** SORTED ** Bifold Doors Section 75 Claim

[galglebe]

Hello,

I am after a little advice please

I had some bifolding doors fitted in October 2014. The draft/weather seals have started to break down and become drafty, so I thought I would get some new seals from the manufacturer of the doors, Origin, as they came with a 20 year guarantee.

This was the point I found out the doors I have are not Origin doors but a cheaper and inferior make that being Beufort.

The company the doors were fitted by is no longer trading and a Google search brings up people who have had a similar issue with the same company. Now as I paid for the doors on my credit card, £5800 in two transactions. Do I have any right to make a claim under section 75 with the card company.

I have evidence, in emails and correspondence, that I requested Origin doors and I was quoted on Origin doors. Has it been too long ? Will I be able to ask for full refund so I can have the doors I wanted or would it be a partial refund for the difference in cost between the different makes ?


Many thanks in advance

Andrew

[Kati]

Re: Bifold Doors Section 75 Claim

tagging [MENTION=39710]des8[/MENTION] ??

[des8]

Re: Bifold Doors Section 75 Claim

Hi and welcome.
Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the credit card company is jointly and severally liable for any breach of contract by the retailer or trader.
The contract was breached by not supplying the correct goods
The Credit Card Company might try and argue that you have left it too long to reject the doors BUT
Under The Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1884 a buyer is not deemed to have accepted goods until he has had a reasonable opportunity of examining them to ascertain if they are in conformity with the contract.

Assuming the doors were fitted and there was no obvious indication that they were not the doors ordered until you attempted to renew the seals, I would suggest you could reject them in their entirety as this was the first reasonable opportunity you had of examining them, as you had no reason to examine them earlier. Not only do they not comply with the contract, presumably the 20 year guarantee is worthless.

A partial refund would be of no use if you wanted to replace the doors.

You could possibly also rescind the contract under the Misrepresentation Act 1967

Tagging [MENTION=71570]R0b[/MENTION]

[Diana M]

Re: Bifold Doors Section 75 Claim

so I thought I would get some new seals from the manufacturer of the doors, Origin, as they came with a 20 year guarantee.

This was the point I found out the doors I have are not Origin doors but a cheaper and inferior make that being Beufort.
. . . .
I have evidence, in emails and correspondence, that I requested Origin doors and I was quoted on Origin doors.

A quick question if I may: did the Beufort doors come with a manufacturer’s guarantee (I would be surprised if they didn’t if the contractor was a member of FENSA) ?

If so would you be able to make a claim under their warranty if they were the supplier of the faulty goods (not Origin) ?

Just a thought.

Di

[R0b]

Re: Bifold Doors Section 75 Claim

First of all, your refer to the 'company' as not trading, but is the company a limited company or is the person who fitted and installed the bi-fold doors trading as a sole trader or partnership or some other business entity? If the latter, then the contractor would be personally liable for any breaches or misrepresentations. Secondly, as Des has pointed out, if you paid for the doors on credit card then you may have a claim against the CC company under section 75 of the CCA.

Given the lapse of time, I don't think you can rely on the SGSA as to conformity and having a reasonable time to inspect since you have had 3 years to give it a good look over however, based on the information provided, you appear to have a plausible claim for misrepresentation. Though it might be possible to argue they were not fit for purpose having specifically explained to the seller of a specific make and type of bi-fold doors.

Can you claim a full refund on the bi-fold doors? That's difficult to answer. To give you some sort of example of how the courts look at it, there was a fairly recent case involving misrepresentation and a car where a dealership sold a car to a consumer and subsequently developed faults. The consumer issued proceedings and as time went on he discovered that the car was build in 2005 and was involved in an accident. The consumer amended his claim to include misrepresentation and rescission all the while the consumer continued to driver and use the car for around 2 years. At first instance in the County Court, the district judge agreed there was misrepresentation but denied rescission (which would mean a full refund) and awarded damages being the difference between the value of the current car and the car purchased new. On appeal, the Circuit Judge overturned the district judge and said rescission was still possible and awarded full refund. Dealership further appealed and the Court of Appeal rejected the dealerships appeal. and concluded that rescission should be the normal remedy though you should not be unjustly enriched by the rescission. It is up to the person making the representation to show that damages should be awarded in lieu of rescission, taking into account depreciation and use of the product/goods.

