Who is right?

[markadams]

Hi,

I did some electrical work for a customer which involved the replacement of an outside light and a couple of PIRs that the builder broke. The lights were intermittently tripping the RCD, When I changed the lights etc it was working fine so I assumed that the issue was solved so I billed the customer.

The customer has just come back and said it has started tripping again and they are not paying until it is fixed.

My invoice is for the installation work and not any fault finding so I feel that it should still be paid.

I am going back tomorrow to have a look at the lights again (which will incur an additional invoice).

Who is in the right?

 

[joehat]

As long as you said it wasn't a fix to the rcd problem and it was just the most likely cause , as with water getting in, then they should pay , aswell as if they needed replacing Anyways!!

 

[Andy78]

That depends what the customer thought they were getting for their money and how it was explained to them by you in the first place.

 

[markadams]

That depends what the customer thought they were getting for their money and how it was explained to them by you in the first place.

Its a difficult one, as I was told about the problem with the lights so I said I would have a look at them, then separately I was asked to install new PIRs and replace one of the lights.

Mark.

 

[Andy78]

Its a difficult one, as I was told about the problem with the lights so I said I would have a look at them, then separately I was asked to install new PIRs and replace one of the lights.

Mark.

Did you test the circuit as part of the original request ?
Did you explain that changing the lights may not solve the problem and further fault finding at further cost may occur ?

 

[markadams]

Did you test the circuit as part of the original request ?
Did you explain that changing the lights may not solve the problem and further fault finding at further cost may occur ?

The PIRs were changed they were smashed and the light was damaged and was tatty this is why I was asked to replace them.

They were not replaced to solve the problem, they are saying that they don't want to pay for something they cant use.

 

[Andy78]

All sounds a bit of a muddle. So you were never asked to, nor agreed to do any fault finding work to investigate why the RCD was tripping ?

 

[Deleted member 9648]

It sounds to me like you were asked to rectify the tripping RCD issue...(the words you used ...."When I changed the lights etc it was working fine so I assumed that the issue was solved so I billed the customer".)
It also sounds like you just assumed it was the lights without any testing.
Unless the tripping RCD is protecting only that circuit then the issue may be completely unrelated to the lights, only proper testing would establish that which you didn't carry out.

 

[Clive P]

Hi,

My take on this is, as part of the install did you carry out any testing? If you had, then perhaps the cause of the problem may have been identified. The bottom line is though, you should be paid for any fault finding and remedial works.

Regards.

 

[markadams]

Yes I did agree to test the lights on a separate occasion, I have gone a lot of jobs for this customer and they just ask me to look at different things as I am going other work.

Mark.

 

[Darkwood]

Its seems a breakdown in communication here is partly to blame, it should have been made clear from the off that the tripping issue may not be resolved by the replacement of PIR's etc although regarding the condition they were in it could be a probable cause, the customer is possibly in the right here due to them been under the impression that it was going to resolve the issue, I would in your shoes go in and do a bit of testing off your own back then if you route out the cause you can give if needed a quote to rectify as the OS lights needed sorting regardless.

This will happen more than once so its always better to get all work agreed and limitations to work on paper and signed and counter signed by yourself and customer, then at the end of any job, you have the agreed limitations of your service in writing.

I do this with certain problematic customers who have a tendancy to forget what ws originally discussed whether deliberate or not.

 

[Octopus]

If you were the last person to touch the lights /circuit then I think its your morale duty to go back and investigate..... regardless of the monies involved.

Then when you find the issue then the conversation can start!

 

[sean_ork]

If you were the last person to touch the lights /circuit then I think its your moral duty to go back and investigate..... regardless of the monies involved.

corrected that for you !

 

[Octopus]

corrected that for you !

Maybe - but then what was his original "brief" - fit new lights or fault find and fit new lights? My guess is that this was all discussed verbally so time to put it down to experience...

 

[markadams]

If you were the last person to touch the lights /circuit then I think its your morale duty to go back and investigate..... regardless of the monies involved.

Then when you find the issue then the conversation can start!

I agree with all the comments, I am going back tomorrow to do some more testing. Yes I did a full range of tests on the new installation, all results came back within range, the trouble is the fault is intermittent and can be fine for weeks. It is 100% being caused by the lights as the RCD does not trip when they are isolated.

I suspect that it is water getting into one of the lights, trouble is that it means that the lights work fine when it is dry.

I didn't get it in writing as I have done many other jobs for them with no problems.