyor. Verbally the guy agreed with us then wrote a very vague report which didn't reflect his comments at our home.

I took our complaint to the Furniture Home Improvement Ombudsman who were really good and assisted in getting us a full resolution.

Interestingly I had already complained and they were really dragging their heels. Within an hour of having confirmation from the FHIO they contacted me to resolve by way of replacement. Second carpet also rubbish (but not as bad will never recommend them) but it was a final settlement offer & we don't intend to stay forever. 

I've seen the FHIO get mixed reviews but it worked for us. May be worth a shot if your formal complaint isn't being addressed

Grumpy_chap

bleepbloopblorp said:

Realistically this could have been handled by the CC as a chargeback, the asking for proof is a red herring.  They may have been dotting their T's and then when it was put in front of a person, realised that chargeback was still an option so did that.

I suspect you are correct that the CC processed a chargeback and not S75.
AIUI, if S75, then the CC is liable for the full amount of the bill, even if only part was paid by CC.
It seems as though the CC only refunded the original 50% paid as deposit on the CC.

bleepbloopblorp said:

If it was a deposit, why would the company be chasing them for the rest of the payment?  That's the whole point of a deposit.  You forfeit it if you renege.  Chasing someone for the rest of the bill when you've just trousered 50% of the price for doing sod all seems a bit rich.

I may have read things incorrectly, but I understand from the thread that:
1. OP paid deposit 50% on CC.
2. Floor was laid poorly.
3. Not clear whether the OP paid the 50% balance to the flooring company.

The OP did not renege, the flooring company simply did a poor job.
The flooring company did not get 50% for nothing.

Perhaps the OP will clarify whether the CC processed S75 or chargeback - I can see that the OP is seeking this clarification from the CC.
Perhaps the OP will confirm whether they paid 100%, or only 50% (which was refunded) and how much the flooring company are now seeking to recover?

Jumblebumble

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

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  

I personally always go by what the manufacturers recommend and not what random posters on the internet believe but what do I know ?
I also would not be assuming that a floor that is click together and has had its gaps hammered shut would go down as well the second time but again what do I know?

pedro789

Grumpy_chap said:

bleepbloopblorp said:

Realistically this could have been handled by the CC as a chargeback, the asking for proof is a red herring.  They may have been dotting their T's and then when it was put in front of a person, realised that chargeback was still an option so did that.

I suspect you are correct that the CC processed a chargeback and not S75.
AIUI, if S75, then the CC is liable for the full amount of the bill, even if only part was paid by CC.
It seems as though the CC only refunded the original 50% paid as deposit on the CC.

bleepbloopblorp said:

If it was a deposit, why would the company be chasing them for the rest of the payment?  That's the whole point of a deposit.  You forfeit it if you renege.  Chasing someone for the rest of the bill when you've just trousered 50% of the price for doing sod all seems a bit rich.

I may have read things incorrectly, but I understand from the thread that:
1. OP paid deposit 50% on CC.
2. Floor was laid poorly.
3. Not clear whether the OP paid the 50% balance to the flooring company.

The OP did not renege, the flooring company simply did a poor job.
The flooring company did not get 50% for nothing.

Perhaps the OP will clarify whether the CC processed S75 or chargeback - I can see that the OP is seeking this clarification from the CC.
Perhaps the OP will confirm whether they paid 100%, or only 50% (which was refunded) and how much the flooring company are now seeking to recover?

Thanks for reply.

1. Yes

2. Yes + validated by independent report

3. No

I have asked CC if S75 or chargeback, waiting for reply.

My dilemma is taking CC 50% deposit + accepting they have no further legal responsibility v floor company then saying I'm liable for full amount.

I'm quite happy to defend it legally + report backs up my view floor is substandard. 

km1500

The flooring company say you are of course liable for the full amount.

However, your position is that you are not because of bad workmanship

You are saying you are not going to pay them a penny. They are saying they want the full amount.

The flooring company now have to decide if to take it further. 

born_again

Grumpy_chap said:

bleepbloopblorp said:

Realistically this could have been handled by the CC as a chargeback, the asking for proof is a red herring.  They may have been dotting their T's and then when it was put in front of a person, realised that chargeback was still an option so did that.

I suspect you are correct that the CC processed a chargeback and not S75.
AIUI, if S75, then the CC is liable for the full amount of the bill, even if only part was paid by CC.
It seems as though the CC only refunded the original 50% paid as deposit on the CC.

If it  was a chargeback, then company would be asking for the full amount. As they would know they have lost the deposit. 

As Op had only paid the deposit, that is all CC would payout on a S75 claim. They would not give OP the 50% they had not paid.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

pedro789 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

bleepbloopblorp said:

Realistically this could have been handled by the CC as a chargeback, the asking for proof is a red herring.  They may have been dotting their T's and then when it was put in front of a person, realised that chargeback was still an option so did that.

I suspect you are correct that the CC processed a chargeback and not S75.
AIUI, if S75, then the CC is liable for the full amount of the bill, even if only part was paid by CC.
It seems as though the CC only refunded the original 50% paid as deposit on the CC.

bleepbloopblorp said:

If it was a deposit, why would the company be chasing them for the rest of the payment?  That's the whole point of a deposit.  You forfeit it if you renege.  Chasing someone for the rest of the bill when you've just trousered 50% of the price for doing sod all seems a bit rich.

I may have read things incorrectly, but I understand from the thread that:
1. OP paid deposit 50% on CC.
2. Floor was laid poorly.
3. Not clear whether the OP paid the 50% balance to the flooring company.

The OP did not renege, the flooring company simply did a poor job.
The flooring company did not get 50% for nothing.

Perhaps the OP will clarify whether the CC processed S75 or chargeback - I can see that the OP is seeking this clarification from the CC.
Perhaps the OP will confirm whether they paid 100%, or only 50% (which was refunded) and how much the flooring company are now seeking to recover?

Thanks for reply.

1. Yes

2. Yes + validated by independent report

3. No

I have asked CC if S75 or chargeback, waiting for reply.

My dilemma is taking CC 50% deposit + accepting they have no further legal responsibility v floor company then saying I'm liable for full amount.

I'm quite happy to defend it legally + report backs up my view floor is substandard. 

I think the CC company are saying they’ll only refund the deposit and not cover anything further as the the only way* the floor company will get further payment is if they go to small claims and win.

As the CC company have the same liability that would effectively mean you would lose against them as well.

*There is the option for you to voluntarily pay the outstanding amount, how that would pan out I don’t know but it sounds as if you hopefully won’t be doing this