Double Glazing Company - Going to Small Claims
Discussion
I just want to confirm my position is correct:
Spent a lot of cash nearly 5 years ago on lots of windows and doors. The work was part of a large renovation. All the windows and doors came via the builder who used a third party supplier.
The builder and I fell out when I discovered during the job he had been ripping me off. He was employed to project manage for a fee and pass on labour and material costs to be paid. He was marking stuff up 200-300% including the labour, lied constantly, but eventually I found out. I still owed him quite a chunk of money and decided to hold off paying him until he could prove he was billing me correctly, which despite the bluster, never happened unsurprisingly.
At that time I had the window company get in touch demanding payment for the windows supplied or they would come and take them out. I therefore paid the £10k outstanding and have in writing that was the end of the matter for them. I now owned the products and had no further obligations to them. Great.
Fast forward to this year and one of the triple glazed windows completely failed (middle glass pane shattered). I tried calling the window company customer services, no answer. After a few days I tried the sales line and got through immediately (what a surprise) and was directed to my local branch. I contacted my local branch about the failed window unit and they said to register it on their customer services portal. When I went to the portal it was out of service so I emailed their customer services as per the instructions on the web page. No response. A week later I emailed again saying I would take it further if I got no response, no response. Emailed them again saying I needed a response or would find someone else to do the repair and expect them to reimburse, no response. So a month or so ago I got another company to come out and replace the window. £285. The fitter explained the middle glazing had failed due to nickel sulphate inclusion which is a manufacturing fault. I sent the bill over to the branch asking for payment to myself and almost immediately got a director responding wanting to know all about it. So I gave this director all the information and that I had paid for the goods etc. This went on for a few days and ended with him saying they were not going to reimburse me because I had not provided them with the right information (not true) and had not given them the opportunity to rectify (not true), plus they said they dont deal with end users and everything should go through the builder.
I submitted a claim via MCOL.
I now received their defence is I am not a customer of theirs so FRO.
I am pretty damn sure that because I have paid them for the products directly that as a consumer they absolutely have a contract with me and they have a legal obligation to honour their product warranty.
Am I missing something?
Spent a lot of cash nearly 5 years ago on lots of windows and doors. The work was part of a large renovation. All the windows and doors came via the builder who used a third party supplier.
The builder and I fell out when I discovered during the job he had been ripping me off. He was employed to project manage for a fee and pass on labour and material costs to be paid. He was marking stuff up 200-300% including the labour, lied constantly, but eventually I found out. I still owed him quite a chunk of money and decided to hold off paying him until he could prove he was billing me correctly, which despite the bluster, never happened unsurprisingly.
At that time I had the window company get in touch demanding payment for the windows supplied or they would come and take them out. I therefore paid the £10k outstanding and have in writing that was the end of the matter for them. I now owned the products and had no further obligations to them. Great.
Fast forward to this year and one of the triple glazed windows completely failed (middle glass pane shattered). I tried calling the window company customer services, no answer. After a few days I tried the sales line and got through immediately (what a surprise) and was directed to my local branch. I contacted my local branch about the failed window unit and they said to register it on their customer services portal. When I went to the portal it was out of service so I emailed their customer services as per the instructions on the web page. No response. A week later I emailed again saying I would take it further if I got no response, no response. Emailed them again saying I needed a response or would find someone else to do the repair and expect them to reimburse, no response. So a month or so ago I got another company to come out and replace the window. £285. The fitter explained the middle glazing had failed due to nickel sulphate inclusion which is a manufacturing fault. I sent the bill over to the branch asking for payment to myself and almost immediately got a director responding wanting to know all about it. So I gave this director all the information and that I had paid for the goods etc. This went on for a few days and ended with him saying they were not going to reimburse me because I had not provided them with the right information (not true) and had not given them the opportunity to rectify (not true), plus they said they dont deal with end users and everything should go through the builder.
I submitted a claim via MCOL.
I now received their defence is I am not a customer of theirs so FRO.
