Tweet
I am a landlord. In 2022 after seeing Huntsman Building Solutions at a Homebuilding and Renovating Exhibition I had spray foam insulation installed in the property by one of their approved "installlers" - Evergreen Power in order to achieve EPC C rating for changing regulations. It was incorrectly installed (electrics and plumbing covered, moisture starting to develop against the rafters etc) and RICS surveyor said that it would fail mortgage application and property had been devalued as a result of the process. I had the foam successfully removed by recommended professional firm with all reports and further surveys. My question is whether I can reclaim any of these costs - legal claim, Ombudsman etc ? Unfortunately I paid for the original installation via debit card - stupid I know and an expensive lesson. Evergreen paperwork contained no warnings as to lending etc and the "certificates" were not in my name and were identical in every installation I have discovered. I would welcome any suggestions
Loading...
-
Tags: None -
If you are a private landlord and not a company you have legal rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015
Did you contract with Evergreen Power Uk Ltd to carry out the foam installation?
This company is still "active" at Companies House and appears to be in a healthy financial position. They have recently changed their registered address
You have an expert report from a RICS surveyor that condemned the installation before it was removed as well as further reports from the company that removed the installation
You can prove your costs with invoices and receipts
In my opinion you have a valid money claim against Evergreen under CRA. The trader failed to perform the service with reasonable care and skill
-
I do not believe this is correct; a landlord is running a business whether as a private landlord or as a company.Originally posted by Pezza54 View Post
The Consumer Rights Act defines a “Consumer” as being an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual's trade, business, craft or profession. I don't believe a court in the land would agree that a landlord renting out a property was acting wholly or mainly outside of their business when they hired a firm to insulate said property; consequently any claim under the Consumer Rights Act will fail at the first hurdle.
However the OP may have a claim under The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s13 "where the supplier is acting in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the supplier will carry out the service with reasonable care and skill".
Comment
-
Please read the article "Legal insight: Does consumer law apply to landlords?" at www.rocketlawyer.com
Comment
-
That article seems to confirm what I said?Originally posted by Pezza54 View Post
"... they are providing a service (ie a home) to consumers (ie their tenants). Therefore, consumer law does apply to landlords." QED if consumer law applies in relation to tenants who are consumers then the landlord must meet the legal definition of "Trader", namely "a person acting for purposes relating to that person's trade, business, craft or profession"...
How do you square the circle that the landlord is a Trader when dealing with tenants but you're suggesting they're suddenly not a Trader when dealing with a supplier for a purpose relating to the trade?
The article does muddy the waters with their "as a landlord, in order to exercise your consumer rights in relation to your letting agent, you would have to be operating as an individual person" one liner but it does not explain or justify that statement and as above I cannot see how that concurs with the rest of the article?
I have previously seen an argument that "accidental" landlords may get away with not being businesses for the purposes of the CRA on the basis that their "trade, business, craft or profession" is something else (i.e. their main job is being an accountant or corporate manager) but the OP hasn't mentioned that that may apply here. Even then I would not feel confident going to court as a landlord and claiming I was an individual acting outside my letting business.
Comment
-
Please read the article:
http://www.rossmartin.co.uk/sme-tax-...es-as-business
Having read the article you may be right.
Under Comment: "HMRC treat property letting as a business"Comment
-
Agreed and although that article is only HMRC's and the UTT's opinion of how landlords should be regarded it does show that context is everything; for some legislation letting is considered a business and for others it is not.Originally posted by Pezza54 View Post
In the OP's case the CRA legislation specifically defines what a Trader and Consumer are and I just cannot see how the OP can successfully argue that they are a consumer when claiming against their supplier.
Comment
-
Thank you for all the replies on this. I am a self employed landlord and taxed accordingly as a business so consumer legislation would not appear to be applicableComment
-
Business to business contracts are covered by the Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982
Part 2 Section 13 states there is an implied term in the contract that the service is provided with reasonable care and skill
The service doesn't have to be perfect.
In your case the installer has clearly carried out the service negligently without reasonable care and skill
The installer has breached the contract and you should be awarded damages by the court if you make a court claim
Before starting a court claim you should obtain an expert report by a qualified building surveyor covering the workmanship for the spray insulationComment
Comment