Sole trader being threatened legal action

[sharonj]

Hi

I desperately need legal advice and wondered if anyone has any legal training or may be able to give me an opinion regarding a problem my husband has with a customer who is threatening legal action.

My husband is a handyman and laid some DIY laminate flooring for a customer. The flooring has since pulled apart in a couple of places and we have been corresponding with the customer via email and letter since the beginning of September. They have not paid my husband as they thought the problem with the flooring was due to his poor workmanship. They have had a report done and the report stated that the flooring was uneven due to the sub floor conditions and that the floor should have been levelled off before any flooring was laid. The independent inspection stated that it is the responsibility of the installer to check the sub floor before installation takes place and that my husband is at fault for not having throughly checked the humidity of the room and taken accurate levelling measurements of the sub floor. We have argued that my husband is not a flooring specialist but a handy man. He does not specialise in one particular area but can perform many different tasks. It would not be as in depth as a flooring specialist but his fee would also reflect that.

He quoted to remove the old flooring and lay new flooring. He was not asked to level the floor but the customer is now threatening to sue us for any costs over and above what my husband initially quoted as they have obtained three quotes from flooring companies all of which include the levelling of the sub floor, a damp proof membrane and removal of the affected slats of flooring and re laying of the flooring. My husband has received no payment for this job and the customer has now involved a solicitor. We cannot afford a solicitor so have tried to obtain any legal advice where and when we can.

All the materials were supplied by the customer and we believe that as a verbal contract was agreed to lay the flooring only, that we should not be responsible for paying the costs of a flooring company to re-lay the floor. I thought that once a claim for breech of contract has been submitted that any costs are to be mitigated and that they should in actual fact be using a handy man or similar to lay the flooring.

If anyone knows where we stand or can assist in this matter then please give any advice that you think may be of use.

Thanks in advance. This has been a nightmare for some months now and I really had hoped that this would be resolved before now but it just seems to go from bad to worse.

 

[saxondale]

ring your local trading standards - there you will get advice "straight from the horses mouth" it`s an eye opener, unfortunatly in this case it`s not likely to be the answer you were wanting.

 

[Astaroth]

How did they "find" you? If it was by advert rather than word of mouth, what does the advert actually say?

Without a contract to mitigate liability for your husband simply doing what he's told - kind of a non-advisory service - then you are going to struggle. If your receiving payment for being a service provider you are almost certainly going to be expected to have a higher level of knowledge than a lay person.

Is the flooring reusable or is it going to have to be replaced? I assume part at least is going to be replaced from what you say. A reasonable offer would be to cover the cost of materials in terms of the laminate, glue etc and a token guesture of goodwill for the inconvenience of having the floor up again. All of which should be offered on a without prejudice basis with no admission of liability.

I certainly would argue that charging for the floor to be levelled etc is exceptionally spurious.

 

[sharonj]

How did they "find" you? If it was by advert rather than word of mouth, what does the advert actually say?

Without a contract to mitigate liability for your husband simply doing what he's told - kind of a non-advisory service - then you are going to struggle. If your receiving payment for being a service provider you are almost certainly going to be expected to have a higher level of knowledge than a lay person.

Is the flooring reusable or is it going to have to be replaced? I assume part at least is going to be replaced from what you say. A reasonable offer would be to cover the cost of materials in terms of the laminate, glue etc and a token guesture of goodwill for the inconvenience of having the floor up again. All of which should be offered on a without prejudice basis with no admission of liability.

I certainly would argue that charging for the floor to be levelled etc is exceptionally spurious.

Thanks for your response. He does actually advertise in a local paper and he states Handy man, any job, free quotes.

He was asked to lay the flooring and remove the old flooring. He was not asked to determine if the flooring was suitable for the room. The customer had obtained advice from B and Q and supplied all the materials. He was asked to provide labour and quoted for labour only. I do not understand why the customer thinks it is possible to try and claim costs for getting a proper flooring company to lay the flooring when they initially wanted it to be laid by a handy man. I wonder why they did not do this in the first place. It hardly seems fair to me that if they are not happy with a job provided by someone charging a lot less than a flooring specialist then they are legally entitled to sue the handy man and claim any further costs to have it installed by someone charging a lot more money.

