Should we foot the bill for a faulty rooflight? 😩

Fairer_Trades

In March 2023, we bought a rooflight direct from the manufacturer to be delivered "kerbside". It is very big and weighs over 200kg so cost us £800 to be craned into place.

Recently, it has started leaking due to a faulty seal. The manufacturer has agreed to replace it under warranty ​(yeah!) but ​say they "only ​offer kerbside delivery" (boo!) We are expected to pay for the new one lifted up AND for the faulty one to be taken down for them to collect.

They state "(per) our terms and conditions we don’t cover the cost of consequential losses, therefore we would be replacing the whole unit but not installing it"

​I was never sent any t&c's and there's no mention of them on the ​Pro Forma invoice​. It does say "subject to t&c's.." on the delivery confirmation proforma but this was sent after i paid in full. Does this mean I agreed to their terms?​ 🤷‍♀️ Is there anyway i could claim the install costs back in small claims court?? I don't see why we have to fork out £££ because of their faulty product!

 

Thanks a million in advance!

Mark_d

Were you not given the option to see the t&c/warranty before buying the product?  If you didn't like the t&c when you paid for the product, could you not cancel delivery or have the item collected (before you installed it).
Do you think it's reasonable that the manufacturer should be exposed to whatever your installation costs happen to be?

ButterCheese

I agree with the above - where and how it is installed is not their problem.  If it cost £100k to fit it (and remove the faulty one) from a 100M high skyscraper, they don't need to reimburse you for that

Okell

Was this a consumer purchase under the Consumer Rights Act 2015?

“Consumer” means an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual's trade, business, craft or profession.

And has the seller - who I understand also to be the manufacturer - accepted that it is "faulty" in some way?

Alderbank

ButterCheese said:

I agree with the above - where and how it is installed is not their problem.  If it cost £100k to fit it (and remove the faulty one) from a 100M high skyscraper, they don't need to reimburse you for that

You might agree with the above but the Consumer Rights Act doesn't agree.

Section 23 of the Act says:

Right to repair or replacement

(2)If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—

(a)do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and

(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

born_again

Alderbank said:

ButterCheese said:

I agree with the above - where and how it is installed is not their problem.  If it cost £100k to fit it (and remove the faulty one) from a 100M high skyscraper, they don't need to reimburse you for that

You might agree with the above but the Consumer Rights Act doesn't agree.

Section 23 of the Act says:

Right to repair or replacement

(2)If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—

(a)do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and

(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

But OP went via warranty. Not consumer rights.

Okell

born_again said:

Alderbank said:

ButterCheese said:

I agree with the above - where and how it is installed is not their problem.  If it cost £100k to fit it (and remove the faulty one) from a 100M high skyscraper, they don't need to reimburse you for that

You might agree with the above but the Consumer Rights Act doesn't agree.

Section 23 of the Act says:

Right to repair or replacement

(2)If the consumer requires the trader to repair or replace the goods, the trader must—

(a)do so within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer, and

(b)bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so (including in particular the cost of any labour, materials or postage).

But OP went via warranty. Not consumer rights.

We don't know if the OP has relied on the warranty.  All they've said is that the seller (who is also the manufacturer) has said they'd replace it under warranty.  The OP might have tried to exercise their CRA rights but the seller has circumvented this by saying we'd rather use the warranty

I'd want to know if the seller has accepted it is faulty since they've agreed to replace it.  In which case the OP claims under the CRA and uses s23.

Fairer_Trades

Mark_d said:

Were you not given the option to see the t&c/warranty before buying the product?  If you didn't like the t&c when you paid for the product, could you not cancel delivery or have the item collected (before you installed it).
Do you think it's reasonable that the manufacturer should be exposed to whatever your installation costs happen to be?

I was never sent any t&c or, actually, given a warranty. Looking back, the initial quotes were official attachments and do say "subject to xxxx t&c's. Available on request" but the quote we went wasn't. It was sent in the body of an email with a single line description no mention of t&c's. Does this count?

Alderbank

You say that recently it has started leaking due to a faulty seal. 

The reason for the leak is important. If the seal was faulty when the heavy rooflight was delivered to your kerbside then you have a claim under the Consumer Rights Act.
That might have been for example because the material of the sealant they had used was wrong and over time it has become brittle or shrunk. If so (the legal description is that the product did not conform at the point of sale) then you have a claim under the Act.

Since you bought delivered to kerbside, responsibility transferred to you or your installers once the item had been unloaded. If the seal became faulty because the 200Kg item was excessively stressed or distorted while being unpacked, winched into place or bedded into the roof then any claim would be against the installer.

If there is no obvious cause of the leak, such as a glass pane noted to be cracked when the lantern was unpacked, then during the first 6 months the law assumes the unit did not conform at the point of delivery and if the case went to court the seller would have to produce evidence if they claimed the damage happened afterwards.
After 6 months this balance of probabilities changes over. If the cause is not obvious the consumer has to prove it is more likely that not that the unit was intrinsically faulty when delivered. This would need an independent building consultant to examine the lantern in situ and produce a report.

None of us know what the warranty actually says but the terms of the warranty appear to be satisfied in terms of liability; however the remedy of the warranty is limited to collecting the faulty one from the kerbside and leaving its replacement there.

In my view you need to consult a specialist building consultant.
If he will produce a report showing that the fault was present when the lantern was delivered then there is a good chance that a court would find in your favour and you should press for the seller to remove and replace the lantern at their expense.
If he says the damage was probably done after delivery then your best option might be to settle for the warranty offer

Fairer_Trades

Okell said:

Was this a consumer purchase under the Consumer Rights Act 2015?

“Consumer” means an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual's trade, business, craft or profession.

And has the seller - who I understand also to be the manufacturer - accepted that it is "faulty" in some way?

Thanks Okell, it was a consumer purchase it was bought it for my own property.

They have said that they would "like to replace it under warranty" - do you think this counts as accepting it is faulty?

I haven't brought up CRA yet and tbh my quote or invoice doesn't actually mention a warranty. An earlier quote does say "claims in respect of seals on double glazed units (DGUs) are limited to a period of 5 years" but it not the seal that has gone, it's the sealant they used round the edge. over time it has perished and shrunk and now just hangs loose! 

Alderbank

Fairer_Trades said:

I haven't brought up CRA yet and tbh my quote or invoice doesn't actually mention a warranty. An earlier quote does say "claims in respect of seals on double glazed units (DGUs) are limited to a period of 5 years" but it not the seal that has gone, it's the sealant they used round the edge. over time it has perished and shrunk and now just hangs loose! 

That's a fairly safe bet for the rooflight company.

The seals on DG units refer to the adhesive foil strip applied around the glazing panes when they are manufactured. All DG in the UK must now be made to BS EN 1279 and has an expected life of 10-25 years, so they are not risking much by guaranteeing the seals for 5 years.

Who actually applied this sealant which has perished? If it was applied by the manufacturers are there any requirements about overpainting in the installation instructions? Two years sounds a very short time to fail unless for example it should have been painted over after installation with a UV block.