- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,440
- Reaction score
- 2,139
- Country
does
B&Q Kitchen Fitting Problems - Next Course Of Action?
- Thread starter nbellyjnr
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 8,889
- Reaction score
- 674
- Country
Maybe to you, but I'm surprised he hasn't yet asked for a complete refit .
it sounds an appalling supply and fit that is not fit for purpose
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,440
- Reaction score
- 2,139
- Country
It's not a matter of opinion. see sec 23.
www.legislation.gov.uk
OP has had £1,500 partial compensation. Has something like £500-£1000 making good.
Kitchen rip and refit is at least £5k+
and the argument is "not of satisfactory quality" nothing to do with fit for purpose. The argument about the services element is failure to take reasonable skill and care.
This is not a faulty washing machine. It's a fitted kitchen to a bespoke design. Goods + services.
Consumer Rights Act 2015
OP has had £1,500 partial compensation. Has something like £500-£1000 making good.
Kitchen rip and refit is at least £5k+
and the argument is "not of satisfactory quality" nothing to do with fit for purpose. The argument about the services element is failure to take reasonable skill and care.
This is not a faulty washing machine. It's a fitted kitchen to a bespoke design. Goods + services.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 8,889
- Reaction score
- 674
- Country
And not fitted to that design.
If it has issues such as the hob, and is impractical for Use for such a long time.
It is, not fit for purpose.
If it has issues such as the hob, and is impractical for Use for such a long time.
It is, not fit for purpose.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,440
- Reaction score
- 2,139
- Country
Why don't you read the whole thing. You suggested rejection wasn't disproportionate, then you suggest a full refit. You're getting all the different sections confused.
Once you've had a read, ask yourself - what is the basis for the rejection within the terms of the act and how is this not disproportionate to a remedy of fixing the issues?
Once you've had a read, ask yourself - what is the basis for the rejection within the terms of the act and how is this not disproportionate to a remedy of fixing the issues?
Copper. I fixed half the creaks and groans myself, caused by things like pipework butting up against holes drilled in the floorboards.
There shouldn't be this much faffing about for the consumer. It's a sh1te job, it should be ripped out and redone at the retailers/installers expense.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 8,889
- Reaction score
- 674
- Country
you do not have to allow repeated attempts to rectify.
It sounds like it's at the stage for a full refit. It's not fit for its purpose as it is.
The OP sounds very patient.
Our original job is pants, however let us try to make things good by patching it up here and there. We're confident you'll still feel great about dolling out thousands of pounds for that 'new kitchen' experience.
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2023
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
It’s been an awful experience. But thanks for the kind words. The kitchen looks better now but it is still riddled with issues.
My fear has been not allowing them back out, taking it to court/ombudsman and then saying we’ve not given them reasonable opportunity to remedy it.
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2023
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
We had asked repeatedly for a full refit. They sent an assessor up from Newcastle who said that wouldn’t be required. In other words, they refused.
Another fitter attended but we subsequently discovered issues with the initial fit.
It should be law with the big players, whether worked subbed out or not, that anything less than minor snags isn't acceptable and the customer should, if they so desire (cause some might not), be granted a full refit at supplier/contractor expense.
Maybe it would force them to ensure either they and/or their sub-contractors pulled their socks up.
Maybe it would force them to ensure either they and/or their sub-contractors pulled their socks up.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 14,440
- Reaction score
- 2,139
- Country
The situation would have been different had there not been a partial refund. Because of this it was in the OPs interest to break the issues apart and treat the new issues as separate from those triggering the compensation. With each new issue, you need to demonstrate that you've allowed the supplier the opportunity to fix. Fail to do that and you risk your claim. The value of the claim can only ever be the cost to complete the contract. This is why it's always better to reduce the value of your claim, by allowing the rework. At the very least it reduces your court fees.
You're presuming no customers are awkward and/or vexatious bellends.
Almost irrelevant, sh1t workmanship is sh1t workmanship. If it's possibly caused by something the customer's requested e.g. last minute changes, standing over the workmen/women while they work, this should be documented by the installation team.
- Status
Sponsored Links