 

[saxondale]

It hardly seems fair to me that if they are not happy with a job provided by someone charging a lot less than a flooring specialist then they are legally entitled to sue the handy man and claim any further costs to have it installed by someone charging a lot more money.

you`re putting way too much emphasis on the job title -fortunatly (or unfortunatly in your case) the phrase used is

"as an average practictioner of the trade would produce..."

it`s incumbant (?) on your husband to say he doesn`t have that skill and to turn the job down.

 

[Geoff T]

OP - I'm sorry to add to the bad news, but I have to agree with the previous posters...

One question not answered is how much are we talking about? You've talked about the principle, but not the amount of money involved...

In the absence of that - trading standards as suggested, or citizens advice...

But it doesn't look good I'm afraid - for the reasons already stated...

 

[sharonj]

OP - I'm sorry to add to the bad news, but I have to agree with the previous posters...

One question not answered is how much are we talking about? You've talked about the principle, but not the amount of money involved...

In the absence of that - trading standards as suggested, or citizens advice...

But it doesn't look good I'm afraid - for the reasons already stated...

The customer has had quotes from flooring specialists and their fees range from £1000 to £2500 as their quotes include having the sub floor levelled and the flooring taken up and re-laid. I do not think we should be liable for the costs of the levelling of the sub floor as it was not requested at all when my husband quoted to lay the flat pack floating flooring. His original quote for the job was just over £300 as he was providing labour to fit the flooring and has fitted this kind of flooring before without any problems at all. He had not even seen the product before the day of installation as he was only advised by the customer of the type of flooring they would be purchasing from B and Q. The customer then went away on a long weekend holiday and requested that the flooring be installed before they returned home. My husband cleared the room totally of furniture, laid the underlay and laminate flooring and then moved all of the furniture back into the room. He took photos at the time after the flooring had been installed as he was pleased with the work. It was after he left that the flooring pulled apart slightly in a couple of places but this was not apparent when he checked the flooring before leaving.

I understand that you all advise that it does not look good but I don't feel that anyone has given reason as to exactly why it is acceptable for the customer to use a flooring specialist to install their flooring when they were not initially prepared to pay for a flooring specialist, hence the use of a much cheaper handy man. I did telephone trading standards this evening and they advised that it would not seem fair for the customer to use someone much more expensive than that of a handy man. It is down to them to mitigate any costs. We have also been advised by my husbands legal helpline for his public liability insurance that it would seem unfair to expect him to be responsible for the problems with the sub floor. The analogy used was that you would not take your car into a garage to have the tyre changed and then complain at a later date if the engine seized up.

 

Er one point have the customers invited your husband to rectify the faults.

If he is willing to undertake the remedial work they have a duty to accept his offer.

Also the point:

Has the flooring been subjected to normal wear and tear.etc.

One more point has the flooring been an issue with other installers I.E not fit for purpose an issue for B&Q's the supplier.

I purchased some laminate flooring from B&Q and it was shown to be substandard for purpose and came apart as you describe.

B&Q accepted this and exchanged for a different flooring.

Earl

 

[Geoff T]

Sharon, I understand your feelings here, but what people are saying is two fold:

1st - the lack of terms and detailed agreement in writing does your hubby no favours here

2nd - there are legal precedents (which is a flash way of saying they've seen this before, and know how the decision will go). Your hubby did have a legal responsibility to advise on the appropriateness of the job, and if it would not get the result the consumer wanted - then he should have priced it into the job, or said he wasn't interested.

You need to take a long hard look at what paperwork you have to see if you're covered, or have any hope of a "right result"

And a 3rd party view without that specific info isn't going to help much more than the advice you've already had without looking at the detail I'm afraid...

The bottom line is they have the "consumer" out - and that gets them loads of leeway in court...it sucks big time I know, but that's the way it is...

 

[sharonj]

Er one point have the customers invited your husband to rectify the faults.

If he is willing to undertake the remedial work they have a duty to accept his offer.

Also the point:

Has the flooring been subjected to normal wear and tear.etc.

One more point has the flooring been an issue with other installers I.E not fit for purpose an issue for B&Q's the supplier.

I purchased some laminate flooring from B&Q and it was shown to be substandard for purpose and came apart as you describe.

B&Q accepted this and exchanged for a different flooring.

