The facts of the case
A couple engaged a trader to install a shower door and a wall-mounted toilet. After only two weeks the consumers noted that water was seeping through the shower door and that the toilet was coming off the wall and water was dripping from it.
The consumers reported the problems to the trader but despite twice going to the consumers’ house to try to fix the problems, he did not manage to do so. Eventually the consumers went to the company from where they had purchased the shower door and toilet and they were advised to engage another trader to check what was wrong with the installations and to fix the problems.
The consumers engaged another trader who managed to carry out the required works. These works cost the consumers the sum of €460. Consequently, the consumers requested the first trader to refund them the additional costs incurred. However, the trader refused the consumers’ request and informed them that he was only willing to refund them €90, which was the amount the consumers had paid him to install the shower door. The trader argued that there was nothing wrong with the wall-mounted toilet.
Since no agreement was reached with the trader, the consumers decided to register an official complaint with the Office for Consumer Affairs to start a conciliation process. However, despite the office’s intervention, no agreement was reached between the two parties, so the consumers were given the option to take their claim before the Consumer Claims Tribunal.
The tribunal’s considerations
In the first instance, the tribunal noted that the consumers are claiming that the defendant trader carried out defective works in their bathroom, and that they are requesting a refund of €460, which represent the sum of money they had to pay another trader to fix the damages caused by the defendant.
The tribunal also noted that the consumers had summoned a witness for the hearing. This witness was the trader they engaged to fix the defective workmanship. The witness explained that the shower door was installed upside down and the wall-mounted toilet was also wrongly mounted to the wall.
The shower door was installed upside down
The witness also confirmed that the consumers had paid him €460 for his services and also presented the relevant receipts as proof. Furthermore, the witness drew diagrams to explain to the tribunal why the toilet was not properly mounted to the wall and why it was unstable and leaking water.
While the defendant failed to submit a written reply to the consumers’ claims, he however attended the tribunal hearing and respond to the arguments made against him. The trader admitted that he did not know how to install the shower door. He also claimed that it was he who had advised the consumers to go to the company from where they had bought the shower door to obtain more information on how it should be installed.
With regard to the wall-mounted toilet, he rejected the consumers’ claim that it had not been properly installed. The defendant also confirmed that the consumers paid him in full for his work. He added that every time they reported a problem he had gone to their house to check. Furthermore, he said he had offered the consumers to refund them the €90 they had paid him for the installation of the shower door but argued that their request to pay them €460 for the extra costs incurred was unfair.
The tribunal’s decision
The tribunal noted that traders are obliged to carry out works that are of an acceptable standard within their trade or profession. It added that the consumers in this case had the right to expect the defendant to carry out the works properly and without defects.
Upon considering the proof presented and the declarations made by both parties, the tribunal concluded that the defendant was not competent to carry out the work he was engaged to do and that the consumers’ claim was justified.
In view of the above, and after taking into account the provisions of chapter 378 of the Laws of Malta (The Consumer Affairs Act), the tribunal upheld the consumers’ claim and ordered the defendant to pay the sum of €460. The tribunal also ruled that the expenses of the sitting must be paid by the defendant.