Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 aims to protect consumers against bad workmanship or the poor provision of services. It covers contracts for work and materials, as well as contracts for pure services, and remember, this still applies even in everyday situations – such as going to the hairdressers or the dry cleaners – where you have no physical contract at all. Just as with Sale of Goods, Supply of Goods and Services legislation contains statutory rights, which don’t have to be specifically mentioned in any contract, but cannot be excluded. These are:
- That the supplier will carry out the service with reasonable care and skill
- That the work will be carried out in reasonable time (unless timeframe has been specifically agreed)
- That the work will be carried out at reasonable cost (unless cost has been specifically agreed)
The legislation also details the remedies which are available to consumers in the event that any one of these statutory terms are breached. These can be found in the following sections.
Common complaints:
- He was a complete cowboy!
- They are taking forever to do the work!
- It cost me a fortune!
- The price was significantly higher than the estimate
- The job was done as a ‘foreigner’. Do I have any rights?
- How much can I claim in damages?
How can I resolve the situation?
Using the Small Claims Court
Related posts:
Hi,
As a recipient of a disability allowance my home was assessed as part of the Governments Warmfront scheme. I had cavity wall insulation fitted and a new boiler also which I paid a percentage towards. The condense pipe on my new boiler was incorrently fitted, drew in rainwater and subsequently flooded the boiler and my kichen…..the result of standing water (I was away at the time)has blown the electrics and has impacted on a large area of wooden floor too. I have noted recent adverse publicity re this scheme and as Government providers are they also subject to the Supply of Goods and Services Act? Is there a restriction if some funding is granted? If I have lost faith in the installers who seem to think that they have the absolute right to pick up the remedial repair work, do I have to us them?
Dee, yes your statutory rights will always apply where you are dealing with traders. Unfortunately you do have to give the original traders the opportunity to put the work right in the first instance, but make it clear that if anything else is found to be faulty you have the right to commission alternative traders and recover the cost through the small claims court. Insist on an assessment of their work after they have finished, the traders should be members of a trade body you can also contact.
There was water leaking from underneath pavement part of our shop. We rang Thames Water who recommended a company called Leakbuster. We invited Leakbuster to come to repair the leak. Another company called Blocked Drains Uk which we never spoke to or heard of came. Blocked Drains UK charged £450.00. They took 3 days to change the burst pipe and charged a further £1180.00. We paid them a total of £1630.00. They put the tarmac on but it is not finished. The tarmac is uneven. The surface is uneven. There is a block of concrete that is uneven and is dangerous because any member of public could trip over. There are ten bags of dirt rubbish they dug up and those bags are just left there. They put cones over the work. We have telephoned them to return to do the tarmac properly but they refused and want a further £400.00 paid in advance. We wrote to them to give them one month to do the tarmac but they have not replied to our letter. We have asked another plumbling company to give an independent estimate of the cost and they came up with £1280.00 which is £350.00 cheaper than what Blocked Drains UK charged us. Blocked Drains Uk is a member of NRSWA. We do not know what NRSWA stands for. On the invoice my collegue signed there is a small print which reads “I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE INFORMATION HEREWITH AND MY SIGNATURE ABOVE CONFIRMS MY FULL SATISFACTION WITH THE WORK CARRIED OUT AND THE CHARGES MADE ACCORDINGLY.” What can we do?
Mr Cee, NRSWA stands for New Roads and Street Works Act, it is not a trade body so I can’t see how they can be ‘members’ of it! The fact that you have signed this piece of paper cannot overrule your statutory rights under the Supply of Goods and Services. Write to them giving them reasonable notice to get the rest of the work done, or you will contract an alternative supplier and pursue them for the additional costs through the small claims court. See the section on making a small claim on this site for more info about this.
I recently signed a contract for my daughter’s nursery place and she attended for two weeks before I removed her due to her coming home with soaking wet nappies, hungry and a filthy face not to mention very unhappy. I paid the nursery for the time she has been there but they want me to pay for the months notice period even though I have not taken her back there. They have asked for £750.00. I have had to place her elsewhere immediately as I work full time and she is now happy, content and clean. Should I have to pay them???
