The facts of the case
A couple bought aluminium apertures for their new home for €6,000. They paid a €2,000 deposit when placing the order and settled the remaining balance upon installation.
Shortly after they were installed, the couple noticed defects in one of the apertures and promptly reported the issue to the trader.
However, the trader initially dismissed their concerns, claiming there were no defects. Despite the couple’s persistence, the trader continued to delay addressing the issue and failed to provide an appropriate solution.
Frustrated by the lack of progress, the couple submitted a complaint to the Office for Consumer Affairs at the MCCAA, seeking to resolve the issue through the conciliation process. Despite the MCCAA’s efforts to facilitate an amicable agreement between the parties, the dispute remained unresolved.
As a result, the couple decided to take further action by escalating the matter to the Consumer Claims Tribunal.
The tribunal’s considerations
The tribunal initially noted that the couple was requesting a refund of €2,200, which represents part of a larger sum of money they paid the trader for the purchase and installation of aluminium apertures. The couple claimed that the installed apertures were defective and had developed problems during the warranty period.
The tribunal also observed that despite being duly notified of the claim, the defendant company failed to submit a reply as required by law. It is important to highlight that when a claim is filed with the tribunal, the trader is notified and given the opportunity to respond to the claim and file a counterclaim if necessary.
However, in this case, the company not only neglected to submit a reply but also made no effort to contact the tribunal regarding the case or send a representative to attend the hearings.
In their claim, the couple said that even though additional defects and damages in the apertures had emerged since filing the tribunal proceedings, they chose to proceed with the original claim amount of €2,200. The couple explained that their claim is mainly based on one specific aluminium aperture that developed multiple faults shortly after installation.
To substantiate their claim, the couple submitted photographic evidence to the tribunal, showing that the double glazing was exposed to air, causing crystallisation.
The couple also presented proof that the seller had provided them with a five-year guarantee on the apertures and a 10-year guarantee on the double glazing. The photos submitted further demonstrated defects in both the aluminium structure and the glass.
The couple informed the tribunal that when they first made their complaint to the trader, the latter initially offered to replace the glass but did not accept liability for the damage to the aluminium structure, alleging that the damage was caused by gypsum works carried out within the property after installation.
However, the couple denied this claim and said no gypsum work was ever carried out within the property after installation.
The consumers also confirmed they paid the total of €6,000, which included the apertures and installation, and that everything was installed by the defendant company.
They emphasised that no third parties were involved, ruling out any external factors that could have caused the damage to the aluminium. The tribunal further observed that the company failed to send a representative to provide evidence and did not file a reply to dispute the couple’s claim. As a result, the couple’s claim remained uncontested. This lack of response from the trader further corroborates the couple’s initial testimony that the trader was uncommunicative and uncooperative.
The tribunal’s decision
After reviewing the evidence submitted by the couple, the tribunal found their account of events to be both credible and convincing. The photographic proof, guarantees, and detailed explanations they provided reinforced the validity of their claim. Consequently, the tribunal decided to uphold the couple’s claim for compensation and ordered the defendant company to pay them the sum of €2,200. Furthermore, the tribunal ruled that the defendant company should also bear the costs associated with the tribunal’s proceedings.
Odette Vella is director, Information and Research Directorate, MCCAA.
www.mccaa.org.mt