Help please - who is liable?

clairol · Post by **clairol** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:00 pm

similar shape, but totally wrong for the enclosure with the door in an inaccessible place. wouldnt the plumber be insured?

clairol · Post by **clairol** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:00 pm

similar shape, but totally wrong for the enclosure with the door in an inaccessible place. wouldnt the plumber be insured?

skiking · Post by **skiking** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:03 pm

Sid - I just copy/pasted your words (out of context) as they were the closest and summed up some other comments hence why I put the comment about it wasn't directed at you

I've got no idea legally who should be responsible but morally I think the plumber needs to take some of the cost as he should have checked what he's working with. However, £700 is alot. As a customer I would be gutted and angry that I was presented with an extra cost and by so much.

I don't think the supplier would be liable, genuine mistake that is easily rectified if someone had checked rather than assumed - a lesson for us all a dear one for clairol

panlid · Post by **panlid** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:10 pm

no worries ski

clairol insurance wont have anything to do with it.
i honestly think it is going to be as case of how scary your plumber is

clairol · Post by **clairol** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:15 pm

The plumber has offered to give me an invoice and suggested I ask Roman to pay for the mistake. Roman have already said they think it is the plumbers fault for not checking before installing. Round we go!

Hinton Heating · Post by **Hinton Heating** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:21 pm

I think the plumber assumed it was the correct one too.

all 3 parties have made a mistake, whose is the biggest is debatable, but I don't think can be blamed on one party individually.

Roman make a mistake by not recognising their own product, or labelling, before dispatching it.

The customer didn't check the item they ordered upon receipt.

The plumber didn't check that it all fits together before installing.

wood4fun · Post by **wood4fun** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:57 pm

well the supplier was wrong and the plumber didn't check before fitting and you the customer didn't check the good they delivered. supplier will not take any blame. so it is between you and the plumber. he should have check that the tray and enclosure fit together and you should have check to. so it is between you two to come to an agreement.
i would say the plumber has bigger part to play not checking.

as panlid said use joiners check that the window fits before removing the old one

owen · Post by **owen** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:02 pm

panlid wrote: some are implying that if you ordered the stuff yourself to save money then you deserve it.

i don't necessarily think the customer "deserved" it, it's just from my experience whenever a customer wants to supply stuff for me to fit, i frequently have problems - wrong items, wrong quantities, incomplete deliveries, damaged items that they expect me to take back and replace, etc etc. Like i say, just my experience.

Whilst i do think the customer is mainly responsible the plumber must still take some responsibility, on that basis i would discuss with him a reduction of his invoice to reflect this. e.g. if i was in the plumber's position i would be prepared to knock off £200-£300 in an attempt to maintain reasonable relations with the customer. clairol, would you accept an offer like this?

Certainly don't bother going to court over it, it will cost you a fortune and cause a lot of stress.

panlid · Post by **panlid** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:20 pm

i am starting a bathroom, ensuite and kitchen job on wednesday. i measured everything up and gave them a specific list of what to get, i am supplying the kitchen only. all the bathroom stuff and tiles they are supplying. they have contacted me when they have found what they want to ok it with me. on wednesday i will spend a couple of hours getting it all out in the garage. the places i asked them to get the stuff from will supply anything in a couple of days, most things next day.
i also make sure they know that i am not going to be running around exchanging stuff, they will have to do that. i understand fully that some companies sell themselves as the full package ie, supplying and fitting as alot of people dont want the mither and would rather pick out of a catalogue (that in itself can create another set of problems we can talk about another time).
just fitted another bnq kitchen that worked like this. they did all the running around to exchange stuff. if you supply it all yourself you are liable for the mither. again i understand that mark up compensates for this. as shown in this case, you may order the right stuff but the shop can make a mistake so my point is that it doesnt matter who supplies the stuff.
i agree with your last point about a comprimise. but like i said, it depends on how much the plumber is having nowt to do with it.

tim'll fix it · Post by **tim'll fix it** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:29 pm

clairol wrote:The plumber has offered to give me an invoice and suggested I ask Roman to pay for the mistake. Roman have already said they think it is the plumbers fault for not checking before installing. Round we go!

of course roman will say that they dont want to pay

Scrit · Post by **Scrit** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:26 pm

I think the issue of liability boils down not so much to "duty of care" and more to "responsible person". If, as seems likely, the plumber was employed on a "time and materials" basis and the major items were supplied by the customer then it would surely be the responsibility of the "project manager", i.e. the customer in this instance, to ensure that the correct materials were supplied. On the one hand it might be argued that the plumber was being employed as a "consulting professional", however in that case it would probably need to be demonstrated that the plumber was being paid a premium specifically to check the work of the "project manager" in lieu of the margin the plumber would normally earn on goods he supplied (either that or that the contract would need to specify that such checks were to be made). As far as I am aware contract Law does not give any safeguards in the case of oversights by omission.

