Consumer case study
In a building dispute, Mr & Mrs A had accepted a quote from a builder, Mr D, for a loft conversion. He quoted £9,000. He gave a start date of 1 June 2005 and agreed it would take 3 weeks to complete. The work included putting in an en suite shower and all electrical work.
Work didn’t actually start until 1 July 2005. Mr & Mrs A decided they wanted additional light fittings, sockets and the shower repositioned in the room. The work actually took 6 weeks to complete. Mr D sent an invoice to Mr & Mrs A for £11,500. Mr & Mrs A refused to pay the invoice, claiming that there had been delay, the new velux window leaked and had to be replaced; that the shower had leaked through to the room below, involving them in additional expense in remedying, re-plastering and decorating. They had been unable to use the loft conversion. They argued that they owed nothing because the remedial work had cost them £4,000. The balance they said should be compensation for the inconvenience.
Mr D asked Mr & Mrs A, through his solicitors, if they would agree to the dispute being referred to mediation in an attempt to avoid litigation. Mr & Mrs A reluctantly agreed.
At the mediation, Mr & Mrs A were very angry. They complained about the mess that Mr D had made during the conversion; of the flood damage caused to the bedroom below when the shower had leaked. They said that Mr D had been very unhelpful when they had rung urgently to ask him to come and sort the leak out. With four children in cramped conditions they had desperately needed the loft converting and had used all their savings. They had had to borrow money to get everything put right.
Mr D initially said in his private meetings that he felt he had done nothing wrong. Mr & Mrs A kept changing their minds about what electrical fittings they wanted. He had warned them that there might be problems if he repositioned the shower, but they had insisted.
Having had the opportunity to make known how strongly they all felt about the situation, the mediator encouraged the parties to focus on what realistically they might achieve through compromising. Mr & Mrs A conceded privately that they had messed Mr D around changing their minds about fittings etc; they had been advised of possible difficulties with regard to moving the position of the shower.
Mr D acknowledged privately that he had not used his usual plumber and had had doubts about the one that he used. He would be looking to him to reimburse him if he had to reduce his bill in respect of this aspect or pay any compensation. But he felt he had done the best he could in difficult circumstances. He also believed that Mr & Mrs A had over inflated their claim. But he didn’t want to have to wait to go to court to receive any payment. It would put him out of business and he was worried about the effect on his reputation.
The parties eventually settled with Mr D agreeing to accept a reduction to his bill of £4000. Mr & Mrs A agreed to sign a confidentially agreement not to disclose the settlement agreed and not to make any derogatory statements to anyone about Mr D’s work. Mr D gave a formal apology to Mr & Mrs A.
At the time the parties settled through mediation, Mr & Mrs A had spent £250 to obtain legal advice. Mr D had spent £300. Both parties revealed that they had been advised that the legal costs to go to trial were likely to be in the region of £10,000, including obtaining an expert’s report and court fees. Furthermore that it was by no means certain that either party would recover their legal costs from the other party. The mediation took place in October 2005, just 4 months after the dispute arose.
Return to consumer contract