Customer Expectations and “Know It All’s”

[Murdoch]

if its faulty within 6 months its classed as faulty from new and a consumer has the immediate option of a full refund from the seller..you. That is the bit your missing it would seem. So by having the consumer buy the expensive equipment themselves i.e. in their own name, you are hands up free and not your problem should they demand a full refund. They could easily argue for a refund on the installation cost as well, then you are loosing hand over fist. By structuring the legal contract so that you are the labour supplier, then only issues you face are against the quality of the install. If you feel the need to make margin on a boiler then you accept the consequences of being the seller.
These are no semantics, this is the law and it would seem that you are totally ignorant of it and the consequences it has. Ask a solicitor if you know one.

I think that's really harsh and unhelpful.

What are you trying to achieve on this thread? I'm puzzled to say the least.

 

[hometech]

I've had a faulty Vaillant before, which the manufacture personally replaced themselves at no cost to me.

which is their legal obligation under consumer law...

 

[Ric2013]

if its faulty within 6 months its classed as faulty from new and a consumer has the immediate option of a full refund from the seller..you. That is the bit your missing it would seem.

If you are talking about the right to reject under section 20 of the Consumer Rights Act, your interpretation is different from that of 'Which?' (formerly 'the Consumers' Association').

It would seem the 30 day period is unconditional (for supply of faulty goods, NOT SERVICES), and your point about assumption of faulty goods during the 6 months is correct, but does not give you an automatic right to a refund if, say, the hinge on the control panel cover breaks after 5 months.

Having skimmed through some of the leglislation itself, it is quite complex and a bit beyond speedy comprehensive understanding by myself because, while educated to a high level, I am not educated in law.

If a consumer could reject a boiler and require a full refund on it after 5 months after one failed repair, I suppose this situation could come about, but the refund would seem to be on that item not the entire installation so it's unlikely a customer would want this outcome. In this case, I'm sure the boiler manufacturer would help the installer else we'd all be hearing about it on this forum. You do make an interesting point about breakdown of costs - but I wonder how BOXT gets round it? BOXT's price shows the installation as being free, so were I lucky, I could get my gas run upgraded, something would go on the boiler, and I'd be able to return the boiler and get a refund on the whole job if you were right, but BOXT would have to leave my new gas pipework. I suspect it's one of those cases that would depend on who had the best solicitor, rather than being clear-cut.

As for my sarcastic BR example, yeah you got me, as it is a public service and it may be public record, but if so, you've missed my point entirely. Seriously, if you really don't get the sarcasm, I am more than willing to explain the joke.

which is their legal obligation under consumer law...

No. it is isn't, not if you are referring to the CRA, as your previous posts suggest you know. The manufacturer does not have the responsibility to replace a gas installer's boiler under consumer law as the installer is quite clearly not a consumer.

@hometech - you are quite clearly knowledgeable, but please be aware you are letting your psychological need to win this argument run away with you and you are oversimplifying the matter. This is coming across as point scoring to the detriment of the accuracy and therefore the helpfulness of your contribution to this thread. But thank you for your contribution, all the same.

Minster is referring to as a quotation and presumably has told the customer it is such: based on which the customer has instructed the work. Were this to become a court case, a consumer instructing work after a quoted price and then feeling the price is excessive would not have the judge's sympathy unless he can clearly show the price is well above that normally paid. Comparing online prices is not really comparing apples with apples and I'm sure the law would consider the overall price. The price for the parts supplied by the installer includes the installer's time to choose suitable parts, collect, and deliver them - much as the BOXT boiler prices include installation.

As you say, in doubt, consult a solicitor. But this is a plumbers' forum and realistically the OP needs advice on how to handle customers and avoid this situation. Writing a contract that will stand up in court but having to go to court over every boiler install is not a solution. Planning an entire business around one hypothetical awkward customer is not good practice unless the awkward customer is a £50,000 contract. Pimlico (a very successful business) has its Ts and Cs limited to 16 points and I suspect that any event outside of those terms is handled by informal discussion or it goes to court, otherwise it'd be like being in Italy where you get handed 25 pages to sign without a chance to read them and, while the contract is watertight (but possibly itself subject to litigation due to unclear terms), the plumbing itself may not be.

I would, however, be interested to see every line of written communication between the OP and the customer (with sensitive details omitted) if this is happening often. I'm not sure if it's how the information is presented, or it's simply a case of similar people referring Minster to one another.

 

[hometech]

I think that's really harsh and unhelpful.

