Big trouble with worktop installation

tacpot12

I'm tending toward the fitter's view on the manufacturer's 'guidelines', but this could depend on the wording of the manual. If there are mandatory instructions that must be followed, and the guidelines are additional, then providing the mandatory instructions are followed, I think the fitter has done enough. However, if all the instructions are provided as 'guidelines', I think a court might give more weight to the more important of them being mandatory, and expect that the fitter uses their professional judgment to determine which are the important guidelines. 

An expert witness that testifies to the court may well point to specific 'guidelines' that any professional would regard as imporant even if the manufacturer didn't call attention to them. 

GoldenArbs

Grumpy_chap said:

The Fitter seems to have suffered a lot more time on this job - for various reasons - than would have been expected.  It seems as though the Fitter has taken this loss (time) and not sought to recover from yourself.

In the scheme of things, how much is the cost for complete new worktops?
Compared to the potential cost of the time should the Fitter be so inclined as to try to claim this from you?
It seems as though it is not entirely the Fitter's fault that the worktops have been cut-and-shut.

It might be pragmatic to suffer the cost of new worktops and keep the Fitter on side to do the actual work when the replacement worktops are available (and the cupboards properly prepared and level for the worktops to be fitted).

I would definitely agree with some of that. But really he should have refused the job and walked off and added a fee to his bill. Attempted the install also blocked the kitchen installer from double checking levels due to worktops being haphazardly installed (I dont want to add further detail to this whole thread, but other aspects of the work were far from adequate. eg. a minimal amount of loose substrate was used to prop up the surfaces. Large stretches of the worktops were not supported at all. A full H frame of substrate should have been used ontop of all cabinet perimeters).

So, we can really say that he's suffered from 1 day of loss of time - that first day. In his repeated cancelled bookings - he's affected the work of a plumber/electrician/tiler/kitchen fitter on 3 separate occasions. that's 12 instances of different parties being affected and schedules having to be rearranged.

If by some miracle he manages to finish the job, yes, that would be preferable to buying £2k worth of new worktops. But if that were to happen, I'd not let him anywhere near them.

But your words haven't fallen on deaf ears. Thanks for your view of the situation.

GoldenArbs

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

OP what info do you have about the fitter? Name? Address? 

Which company did you buy the worktops from? 

Consumer rights say one repeat performance followed by price reduction. 

They also say services must be carried out with due care and skill so where this isn’t the case you can claim damages (cost of correcting the work).

You said a second fitter agreed the work was subpar, will they put that in writing? (Burden of proof lies with yourself). 

Out of interest does anyone know if these companies arranging separate fitters are classed as an agent and have any responsibility for ensuring the fitter they arrange is half decent? 

All good questions.

The retailer who arranged the fitter supplied me with his first name and mobile number. At the end of November 6th botched fitting, he wrote his full name on a bit of paper, with his bank details and a big £750 a the top. That was his invoice.

I bought the worktops from Go Worktops Ltd - work-tops.co.uk

Yes, I think the kitchen fitter would put that in writing. And to get an idea - 1 example of workmanship would be a section that was 1.4 meters long with a front edge only supported by its corners. A gentle push to the middle and the whole thing flexes. If one of my kids puts any weight on it (and I'm not talking about standing/sitting on it), I have no doubt it'll crack in half. On the fitter's 2nd visit, he looked me in the eye and told me that the middle of the front also had support. I had to show him his errors. Not sure if it was a bare-face lie, or just incompetence tbh, as he really seemed to be trying to rush the job.

Your last question is something I would love to know. Even though their terms state that my contract is now between myself and the fitter - they have arranged the work. The citizens' advice bureau states: "You should take up the problem with the trader who arranged the work, even if they ‘sub-contracted’ (passed on) all or some of it to another business.". Although the word 'arranged' seems very ambiguous.

GoldenArbs

tacpot12 said:

I'm tending toward the fitter's view on the manufacturer's 'guidelines', but this could depend on the wording of the manual. If there are mandatory instructions that must be followed, and the guidelines are additional, then providing the mandatory instructions are followed, I think the fitter has done enough. However, if all the instructions are provided as 'guidelines', I think a court might give more weight to the more important of them being mandatory, and expect that the fitter uses their professional judgment to determine which are the important guidelines. 

An expert witness that testifies to the court may well point to specific 'guidelines' that any professional would regard as imporant even if the manufacturer didn't call attention to them. 

Yep - my problem is that I don't have experience with acrylic solid surface tops. I'd love to get a consensus from other fitters on how these things should be installed. I'd have thought at a bare minimum, as they're quite pricey - that the underside should be supported so that there's no flex. And that any substrate there, shouldn't fall out from a little poke from my finger. 

I've just looked up the guidelines I referred to previously. The manual states that it contains installation recommendations. Regardless of that - I still have a strong sense that the workmanship displayed by my fitter is well below par. Here's a short list of things I've noticed.

1. A pitiful amount of loose substrate used under the tops.
2. Joins placed at cutout (sink hobs) areas
3. Join placed at dead-on corner of L shape
4. Joins not reinforced with extra material on the underside
5. Cutout corners at 90° sharp angles instead of rounded
6. A cut right through my worktop with no evidence as to why. (I came to inspect work, asked why it'd be cut in half and was told 'there was a problem with it')
7. Damage to new flooring (worktop must have been dropped at some point)
8. Chipped corner
9. And last and least, a big ol mess of white acrylic shavings all over my gravel driveway. I have in the meantime, put down a tarp for the man.

Grumpy_chap

GoldenArbs said:

really he should have refused the job and walked off and added a fee to his bill.

I think you are correct.

In a commercial (business) situation I think that is what would have happened - Fitters working in a commercial (business) environment tend to have a back-office that would support this more contractual approach.

In a domestic (consumer) environment, the Fitters probably don't have the same knowledge, are trying to do a good job, probably mumble under their breath about the cabinets and then try their very best to get on with the job and make a success of it.  All done as a sole-trader and without any back-office, probably without a full knowledge of the law and just trying to keep the peace.

I know I have found that trades people working in the home (well, my home at least) do struggle a bit with a customer that takes a construction-industry view of things.

I suspect that any comment to the Fitter about not trying to do the job when the cabinets were not level and charging for abortive time will just be red rag to the bull.  You are totally correct in what you say but it is not something I'd probably actually say.