The case mentioned above is Salt v Stratstone [2015] EWCA Civ. 745 and if you do a google search you'll find a few articles on it and explaining in more detail. If you are seeking a full refund then you will no doubt need to submit a claim to the CC company who will investigate. They might agree with you that there was a misrepresentation but refuse a full refund on the basis you have had some use. If you are not happy with that response you could take it further to the Financial Ombudsman and see if they will side with you. Last resort will then be issuing legal proceedings for rescission or alternatively damages.

I think it really depends whether you are happy to keep the doors and get partial damages or potentially entering into a long drawn out process with the risk that you might not even get what you seek, which is rescission. If the CC company accepts there was a misrepresentation, one option might be to ask for them to cover the replacement of the bi-fold doors so that they are Origin ones.

[galglebe]

Re: Bifold Doors Section 75 Claim

Firstly many thanks for all of the replies.

The company I refer to was a LTD company run by a fella called Keith Wolley. And a Google search of him and Alu Architectural brings one person that has had the exact same problem , in 2015,as I am now having. This person took them to court and was awarded damages but whether they were ever recovered I am unsure as there are plenty of other threads of people who cannot find him. It seems after fitting my doors things went to pot and all reviews started to become very negative.

As far as the doors are concerned I am reasonably happy with them otherwise I would of been complaining sooner. But I would say that 60% of my decision to go with origin doors was for the 20 year guarantee. As to whether the Beufort ones come with one I have not investigated.

Part of me would be happy with some form of refund that covers the cost difference between the Origin and the Beufort, this would cover any cost of repairs ( seals for starters) that that I may have to do because of the lack of guarantee. But a larger part of wants the doors that I am after.


With section 75 claims is it a case of aim high, for replacement, but ultimately settle a little lower in this case with some form of partial refund ? or do you have to claim for what you think is reasonable ?


Many thanks once again

Andrew

[thedirtyhound]

Re: Bifold Doors Section 75 Claim

One obvious point, but does the warrant actually cover the seals? All seals perish with time and I think it is unlikely that they would form part of any warranty. Its like buying a car and taking it back to the deal after you have driven 30,000 miles because the tyres have worn out. Is there actually anything wrong with the doors that a new seal wouldn't put right? I'm currently in the same boat at home because several of my windows need new seals. The windows themselves are 100% sound.

[galglebe]

Re: Bifold Doors Section 75 Claim

I contacted Origin with the possibility in my mind that I would have to pay for the seals anyway, so you

are probably correct in that the warranty would not cover the seals.
I would not mind that too much if I had the doors that I had actually asked for, if I had got the '

better quality

' doors one could argue that the seals would not have broken down inside 4 years. Who's to know ? And since I do not have Origin doors I will never know.

If Alu Architectural were still trading I sure as hell would be going after them for giving me doors I did not ask for. So if under section 75 the Credit Card company are equally responsible then I must have a case ????? My only reservation is the time frame involved If I had noticed inside 12 months I would be much more confident.

[galglebe]

Hello,

Just an update. I contacted Capital one, filled in all the forms an sent them copies of everything regarding the transaction qoutes etc. It took them a while to get in touch initially, and told me I had to get four qoutes together for replaceing the doors I have with origin ones. Which I did two weeks later I had an email offering a cash settlement for the average of the four quotes.

Result

[Amethyst]

Brilliant news. Well done

[R0b]

Hello,

Just an update. I contacted Capital one, filled in all the forms an sent them copies of everything regarding the transaction qoutes etc. It took them a while to get in touch initially, and told me I had to get four qoutes together for replaceing the doors I have with origin ones. Which I did two weeks later I had an email offering a cash settlement for the average of the four quotes.

Result

Good to hear Galglebe. It just goes to show that for any expensive purchase, you are best off protecting yourself by using a credit card in the event something like this arises.