What are you trying to achieve on this thread? I'm puzzled to say the least.

the thread was about being challenged by customers demands for a reduction in price after job completion. I've just scrolled back so I'm certain of that.
I found it fascinating as to to the situations that could arise that would lead to this demand which is why I followed the thread.
It became apparent that using basic trading tools that have been in play for millennium were considered unnecessary by plumbers which again I found fascinating.
I merely pointed out that consumer law applies to everyone and that ignorance has never been a defence under law.
I hope that the real legal points I raised are at least considered by plumbers.
Knowledge is power but without direction it has little value

 

[Minster]

if its faulty within 6 months its classed as faulty from new and a consumer has the immediate option of a full refund from the seller..you. That is the bit your missing it would seem. So by having the consumer buy the expensive equipment themselves i.e. in their own name, you are hands up free and not your problem should they demand a full refund. They could easily argue for a refund on the installation cost as well, then you are loosing hand over fist. By structuring the legal contract so that you are the labour supplier, then only issues you face are against the quality of the install. If you feel the need to make margin on a boiler then you accept the consequences of being the seller.
These are no semantics, this is the law and it would seem that you are totally ignorant of it and the consequences it has. Ask a solicitor if you know one.

The refund only applies if the repair or replacement haven’t resolved the issue, you are stating they can go straight for a refund without the repair/replacement option and you are wrong - check your facts rather than advise me to ask a solicitor. Also if you read my comments you’d see we don’t add a mark up to the materials.

 

[Minster]

I think that's really harsh and unhelpful.

What are you trying to achieve on this thread? I'm puzzled to say the least.

Thank you

 

[Minster]

the thread was about being challenged by customers demands for a reduction in price after job completion. I've just scrolled back so I'm certain of that.
I found it fascinating as to to the situations that could arise that would lead to this demand which is why I followed the thread.
It became apparent that using basic trading tools that have been in play for millennium were considered unnecessary by plumbers which again I found fascinating.
I merely pointed out that consumer law applies to everyone and that ignorance has never been a defence under law.
I hope that the real legal points I raised are at least considered by plumbers.
Knowledge is power but without direction it has little value

What trading tools are you inferring to?

 

[Ric2013]

(In reply to #49)

Written contracts have been in use for millenia, but I think you may overestimate how widely writing has historically been used. After all, my family was largely functionally illiterate 100 years ago.

There is a problem with your install only suggestion. The problem is that I would not want to fit an item as expensive as a boiler if supplied by a customer. When something goes wrong or is not quite how I'd hope, my customer's supplier will have no interest in helping me out. They don't know if I'm any good and we don't have a working relationship - so occasions will arise in which, in good faith, I'd have to tell the customer that the reason it isn't working is due to a product failure. The product supplier only has a small investment in the project and will most likely blame me. I don't get to choose what brand I install so I lack specific product knowledge. The customer is stuck in the middle and ends up paying a third party to investigate. Eventually I have to up my costs to cover liability.

I've had this myself with a faulty bidet of all things. The supplier refunded the customer, but refused to replace with a good one. All the installation had been sized around the existing one, so the customer ended up having to accept an improvisedly-repaired bidet or pay for me to re-pipe everything around another design. It wasn't a great outcome for him, and it did waste a bit of my time which I hadn't the heart to charge for (as I'd suggested he may as well source his own). That was a lesson to me.

 

[hometech]

If you are talking about the right to reject under section 20 of the Consumer Rights Act, your interpretation is different from that of 'Which?' (formerly 'the Consumers' Association').

It would seem the 30 day period is unconditional (for supply of faulty goods, NOT SERVICES), and your point about assumption of faulty goods during the 6 months is correct, but does not give you an automatic right to a refund if, say, the hinge on the control panel cover breaks after 5 months.

Having skimmed through some of the leglislation itself, it is quite complex and a bit beyond speedy comprehensive understanding by myself because, while educated to a high level, I am not educated in law.

If a consumer could reject a boiler and require a full refund on it after 5 months after one failed repair, I suppose this situation could come about, but the refund would seem to be on that item not the entire installation so it's unlikely a customer would want this outcome. In this case, I'm sure the boiler manufacturer would help the installer else we'd all be hearing about it on this forum. You do make an interesting point about breakdown of costs - but I wonder how BOXT gets round it? BOXT's price shows the installation as being free, so were I lucky, I could get my gas run upgraded, something would go on the boiler, and I'd be able to return the boiler and get a refund on the whole job if you were right, but BOXT would have to leave my new gas pipework. I suspect it's one of those cases that would depend on who had the best solicitor, rather than being clear-cut.

As for my sarcastic BR example, yeah you got me, as it is a public service and it may be public record, but if so, you've missed my point entirely. Seriously, if you really don't get the sarcasm, I am more than willing to explain the joke.


No. it is isn't, not if you are referring to the CRA, as your previous posts suggest you know. The manufacturer does not have the responsibility to replace a gas installer's boiler under consumer law as the installer is quite clearly not a consumer.

@hometech - you are quite clearly knowledgeable, but please be aware you are letting your psychological need to win this argument run away with you and you are oversimplifying the matter. This is coming across as point scoring to the detriment of the accuracy and therefore the helpfulness of your contribution to this thread. But thank you for your contribution, all the same.