We purchased a brand new van from volkswagon in 2007 within this time we have had 2 new engines, 5 turbo replacements and various otr faults which have caused the van to be of the road for many days the van has done 54000 miles.
We did take them to court and settled through arbitration and agreed a 3000pound credit note to be used with there services the court case finished 2 months ago . we have had a full service on the van 4 weeks ago and yet again required another turbo 2 weeks later. then only 3 days after this they have had to replace the engine again.
Can anyone advise what our position is to hand the van back?
What were the terms of the settlement
Hi tony we took them to court for the loss of work caused by the van being of the road as it is specially fitted. we worked the costings out at a day rate but made sure we only claimed for the downtime for the second repair ie if a turbo failed, then failed again within a short period of time we claimed for the amount of days the van was of the road for that second repair not the first.so thats what the settlement was for days lost the original claim was for 5000 but we came to an agreement. but since this we are back to the same position again. we have had enough of the van as it is to unreliable and will be looking at taking them to court about the vehicle this time.
hello,
I would appreciate some advice re. a problem with exterior doors. We ordered a set of bifold doors from a UK manufacturer to fit to an extension that we had built on the side of the house. We informed them on the phone of the purpose of the doors – to be fitted as exterior doors to an extension.
We received a quote, and some drawings, one drawing showing the doors from the outside of the building – clearly showing a door handle, a lock and two arrows indicating door opening. After the doors were fitted by our builder, we found that the doors can not be opened from the outside. We have already tried mediation with the manufacturers who claim that we did not ask if the doors would open from the outside. We have also tried to get redress from the credit card company under the supply of goods and sales Act 1982 and the Consumer credit act 1974, but the credit card company has rejected our dispute.
We feel that it is reasonable to expect a set of doors to open from both sides, and feel aggrieved with both the manufacturers and the credit card company. We don’t really want to take the matter to the small claims court but don’t know what else to do. Do we have a good case here or not? What do you advise us to do? Is the credit card company right to reject our dispute? Many thanks in advance. Grace
hi mate you issue lies in 2 parts mainly the supply of goods and manufacturers liabilty but the latter is not so strong as the product is not faulty but do look at the consumer protection act which imposes asdditional rights on manufacturers but the supplky of goods act has sections in relation to the product being as described and the drawings may be suffiecient to be classed inder section 5 as sale by smaple if it is then it should have a handle also section 4 the product should be fit for purpose and clearly if it does not open from outside then it is not the courts will look at the reasonable test as howe reasonable and ordinary is it for these doors to not have a handle on the outside and an expert could be called to strenghten your case i think your case is good 70/30 hope this helps
Hi,I contracted with Air Works plc for the supply and installation of an air-conditioning system for my flat. I paid £7,500 for the supply and installation. I signed Air Works plc’s standard term contract, which contained, inter alia, the following term:
“Air Works plc accepts no liability for any loss damage or injury to person or property caused by the installation and/or use of this air-conditioning unit.”
Air Works delivered the air-conditioning unit and installed it in my kitchen. Air works connected the unit to a vent in the outside wall of the flat by a short pipe running from the unit to the vent.
Air Works had not removed a stopper from the short pipe when the unit was installed (the stopper was there to keep the pipe clean during transport). This caused a build-up of moisture in the unit, leading to a short-circuit.
In consequence of the short-circuit, the unit caught fire, causing considerable damage to my kitchen. I was at home at the time of the fire, and i suffered injury by smoke-inhalation.
What terms or terms implied by that act might assist me?
and also whether Air Works plc will be able to avoid any liability to me for my injury or for the damage to his kitchen in reliance on the above term???
