Failed bathroom installation - Seeking strike out of defence information - JCT Interiors Wakefield

[CarpetFox]

I hired JCT Interiors for supply and installation of a new bathroom, but they pulled out of the job part way through and left me with a non-functioning bathroom and multiple leaks. The matter has progressed to a small claims court, and around a month ago they submitted a defence, but it is fairly bare bones and lacks factual clarity (e.g. doesn't say what was said, how it was said, on which dates things were communicated, etc).

 

I am therefore intending to request a strike through of their defence, other wise an order for them to clarify the facts of their defence. However, I cannot find good templates/examples for making such a request online, and was hoping someone could help. 

 

In particular, I know that sometimes draft orders are included with such a request, but I am unsure if this is a requirement or just a recommendation. As I am a litigant in person, it does make it harder to draft these things myself.

 

Any advice is appreciated.

[AndyOrch]

Hi and Welcome to the form.

 

Its always considered best to attach a Draft order with any application. If the defence is without any merit you could also consider an application for Summary Judgment...but without sight of your actual particulars of claim and a copy of the defendant's defence its difficult to advise which would be the better option...both would require a hearing and would involve potential costs.

 

Andy

[CarpetFox]

Hi, thank you for your quick response.

 

Their full defence is as follows:
 

2.1. We sell/supply bathroom, kitchen and bedroom products. We do not

install any product.

2.2. Should the customer require, we can put them in touch with a

recommend fitter for the relevant products they have purchased. There is no

obligation and as with this case, Mr Bradbury obtained more than one quote

before deciding to go with a fitter known to us. Mr Bradbury does not have an

issue with the product's, the issue is with the fitting and as he states, "had lost

faith with the fitting team". Mr Bradbury knows the fitting is not completed by

PHL marketing. The set up is explained to every customer we have and

ultimately Mr Bradbury paid the fitter directly. As it stands he has not paid the

fitter the rest of his bill.

2.3. PHL marketing disputes all of the claim as the claim is regarding the the

fitting and how it was conducted.

Their defence relies solely on a denial that they installed the products, but this wasn't the case, I certainly hired them for both the supply and fitting - the receipts all confirm this, many of their emails confirm this. There was never any mention of the fitters being a recommendation at all.

 

To me, I need to know more information than they are saying in order to engage with their defence properly. E.g., on what date did they supposedly recommend the fitters? What company are the fitters if not them? How did they supposedly pass on the details of the recommendation? There is no factual basis that can be established in what they are saying - it is essentially a straightforward denial but a bit verbose. This is why it seems like I should request for it to be struck out, or failing that an order for them to clarify the details.

 

There are other parts of the claim the defence does not meet at all, as apart from the fitting issues, I also raised items that were mis-sold to me as well as items that were exchanged for cheaper ones but the difference wasn't refunded. The defence takes no stance on those issues at all.

[AndyOrch]

Thanks and your particulars of claim please ...(Redacted) verbatim 

[CarpetFox]

Apologies, the particulars and timeline follow.

 

3.1. On 9th October 2021 I purchased supply of bathroom goods with a fitting /installation/refurbishment service from the defendant, totalling £6319 for the supply and £4400 for the fitting.

 

3.2. I was sold a bath screen for £200 based solely on the description that it would be 90cm in width, have brushed chrome fittings and was a premium item with a SRRP of £250. The item shipped and fitted by the defendant was a Scudo Plain Bath Screen LS099N, which does not match the description and retailed as an entry level product available for £82.50 online. I have asked for the difference from what I paid to be refunded.

 

3.3. I exchanged an unused radiator with them for a smaller model, but the defendant has failed to pay me the difference in price.

 

3.4. During supply of a fitting/installation service the defendant gave cause for concern that skill and care was not being taken pursuant to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

Notably they installed a non-compliant electrical switch in a Zone 1 area of the bathroom, which contradicts regulations (a copy of regulations was provided by the defendant with their brochure).