Earl

B&Q organised for an independent inspection to be carried out and said that based on the independent inspectors opinion, the fault of the flooring pulling apart was due to the sub floor being uneven causing the flooring to move. They said there was nothing wrong with the product and that it was the installers responsibility. My husband has offered on numerous occasions to return to the property and try to rectify the flooring and the customer cancelled on him the night before he was to return, stating that they wanted an inspection to be carried out before he returned. After the inspection was carried out the customer advised us that the entire flooring would need to be pulled up and re laid. We advised that the report did not state the entire flooring needed removing and that my husband would return and remove the affected slats but they said they wanted the entire floor removed which we felt was unacceptable and a waste of time.

We have since asked if we could have an inspection of our own carried out but they have denied us access stating that the inspection that they have had done should be sufficient. Trading standards advised me tonight that as the burden of proof is on us being the provider of the service we are entitled to request our own independent report.

 

[maxine]

I tend to agree with Saxondale in that there is no differentiation between job title.

The customer wanted a job doing, and it is up to the tradesperson to say what they will and will not be responsbile for (generally). Usually this is covered in terms and conditions.

However, I also think it would be very difficult for the customer to make a claim based on not levelling and damp proofing the floor prior to laying the floor as these are specialist trades and from what you have said they have tried to do this on the cheap by getting "advice" from the retailer and then using someone who advertises as general handyman to do the work without being an expert in this area.

If your husbands costs of labour and material are not too much then I would be tempted to say to write it off as a bad debt and put it down to experience, and let the customer put their claim in writing to you for any damages.

If your husbands costs of labour and materials are quite a bit and you want to get paid for this, then you could claim in the usual way via small claims court (moneyclaim) and let them set out their particulars of defence and leave it up to the judge to award for the claim or not (or refer to arbitration). However, there are costs for these and this money might be better spent with a solicitor for a decent letter in the first instance.

In terms of options on what to do now...

I presume you have public liability insurance and it may be worth investigating whether a claim can be made against that.

Trading standards may be able to give some advice.

Take up a free hours consultation with a solicitor if you can and if you are in receipt of tax credits then you may qualify for legal aid.

See if you have any other policies such as legal protection with any insurance policies that will cover this type of legal support.

See if any memberships of organisations will also help with legal assistance such as membership of chambers of commerce or FSB.


Good luck

 

[sharonj]

Sharon, I understand your feelings here, but what people are saying is two fold:

1st - the lack of terms and detailed agreement in writing does your hubby no favours here

2nd - there are legal precedents (which is a flash way of saying they've seen this before, and know how the decision will go). Your hubby did have a legal responsibility to advise on the appropriateness of the job, and if it would not get the result the consumer wanted - then he should have priced it into the job, or said he wasn't interested.

You need to take a long hard look at what paperwork you have to see if you're covered, or have any hope of a "right result"

And a 3rd party view without that specific info isn't going to help much more than the advice you've already had without looking at the detail I'm afraid...

The bottom line is they have the "consumer" out - and that gets them loads of leeway in court...it sucks big time I know, but that's the way it is...

I understand what you are saying and I know more than ever now that the consumer has a lot more rights than the tradesman. Unfortunately when my husband quoted for the job he had not had a look at the sub floor as it was carpeted at the time. The customer purely asked him to remove the carpet and lay the laminate. No more, no less was required. He priced the job on the labour involved and that is it. When he removed the flooring he did not think the sub floor looked uneven and I know from speaking to flooring specialists since that this type of flooring can move after installation. It can be secured using a couple of methods but my husband has not been allowed back to try these and now the cusomer is insisting on involving very expensive solutions without letting him resolve it as he sees fit. Either way it seems that it is a no win situation for us.

 

[Jenni384]

Sharon,

I'm not au fait with the exact legal position you're in, though there has been good advice in this thread.

What I would do, however, is conduct any future correspondence with the customer in writing - then there is a paper trail if it goes to court. You can't prove what was said face to face or over the phone.

Do not admit liability. Make sure you emphasise that you have offered to put the floor itself right and point out in your letter that they have not given you that opportunity.

As has been said, if a customer is not satisfied they have to give the supplier the opportunity to put it right first, before claiming costs.

I also agree with the 'changing a tyre - replacing a broken engine' analogy. If the sub floor is bad and needs doing, fine, but they need to pay for that (your fitting of the floor didn't break it!) and then you can re-lay the floor.