any help will be appricated as i am arguin my own case, Thank you
hi there yyour claim is definately under the supply of goods and services act 1982 the it has 3 parts supply of goods uunder sections 2-5 and the other that concerns you is sections 12-15 whicgh are to do with contracts of service s 13 has been breached whichg is to do with reasonable car and skill used and should be compared with relevant member of a siomilar trade also harbutt plasterine case also s14 reasonable time to complete the job and s15 reasonable price however your claim for damage to property and yourself is a claim under tort you can sue for damage to the kitchen due to the defective fitting and if the product was defective then you can sue the manufacturer your claim for your personal injury is straight forward also be vary the company will try to rely on the exclusion clauses but the statutory rights overturn them as one can not exl;ude liabilty if a person is injured or damge to propety is made hope this helps any more info please ask
Hi,
My Dad (76) had some builders replace our roof due to several problems, including the flat roof of a loft extension letting water in. The builders agreed to do several things including pointing a chimney and adding trays (I don’t really understand, I wasn’t involved in the negotiation) and some of things have not been done. The flat roof now leaks more than it did before, to such an extent that the water coming in fills a dustbin in around four hours when it’s raining heavily. He has asked them to come back and they have variously said that they could not gain access, or that they have been up and there wasn’t a problem. He paid them before it rained, so we had no idea that there was a problem until it was too late. I don’t know where to go from here. My Dad feels that there’s nothing to be done as he’s already paid for it. The flat roof is above my bedroom and I have literally had to build a second roof inside with drainage out to a waste pipe to get any sleep when it rains. My Dad is several thousand pounds down and the situation is worse than it was to start with. Please help!
i have had a look at the scenario and it clearly falls under the supply of goods and services act 1982 and it is one hat is covered by sections 2-5 which is to do with goods being transfered and sections 12-15 which it to do with contracts of services and the builders have definately breached their duties that are statutory implied firstly section 12 which is to do with reaonable car and skill this has been fallen foul as they have not done the job as a competent worker of the relevant trade would have done so as the water would not leak if done properly also look at relevant area and take some action maybe by writing a letter of intention to take them to court small claims also you should take action as cowboy builders scamming elderly people should be stopped maybe trading standands should help you stop these people if they done it to you then might have done to others hope this helps
I took my car in for a mot and repair work.I kept getting phone calls while it was in the garage saying new work need doing but it wasnt stated on the failed mot certicate.we paid 400 pounds for the work that they did on my brakes ect.7 days after that i had complete brake failure with my 3 yr old daughter plus nearly hitting someone due to them walkin out into the road.I took it to a different garage they were shocked at the work the garage did my brake shoe was in little bit and brake fulid was leaking out.Do i have the right to compensation.Iv paid out 950 pounds for car to go though its mot.
hi emma best just reading your scenario and clearly this falls under the supply of goods and services act 1982 ans under sections 2-5 for the supply of goods i.e. the brake shoes etc also under sections 12-15 this is to do with supply of the service the fitting of any parts and clearly under section 13 they must take reasonable care and skill but they have failed as the brake fluid is leaking and the price to me seems very high for the work so under section 15 they must charge a reasonable amount and this is based on a similar person of the relevant field so an expert can be called to assess how much it should have cost your claim falls foul under this act and you have a successfull claim against them any more info please do ask
Reply
hi emma best just reading your scenario and clearly this falls under the supply of goods and services act 1982 ans under sections 2-5 for the supply of goods i.e. the brake shoes etc also under sections 12-15 this is to do with supply of the service the fitting of any parts and clearly under section 13 they must take reasonable care and skill but they have failed as the brake fluid is leaking and the price to me seems very high for the work so under section 15 they must charge a reasonable amount and this is based on a similar person of the relevant field so an expert can be called to assess how much it should have cost your claim falls foul under this act and you have a successfull claim against them any more info please do ask
Hi,
I was looking for some advice to help with a dispute. I own a Glow Worm 30CXI combi boiler which is out of warranty and about six months ago had solar heating installed by a 3rd party company, however I believe that I may have been mis-sold the solar heating system and also have an issue with the plumber having carried out work and taken payment for it even though the fault has not been fixed as a result of the work.
The setup is such that the mains water is passed through a cylinder where it is pre-heated by the solar system. Warm water from the cylinder is then fed to the 30cxi, in theory so that the boiler will not need to use as much gas to raise the water to desired temperature. The sales guy basically said it would be compatible and none of the installation engineers raised any possible problems at the time of the install.
Our boiler has now stopped producing hot water on demand and after replacing the flow diverter and pressure valve without resolving the issue our plumbers are now saying that it is not working because the boiler is not compatible with the solar pre-heat. They haven’t been able to offer a specific technical explanation for this, however they called the Glow Worm tech support line who advised me verbally that such a setup would not work. Again no specific fault diagnosed – it “just doesn’t work”.
