Legal Advice - Please

[caveman2]

My friend had a whole bathroom re-fit by a contractor that was had a property maintenance company ie. not a dedicated bathroom fitter. He priced up the job, made a few visits but the bulk of the work was done by his two employees.
They stripped the bathroom back to the brickwork, replastered, fitted sanitary ware and tiled. The shower unit was fitted to the hall adjacent wall with a false (stud) wall to house the pipework etc.
A month later he found water dripping in his kitchen and reported it to the contractor. He duly turned up and agreed there was a leak, had fiddle around and said he could not identify where it had come from but seemed to be OK now.
It is my belief that he stuck his hand in the stud cavity and homed one of the plastic pipes into it's compression and thought that it was cured.
The leak has since returned and the contractor has turned a deaf ear and doesn't answer the phone now.
What is the legal position for my friend. I suggested he gets a bona-fide plumber to put everything right, but. Ultimately it will cost the repair, re-tile, and possibly new floor as well.
Can a small claims court deal with such cases or is there another answer.
I know you will say he should of had a pukka plumber/fitter in the first place but saw the opportunity to save a few bob and it now lumbered. What advice can you give please.

 

[FiremanT]

Are there receipts etc. available? Your friend is cleary entitled to satisfactory repairs, and, yes it is claimable through the SC court (subject limits). Actually GETTING the dough is something else, though.

 

[caveman2]

Yes there is a final receipt for the work done and money received. Would it be bad practice for the bona-fide plumber who did the repair to write a letter or include on the receipt that he attended to a problem left by another contractor - like an affidavit, that can be used for the claim.
Sorry if this is a taboo topic on this forum. I have had help here before and don't want to tread on anyones toes. Just tell me to ask elsewhere, thanks.

 

[FiremanT]

Yes there is a final receipt for the work done and money received. Would it be bad practice for the bona-fide plumber who did the repair to write a letter or include on the receipt that he attended to a problem left by another contractor - like an affidavit, that can be used for the claim.

To go down this route, you will need to get a report, with photo evidence, for which you will pay, and present this BEFORE any evidence is destroyed. Otherwise the credilbility of the new plumber,if questioned in court, could not be verified.

Send any attempts to contact the plumber by recorded post

 

[ALEC1]

thats why you have insurance..

 

[Agile]

You are asking all this for a friend!

The usual thing is to ask the installer to correct the leak.

You on the other hand think massive legal bills out of all proportion to the problem are a good idea!

I have little sympathy for people who engage third rate plumbers at a third rate price but still expect a first rate job!

They get what they pay for!

 

[caveman2]

You are asking all this for a friend!

The usual thing is to ask the installer to correct the leak.

You on the other hand think massive legal bills out of all proportion to the problem are a good idea!

I have little sympathy for people who engage third rate plumbers at a third rate price but still expect a first rate job!

They get what they pay for!

I am asking these questions for a friend as I am computer literate, he's not.
"The leak has since returned and the contractor has turned a deaf ear and doesn't answer the phone now" - mentioned in 1st. post.
Massive legal bills are not being sought, just the bathroom being usable.
I take your point on third rate plumbers. He paid the guy £3K labour only saving a thousand. He was recommended this guy by a neighbour he trusted.
Lesson learnt - always use bona-fide trademen.
You did not have to be so brash.

 

[caveman2]

thats why you have insurance..

Woul the insurance pay out damages on a bathroom refit, that had only been done a month. Would they not expect the job to be insured. I ask these questions from naivety not sarcasm. Interested to know the answer, itr may be the easier option.

 

[namsag]

Some may refuse claim due to bad workmanship.
As for the repair it would probably work out cheaper to take the ceiling down in the room below to gain access to leaking pipe than ripping all the bathroom out again.
Then if he wanted to he could not mention the bathroom being recently done and just tell insurance company a leak brought ceiling down .

 

[Agile]

Then if he wanted to he could not mention the bathroom being recently done and just tell insurance company a leak brought ceiling down .

Well that would be a fraudulent claim!

All the owner neds to do is contact the plumber by letter giving him say seven days to attend to correct the problem saying that if he does not then he will engage someone else to correct it and will look to reclaim the cost from the original plumber!

 

[SimonH2]

I have little sympathy for people who engage third rate plumbers at a third rate price but still expect a first rate job!

Ah, someone who thinks it's Ok for new plumbing to leak if it was done cheap

Regardless fo the price, the services must be fit for purpose - and leaking plumbing is not. As someone else has posted, the victim should write by recorded delivery a letter giving the original contractor a reasonable time to fix it. After that he can get someone else to fix it and ask for the cost back from the contractor. The SC court does not require "massive legal bills out of all proportion to the problem".

He should get a friend (probably the one posting this for him) to confirm that there is a leak, and ideally take photos if possible. Then get the plumber who fixes it to do a quick report on what was wrong.

 

[Agile]

Even cheaper plumbers should not install anything that leaks.

However, I would expect top notch plumbers to fit everything carefully and have virtually no leaks. In the rare event there was a leak then I would expect an immediate repair.

In contrast, using Joe Bloggs who lives on the council estate, doing a cheap job for cash because he is registered as unemployed you should never expect a very good job and dont be surprised if he disapears if there are any problems because he has no public liability insurance!

It was I who recommended writing to the contractor giving him seven days to correct the problems.

Tony