Good luck.

 

[maxine]

1st - the lack of terms and detailed agreement in writing does your hubby no favours here

Geoff, It's not as simple as that. Most trades people will not be able to cover every single eventuality in detail in their quotes/proposals or even terms and conditions. They are not that specific. Goodness knows they would be pages and pages long otherwise and not make sense to anyone.

Solicitors refer to things such as pre-action protocol for construction and engineering disputes (might be worth a google)

To the OP, Was there a written quote and how clearly did this set out the work that he would do?

 

[sharonj]

Geoff, It's not as simple as that. Most trades people will not be able to cover every single eventuality in detail in their quotes/proposals or even terms and conditions. They are not that specific. Goodness knows they would be pages and pages long otherwise and not make sense to anyone.

Solicitors refer to things such as pre-action protocol for construction and engineering disputes (might be worth a google)

To the OP, Was there a written quote and how clearly did this set out the work that he would do?

There was no written quote, it was a verbal agreement based on his inspection of the size of the room and the product described to him. thanks

 

[sharonj]

Sharon,

I'm not au fait with the exact legal position you're in, though there has been good advice in this thread.

What I would do, however, is conduct any future correspondence with the customer in writing - then there is a paper trail if it goes to court. You can't prove what was said face to face or over the phone.

Do not admit liability. Make sure you emphasise that you have offered to put the floor itself right and point out in your letter that they have not given you that opportunity.

As has been said, if a customer is not satisfied they have to give the supplier the opportunity to put it right first, before claiming costs.

I also agree with the 'changing a tyre - replacing a broken engine' analogy. If the sub floor is bad and needs doing, fine, but they need to pay for that (your fitting of the floor didn't break it!) and then you can re-lay the floor.

Good luck.

Thanks very much for your advice. I have spoken to my husband and I think we will suggest to the customer that if they require the flooring to be levelled then they need to decide based on the quotes received from flooring specialists if the entire floor needs to be levelled or just in certain places. They should instruct a flooring specialist to carry this out at their own cost and then he will remove either the entire floor or just part based on the requirements of the levelling needed and then re lay it after being levelled. This seems fair to me.

 

[saxondale]

Er one point have the customers invited your husband to rectify the faults.

If he is willing to undertake the remedial work they have a duty to accept his offer.



Earl

they also have the right to have it put right at the O/P`s expense if the relationship has "broken down"



O/P it isn`t fair that true but it`s the way it is.

 

they also have the right to have it put right at the O/P`s expense if the relationship has "broken down"



O/P it isn`t fair that true but it`s the way it is.

relationship has nothing to do with it ,but the law has.

I mean what else would one expect B&Q's independant expert to say.

Earl

 

[Matt1959]

how much was the laminated floor materials that the customer supplied because if it were me, I'd consider supplying and fitting new flooring at my own expense with the customer paying someone else to sort the floor out to their satisfaction before you did the work

 

[saxondale]

relationship has nothing to do with it ,but the law has.

I mean what else would one expect B&Q's independant expert to say.

Earl

it is a legal term related to trading standards disputes ...........





.

 

it is a legal term related to trading standards





.

You mean "The ministry of inaction"

Earl

 

[Geoff T]

Geoff, It's not as simple as that. Most trades people will not be able to cover every single eventuality in detail in their quotes/proposals or even terms and conditions. They are not that specific. Goodness knows they would be pages and pages long otherwise and not make sense to anyone.

Solicitors refer to things such as pre-action protocol for construction and engineering disputes (might be worth a google)

To the OP, Was there a written quote and how clearly did this set out the work that he would do?

Maxine - I'm not talking about 'cover-all' t/c's here, but...

There was no written quote, it was a verbal agreement based on his inspection of the size of the room and the product described to him. thanks

You and I both know you can give yourself more cover under law - including contract, blah - than this apporach...

I'm not after a row with you - as I know you know your credit stuff - but c'mon! - another playing from both sides of the field entries Max...where's you head at?

OP - my position from previous post remains - if you'd like me to start chucking law your way, I'm happy to, but if you want me to dig out the law texts to give case histories - that'll cost you...

 

Bottom line is the clients bought crap flooring from B&Q and employed a cheap handyman rather that a pro flooring company to do the job.