The problem is simply that someone decided to save money by running the job themselves when they were not technically competent to do this and they then expected another person who was not being specifically contracted or paid to do so to oversee their work. The fault therefore rests fairly and squarely in the lap of the customer unless they can show that either the supplier specified or supplied the wrong product (in which case the supplier mught be deemed liable) or the incorrect items were actually specified by the plumber (in which case he might be deemed liable), even there the fact that the customer was managing the project would be regarded by a court as an indicatoer of partial responsibility. I'm afraid it would take a court case to sort out, but why should the tradesman be financially penalised for project control decisions which someone else had decided they would be responsible for.

The moral should perhaps be that if you manage the project - you carry the can.

Scrit

panlid · Post by **panlid** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:36 pm

what would be the argument if it was tile adhesive. say my customer supplies tiles and adhesive for a bathroom. i then fit the tiles with the adhesive even though it is the wrong adhesive. surely the tradesmen has a duty to inform the client it is the wrong stuff. who would be liable it the tiles fell off?
i have just fitted some oak worktops. the customer supplied no oil to seal the worktops before i fitted. i went out of my way to get some oil so i could seal under neath before i fitted. if i didnt and only did the top after it was fitted, would i be to blame if the worktop warped and cracked?
i think if it happened and i said tough you didnt supply any oil would make me look like a right burk.
therefore i think even if the customer is supplying the stuff you still have a responsibility to supply knowledge as well as any skills.

panlid · Post by **panlid** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:38 pm

also meant to say that if the tray was the right size, did all the tiles have to come off? couldnt you have just removed the bottom row?
and if not why?

Scrit · Post by **Scrit** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:14 am

panlid wrote:Say my customer supplies tiles and adhesive for a bathroom. I then fit the tiles with the adhesive even though it is the wrong adhesive. Surely the tradesmen has a duty to inform the client it is the wrong stuff. Who would be liable it the tiles fell off?

If you informed the client and they still said continue, they would. If you informed tham and they said "come back tomorrow", they would be liable to compensate you for loss of income. However if you didn't tell them then it would probably take a court to decide who was liable and if you were being incompetent, however there is no "duty of care" (which is, in any case more properly taken to mean a safety responsibility). The issue of telling the customer is more a case of ensuring that you cannot be deemed liable rather than one of responsibility, surely? In other words it's good PR

panlid wrote:I think even if the customer is supplying the stuff you still have a responsibility to supply knowledge as well as any skills.

But the extent to which that applies depends on the individual agreement (and a verbal agreement is still a contract in Law) - a bloody good reason to actually have a short form contract and have a Schedule of Works signed off before commencing a job

What you say and what a court might decide aren't the same, though. Apportioning responsibility (and liability) is one of the reasons companies write contracts. If the customer orders and pays for the materials, gives specific instructions about the installation of same, etc whilst you might be able to give advice that's all it would be. Advice.

If you are doing a kitchen worktop and door replacement job and you pull out the old worktop to find bare exposed wiring running horizontally along the wall in a manner which is dangerous. Do you have to take any corrective action, and if so who is liable? The answer should lie in a contract under "Unforseen Circumstances". The Law is quite specific - you have a "Duty of Care" not to permit a dangerous installation, but normally are under no contractual obligation to correct the problem. In reality most customers simply demand that you put it right at no cost to themselves - which is neither "fair and equitable" nor (in most cases) legally enforceable

In the case of the OP I'm still saying that the client chose to manage the job and that a court would probably be find in favour of the plumber either 100% or certainly at least 50%

Scrit

carhartt kid · Post by **carhartt kid** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:54 am

Blah blah blah blah???????

Send the invoice from the Plumber to Roman and wash your hands of the matter.

The plumber shouldn't have been fitting it blindly expecting it to be right. Even if he supplied it he should have checked it? You ordered the right stuff. Thats your job done....and done right!!! Roman sent the wrong tray. Not your fault? You're not an expert! The Plumber is!!!!!!! He should have checked it, then checked it again. Christ, it's just grown up lego. Bits fit together and other bits don't. It's not rocket science!!!!!