Tweet
I do pray there are members of the society as it stands today to help. With the part time job and childs special needs to attend, there are limited resources to get free advice. Citizen Advice Bureu gives generalist advice only, hence they dont know, Consumer Direct is saying I need a legal advice which I can not afford.
Problem:
Purchased 5 Bisque make radiators from H2O plus in 2005. The bathroom radiator (just over £600+valves) eroded in 2009 (tubes connecting into the valves) I had to complain to H2O plus shop. To begin with the shop was brushing me off, that this is the shoddy work of a fitter to blame, later lack of PTF tape in connection (radiator tubes going into valves), then something about inhibitor, until several plumbers confirmed the same thing: sealant tape, nor inhibitor has nothing to do with eroded tubes of rad, as erosion happened from the top of the metal, which demonstrates, that tube metal was insufficiently galvanised before paint applied over it.
After much wriggling shop exchanged the faulty radiator in March 2009, after I sent pictures to Bisque itself. Shop refused to pay plumber service, but I worked full time doing shifts + small kids and did not have enough time to sleep, let alone to argue...
Year 2010 the valve of the new (EXCHANGED IN 2009) bathroom radiator started to leak, so I went to H2O plus, £64 for new valves, thank you very much
( As the plumber took off the radiator in order to see what is up with the valves it turned out the seal ring was too big and simply sliding through (faulty valve), hence the reason for leak, but he also pointed out, that a new radiator is due, as the rad's tubes, connecting the valve eroded at a dangerous level and is an accident waiting to blow out...
As the saying goes ''once is a bad luck, twice is a pattern'', I asked plumber to check out if installation of radiator is correct, or might it be inhibitor in a system warn out... He said the same thing: DETERIORATION OF METAL IS EXTERNAL, NOT COMING FROM THE INSIDE OF RAD, INSTALLATION IS CORRECT, clearly radiator os not fit for purpose as sale of goods act would describe it, as it is called ''bathroom towel rack'' on the invoice... Wrote to shop a letter of demand in december 2010. H2o plus retaliated my calls for string of the months, leading me to believe they are dealing with the issue, it was towards end of 2011 I realised all emails I was communicating with the shop are bouncing back, hence changed, noone by name, who signed for the letter of demand is in the shop found.
I issued claim via small claims court, but the shop hired solicitor who insists claim has no precedent as procedure is issued over 5 yrs time since the receipt in 2005. Does it not matter there was a new radiator in 2009, which clearly design faulty to be called bathroom radiator. Does the contract (although no legal tender was exchanged and it was partially verbal partially via email conversation) not start at year 2009?
Many thanks,
Mango Sorbet
Problem:
Purchased 5 Bisque make radiators from H2O plus in 2005. The bathroom radiator (just over £600+valves) eroded in 2009 (tubes connecting into the valves) I had to complain to H2O plus shop. To begin with the shop was brushing me off, that this is the shoddy work of a fitter to blame, later lack of PTF tape in connection (radiator tubes going into valves), then something about inhibitor, until several plumbers confirmed the same thing: sealant tape, nor inhibitor has nothing to do with eroded tubes of rad, as erosion happened from the top of the metal, which demonstrates, that tube metal was insufficiently galvanised before paint applied over it.
After much wriggling shop exchanged the faulty radiator in March 2009, after I sent pictures to Bisque itself. Shop refused to pay plumber service, but I worked full time doing shifts + small kids and did not have enough time to sleep, let alone to argue...
Year 2010 the valve of the new (EXCHANGED IN 2009) bathroom radiator started to leak, so I went to H2O plus, £64 for new valves, thank you very much
( As the plumber took off the radiator in order to see what is up with the valves it turned out the seal ring was too big and simply sliding through (faulty valve), hence the reason for leak, but he also pointed out, that a new radiator is due, as the rad's tubes, connecting the valve eroded at a dangerous level and is an accident waiting to blow out... As the saying goes ''once is a bad luck, twice is a pattern'', I asked plumber to check out if installation of radiator is correct, or might it be inhibitor in a system warn out... He said the same thing: DETERIORATION OF METAL IS EXTERNAL, NOT COMING FROM THE INSIDE OF RAD, INSTALLATION IS CORRECT, clearly radiator os not fit for purpose as sale of goods act would describe it, as it is called ''bathroom towel rack'' on the invoice... Wrote to shop a letter of demand in december 2010. H2o plus retaliated my calls for string of the months, leading me to believe they are dealing with the issue, it was towards end of 2011 I realised all emails I was communicating with the shop are bouncing back, hence changed, noone by name, who signed for the letter of demand is in the shop found.
I issued claim via small claims court, but the shop hired solicitor who insists claim has no precedent as procedure is issued over 5 yrs time since the receipt in 2005. Does it not matter there was a new radiator in 2009, which clearly design faulty to be called bathroom radiator. Does the contract (although no legal tender was exchanged and it was partially verbal partially via email conversation) not start at year 2009?
Many thanks,
Mango Sorbet
Comment