And now trying to turn the lad over.

Anyone disagree.?

Earl

 

[Geoff T]

Bottom line is the clients bought crap flooring from B&Q and employed a cheap handyman rather that a pro flooring company to do the job.

And now trying to turn the lad over.

Anyone disagree.?

Earl

don't disagree at all - sucks don't it...

 

[sharonj]

don't disagree at all - sucks don't it...

Yes it really does!!

 

[maxine]

Geoff, I hear what you are saying and am trying to think of the best options for the OP to try and resolve this keeping bank balance and sanity intact.

I suppose what I was thinking of was the advice on here being all doom and gloom when actually it shouldn't be like that. A lot of traders will write off their debts or poo their pants at the first sign of a customer dispute when there are a lot of rogue customers about and they shouldn't have to worry too much.

I agree completely that it would have been much better for the quote to be given verbally and then followed up in writing or even a verbal quote with some standard terms and conditions made available at the time of quoting and I should imagine the OP will consider this in future. The contract they have now is still valid in terms of a) offer b) acceptance and c) consideration. The customers behaviour of wanting it done over a couple of days to me would suggest it supports the offer and acceptance of like for like floor replacement without any floor levelling, and I cannot imagine that most handyman services would offer specialist services (is this floor screeding? in which case the whole area would need to be done not just part of it).

Anyway... Sirearl is spot on with his summary of what has happened. Customer want floor done...gets quote from specialist flooring co's...too much money...gets advice from B&Q... then approaches handyman and thinks they have a bargain until things go wrong. They have tried to get the cost of the flooring back from B&Q but their independant person has said no, there was nothing wrong with it.

I think the confustion here is the wording of the letter from B&Q saying it was "the installers responsibility" which is perhaps a poor choice of words and I think the customer has just jumped on this as an opportunity to try and screw the handyman. The letter from B&Q should just have said the flooring was fit for purpose and not try to put blame anywhere else without knowing the basis of the contract between customer and fitter.

In a nutshell now I would suggest a strongly worded letter back to the customer saying the contract was to remove old flooring and fit new flooring without the requirement to survey the area otherwise this would have been referred to a flooring specialist.

I did ask the OP what their objectives are now? Get paid for work done? Avoid customers claims for damages? both?

My preference would be a strongly worded letter from a solicitor so that hopefully this nips the problem in the bud now, but this depends on cost and for a £300 job, it probably isn't worth spending that sort of money initially but that depends on the amount of the claim from the customer.

 

[Mpg]

Isn't the simplest way to sort this for the OP to go back to B&Q and re buy all the materials previously supplied and then take up the damaged floor. and let the customer start all over again with another firm.

Just putting it back to pretty much its original state.

And walking away.

 

[saxondale]

Isn't the simplest way to sort this for the OP to go back to B&Q and re buy all the materials previously supplied and then take up the damaged floor. and let the customer start all over again with another firm.

Just putting it back to pretty much its original state.

And walking away.

problem is it`s too late for that - this is the ying to the "we can make loads of money been cheap" yang thats too prevelant nowadays.

 

[sharonj]

Geoff, I hear what you are saying and am trying to think of the best options for the OP to try and resolve this keeping bank balance and sanity intact.

I suppose what I was thinking of was the advice on here being all doom and gloom when actually it shouldn't be like that. A lot of traders will write off their debts or poo their pants at the first sign of a customer dispute when there are a lot of rogue customers about and they shouldn't have to worry too much.

I agree completely that it would have been much better for the quote to be given verbally and then followed up in writing or even a verbal quote with some standard terms and conditions made available at the time of quoting and I should imagine the OP will consider this in future. The contract they have now is still valid in terms of a) offer b) acceptance and c) consideration. The customers behaviour of wanting it done over a couple of days to me would suggest it supports the offer and acceptance of like for like floor replacement without any floor levelling, and I cannot imagine that most handyman services would offer specialist services (is this floor screeding? in which case the whole area would need to be done not just part of it).

Anyway... Sirearl is spot on with his summary of what has happened. Customer want floor done...gets quote from specialist flooring co's...too much money...gets advice from B&Q... then approaches handyman and thinks they have a bargain until things go wrong. They have tried to get the cost of the flooring back from B&Q but their independant person has said no, there was nothing wrong with it.

