How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • Go back-and-forth until satisfied
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Ben Jones Your Own Question
Ben Jones
Ben Jones, UK Lawyer
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 66463
Experience:  Qualified Solicitor
Type Your Law Question Here...
Ben Jones is online now

In January I had a kitchen fitted by a large high street

This answer was rated:

In January I had a kitchen fitted by a large high street kitchen company. I was assigned fitters by them and as they were the company's approved fitters we contracted with them directly to have all additional works carried out by them to. Then started the nightmare. The plumbing, electrical and plaster work were appalling as was the fit of the actual kitchen. The kitchen company's rep called in shocking and appalling. I claimed a full refund from the company carrying out the additional works which they dully paid. I asked the kitchen company for a full refund which they refused. I went to the ombudsman and they said that we had to let them back in to rectify the work, stating they also awarded an amount of compensation for a change of design and £100 for our in 5 months of inconvenience. That was in July. The company removed most of the kitchen. I contracted a new electrician & plasterer and the company returned in October to refit the kitchen
JA: Where are you? It matters because laws vary by location.
Customer: UK Sorry sent my message before completing it
JA: What steps have you taken so far?
Customer: The ombudsman award was based on have reviewed your case in its entirety, and I can confirm that under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Wren are entitled to revisit your property to put issues right in the first instance. Wren have not yet been given the opportunity to remedy the outstanding issues complained of. Therefore, the award of repeat performance is inline with your legal entitlement under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The company has now been back in but I am left with 11 further issues some original and some new. Having given them the opportunity to come back to rectify their work do I have to allow them back in again? I have gone back to the ombudsman telling them I do not want them back in my home and that I request a full refund
JA: Anything else you want the Lawyer to know before I connect you?
Customer: I don't think so

Hello, I’m Ben, a UK lawyer and will be dealing with your case today. Firstly, I need to ask some initial questions to determine the legal position.

Customer: replied 6 months ago.
Hi Ben ask away

Has a representative from the company been to inspect the work again?

Customer: replied 6 months ago.
Customer: replied 6 months ago.
Their regional installation manager has been overseeing the case

and did he agree that the work has not been rectified to a professional standard?

Customer: replied 6 months ago.
in the first instance yes. Now following the refit he accepts that there are things that need to be rectified but does not accept our claim for a full refund. If we have let them in once to rectify things as is their right do we have to allow them back again?

Thank you. I will get back to you with my answer as soon as I can, which will be at some point today. The system will notify you when this happens. Please do not reply in the meantime as this may unnecessarily delay my response. Many thanks.

Many thanks for your patience. Under Section 55 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 you have the right to expect ‘repeat performance’ of a service, specifically “The right to require repeat performance is a right to require the trader to perform the service again, to the extent necessary to complete its performance in conformity with the contract.” Such repeat performance must be provided within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer.

Moving on to Section 56, if “the consumer has required repeat performance, but the trader is in breach of the requirement to do it within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the consumer” you could ask for a price reduction, up to an including a full refund.

So your argument would be that you had given them the chance to rectify the issues, but due to this having been done in a way that has caused you significant inconvenience to you, you are now requiring a refund instead.

Does this answer your query?

Customer: replied 6 months ago.
Thank you Ben that definitely helps - I will be in touch if I need anything further Many thanks Lyn

All the best

Ben Jones and other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 5 months ago.
Good afternoon Ben, You kindly helped us last month with an issue we have with a kitchen installation carried out by Wren. We re opened our case with the ombudsman and made a further claim under Section 56 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. We requested a full refund. They have rejected our claim for a full refund and awarded us a choice between two resolutions offered by Wren. Ideally we would prefer to accept neither and to pursue a full refund however, we do not know whether this would be a sensible thing to do. Would you be able to help us review our options to make an educated decision? Regards
Lyn Tupper

Hi Lyn, who has rejected your claim - the Ombudsman or the retailer?

Customer: replied 5 months ago.
The ombudsman as they did not believe a full refund to be proportionate to the issues in our second claim. I would argue that our inconvenience has been considerable. I have asked for clarification on how our accepting a 50% refund on the installation would affect our guarantees both on the installation and the goods provided. I have also asked for clarification as to how Wren propose to rectify the issues as I am concerned their solutions will be shoddy. If we were to reject both of Wren's proposed resolutions that the ombudsman has endorsed would that weaken our case should we take it further? Many thanks

Thank you. The issue with advising you which way to go is that we are not really allowed to make such decisions for you and you need to do that based on what we tell you in terms of legal position and options. That is because it is impossible to predict the outcome of any legal action and therefore telling you to go one way may end up being the ‘wrong’ thing to do as you could end up in a worse position than what you are in now, or what you could have had if you accepted the current proposal. As such, my involvement would be limited to advising you of your options and rights, but without being able to tell you which way to go. I hope you understand.