Windows and doors failed building regs compliance

[Its WAR]

I invited a long established local  windows company to  quote for the supply and installation of two windows and a door. The business owner surveyed the property, which was a former attached storeroom (at the time was just a shell) which we were converting into a studio flat. The storeroom had never had windows, so we had a builder create new openings.  He also repositioned the old doorway. The window company came to measure up and quote. I accepted the quote. Then they supplied and installed, and issued  the Fensa certificate when they finished. 

 

Sometime later, when the project was complete we had the final inspection from building control to issue the Completion Certificate. However, there was a document missing which was a PAS24 document. This certified the specs of the door and window met the standard for compliance. I asked the windows firm to issue the document but they could not issue it because they had installed standard doors and windows which did not have a high enough spec to meet PAS24 compliance.

 

They argue that I did not tell them  the windows and door needed to comply with building regs, and had I of done, they would have quoted me for higher spec products.

I argue that as a member of the public, I had invited them to survey, measure up and quote for two windows and a door. When the survey was done, it is they who would have known the products needed to comply (as all new installations must), but they quoted for only a standard product. They did not quote for two versions (cheaper one that would not comply and a dearer one that would). They did not ask me questions to ascertain whether building control were involved and did not explain the options. They simply provided their  recommendation for my needs, and  supplied a drawn plan. I accepted the quote with the full expectation that the products they quoted for would naturally comply with current regs. I am of the view that they had a duty to ensure compliance and if there was any doubt they should have asked questions to make sure. They now want £1000 to replace the glass, locks & barrels to upgrade to PAS24 compliance. After some emailing to and fro, their final position is they reject all responsibility.

 

My question is: Who is responsible? Should I have checked the quote suited my purpose (ie the products would comply with PAS24, even though I had never heard of it), before signing  the contract? Or should they have ensured the product they were recommending and quoting for was fit for the purpose, and therefore ask me the right questions to ascertain? Is it my fault or theirs?

 

What's my next move?

 

[BankFodder]

In principle you were entitled to rely on their professional expertise and judgement.
Did they have a written instruction from you?

If you can establish their liability then I would say that they will be liable for the removal and reinstallation of the items to a proper specification but not for the cost of the replacement items. In respect of those, they would have to deduct the money you paid for the only fitted pieces and charge you only for the balance.

Did they have a written instruction from you?

[Its WAR]

Thanks BF.

 

The only written instruction was my signature accepting their quotation. I agree I relied entirely on them to come up with a compliant solution. I think that is the natural expectation of all customers.

 

So are you saying they might only be liable to cover their  labour costs  of removing the lower spec parts and replacing with the compliant parts, and that I would be responsible for the actual cost of the new parts? Or the difference in cost between the old and new parts. ie the old glass panel say £200, the replacement say £300, so I pay £100 or £300?

[Its WAR]

I have just looked up Building regulation Part Q which came into effect on October 1^st 2015. Windows and doors Part Q is mandatory for most  new buildings. Part Q does not apply to replacement windows and doors.

 

PAS24 is the certificate with details the physical specs of the door to withstand attack. The certificate  proves the manufacturer has had the door tested and has past the test.

 

As this installation was for a new residential building and the door and windows were first time installed (not replacing existing ones), the installer would have known they had to comply, must comply, without me telling them. So I maintain, it is their liability.