I think the confustion here is the wording of the letter from B&Q saying it was "the installers responsibility" which is perhaps a poor choice of words and I think the customer has just jumped on this as an opportunity to try and screw the handyman. The letter from B&Q should just have said the flooring was fit for purpose and not try to put blame anywhere else without knowing the basis of the contract between customer and fitter.

In a nutshell now I would suggest a strongly worded letter back to the customer saying the contract was to remove old flooring and fit new flooring without the requirement to survey the area otherwise this would have been referred to a flooring specialist.

I did ask the OP what their objectives are now? Get paid for work done? Avoid customers claims for damages? both?

My preference would be a strongly worded letter from a solicitor so that hopefully this nips the problem in the bud now, but this depends on cost and for a £300 job, it probably isn't worth spending that sort of money initially but that depends on the amount of the claim from the customer.

Thank you, I agree that the customer has tried to do it on the cheap and now are trying to blame my husband for work that he was never responsible for. I also agree that B&Q's inspectors report should never have stated that it is the installers responsibility to check the sub floor, this, I feel would depend entirely on the contract agreed at the time and I don't think this is a comment that is legally true. As for what we hope to get out of this situation, we would like to be paid for the initial work but if this is not the case we feel it is not our responsibility to pay for a flooring specialist but have today sent a letter detailing our position advising that we feel a like for like tradesman should be used to take up and install the flooring. We have also advise the customer that we will be be held liable for any costs to sreed and level the floor or lay a damp proof membrane as we have been advised by our legal advice line that these would be improvements as they were not agreed when the contract was verbally agreed. We have also today sent a without prejudice letter advising that my husband would return and remove the flooring and then if they want to have the floor re levelled and a damp proof membrane laid, this should be entirely at their cost. He will then return once this has been done to lay the floor. We have also asked that on completion we would expect to be paid.

As for the comment advising that we should buy them completely new flooring, if you could see the flooring you would realise that there is hardly anything wrong with the slats themselves, they have merely pulled apart where the surface underneath is uneven. Why should we pay out a further £500-600 when we are still to receive £350, all for a problem that we admit no liability to as we are not at fault.

Thank you all for your comments, I will advise if and when there is any sort of amicable or otherwise outcome.

 

[Mpg]

As for the comment advising that we should buy them completely new flooring, if you could see the flooring you would realise that there is hardly anything wrong with the slats themselves, they have merely pulled apart where the surface underneath is uneven. Why should we pay out a further £500-600 when we are still to receive £350, all for a problem that we admit no liability to as we are not at fault.

Thank you all for your comments, I will advise if and when there is any sort of amicable or otherwise outcome.

My reasoning being that £500-£600 is a lot cheaper that the £2500 that the customer wants you to pay. And from the way the court may see it(if it goes that far) your husband as the profesional floor fitter (if he is being paid for fitting a floor then he is claiming he is a profesional) took on a job that he did not have the relevent expertise.

Somewhat like the bricky who builds an extension that falls down.

 

[Jenni384]

I do see the point of this. However:

Please quote for fitting the floor: £300
Please quote for fitting the floor and doing the sub floor: £2500

Had he done the sub floor, the quote would not have been £300, it would have been £2500, or given to someone else.

I realise the sticking point is that he 'should have known' to check the sub floor.

However to ask him to do a £2.5k job for £300 is outrageous.

 

[Mpg]

I do see the point of this. However:

Please quote for fitting the floor: £300
Please quote for fitting the floor and doing the sub floor: £2500

Had he done the sub floor, the quote would not have been £300, it would have been £2500, or given to someone else.

I realise the sticking point is that he 'should have known' to check the sub floor.

However to ask him to do a £2.5k job for £300 is outrageous.

No your right asking him to do more work than quoted will result in more cost. or he wouldnt have taken the job on. So reverting the floor back to its original state. Should mean no one loses out. Well no-one but the cheeky customer who is trying to get a free job done.

If the new floor can be removed without damaging it and reused then removal may be the cheapest option for the OP.

 

[saxondale]

However to ask him to do a £2.5k job for £300 is outrageous.

but it never was a £300 job - do you see?

 

don't disagree at all - sucks don't it...