I am pretty damn sure that because I have paid them for the products directly that as a consumer they absolutely have a contract with me and they have a legal obligation to honour their product warranty.
Am I missing something?
SteBrown91 said:
Seems alot of stress and agro for £285 quid to be honest.
It’s not about the money. It’s the principle for me that a business should not be allowed to get away with ignoring warranty claims because they cant be bothered, and then spend a lot of effort defending that position.I suspect that type of fault is excluded from any warranty anyway:
https://www.google.com/search?q=nickel+sulphide+in...
Seems more trouble than it's worth to me to be honest, I would just suck it up and move on.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nickel+sulphide+in...
Seems more trouble than it's worth to me to be honest, I would just suck it up and move on.
zalrak said:
I suspect that type of fault is excluded from any warranty anyway:
https://www.google.com/search?q=nickel+sulphide+in...
Seems more trouble than it's worth to me to be honest, I would just suck it up and move on.
Interesting thanks.https://www.google.com/search?q=nickel+sulphide+in...
Seems more trouble than it's worth to me to be honest, I would just suck it up and move on.
They’ve entered the defence of me not being their customer (literally just that) when contract law states that because I have paid them a contract is formed. So for £35 I will take it to its conclusion.
M1AGM said:
It's the principle
No good comes from principles. It's principles that allowed Karens to evolve in recent times.If you look up that word principle in the dictionary is says..
a stance that usually induces lots of unnecessary stress and costs, but without the desired result
M1AGM said:
SteBrown91 said:
Seems alot of stress and agro for £285 quid to be honest.
It s not about the money. It s the principle for meYou've paid for the MCOL now so will get as far as mediation. Consider what offer they make, as if you want to go all the way then you'll have a trial fee to pay
Window fitters ALWAYS blame NiS inclusions in glass, it’s easy and moves responsibly out to party not on site.
NiS inclusions are incredibly, incredibly, incredibly rare. Something like 25kg in 50000kg produced. It is not a defect it is a characteristic of thermally toughened glass, there is always the risk that inclusions will be present. If there is concern over inclusions thermally toughened glass should not have been specified. HST should have been carried out or another glass used.
Saying that in normal domestic glazing measures are not usually taken to mitigate NiS inclusions, as they are so rare, it is more cost effective to deal with the few failures.
We used to have a heat soaking oven, this is designed to show NiS inclusions, I think we had 1 or 2 failures per year that was putting 1000m a day through it. After 5 years NiS failure is possible, but they mostly occur within 36 months of manufacture, after this NiS is even less likely.
The most likely reason for glass to break is damage, be that at manufacture, fitting or after.
Your risk here is this is a very very technical claim, if the window company decides to defend I would imagine it ending up on the multi track meaning you are liable for their costs.
NiS inclusions are incredibly, incredibly, incredibly rare. Something like 25kg in 50000kg produced. It is not a defect it is a characteristic of thermally toughened glass, there is always the risk that inclusions will be present. If there is concern over inclusions thermally toughened glass should not have been specified. HST should have been carried out or another glass used.
Saying that in normal domestic glazing measures are not usually taken to mitigate NiS inclusions, as they are so rare, it is more cost effective to deal with the few failures.
We used to have a heat soaking oven, this is designed to show NiS inclusions, I think we had 1 or 2 failures per year that was putting 1000m a day through it. After 5 years NiS failure is possible, but they mostly occur within 36 months of manufacture, after this NiS is even less likely.
The most likely reason for glass to break is damage, be that at manufacture, fitting or after.
Your risk here is this is a very very technical claim, if the window company decides to defend I would imagine it ending up on the multi track meaning you are liable for their costs.
M1AGM said:
Interesting thanks.
They ve entered the defence of me not being their customer (literally just that) when contract law states that because I have paid them a contract is formed. So for £35 I will take it to its conclusion.
