Unnecessary damage caused by plumber in search of leak

[hazetimesfive]

He was no plumber. Complete bodge artist. Clueless Tw*t.

thats pretty much what you think of all of us.

 

[bolshy]

I called a plumber following a nasty leak in my kitchen. The plumber arrived and punched through a large hole where the leak was showing to find no sign of a leak. All I had to do was turn off the water, empty the pipes and turn the water back on again and sure enough, water came flying out of one of the push fittings which sat over the very first hole

Read the thread Johnmelad, before making incorrect statements. The OP said there was NO leak until the water was turned off and then back on. Perhaps it was a bit rash on my part, but from that I reached the conclusion that the water must have been ON in the first place.
Before the OP tried this, the plumber had been sent away.

Pipework and unions seen not to be leaking with the water ON generally don't fall into the "leaking" category. The professionals here know water can trickle through the ceiling 20 feet away from a leak site because they've seen it.
There's really nothing else to say.

Apart from Onetap's observation is spot on.

 

[Dan Robinson]

Christ - we have Joe90 and JML tag teaming us with bullpoop, along with an OP that thinks because when lacks a y chromosome it gives her the right to claim she is being fleeced.

Why didn't her "engineer" father chip in at the start? Or is he yet another one of these "engineers" that pop up on here with frequent abandon that can apparently build a jet plane with their eyes closed, but fail to grasp common sense?

The whole thread reeks of BS and mis-direction. The less said about J90's idea of professionalism the better.

 

[joe-90]

So how would you have dealt with it then Danno?

 

[Johnmelad]

I called a plumber following a nasty leak in my kitchen.

So from that you conclude that there was no leak?

Read the thread Johnmelad, before making incorrect statements. The OP said there was NO leak until the water was turned off and then back on.

I think you are the one reading the post and jumping to the conclusion that will defend this totally incompetent cowboy plumber.

the plumber had been sent away.

The plumber was not sent away, he took money for failing to do his job and ucked off.

Pipework and unions seen not to be leaking with the water ON generally don't fall into the "leaking" category. The professionals here know water can trickle through the ceiling 20 feet away from a leak site because they've seen it.

FFS, he was called to a nasty leak, what is professional about not finding it?

There's really nothing else to say.

God I hope so.

 

[Johnmelad]

[ He was looking for a leak, the water was ON. Turning off the water usually stops the leak on this planet.

On the planet where I live it is normal for the water to be turned off when a leak is discovered.

Why did idiot cowboy not advise turn water off when first contacted, would that be because he was a thieving cowboy who did not know what he was doing and cared even less.

The customer had a nasty leak, the dork she called out did not/could not find it but felt he could take a great deal of money for his incompetent failure and you are defending him. Sorry lad but your defence tells me a great deal about your work ethic and competence.

 

[ALEC1]

so presumably the ceiling needed replacing any way...so was going to have to pay.

The best advice which has yet to surface is to consult her insurers who can sort these things out with the plumbers insurers...

assuming he and she has insurance...

 

[joe-90]

I guess we should really have sympathy for the 'plumber'. After all, his real job is tarmac.

 

[Onetap]

Wondered if anyone could offer any advice. I called a plumber following..............

The correct answer, Scottie, is as follows.

First, was the charge fair?

Yes. If he had told you up front that he charged £X per hour and you engaged him, had him working for 3 hours, then the charge payable is £X x 3. It is irrelevant whether £X is £2, £20 or £200, or what you later find out to be the ‘going rate’.

You made a contract, exactly as if you’d bought 3 kilos of apples advertised at £2 per kilo. If you could get apples, or plumbers, elsewhere for less, then you should have gone there.

If he’d said he’d fix your leak for £80 and later claimed he’d said £80 per hour, that is different, he’d have misled you; he didn’t do that.

Second, was he negligent in failing to find the leak?
The test is whether a tradesman of average experience and competence could have found it.

IMHO, I do not think I’d have found it, nor most of the plumbers on here, and so I do not think he was negligent.

Joe-90 is not an average plumber, he clearly has super powers and x-ray vision that us mere mortals aren’t equipped with, or an unrealistic opinion of his own abilities.

I think you’d be wasting your time arguing about it and should contact your insurers.

Best of luck.
OT (ex-plumber, ex-engineer, with a 1 week’s course on contract law a veeeeeeeeeeery long time ago, I am not a lawyer, etc., etc..)

 

[Onetap]

[ He was looking for a leak, the water was ON. Turning off the water usually stops the leak on this planet.

On the planet where I live it is normal for the water to be turned off when a leak is discovered.

The OP said she found it by turning off the water and then turning it on; strange, but that's what she said.

I've only once seen something similar, with fibre washers, on bath taps, that had dried out and contracted whilst the water was turned off & drained during a holiday. They leaked when the water was turned on and stopped leaking after a short time.

 

[sooey]

I can come up with one example. Old worcester combi needed draining down, didn't touch the isolating valves because they leak if you do.
Drained system, did work, refilled, one of them leaked anyway, poured out. Just the water pressure holding the gland sealed, releasing the pressure allowed it to leak on refilling. Happy days.
Can't think of any other times I've seen that though.

 

[Johnmelad]

You made a contract, exactly as if you’d bought 3 kilos of apples advertised at £2 per kilo. If you could get apples, or plumbers, elsewhere for less, then you should have gone there.

Yes but would you have paid for the apples if they had not been supplied?

So why would you pay a plumber for a job he did not do?

 

[Onetap]

Yes but would you have paid for the apples if they had not been supplied?

No. The contract is for the supply of the goods and payment for them. It is a 2-way promise.
No goods = no payment.

So why would you pay a plumber for a job he did not do?

The contract was for the supply of services, priced at £80 p/h.
3 hours work was done = £240 due.

You could not expect a plumber to look at the ceiling, before agreeing to do the work, and say; "I will fix that for £150", since he doesn't know how long it will take to find the leak, or even that he can fix it if/when he finds it. It is hidden.

Had he said, before starting work; "I'll fix that leak for £240", then that would be different. No payment is due and he should, in theory, pay you the difference if it costs more to fix it. He is in breach of that contract. That did not happen.

 

[Norcon]

scottiejd wrote

The plumber arrived and punched through a large hole where the leak was showing to find no sign of a leak

How much more evidence did the plumber want?
Plus it was the devils work of push fit fittings. Maybe he thought the water markings was rats pizz.

As soon as he spotted the push fits he should have replaced them with compression asap.
Verdict = Incompetent plumber.

 

[Onetap]

How much more evidence did the plumber want?

A leak. It wasn't leaking.