I now have two separate issues that need to be addressed, the first is that on the follow-up visit after I had called them back the plumber didn’t bother to attempt to diagnose the fault in the boiler any further even though the situation hasn’t changed since before they charged me £400 to replace the parts which clearly didn’t resolve the problem. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to supervise the fitting of the parts due to unavoidable work commitments, however it was still left to me to discover that the problem hadn’t been fixed and chase the company for it. Also how come they didn’t raise the solar compatibility issue before they had quoted for and carried out the work on the flow diverter? It seems like they just took a guess and when it didn’t work lost all interest in trying to resolve the problem as they had already had my money.
The second issue is that obviously the solar company misrepresented the effectiveness of the system as I have since found out from a second plumber and various websites that very few combis are compatible with solar. Problem is I need to collect evidence of this to present to the solar company (or court if it goes that far) so that we can be compensated adequately. Otherwise I know they will likely try to direct the blame back to our plumber.
-Would I be eligible to get a refund from the plumber for the work that was carried out seemingly needlessly? They told me that was what needed to be done to fix the problem, I agreed to it, they did the work but it didn’t do what they said it would I.E. fix the problem.
-Does anyone have any experience of being mis-sold solar heating products and if so what would my entitlements be? The installation itself is covered by a 1-year guarantee but I think that’s more for if the actual workmanship is faulty so I’m guessing this would be a trading standards issue instead?
Hi………Bought a sky dish and paid for installation….In jan this year I noticed picture break up…On the 22/3/10 I noticed an extra wire from my sat dish…….discovered ft1 was connected to my dish without my permission….In all sky wanted to call to get a picture of the set up and make a report..they agreed not to send the engineer whom we thought was responsible..and that they do not pull wires out or correct anything at that stage…However on the day they wanted to do that and the engineer that was not supposed to be there was…The engineer admitted he did connect ft1 to my dish..after a month Sky digital have not sent that report..what do I do now
Cheers David
Hi…in december 2006 we had a conservatory put on back of our home.when we went to the company jade conservatories with our measurement they gave us a quote for what we wanted we went away to think about it.the company then got intouch with us to say they were selling one of there ex display ones and that we could have it fully complete with light fitting and air con for £10,000,it was the same size that we wanted.my husband asked about a garantee and we were told all there conservatories came with a 10 years garatee,they had had the display one up for 5 years so we would get the remainder 5 years.we agreed and they did the work for us .then the first down pour of rain left us with a puddle in our conservatory ,we rang them up and some time after they came out to put it right(a few times).we are still left with a leak because it has not been done properly.now they are saying if we want it doing they will come out and do it at a cost,but this has never been put right since they put it up.there also saying we did not get a 5 year garentee.we have sent them a letter on the 6th of july 2010 stating the consumer goods and services act 1982,asking them to respond to my complaint or complete the repairs to our roof with in 14 days or we will take the matter further .we have heard nothing from them,could you tell us where we go from here please..
I have a BMW motorcycle which had major engine repair work done within warranty at 10,000 miles. Now outside of warranty, and still at less that 20,000 miles I have two significant failures – the major engine work needs to be re-done, with the same components having failed, and the rear axle has failed. In both of these cases BMW have redesigned the comonents since my bike was built.
Do I have any rights under consumer laws to get them to replace these components at their cost ?
Hi, i built a brick wall for a customer in march 2009 with 3 pillars. Since i built the wall the customer has had metal railings placed inbetween the pillars. She contacted me to say the mortar had come away from some of the wall. I said i would go and look at it but at present am very busy. I have since had a letter from the customer saying that if i don’t respond in 14 days she will take matters further with the supply and goods act 1982. How can i be sure the metal railings havent damaged the wall and what is the best steps to take?
Hi – I have had brown patio window fitted. It will not close when the day has been hot. Faces north and will not close from about 4.00 pm. When the weather cools down at about 8.00 the door will then close. They suggested I go outside and spray water on frame. Apparently the frame bows in the hot weather. Is this normal for brown patio windows and can I have compensation?