 

They introduced 3 leaks to the bathroom:

One was a leak from the toilet infill pipe which was draining under the floorboards, and was eventually fixed by them.

 

Another was a leak from the toilet waste pipe which needed a constant bowl under the toilet and frequent emptying or else waste water would come through the kitchen ceiling, which happened on one occasion.

 

Another was a leak with the shower unit, which meant it could not be used without leaking water on the floor below the bathtub, and also leaked onto the non-compliant electrical switch.

 

The defendant were given two opportunities to fix these, but failed each time. Otherwise, the light switch and electric bath controls were installed in the wrong places without consulting me.

 

The fixed shower was installed approximately 4.5cm out of alignment from the intended midpoint of

the bathtub.

 

There was old lead piping that the defendant refused to remove at time of installation, even though it had been known to them since prior survey.

 

There were also a multitude of smaller issues, including the shower screen being installed at an angle, shower panels not being installed flush or cut straight as per the manufacturers guidance.

 

Midway through installation they pulled out of the job, leaving me without a bathroom door, no sink, no

heating, no ventilation, and three leaks preventing use of the bathroom 

 

When I raised complaints, they initially threatened to come and take back all the items installed thus far, leaving me with no bathroom in the house. They changed their mind on this, but were then unable to confirm any availability to return to do the work.

 

They were also not responding to complaints about leaks, and refused to comment on the electrical installation or give the registration details of the electrician.

 

They gave fictional accounts of conversations where I had supposedly agreed to pay them set amounts of

extra money for the work. They also refused to refurbish several meters of outdated lead pipework from the bathroom, instead leaving it curled up under the bathtub.

 

I exercised my right to end the contract (pursuant to 54(7) (f) of CRA 2015) on the grounds that the expected skill and care were not taken (pursuant to 49(1) of CRA 2015) and that the work was not being

performed in a reasonable time (pursuant to 52(2) of CRA 2015).

 

I am therefore asking of a refund on the services pursuant to section 56 of CRA 2015.

 

3.5. I have since had the bathroom completed, but incurred additional costs to replace architrave and skirting.

 

3.6. The defendants' fitters also scratched my bedroom window and the glass needs replacing as a result. I have estimated this cost at £300 currently, but this is to be confirmed by tradesmen.

 

3.7. The defendant also left an excess of business waste in my front garden, including large pieces of wood, plaster, shower panels, pipework, tiles, amongst other things (including personal waste such as drink cans and half eaten food). I am asking for the cost of skip hire so these can be removed, else for the defendant to arrange to have the waste removed themselves.

 

3.8. I was caused significant distress and inconvenience by the defendants actions. Between 17th January and February 15th I had no means of showering, bathing, or washing my hands other than the kitchen sink. I had a toilet which was constantly leaking from its exit pipe that I had to monitor and empty frequently, meaning I could not leave the house for extended periods.

 

There was no heating in the bathroom and it was the heart of winter.

 

On one occasion the toilet leak did overspill and leak onto my kitchen floor.

 

As the leak was from the exit pipe, it contained unhygienic water.

 

There was an unsafe electrical installation under my bathtub, with no bathroom door, and I have an indoors cat who I had to keep away from it.

 

I was threatened to be left with no bathroom at all upon raising complaints, and had to sort out last minute replacement fitters due to the urgency of the situation.

 

I have asked for appropriate compensation for distress and inconvenience which is proportionate to the circumstances I was placed in.

 

Timeline of what happened:

25 August 2021

I rang and spoke to James Cooke-Thomas to arrange a quote for supply and fitting for bathroom renovation.

 

6 September 2021

Mr Cooke-Thomas produced initial quote for supply and fitting

 

4 October 2021

Simon (an electrician) of the defendant's fitting team came out to survey the property.