It's been a long while since I studied contract law, but there are 6 essential elements required to form a legally binding contract:They ve entered the defence of me not being their customer (literally just that) when contract law states that because I have paid them a contract is formed. So for £35 I will take it to its conclusion.
- offer
- acceptance
- mutual awareness
- consideration
- capacity
- legality
It is why they are saying that you are not a customer of theirs.
What determines a contract - who orders something or who pays for it?
I think the OP may have derailed himself by getting the window fixed then sending in the bill. There's a certain process to observe - which the director has outlined, but couldn't be bothered to reply when you tried it because he hoped you'd get bored and go away.
OP - have you got a trail of all your attempts to contact the company?
I've met this before - a company ignores you until you hit them in the pocket, then the director suddenly gets off his arse.
I think the OP may have derailed himself by getting the window fixed then sending in the bill. There's a certain process to observe - which the director has outlined, but couldn't be bothered to reply when you tried it because he hoped you'd get bored and go away.
OP - have you got a trail of all your attempts to contact the company?
I've met this before - a company ignores you until you hit them in the pocket, then the director suddenly gets off his arse.
nikaiyo2 said:
Window fitters ALWAYS blame NiS inclusions in glass, it s easy and moves responsibly out to party not on site.
NiS inclusions are incredibly, incredibly, incredibly rare. Something like 25kg in 50000kg produced. It is not a defect it is a characteristic of thermally toughened glass, there is always the risk that inclusions will be present. If there is concern over inclusions thermally toughened glass should not have been specified. HST should have been carried out or another glass used.
Saying that in normal domestic glazing measures are not usually taken to mitigate NiS inclusions, as they are so rare, it is more cost effective to deal with the few failures.
We used to have a heat soaking oven, this is designed to show NiS inclusions, I think we had 1 or 2 failures per year that was putting 1000m a day through it. After 5 years NiS failure is possible, but they mostly occur within 36 months of manufacture, after this NiS is even less likely.
The most likely reason for glass to break is damage, be that at manufacture, fitting or after.
Your risk here is this is a very very technical claim, if the window company decides to defend I would imagine it ending up on the multi track meaning you are liable for their costs.
Thanks, interesting. NiS inclusions are incredibly, incredibly, incredibly rare. Something like 25kg in 50000kg produced. It is not a defect it is a characteristic of thermally toughened glass, there is always the risk that inclusions will be present. If there is concern over inclusions thermally toughened glass should not have been specified. HST should have been carried out or another glass used.
Saying that in normal domestic glazing measures are not usually taken to mitigate NiS inclusions, as they are so rare, it is more cost effective to deal with the few failures.
We used to have a heat soaking oven, this is designed to show NiS inclusions, I think we had 1 or 2 failures per year that was putting 1000m a day through it. After 5 years NiS failure is possible, but they mostly occur within 36 months of manufacture, after this NiS is even less likely.
The most likely reason for glass to break is damage, be that at manufacture, fitting or after.
Your risk here is this is a very very technical claim, if the window company decides to defend I would imagine it ending up on the multi track meaning you are liable for their costs.
They are not disputing the warranty, their defence is that I am not the customer. I will quietly not mention the NiS. The unit was just over 4 years old.
M1AGM said:
They are not disputing the warranty, their defence is that I am not the customer. I will quietly not mention the NiS. The unit was just over 4 years old.
Annoyingly I reckon that the builder is their customer as they ordered the windows and entered into a contract, you simply paid the customers bill for themSir Bagalot said:
As many lawyers say.... They love principles. it makes them a lot of money
You've paid for the MCOL now so will get as far as mediation. Consider what offer they make, as if you want to go all the way then you'll have a trial fee to pay
True, but you don't need lawyers for MCOL.You've paid for the MCOL now so will get as far as mediation. Consider what offer they make, as if you want to go all the way then you'll have a trial fee to pay
A hearing fee for MCOL is:
Claims up to £300: £25
£300.01 to £500: £55
£500.01 to £1,000: £85
Message Board | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff