We moved into a new apartment some time ago, and one of the toilet seat covers was cracked later on (in less than 2 years). We called the company who had provided the material and installed the toilet during the construction. They sent a technician and changed a new cover for us. We asked the technician that normally this should be covered by the guarantee, he said he needs to check with the company.
Then 4 months later, we received the bill, including the new cover material and the technician's installation. I called the company. They were quite rude and said that their technician saw immediately during the installation that it was our fault of usage which caused cracks, and if we don't pay the bill, they will start a poursuite.
It's not a big amount. But I want to know: in this case, where something is broken or cracked, how the guarantee works? how the client can prove that there was no inappropriate usage, and how the company can prove the contrary?
Guarantees normally cover faults and similar rather than wear and tear. I think it will be difficult to prove that the seat was faulty or weak or some other flaw that would cause it to crack after such a short time.
Is there a way you can show that it cracked due to workmanship rather than heavy use / dropping something on it?
Well, it's just a 200.- bill and I can pay it, and actually I would not be super super surprised that this thing is not covered by guarantee.
I'm just extremely unhappy about their communication. After receiving the bill, I called them. The lady said she has to check with the boss. Then she called back and said that the boss said the 2-year guarantee has already passed. I proved that they mis-calculated. The lady said ok your are right I need to check with the boss again. Then she called back and said actually she misunderstood the boss, actually it is not covered by guarantee at all, and she said immediately that if we don't pay they will start a poursuite, which pissed me off. She also said that their technician saw immediately and reported during the installation that it was the fault of usage, which is not true. In the paper that we signed, it is simply said that the technician came to replace a cover, and when asked, their technician did not give clear answer (he said something like probably it is under guarantee but he has to check with the company). The lady also said, with quite some pride, that "you didn't take a picture of the seat, how can you prove that it was not your fault?". I said "but then without a photo how can you prove in your favor either?". I asked to speak to her boss, and she said "I will give your number to him, and maybe he will call you if has the kindness to talk to you".
In a word, at first I thought I would just pay, and I called just to have more information, because the last word of their technician was “probably ok, but I need to check with company”, I wanted to understand the ground of the bill. But after this conversation, I am really really pissed off.
Tricky. It may hinge on whether you agreed in advance to cover the costs and/or what you signed.
Personally I would not pay, but this is just me.
Companies who simply threaten a debt collection enforcement are not well run.
You would be well within your rights to invoice them for the same amount saying that they need to pay you that amount and then you will pay that invoice. You can add administration and postage costs as well.
It will create more hassle and paperwork for them once you start a debt collection enforcement procedure against them and so it would go on and on and on.
But it depends also on whether you want to continue to have a harmonious relationship with them and/or whether you want to invest time and energy in this.
Just for my understanding, you are talking about a toilet seat cover like the ones you can buy in a lot of stores for 30.- to 70.- (very high end) bucks and can be very easy replaced?
Depends what was agreed upon in advance. It seems to me that they would have changed it themselves had they have known that they would be receiving this invoice! For me there is no logic in the first invoice if it was not authorized.
The tactic of counter invoicing in advance might make the company think twice about trying to get the money. Especially one who is already talking about a debt collection enforcement procedure.
It falls within the typical ‘small repair’ amount that tenants are generally liable for and it would be very hard to prove that the damage was anything other than normal wear and tear so personally I would just pay it.
There’s nothing really to be gained from fighting it other than a reputation as a difficult tenant.
Lesson learned for next time, if it’s something you can do yourself then do it ( a loo seat is very easy to replace) but if it’s something more complicated then find out who is responsible for the cost beforehand. Often the largest part of the bill is the callout fee and tradesman’s time.
we are owner and not tenants, but I think anyway this is not relevant?
And I don't quite follow the point of "small repair" that tenant liable to pay. Even if I was tenant, I would not ask money from the owner to pay. It's either the tenant or the company. no?
This is what I suspected from the way the posts were written, hence me saying it depends on what sort of a relationship you want to keep with them. It seems you do not need to keep in contact with them, so can afford not to pay.
However, if you feel strongly about it and want to invest the energy in opposing it, you have this option.
Was it made clear in advance who would be paying what in which circumstances? I think this is vital, as I would have spoken to them beforehand and said if this comes under guarantee, then you may carry out the works for me, I'll let the man in etc. etc.
But if it is not covered, then we will fix it ourselves.
This is what should have been clear beforehand.
Now the work has been done based upon verbal (mis-)understanding which can't be proven? Is this the situation?
If you are a tenant then typically repairs are the responsibility of the tenant up to a certain amount (typically around 200 chf ) but usually such repairs are carried out via the agency or owner.
If you are the owner then obviously you are dealing with the company directly but I still don’t think it’s worth fighting it. A cracked toilet seat is highly unlikely to be covered by warranty especially as the crack happened almost two years after installation.
How could they know whether it was covered under guarantee or not without actually seeing the seat and the damage?
A crack emanating from an attachment point caused by it being overtightened on installation may be covered for example but a crack due to it being dropped too hard wouldn’t.