 

9 October 2021

Signed the contract for supply and fitting at the defendant's showroom and deposit was paid

 

6 December 2021

Installation due to start that day was delayed by Mr Cooke-Thomas via email

 

4 January 2022

Installation due to start that day was delayed by Mr Cooke-Thomas via email

 

6 January 2022

I paid outstanding balance on goods 16 January 2022 I emailed Mr Cooke-Thomas to request exchange of

radiator. He argued it wasn't needed

 

17 January 2022

Installation began, headed by Warren Jowitt

 

17 January 2022

I raised issues with the fitting team verbally and via SSMS (to Mr Jowitt), regarding an sticking out area of

wall they were refusing to remove without additional payment. They changed their minds.

 

19 January 2022

I raised with fitters that the light switch was installed in the wrong place.

 

20 January 2022

I raised with fitters that they had introduced a leak from the toilet waste pipe and was told it was not worth correcting until the very end of the work.

 

21 January 2022

Shower screen was installed at an angle, additional leaks to toilet and shower were introduced, shower

panels were not cut evenly, shower was not  centralised, shower control was installed away from

the shower itself, non-conformant electrical switch was installed under the bath taps in zone 1 (of

regulations), etc.

 

22 January 2022

I emailed Mr Cooke-Thomas regarding some of the installation issues thus far

 

23 January 2022

I further emailed Mr Cooke-Thomas regarding some of the installation issues thus far

 

23 January 2022

Mr Cooke-Thomas in response to my complaints saying “I will be on site first thing to organise

removing what we have delivered and all products we have fitted.”

 

24 January 2022

Simon of installation team attempted to fix the leak behind the shower but failed. He was contacted by

the defendant mid-morning and told to leave the site, and informed me that the job would not be continued for the time being.

 

24 January 2022

Evening - I emailed Mr Cooke-Thomas to remind him of one of the leaks. No response.

 

27 January 2022

I again emailed Mr Cooke-Thomas regarding the leaks.

 

28 January 2022

Mr Cooke-Thomas had some replacement items delivered to my property, including radiator and shower panels.

 

29 January 2022

Callum of fitting team came out to my property to look at the leaks. He fixed one from the toilet infill

pipe, but left the one with the toilet waste pipe and the shower one.

 

29 January 2022

I emailed Mr Cooke-Thomas to let him know the leaks weren't fixed and were worse. No response.

 

1 February 2022

I had an independent plumber out who raised concerns with the electrical installation under the

bathtub and lead pipework that was being left in place instead of refurbished.

 

1 February 2022

I emailed Mr Cooke-Thomas regarding concerns with electrical installation under the bath. This was ignored.

 

2 February 2022

I sent an SSMS to the fittings team (Mr Jowitt) asking to reschedule the works to commence again for the

following week, but got no response.

 

2 February 2022

I sent an SSMS to Mr Jowitt reminding him of the leak, but no response.

 

3 February 2022

I sent an SSMS to Mr Jowitt trying to arrange for works to recommence, but was ignored.

 

3 February 2022

I again emailed Mr Cooke-Thomas about the leaks.

 

4 February 2022

I emailed Mr Cooke-Thomas asking what was happening with the rest of the installation

 

5 February 2022

Mr Cooke-Thomas emailed me to suggest Mr Jowitt would only sort the leak with the shower at that

point and that his diary for the rest of the year was filled up.

 

5 February 2022

I emailed Mr Cooke-Thomas requesting details of registered electrician used on the project thus far, but was refused.

 

5 February 2022

I emailed Mr Cooke-Thomas saying I was entitled to a refund under the CRA 2015, to which he

responded including “It will be better if get someone else to finish it [sic]”

 

5 February 2022

5 February 2022 used hostile language in emails such as “you are making this way more difficult than

it needs to be its a simple question [sic]” and “the point you are missing is […]”

 

5 February 2022

I informed him that there had been a fundamental breakdown of trust and I didn't want the fitters back in my house.

 

7 February 2022

At 07:10 I got an SSMS from Mr Jowitt saying “I’m on way to you to look at this leak [sic]”. I told him not to

come.

 

7 February 2022

I emailed Mr Cooke-Thomas asking for the rubbish outside my property to be removed. He requested a

photo, which I sent, but then no further action was taken.

