Is Plumber at Fault?

[expertgasman]

How much do you still owe? Come to think of it, why did he not get paid fully at the end of the job, before yu were aware of an issue?.

Anyway, if you feel you are right, and in the absence of the other sides argument, why not just deduct the £300 from the balance, and let HIM chase YOU, it will at least force him into justifyin g his (in)actions.

 

[Nige F]

Hi,

I found him on check a trade. I think is was originaly a tiler who has moved into the bathroom fitting trade.

Thanks

well he aint no plumber - I think I`ll start being a bathroom fitter, seeing as I know a good tiler+plasterer+carpenter

 

[Aquilani]

Ask him to deduct what he feels would be a fair contribution to the cost of the drain invoice. I know I would happily just pay it and learn from it, I wouldn't want to harm my reputation.

 

[bengasman]

The only thing you can do with realistic chance of success, is try to talk to the bloke with as much reason as you can muster, and see if he agrees to pay some of the bill.

The case is complex and extremely hard to prove in court, which means the likely costs to you are higher than any amount you can expect to be awarded.

 

[Agile]

The plumber is totally responsible for the blockage. ( If you dont agree then explain who else is and why! )

The drain co did not do a proper job requiring them to have to return. They should be asked for a rebate.

Both should be reasonable easy to prove in court. But in both cases the amounts concerned are too small to consider proceedings.

Tony

 

[bengasman]

The plumber is totally responsible for the blockage. ( If you dont agree then explain who else is and why! )

It matters not the slightest bit who you "know" is responsible; all that counts is what you can prove.

If the plumber were to claim that he warned the customer that the existing bit did not look like the waste was done properly in the first place ( which is a very credible claim these days ) you'd have a bloody hard job convincing the magistrate otherwise.

Then there is the matter that the plumber did not get 3 chances to remedy the fault, which is a legal requirement.

 

[Norcon]

If the plumber were to claim that he warned the customer that the existing bit did not look like the waste was done properly in the first place

But if it wasn't leaking or causing a blockage then its his word against his customers word.
The problem existed after this guy did his work and the drain company would verify the bath drain was shoved across the diameter of the soil pipe.
It didn't get shoved all by itself. Someone did it. (ie the guy changing the bath)
I think the OP was not insistent enough in the beginning regarding his plumber (if you can call him that) rectifying the problem and he knows it.

 

[bengasman]

But if it wasn't leaking or causing a blockage then its his word against his customers word.

1. Exactly my point; as we are innocent until proven guilty in this country, that would leave the plumber innocent.

2. You'd have a bit of a problem proving there was no problem before in the first place.

 

[HERTS P&D]

The drain co did not do a proper job requiring them to have to return. They should be asked for a rebate.quote]

When we are asked to clear a drain, thats what we do, we might advise that they have a CCTV done to see what the problem is, but 99% of the time the customer refuses due to an extra cost.

When the OP's drain blocked up again the blockage was cleared with a CCTV to see what was wrong.

You can't blame the Drainage Co. on this one.

Down to the OP as he didn't want to pay for the CCTV first time around.

I went to a blocked drain last night and cleared. I explained to the customer that he needed a CCTV due to there being a partial collapse in his drain line, he said 'NO, its clear now' he didn't want to pay anymore money, even though it has blocked 3 times in the last year.


Andy

 

[Norcon]

2. You'd have a bit of a problem proving there was no problem before in the first place.

I would have thought a Judge would accept the home owners account on having a working flushing toilet before a bathroom changer with dubious qualifications was let loose in his home.

He's a cowboy/rogue in any case if he wants to swear lies in a court of law against his customer over a paltry £300 quid.
This is a case where you accept blame, pay the customer his money and move on imo.

 

[bengasman]

I would have thought a Judge would accept the home owners account on having a working flushing toilet

That would be a conviction based entirely on hearsay. That would be an interesting world: "I find the defendent guilty because the plaintiff says he is." There is no proof that the toilet was working properly other than the op saying so.

before a bathroom changer with dubious qualifications was let loose in his home.

That is a complete assumption; he could be an ee that doesn't know a waste pipe from a gaspipe, or a fully qualified installer.

He's a cowboy/rogue in any case if he wants to swear lies in a court of law against his customer over a paltry £300 quid.
This is a case where you accept blame, pay the customer his money and move on imo.

You are now assuming that the op is both accurate and honest, which is no more proven than the plumber being honest. What we do know, is that he is too tight to accept the expert's advice of using cctv at the first visit, which caused an unnecessary second visit.

We don't know that the op is honest, nor that his conclusions are accurate. In fact, we know nothing about the op, his bathroom, or the plumber, or the drainage company.

 

[Norcon]

What we do know, is that he is too tight to accept the expert's advice of using cctv at the first visit, which caused an unnecessary second visit.

How do you know this?
Can you prove it?

 

[croydoncorgi]

I found him on check a trade

Another strong argument for 'Being Careful What You Wish For'.
ANY 'filtering' service like this (and there are many, all competing in similar 'marketplaces') can only do so much 'checking'. If you believe otherwise, you're delusional. They couldn't afford to do it and if they did, too many people would fail the checks and tests, and they'd never make any money at all! Their objective is to make money, usually from trades AND customers.

Quite apart from that, very few of them have any intention of delivering any 'quality' at all. Some are no better than a scam.

Be warned!

 

[bengasman]

ANY 'filtering' service like this (and there are many, all competing in similar 'marketplaces') can only do so much 'checking'. If you believe otherwise, you're delusional.

Very true. Most of these "services" are effectively no more than advertising agencies, and their first and most important issue is: are you willing to pay us our fee?
The government non-profit initiative is equally useless as their main criteria are: does the trader comply with the absolute minimum legal requirement, and if so, can he prove to have paid his tax over the past few years?

The best way of finding any kind of tradesman is still the recommendatin of people that have used him.

 

[croydoncorgi]

It's easy, with 20/20 hindsight, to see how this happened.

IMHO, EVERYONE is at fault to some extent:

- the fitter, for not marking the pipe before he pushed it into the push-fit, AND for not recognising the symptoms in front of his nose! With the connections arranged as shown and (presumably) the bath and everything below it on the drain-run NOT blocked, he should have spotted it straight away. Or at least, re-engaged and started pulling the things he'd fitted apart.

- the drain-clearers, for not recognising WHERE the blockage was, and therefore what could have happened (assuming they were told that the bath had just been fitted). Instead of suggesting EXTRA chargeable 'services', they should have got on and removed the blockage! If you've got a bath that empties and a WC, connected immediately above it, that doesn't, you're foolish to ignore clear evidence of WHERE it is blocked. They should then have disconnected the bath waste and the cause would have been obvious.

- the homeowner, for not explaining to the fitter after the first blockage that there would be a World of Pain for everyone involved (ie. at that stage, the two of them!) if the fitter failed to re-engage with the problem and correct his faulty work.

Best plan at this late stage is to point out that it's pointless everyone standing around wasting even more time and money arguing about it. Drain-clearers should get paid for ONE visit onlyand take any other of their costs on the chin (for not being competent drain-clearers!). All other costs should be on the bath fitter.