S75 and court action?

Okell

In fact, thinking about it, I'm not even sure if these are consequential losses/damages as opposed to ordinary damages(?)

My understanding - which might be completely wrong - is that consequential losses are those that do not directly flow from the breach of contract.  In this case, if a significant amount of money needed to be spent doing remedial/repair/making good work before a new roof can be replaced, then they are simply ordinary damages flowing directly from the contrcat breach.

But I'm not a lawyer...

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Okell said:

In fact, thinking about it, I'm not even sure if these are consequential losses/damages as opposed to ordinary damages(?)

I do wonder if it's because the roof has to be replaced with a different roofing system?

If it was just a straight repair/replace of the same system I can't see why that wouldn't be ordinary damages. 

In terms of the company knowing, if they are the only installer you'd think they'd know that and if they can't fix the matter it must be obvious a different system is needed? But we are going a fair bit away from consumer rights here so I'm not sure.

Perhaps @A_Geordie has some insight  

A_Geordie

Sorry, what's the question? 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

A_Geordie said:

Sorry, what's the question? 

@A_Geordie

 Why is the cost of replacing the roof consequential damages rather than ordinary?  

born_again

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

A_Geordie said:

Sorry, what's the question? 

@A_Geordie

 Why is the cost of replacing the roof consequential damages rather than ordinary?  

It won't be.
CC will (if they do anything) will be to put OP back in the situation they were before.

Consequential damages, would be if they had caused further damage while doing the work & that needed putting right.

In reality what we say here, is guesswork. OP needs to talk to their CC & see exactly what they want to take it forward & let it run it's course & if not happy with outcome take it to FOS after exhausting CC complaint process. Neither of which will be a quick process.

A_Geordie

A direct loss is something that naturally arises from the breach of contract.

A consequential loss is something that doesn't naturally arise from the breach but will only be recoverable if the party in breach was aware at the time of entering into the contract the party in breach was aware of any special circumstances that could result in harm or loss suffered if there happened to be a breach of contract. An example of a consequential loss might be if a person employed the services of a specialist car company to carry out work on a vintage car, and that person was going to sell the car to a prospective buyer for a significant amount of money, but the work was shoddy and the prospective buyer walked away from the deal resulting in that person losing out on a sale. If the specialist company was not aware of these circumstances then it will be considered too remote (i.e. not sufficiently connected to the breach) to be recoverable.

Whether a loss falls under a direct or consequential loss will depend on the facts of the dispute but the general rule is that in most instances, something which might be considered a consequential loss is also likely to be categorised as a direct loss, such as loss of profits or revenue. In the example above, it could be argued the loss of sale is both a direct and consequential loss (but more likely a consequential loss)

If there are significant defects cause by the materials/installation of the goods by the company which requires a full replacement, then I would think those costs would be considered a direct loss since they flow naturally from the breach itself. I can't see how they would be consequential because it ought to have been contemplated by the company that a breach of this magnitude would likely require a full replacement to be carried out. 

If proven, the CC under s75 will be jointly and severally liable for all of the above direct losses and consequential losses (if the company didn't exclude or limit those types of losses in their T&Cs) which could include the entire replacement, repairs and re-installation of goods.

The OP could then in fact reclaim £15k from the CC and pursue the remaining £5k through small claims if they so wished, that is entirely up to the OP how they want to pursue a claim. However, if the OP did go down that route then it would be wise for the OP to have a written settlement agreement with the CC setting out terms that the payment is in full and final settlement of the OP's claims against the CC only and that the settlement does not prevent the OP from pursuing the company for any remaining losses. Otherwise the company could argue the OP's settlement was full and final of the whole claim, so the wording of any settlement would need to be carefully considered.