Minster is referring to as a quotation and presumably has told the customer it is such: based on which the customer has instructed the work. Were this to become a court case, a consumer instructing work after a quoted price and then feeling the price is excessive would not have the judge's sympathy unless he can clearly show the price is well above that normally paid. Comparing online prices is not really comparing apples with apples and I'm sure the law would consider the overall price. The price for the parts supplied by the installer includes the installer's time to choose suitable parts, collect, and deliver them - much as the BOXT boiler prices include installation.

As you say, in doubt, consult a solicitor. But this is a plumbers' forum and realistically the OP needs advice on how to handle customers and avoid this situation. Writing a contract that will stand up in court but having to go to court over every boiler install is not a solution. Planning an entire business around one hypothetical awkward customer is not good practice unless the awkward customer is a £50,000 contract. Pimlico (a very successful business) has its Ts and Cs limited to 16 points and I suspect that any event outside of those terms is handled by informal discussion or it goes to court, otherwise it'd be like being in Italy where you get handed 25 pages to sign without a chance to read them and, while the contract is watertight (but possibly itself subject to litigation due to unclear terms), the plumbing itself may not be.

I would, however, be interested to see every line of written communication between the OP and the customer (with sensitive details omitted) if this is happening often. I'm not sure if it's how the information is presented, or it's simply a case of similar people referring Minster to one another.

If you are talking about the right to reject under section 20 of the Consumer Rights Act, your interpretation is different from that of 'Which?' (formerly 'the Consumers' Association').

It would seem the 30 day period is unconditional (for supply of faulty goods, NOT SERVICES), and your point about assumption of faulty goods during the 6 months is correct, but does not give you an automatic right to a refund if, say, the hinge on the control panel cover breaks after 5 months.

Having skimmed through some of the leglislation itself, it is quite complex and a bit beyond speedy comprehensive understanding by myself because, while educated to a high level, I am not educated in law.

If a consumer could reject a boiler and require a full refund on it after 5 months after one failed repair, I suppose this situation could come about, but the refund would seem to be on that item not the entire installation so it's unlikely a customer would want this outcome. In this case, I'm sure the boiler manufacturer would help the installer else we'd all be hearing about it on this forum. You do make an interesting point about breakdown of costs - but I wonder how BOXT gets round it? BOXT's price shows the installation as being free, so were I lucky, I could get my gas run upgraded, something would go on the boiler, and I'd be able to return the boiler and get a refund on the whole job if you were right, but BOXT would have to leave my new gas pipework. I suspect it's one of those cases that would depend on who had the best solicitor, rather than being clear-cut.

As for my sarcastic BR example, yeah you got me, as it is a public service and it may be public record, but if so, you've missed my point entirely. Seriously, if you really don't get the sarcasm, I am more than willing to explain the joke.


No. it is isn't, not if you are referring to the CRA, as your previous posts suggest you know. The manufacturer does not have the responsibility to replace a gas installer's boiler under consumer law as the installer is quite clearly not a consumer.

@hometech - you are quite clearly knowledgeable, but please be aware you are letting your psychological need to win this argument run away with you and you are oversimplifying the matter. This is coming across as point scoring to the detriment of the accuracy and therefore the helpfulness of your contribution to this thread. But thank you for your contribution, all the same.

Minster is referring to as a quotation and presumably has told the customer it is such: based on which the customer has instructed the work. Were this to become a court case, a consumer instructing work after a quoted price and then feeling the price is excessive would not have the judge's sympathy unless he can clearly show the price is well above that normally paid. Comparing online prices is not really comparing apples with apples and I'm sure the law would consider the overall price. The price for the parts supplied by the installer includes the installer's time to choose suitable parts, collect, and deliver them - much as the BOXT boiler prices include installation.

As you say, in doubt, consult a solicitor. But this is a plumbers' forum and realistically the OP needs advice on how to handle customers and avoid this situation. Writing a contract that will stand up in court but having to go to court over every boiler install is not a solution. Planning an entire business around one hypothetical awkward customer is not good practice unless the awkward customer is a £50,000 contract. Pimlico (a very successful business) has its Ts and Cs limited to 16 points and I suspect that any event outside of those terms is handled by informal discussion or it goes to court, otherwise it'd be like being in Italy where you get handed 25 pages to sign without a chance to read them and, while the contract is watertight (but possibly itself subject to litigation due to unclear terms), the plumbing itself may not be.

I would, however, be interested to see every line of written communication between the OP and the customer (with sensitive details omitted) if this is happening often. I'm not sure if it's how the information is presented, or it's simply a case of similar people referring Minster to one another.

