B&Q Kitchen Fitting Problems - Next Course Of Action?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's not a matter of opinion. see sec 23.

Consumer Rights Act 2015

www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk

OP has had £1,500 partial compensation. Has something like £500-£1000 making good.

Kitchen rip and refit is at least £5k+

and the argument is "not of satisfactory quality" nothing to do with fit for purpose. The argument about the services element is failure to take reasonable skill and care.

This is not a faulty washing machine. It's a fitted kitchen to a bespoke design. Goods + services.
 
And not fitted to that design.

If it has issues such as the hob, and is impractical for Use for such a long time.

It is, not fit for purpose.
 
Why don't you read the whole thing. You suggested rejection wasn't disproportionate, then you suggest a full refit. You're getting all the different sections confused.

Once you've had a read, ask yourself - what is the basis for the rejection within the terms of the act and how is this not disproportionate to a remedy of fixing the issues?
 
motorbiking said:
Why don't you read the whole thing. You suggested rejection wasn't disproportionate, then you suggest a full refit. You're getting all the different sections confused.

Once you've had a read, ask yourself - what is the basis for the rejection within the terms of the act and how is this not disproportionate to a remedy of fixing the issues?
Click to expand...
you do not have to allow repeated attempts to rectify.

It sounds like it's at the stage for a full refit. It's not fit for its purpose as it is.

The OP sounds very patient.
 
carmanmemoranda said:
you do not have to allow repeated attempts to rectify.

It sounds like it's at the stage for a full refit. It's not fit for its purpose as it is.

The OP sounds very patient.
Click to expand...
Our original job is pants, however let us try to make things good by patching it up here and there. We're confident you'll still feel great about dolling out thousands of pounds for that 'new kitchen' experience.
 
carmanmemoranda said:
you do not have to allow repeated attempts to rectify.

It sounds like it's at the stage for a full refit. It's not fit for its purpose as it is.

The OP sounds very patient.
Click to expand...
It’s been an awful experience. But thanks for the kind words. The kitchen looks better now but it is still riddled with issues.

My fear has been not allowing them back out, taking it to court/ombudsman and then saying we’ve not given them reasonable opportunity to remedy it.
 
carmanmemoranda said:
Maybe to you, but I'm surprised he hasn't yet asked for a complete refit .

it sounds an appalling supply and fit that is not fit for purpose
Click to expand...
We had asked repeatedly for a full refit. They sent an assessor up from Newcastle who said that wouldn’t be required. In other words, they refused.

Another fitter attended but we subsequently discovered issues with the initial fit.
 
It should be law with the big players, whether worked subbed out or not, that anything less than minor snags isn't acceptable and the customer should, if they so desire (cause some might not), be granted a full refit at supplier/contractor expense.

Maybe it would force them to ensure either they and/or their sub-contractors pulled their socks up.
 
The situation would have been different had there not been a partial refund. Because of this it was in the OPs interest to break the issues apart and treat the new issues as separate from those triggering the compensation. With each new issue, you need to demonstrate that you've allowed the supplier the opportunity to fix. Fail to do that and you risk your claim. The value of the claim can only ever be the cost to complete the contract. This is why it's always better to reduce the value of your claim, by allowing the rework. At the very least it reduces your court fees.
 
diy_fun_uk said:
It should be law with the big players, whether worked subbed out or not, that anything less than minor snags isn't acceptable and the customer should, if they so desire (cause some might not), be granted a full refit at supplier/contractor expense.

Maybe it would force them to ensure either they and/or their sub-contractors pulled their socks up.
Click to expand...

You're presuming no customers are awkward and/or vexatious bellends.
 
Brigadier said:
You're presuming no customers are awkward and/or vexatious bellends.
Click to expand...
Almost irrelevant, sh1t workmanship is sh1t workmanship. If it's possibly caused by something the customer's requested e.g. last minute changes, standing over the workmen/women while they work, this should be documented by the installation team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top