Consumer legislation requires that work is carried out with reasonable skill and care, and for a reasonable price. This installer wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you got litigious, but to get your money back you'd have to appear in court and explain how you came to act so irresponsibly yourself.
Exactly as you stated apart from one thing, how can a customer argue that any work is "wrong" if they have chosen not to do it themselves and called in/paid for a proffesional qualified service?
I take your point, and I'll answer in the context of this topic:
This customer must have found out that the workmanship is bad, or he/she wouldn't be posting here. We don't know whether this arose intuitively, or as a result of a third party being shocked by the standard of the work.
Customers pay for our time.
In conjuction with that they also pay for our knowledge, skill and experience. I don't know about you but if i tell a customer something then they believe it to be true on a basis of trust.
Indeed so, and that trust is something that I've persistently reasoned is best obtained before work starts, during the process of finding a contractor. I'm not saying it's easy, but the easy way hasn't worked for this customer.
Admittedly this has been taken for a ride in this case but the finished article can always look and work better than first thought, from an OP poinnt of view
In general I agree that, at one end of the spectrum, a naive and trusting customer would not know any better. However, my points are:
1. In general, the goal should be to eradicate the naive and trusting scenario.
2.
This customer is not wholly naive, or wouldn't have posted here.
...which brings me on to:
Clearly you're a rogue customer - the root cause of the proliferation of poor quality contractors. Nobody with an ounce of sense and pride in their own property would have let those installers back in after one day of work.
Why would a customer pull contracters up on the first day?
Same as previous point. A naive customer would not, but this customer has, too late, found reason to. It would have better to do the same thing, but a lot earlier.
As i said the end result is almost always prettier than the start. Yes, questions could of been raised but why start issues when, in the OP's eyes, there isn't one? He has paid to have an end result, how it gets there is not of consequence to him.
You say that it's not of consequence to him, but I disagree.
Since the outcome is of consequence, then there needs to be a method of prevention of the problems occurring, or early detection of them.
If you want to raise that arguement then do all old people with dementia need p*ss poor work that may not be needed purely because they were told to even though they need it and then failed to mentionthat the work wasn't up to current regulations and they felt that it was shoddy?
The elderly and infirm need protection in all manner of things, and I think that's outside the scope of this topic.
You should treat the £4,000 you've paid as a tax on the incurably stupid. The only saving grace is that you kept those contractors away from everyone else for a few days.
Ignorance is not a crime and if you valued your trade then you would not even play devils advocate to condone this.
We're probably straying into a semantic argument, but there is abundant publicly available help and information to alert, assist and inform the otherwise ignorant.
It's the very 'pride of trade', and concern for the nation's prosperity, that leads me to be annoyed that customers continue to let rogue traders carry on trading.
I understand that you like to ruffle feathers and in all honesty i do to but this is not a case of a diy'er trying to fix something.
Hard earned cash has been spent on this install and the end result is shocking.
Your response to this is embarrasing for both myself and other engineers that take pride in their work and value customers that we service.
Softus, i'm not angry, just very very disappointed!!
I'm pleased by your post - it's well thought out and clearly stated.
I reiterate my annoyance at this customer, who's a perfect example of someone whom I believe to be
not naive, and who could have prevented this outcome.
My advice on this site over the years, regarding getting quotes and finding contractors, has been 100% unwavering. It is that people should consult family, friends, neighbours and colleagues to find a contractor who is already trusted by someone that they themselves already trust. There is therefore a chain of trust.
Where this is not possible, then the contractor engaged should not be trusted, and where this is the case, a review of quality should be obtained soon after work begins, to limit the scope for expense and remedial work.
To the OP please keep us informed of how the situation pans out as this is not a reflection of the majority of engineers.
That won't achieve anything.
The OP got what was wanted - a review of quality. He/she can now, with subject to the stamina, determination, mental energy for it, recover the money, but it will involve some professional legal advice, and the willingness to appear in court if it came down to that.