A boiler supplied and fitted can be called anythying you want

The refund only applies if the repair or replacement haven’t resolved the issue, you are stating they can go straight for a refund without the repair/replacement option and you are wrong - check your facts rather than advise me to ask a solicitor. Also if you read my comments you’d see we don’t add a mark up to the materials.

Best you read the op again because he said he writes quotes

"writes in quotes" is there a significance to your observation?

 

[hometech]

What trading tools are you inferring to?

the ancient standard of contract law. Always existed, always will exist

 

[hometech]

(In reply to #49)

Written contracts have been in use for millenia, but I think you may overestimate how widely writing has historically been used. After all, my family was largely functionally illiterate 100 years ago.

There is a problem with your install only suggestion. The problem is that I would not want to fit an item as expensive as a boiler if supplied by a customer. When something goes wrong or is not quite how I'd hope, my customer's supplier will have no interest in helping me out. They don't know if I'm any good and we don't have a working relationship - so occasions will arise in which, in good faith, I'd have to tell the customer that the reason it isn't working is due to a product failure. The product supplier only has a small investment in the project and will most likely blame me. I don't get to choose what brand I install so I lack specific product knowledge. The customer is stuck in the middle and ends up paying a third party to investigate. Eventually I have to up my costs to cover liability.

I've had this myself with a faulty bidet of all things. The supplier refunded the customer, but refused to replace with a good one. All the installation had been sized around the existing one, so the customer ended up having to accept an improvisedly-repaired bidet or pay for me to re-pipe everything around another design. It wasn't a great outcome for him, and it did waste a bit of my time which I hadn't the heart to charge for (as I'd suggested he may as well source his own). That was a lesson to me.

contract documents have been found belonging to ancient Mesopotamia. A little bit older than your functionality literate family

 

[hometech]

I was called to the bar over 25 years ago but moved to a simpler life style in the business of home automation 4 years since. My previous life experiences were the reason I found the headline of this thread fascinating and through engagement with various fellows, it would be a reasonable conclusion that disregard for the normalised rules of business is a common trait within this cohort. The other most notable observation is the number of people who, not unlike my own circumstances, left the calling to become plumbers.

 

[oz-plumber]

So Hometech,

You use the escape hole of only being a Labour hire company rather than being and installation company.

You get the customer to buy all the goods in their name, so they will have to deal with any arising issues with their supplier.

So to obviously make may money out of a descent project, you would be getting a 'kickback' from the supplier / manufacturer for offering their goods to the customer.
That is unless you work as a contractor to the supplier / manufacturer for installing their product,which you would be paid a labour rate.

Most of us can't be bothered to make a material list for the customer and get them to buy it.
Most of us need a profit margin on the materials supplied to cover overheads.

Most of us trust the customer will agree to pay the quotation amount.

Most of us will stand by our Legal obligations and return to fix problems or request a manufacturers warranty call to fix the problem.

Do you use the loophole of saying to a customer you are a labour hire company only, the goods were supplied by them and they have to deal with the manufacturer for all warranty claims?

Great gig if you can work that way.

 

[Minster]

So Hometech,

You use the escape hole of only being a Labour hire company rather than being and installation company.

You get the customer to buy all the goods in their name, so they will have to deal with any arising issues with their supplier.

So to obviously make may money out of a descent project, you would be getting a 'kickback' from the supplier / manufacturer for offering their goods to the customer.
That is unless you work as a contractor to the supplier / manufacturer for installing their product,which you would be paid a labour rate.

Most of us can't be bothered to make a material list for the customer and get them to buy it.
Most of us need a profit margin on the materials supplied to cover overheads.

Most of us trust the customer will agree to pay the quotation amount.

Most of us will stand by our Legal obligations and return to fix problems or request a manufacturers warranty call to fix the problem.

Do you use the loophole of saying to a customer you are a labour hire company only, the goods were supplied by them and they have to deal with the manufacturer for all warranty claims?

Great gig if you can work that way.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Minster]

I was called to the bar over 25 years ago but moved to a simpler life style in the business of home automation 4 years since. My previous life experiences were the reason I found the headline of this thread fascinating and through engagement with various fellows, it would be a reasonable conclusion that disregard for the normalised rules of business is a common trait within this cohort. The other most notable observation is the number of people who, not unlike my own circumstances, left the calling to become plumbers.

I was called to the bar over 25 years ago but moved to a simpler life style in the business of home automation 4 years since. My previous life experiences were the reason I found the headline of this thread fascinating and through engagement with various fellows, it would be a reasonable conclusion that disregard for the normalised rules of business is a common trait within this cohort. The other most notable observation is the number of people who, not unlike my own circumstances, left the calling to become plumbers.

“it would be a reasonable conclusion that disregard for the normalised rules of business is a common trait within this cohort.”

Bit strong isn’t it! We are heating engineers doing our best to run our businesses in an honest, legal, trustworthy and knowledgeable way, we are not ex legal professionals!