 

8 February 2022

I emailed Mr Cooke-Thomas to offer a final chance for them to finish the installation. He responded

vaguely with no indication of a timetable for work to recommence. He included a false account in his email of me agreeing to pay additional funds.

 

8 February 2022

I asked again for registration details of electrician, but was ignored.

 

9 February 2022

I emailed Mr Cooke-Thomas to end the supply of  goods under CRA 2015.

 

9 February 2022

Evening - The toilet leak overflowed and water from the waste pipe came through my floorboards and

the kitchen ceiling, dripping in large volumes onto the kitchen floor.

 

10 February 2022

I emailed Mr Cooke-Thomas with LETTER BEFORE ACTION, detailing chronology of events, my claim,

requested money, and requesting documents to be shared.

 

4 March 2022

I received response from Mr Cooke-Thomas via post. It made no reference whatsoever to the issues with

missold or exchanged products, and denied affiliation between the defendant and their own fitters. None of the requested documents I had asked for were given

Edited May 4, 2022 by dx100uk
formatting

[AndyOrch]

Thanks.....with regards to the claim how was this submitted...via MCOL Northampton on line ? Did you submit separate particulars as the above seems to exceed the allowed character submission ?

 

Also what is the current status of the claim as it moved to allocation ?

[CarpetFox]

It was submitted online via MCOL yes. The particulars were submitted into the text box on their site, and I recall shaving off details to get it to fit, but it was allowed in the end, if only just (so I made the most of the timeline section to include detail where possible). There may be a few extra characters in the above as a result of copy pasting (e.g. the 3.1 would not have been on the original word count), but otherwise I can't explain why its different to what you expect. Maybe they increased the allowance recently or something.

 

We had mediation today which failed, so it is now awaiting allocation to district court I believe.

[AndyOrch]

Okay thank you...and you have both submitted Directions questionnaires and now awaiting your Notice of Allocation. 

Given that you have got to this stage its not really recommended to make any applications for either strike out or summary judgment as normal procedure is that any applications should be made pre DQ.

 

I guess the total value of claim is Small Claims Track and that you have requested interest on the claim pursuant to sec 69 @8%  

 

Let me digest all the above and I will get back to you on what I think is the best course of action although you are limited as it s now at allocation to track stage.

 

Andy

[CarpetFox]

Okay thank you for the advice. The reason I waited is that at the time that they submitted their defence, they sent in additional particulars, but they were rejected by the court because they were emailed in when they shouldn't have been and they missed the deadline. I thought I would give them time to make an application to amend of their own volition before I asked for a strike out, which they've had just shy of a month to do.

 

The thing is, their defence hinges entirely on denying they were the fitters and doesn't address any of the concerns with the installation of the bathroom. Honestly I have a wealth of information which contradicts them - the quotation from them, a recording of the initial phone call inquiry to them where they state that they handle the installation, emails where they refer to the fitters as their team, text from their own website, etc. It seems all I really have to do is prove a single lie wrong and they won't have anything left. It's a shame if there isn't a process I can use to do that simpler than a full trial.

 

Also worth mentioning maybe, I saw a copy of their rejected defence, and they included some falsified evidence as exhibits in it (didn't think evidence was even needed just yet). I have original versions of their modified documents and some emails which show they tried to misrepresent things. Is there any way for me to raise this with the court at this stage or would I just need to point out the fake evidence at a full trial?

 

Thank you

 

I'm not sure if I have submitted a Directions questionnaire by the way. Is that the one where I say I still wish to pursue the claim after receiving their defence?

[AndyOrch]

Yes n180 ...you can still address all the points after allocation as that's the stage when both parties submit evidence and witness statements.

If they were late in submitting their defence you really should have requested judgment after day 33 (28+ 5) deemed served....that's assuming they completed the AOS on time.

 

 

 

 

.

[CarpetFox]

MCOL didn't let me request a default judgement because they had still submitted the online form on time, just without their full particulars. I would have to request the default judgement "manually", which I've had no idea how to do.