I think there comes a point in dispute resolution when it may be best to hand the case over to a PR company who may offer the client a sandwich not available in M & S to resolve the issue.

Earl

 

[sharonj]

Thank you, I agree that the customer has tried to do it on the cheap and now are trying to blame my husband for work that he was never responsible for. I also agree that B&Q's inspectors report should never have stated that it is the installers responsibility to check the sub floor, this, I feel would depend entirely on the contract agreed at the time and I don't think this is a comment that is legally true. As for what we hope to get out of this situation, we would like to be paid for the initial work but if this is not the case we feel it is not our responsibility to pay for a flooring specialist but have today sent a letter detailing our position advising that we feel a like for like tradesman should be used to take up and install the flooring. We have also advise the customer that we will be be held liable for any costs to sreed and level the floor or lay a damp proof membrane as we have been advised by our legal advice line that these would be improvements as they were not agreed when the contract was verbally agreed. We have also today sent a without prejudice letter advising that my husband would return and remove the flooring and then if they want to have the floor re levelled and a damp proof membrane laid, this should be entirely at their cost. He will then return once this has been done to lay the floor. We have also asked that on completion we would expect to be paid.

As for the comment advising that we should buy them completely new flooring, if you could see the flooring you would realise that there is hardly anything wrong with the slats themselves, they have merely pulled apart where the surface underneath is uneven. Why should we pay out a further £500-600 when we are still to receive £350, all for a problem that we admit no liability to as we are not at fault.

Thank you all for your comments, I will advise if and when there is any sort of amicable or otherwise outcome.

I have just re read my post and realised that I have missed out a very important word, we have today contacted the customer and stated that we WILL NOT be held responsible for the screed and levelling of the floor and we have not in any way admitted any liability as we believe we are not at fault. We await their response.

 

[saxondale]

we have not in any way admitted any liability as we believe we are not at fault. We await their response.

your just not listening - I`m out.

 

[sharonj]

your just not listening - I`m out.

I can still listen to an opinion as everyone is entitled to one of those, whether I chose to agree is entirely a different matter.

Thanks for your input Duncan Bannatyne

 

[logicfusion]

I have just re read my post and realised that I have missed out a very important word, we have today contacted the customer and stated that we WILL NOT be held responsible for the screed and levelling of the floor and we have not in any way admitted any liability as we believe we are not at fault. We await their response.

Hi

I assume the customer was a 'consumer'. Telling the customer that you 'will not be held responible for the screed and levelling', isn't going to help at this point I fear.

As far as the law is concerned, your husband agreed that he would carry out the work with 'reasonable care and skill' (implied term in consumer contract - so he doesn't have to actually say it).

I think a 'reasonable' person would agree that part of a trade person's responsibility would be to advise on whether a floor was unlevel. At the
end of the day, thats what a district judge would ask themselves.

You can't put in terms that would detract from the 'reasonable care and skill' element. That would be unlawful.

Do you have any legal protection cover. I suspect this will be an exercise in damage limitation for yourselves.

I do hope it works out well for you. Perhaps its worth getting some quotation stationary and T&C's drawn up for future jobs.

Please let us know if you are advised differently from a solicitor. This is just my interpretation on the law.

Cheers

Al

 

[sherco]

How long had the flooring been in the house before you laid it? was it still wrapped up in plastic...Timber floors need to be removed from plastic and be kept at room temperature for around 5 days before fixing, also the heating should be turned up gradually to stop gaps opening up in the flooring.

 

[spykie]

On reading this thread, it just saddens me of some the pedantic (but well meaning and I am sure totally professional) comments and questions proferred to the OP. Basically the customer is trying to shaft her husband and has probably been led on by the 'litigation society' thet we now live in. Common sense no longer prevails and you have to pay for a less satifactory conclusion.
Some years ago, I put up some wall-paper for somebody for £50 one a verbal agreement (with no Terms & Conditons). The wall sagged but luckily she went after British Coal, rather than myself, for not addressing the subsidance issue.
I feel for the OP and hope her husband's customer does not top it all with fall over flooring and claim trick (that has probably planted a seed in one or two of the more solicitous minds).

I am Sorry that can give you no advice but good luck OP!



Disclaimer: I apologise if I have misadvertently offended anyone and for any spelling & grammer mistakes which usually wind people up.