- Reaction score
- 3,010
Firstly, please don't selectively quote what I have written to prove your point.I am sorry and I do not wish to seem argumentative but again I must take issue with some points in your response.
Not correct. Your advice is not correct and mine is materially different in certain areas.
In your earlier post you reply state "..Contractually, and very begrudgingly, I'd offer him the opportunity to hire someone competent to do the work stating in the letter your belief he is not competent, attach your list of faults from your LLs assessor."
I don't believe the landlord has ever stated in writing that the installer was incompetent, (and I would lay £1 to a penny that neither the landlord nor anyone inspecting that installation will state in writing that the installer was incompetent), yet you have told the OP to make that allegation. The competence of the installer is for now a matter for conjecture, until he has been demonstrably proven to be incompetent by a person whose judgement would be acceptable to a Court. However what should not be pursued are allegations of competence. The facts of the quality of the work speak for themselves. Let others form their own judgements as to whether poor installation quality also demonstrates incompetence.
No I have not, I have given sound advice based on my training and experience as a Contracts Manager with legal training. This is materially different to yours in a number of areas.
Yes we will, as you have pre-judged the decision of the Court, and your comment has already caused the OP to doubt the wisdom of proceeding
Yet you also state "......Contractually, and very begrudgingly...."
Contracts do not have to be in writing to be legally enforceable, with one important exception: a contract for the sale (or other disposition) of land or property must be in writing and contain all the terms agreed, otherwise it is not enforceable. How often do YOU insist on a proper written and signed Contract before undertaking work ?
I know a contract can be written, oral or implied hence;-
In my opinion, without a written contract or other sound proof a contract has been entered into and between whom then there is precious little for MCOL to settle.
The issue the OP has is;-
He has entered into a contract with the installer, however agreed.
The installer completed his work but has had his work condemned by a third party, one who was not part of the initial contract.
This third party has deprived the OP of goods or services he paid for.
This has been done by the third party disconnecting the installation.
So who is claiming off of whom and for what?
Does the Tenancy Agreement, a contract entered into between the Tenant and the Landlord, have supremacy over the contract entered into between the Tenant and the Installer?
Does the contract entered into between the Tenant and Landlord allow for the actions taken by the Landlord or his Agent?
If not the OP is claiming off his Landlord
Does the Landlord or his Agent have sufficient expertise to deprive the Tenant of his paid for gods or services? Reasonableness test.
If not the OP is claiming off his Landlord however, this becomes a very messy argument.
Assuming the Landlord has all his ducks in a row and has the contractual right and the expertise, to deprive the OP of his goods or services, another question arises.
Who owns this installation?
Is it the landlord?
Is it the Tenant?
Is it the installer?
This brings us back to the Tenancy Agreement (TA).
If the TA stipulates that all alterations or additions to the fabric of the building become the property of the Landlord, which seems to be implied by the Landlord or his Agents actions, then the OP, although having paid for the work, does not have ownership and therefore has no case in court.
So the OP needs to determine if he has ownership.
If he does, then the LL had no right to deprive him of his goods or services.
He should serve the LL
If he doesn't he has no case.
And, as you rightly point out I an no lawyer yet can see the mess this is.
This is by no means clear cut. I am not prejudging the outcome, unlike yourself, but highlighting the complexity of it.
If you think I am making it unnecessarily complex just think what a real lawyer will do with it.