Consumer Claims Tribunal case: Woman claims refund of deposit for works not done
If a consumer sells a property, is she entitled to reclaim part of a deposit she paid for electrical and plumbing works commissioned if they had not been undertaken up to the point of sale?
The case
A woman hired the services of an individual to carry out electrical and plumbing works in her maisonette and paid him a €1,500 deposit. However, before the work was completed, the consumer sold the property to third parties. Given this change in circumstances, and the fact that only part of the agreed work had been carried out, the consumer asked the electrician/plumber to issue an invoice detailing the value of the work he had completed up to that point. The invoice amounted to approximately €550.
The consumer then informed the trader that, since the maisonette had been sold, the remaining work was no longer needed. She therefore asked him for a refund of the difference between the €1,500 deposit and the €550 worth of completed work. The trader replied that he would review the matter and revert back to her.
During their subsequent exchanges, he also mentioned that he had carried out some work for her son, although he was unable to recall specific details. The consumer firmly maintained that the deposit was paid exclusively for work on her own property, and that any work undertaken for her son was entirely unrelated and should be settled separately by him.
Despite numerous attempts to reach a mutual agreement, the issue remained unresolved. As a result, the consumer filed a formal complaint with the Office for Consumer Affairs at the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority (MCCAA) in the hope of settling the matter through its conciliation process. However, despite the office’s intervention, the trader refused to issue the refund requested.
With the matter still unresolved, the consumer opted to escalate the case further by bringing it before the Consumer Claims Tribunal.
The tribunal’s considerations
The tribunal noted that the consumer’s complaint primarily focused on obtaining a refund of €950, representing the difference between the deposit paid and the value of the work completed by the trader.
It was established that the maisonette where the works were to be undertaken had subsequently been sold to third parties. As a result, a significant portion of the agreed-upon work was neither carried out nor required anymore.
The tribunal also took note of the trader’s admission that the consumer had given him a cheque for €1,500. However, he said he could not recall what the payment specifically covered.
The trader could not confirm whether the €1,500 payment was specifically related to the works carried out at the consumer’s property
He further indicated that he would be willing to issue the €950 refund if the consumer could provide supporting documentation proving that the deposit was solely intended for the work at her maisonette. If not, he claimed that the consumer should pay him €550 for the work completed on the property. In support of his position, the trader submitted an invoice outlining the work done, which included electrical installation pipe work, drainage works in the front garden, as well as associated materials and labour.
The consumer clarified that the invoice submitted by the trader accounted for the only work he had carried out at her property. She argued that her sole obligation was to prove that she had paid the €1,500 deposit, and that the value of the invoice should be deducted from this amount, with the remaining balance refunded to her. To support her claim, the consumer presented a copy of the cheque showing payment of €1,500 to the trader.
In response, the trader said he could not confirm whether the €1,500 payment was specifically related to the works carried out at the consumer’s property, and as a result, he was unsure whether he had actually been paid for that particular work. However, he did acknowledge that he had cashed the cheque issued to him by the consumer.
The tribunal emphasised that it was the trader’s responsibility to issue a receipt for any payments received, clearly indicating what the payment was for. The fact that the trader failed to do so and is now uncertain about the purpose of the payment is a situation entirely of his own making.
The tribunal’s decision
After considering the statements of both parties and the overall circumstances of the dispute, the tribunal found the consumer’s account to be more credible. As a result, it ruled that she is entitled to a refund of the difference between the €1,500 deposit and the value of the work completed. Accordingly, the tribunal ordered the trader to refund the consumer the amount of €950.
Additionally, the tribunal directed the trader to bear the costs related to the tribunal proceedings.
Odette Vella is director, Information and Research Directorate, MCCAA