Received an untruthful Letter of Claim Pre-Protocol

[Ribble]

Hello, hoping to seek help regarding an untruthful in parts, Letter of Claim, where the customer who initially had a minor fault of a product that we fitted, following our inspection and report, then destroyed the product which was repairable, now claiming from our company for this damage that they caused. Thank you

[des8]

What sort of help do you require?
Perhaps more details, including redacted copy of LBC?

[Amethyst]

I think we probably need a bit more info, a timeline ( when sold, when fault reported, when inspected, outcome of insprection, action taken etc... ) and possibly a copy of the letter of claim they have sent you.

[Ribble]

Thank you. We supplied and installed a complete bathroom over a year ago, which included a separate shower cubicle, complete with stone resin shower tray, which was mounted onto a tiled step. After just over a year, a hairline stress crack approx 6 inches long appeared in the shower tray. We attended customer premises and noticed that the tiling, which we tiled, had failed and between the grout lines, which had allowed water to penetrate to the timber supporting the shower tray. The timber underneath expanded, hence causing the stress crack. However, from the amount of limescale that had built up on the failing, protruding tiles - caused by the timber expanding, indicated that the grout had failed well over 6 months previously and over this time, had consequently allowed the water to penetrate underneath. The customer did not notify us of the cracked grout at any point, which was very noticeable, prior to them noticing the crack in the shower tray. If they had, we would have immediately rectified the failing grout, in order to stop the water penetrating underneath. After our inspection, we sent them a detailed report on how the crack appeared, that they should have reported the failing grout as soon as it had appeared. The customer notified us that they were advised to obtain a independent expert report and that they had arranged this. A 3rd party attended to inspect the damage and completely smashed the tray with a hammer. Customer then sent us their report who was an unqualified, heating engineer, from another bathroom company. They also sent us an invoice £620 to re-claim the cost of the "inspection", plus, the 3rd parties quote to rectify the now smashed shower tray damage at £4,440 inc VAT. The original show tray cost was £135 inc VAT. Following our visit, we obtained a quote from an expert shower tray repairer, who quoted us £180 to have the shower tray repaired. Obviously, the shower tray can no longer be repaired now. I should also point out that, our own labour cost for the complete fitting of the bathroom in it's entirety was £3,100 for 10 days work. So the 3rd party charging £4,440 to replace the shower tray, and re-tile the step, well....

[Ribble]

The LBC is from a solicitors firm who are internet based, with a not so good reputation. The LBC is claiming that the shower tray cracked, when customers "inspector" was inspecting the tray. We have photographic evidence that he used a hammer and smashed a whopping great hole through the tray. I have responded to LBC with evidence of this, and explained that customers "inspector" was not qualified to produce a report that can be relied upon. I also explained that the tray did not need to be smashed to allow an inspection. Solicitor has since ignored everything I wrote in my response. Solicitor is now requesting a joint expert, supplied by them/their client to provide a desktop report. Am I able to disagree with the joint desktop expert, since they will rely on their client's "inspectors" report, who was not qualified to carry out the inspection?

[Amethyst]

Oh goodness. It sounds like you have acted properly and they are being guided by this third party who seem to be in it for personal gain.

Did you offer to repair repair or replace the shower tray and re tile the step after the initial inspection ?

[Ribble]

When we went to inspect the cracked shower tray, we "tried" to explain that we would write a report and that the shower tray could possibly be repaired. The customer, categorically refused any sort of repair and demanded that we immediately supply and fit new shower tray and repair works. This was a very difficult meeting, the customer making threats and shouting abuse. We followed this "meeting" with our findings, however, in our report, we did not include our offer the repair, because, they had already refused this, and, we felt that they should have notified us of the cracked grout, six months earlier, when it occurred. They responded to our report, informing us they were instructing an expert for their own report, which is when the 3rd party smashed the tray. We were extremely confident, that had the customer instructed an independent, qualified inspector, who did not have a vested interest in the outcome of their report, that they would indeed confirm our findings.

[des8]

IMO a "fair" outcome would be that the hammer wielding expert supplies a new tray, to which you contribute £180 (estimated cost of repair) or you supply a replacement at £135 (original cost) if they are still available.
The primary problem was the failure of your tiling.
Whilst one would hope a customer would alert you to problems early on, I don't think you can attribute the problems to them.
Under the consumer rights act you have the right to one attempt at repair, so make that offer in writing.
If they decline it, that is their outlook!

[Ribble]

Thank you, we will considering making them the offer as per DES8. I was of the understanding that, a consumer must take steps to mitigate their loss. We have proved that they failed to do this by increasing their loss from a hairline crack which could have been repaired, to a whopping great hole, not repairable. I was also of the understanding that, a consumer can not make claims for any damage that was NOT caused by a breach of contract. They are claiming that we are of breach of contract due to the way we fitted the tray and not in accordance with our implied terms of fitting with reasonable care and skill. I have proved that the whopping great hole was not caused by the way we fitted the tray. Would this assist our argument?

[Ribble]

Could someone kindly explain what a desktop report is? thank you

[des8]

Could someone kindly explain what a desktop report is? thank you

a preliminary investigation and reportinto something collating currently available information

[des8]

Yes, a claimant must mitigate their loss ie take reasonable action to minimize the amount of the loss.
However what is reasonable is always contentious!
The hole was made by their appointed "expert", so to the extent they worsened the situation you have a defence.

For the avoidance of confusion I meant your offer should be to repair and replace less the cost of replacement tray unless you can source a comparable item at the original cost or what it would have cost to repair the crack

If they proceed to court their claim would I think be based on breach of contract in that the tiling was not carried out with reasonable care and skill, and from this directly occurred the cracking of the tray.
Your defence would be that you admit the first part up to the repairable tray crack, but not the damage caused by another party.

[2222]

I am curious how the timber support expanded in the first place? What timber was used?

Can you describe the construction a bit more, please. What was backing the tiles? Did this overlap the shower tray? Was this sealed to the tray before the tiling was done?