Unnecessary damage caused by plumber in search of leak

[Johnmelad]

Provided we have the correct version of events from the OP I dont she she should be obliged to pay when the 'Plumber' has not managed to fix the leak he was engaged to deal with. To charge for making holes in a ceiling without fixing the issue he made the said holes to attempt to find is wrong, but a female on her own may have been an easy target.

We can only go on the information we have been given. So I agree, he should either have kept looking or walked away and charged nothing.

 

[gaswizzard]

No I am not a gas installer, and what has that got to do with the question I asked you..

Nothing really although you tend to take a dim view of registered gas installers , why I don't know , maybe an inferiority complex?

 

[Johnmelad]

So the water remains ON when the 'plumber' cuts the openings in the fabric but he fails to spot a leak? , the OP then decides to turn the water OFF , and then ON to which she finds a joint leaking , hard to believe eh?

That is not the point. For the fourth time, should she have paid this plumber when he failed to find the leak. That is what she called him out for.

The story does not ring true with me. If she had a leak, she would have turned the water off and then called the plumber.

But the question is still the same. Should she have paid the plumber who failed to do what she called him out for. Yes or no answer will do.

 

[Johnmelad]

No I am not a gas installer, and what has that got to do with the question I asked you..

Nothing really although you tend to take a dim view of registered gas installers , why I don't know , maybe an inferiority complex?

So answer the uk-ing question for the fifth time.

 

[Onetap]

That is not the point. For the fourth time, should she have paid this plumber when he failed to find the leak. That is what she called him out for.

More relevant, why did the push-fit fitting leak, when was it installed and who installed it? No inserts, wrong inserts, cut with a hacksaw, pipe too short, mice? If it's recent and incorrectly fitted, she should be chasing the installer for the repair costs.

Some of the ceiling would have been knackered by the leak anyway. There are also a bunch of further suspect push-fits concealed in the building structure. If she gets the installation pressure tested to 10 bar (as should have been done when it was installed, but probably wasn't) there may be more repairs to be done if more of them fail.

PS And yes, the plumber didn't have a crystal ball and didn't know where to dig. If he spent 3 hours looking for a leak, he'd charge for 3 hours labour. The leak can be in one place and the water drip off the pipe yards away. How else can you look for it without ripping down ceilings or ripping up floors?

He should have told her that (maybe he did) before he got the crowbar out.

 

[Johnmelad]

That is not the point. For the fourth time, should she have paid this plumber when he failed to find the leak. That is what she called him out for.

More relevant, why did the push-fit fitting leak, when was it installed and who installed it? No inserts, wrong inserts, cut with a hacksaw, pipe too short, mice? If it's recent and incorrectly fitted, she should be chasing the installer for the repair costs.

Some of the ceiling would have been knackered by the leak anyway. There are also a bunch of further suspect push-fits concealed in the building structure. If she gets the installation pressure tested to 10 bar (as should have been done when it was installed, but probably wasn't) there may be more repairs to be done if more of them fail.

Totally irrelevant. You quoted what I said then came up with the above, where is the relevance?

The question I want SFB to answer is should she have paid the plumber who failed to find what she called him out for?

 

[Johnmelad]

That is not the point. For the fourth time, should she have paid this plumber when he failed to find the leak. That is what she called him out for.

More relevant, why did the push-fit fitting leak, when was it installed and who installed it? No inserts, wrong inserts, cut with a hacksaw, pipe too short, mice? If it's recent and incorrectly fitted, she should be chasing the installer for the repair costs.

Some of the ceiling would have been knackered by the leak anyway. There are also a bunch of further suspect push-fits concealed in the building structure. If she gets the installation pressure tested to 10 bar (as should have been done when it was installed, but probably wasn't) there may be more repairs to be done if more of them fail.

PS And yes, the plumber didn't have a crystal ball and didn't know where to dig. If he spent 3 hours looking for a leak, he'd charge for 3 hours labour. The leak can be in one place and the water drip off the pipe yards away. How else can you look for it without ripping down ceilings or ripping up floors?

He should have told her that (maybe he did) before he got the crowbar out.

FFS - No one is questioning the need to do damage in order to locate the leak. All I am asking is as the plumber failed to find the leak should he have charged her for not doing what she called him out to do?

And yes, we know that where a leak appears does not have to be directly above the wet patch. It can be in the next room or even the floor above.

 

[scottiejd]

Well I never. I asked a question and seem to have set off a debate. No need to debate about my misfortune! Johnmelad - thank you for the support and Gas Wizzard - I'm sorry some woman took you to court for something that was clearly not your fault but this is different - don't tar us all with the same brush. At no point in my question (was just a question) did I say I ever had any intention of taking anyone to court OR did I say I expected the company to make good the damage - quite frankly, can't be bothered with the hassle. I merely asked if I should pay for a service I clearly did not recieve. And yes, he didn't have a crystal ball and he was a lovely man but the lovely man didn't do what I employed him to do nor did he do what I think is a basic test. And yes, real plumbers - public liability and everything.

 

[scottiejd]

He left me with a 7ft x 7ft hole in my ceiling and 20+ rat holes throughout the rest of the ceiling but failed to find a leak. On the advice of my father (an engineer), I completed a simple pressure test on my push fittings. All I had to do was turn off the water, empty the pipes and turn the water back on again and sure enough, water came flying out of one of the push fittings which sat over the very first hole he made meaning the rest of the damage was completely unnceccessary.

So why didn't the 'plumber' find the leak as the water was obviously 'on' when cutting the holes? , something doesn't add up or maybe you have a short memory? , you say you TURNED THE WATER OFF which leads me to believe it was ON when the 'plumber' was 'wrecking' your house.

My memory is fine thank you. The fitting spurts out water while the pipes are filling up but once they are full, it stops - I tested it twice so I know I'm right. Amazing isn't it and yes it was on while he was looking and no, he didn't 'wreck' my house nor did I accuse him of doing so.

 

[gaswizzard]

The question I want SFB to answer is should she have paid the plumber who failed to find what she called him out for?

SFB?

I haven't a chrystal ball so who knows if he found the leak or not , if I was on an hourly rate I would of found the leak but at what cost I don't know , maybe the OP asked the plumber to leave due to 'hours totting up' , i'm sure the 'plumber' would have found the leak given a free reign and hopefully not taking advantage of the situation , do you really think the 'plumber' wouldn't of found the leak whilst on an hourly rate?

 

[gaswizzard]

The fitting spurts out water while the pipes are filling up but once they are full, it stops - .

I rest my case.

 

[scottiejd]

The question I want SFB to answer is should she have paid the plumber who failed to find what she called him out for?

SFB?

I haven't a chrystal ball so who knows if he found the leak or not , if I was on an hourly rate I would of found the leak but at what cost I don't know , maybe the OP asked the plumber to leave due to 'hours totting up' , i'm sure the 'plumber' would have found the leak given a free reign and hopefully not taking advantage of the situation , do you really think the 'plumber' wouldn't of found the leak whilst on an hourly rate?

Well no, he didn't find the leak - I said that didn't I or perhaps I'm lying - who knows. Truth is he wanted to carry on making holes in the hallway to follow the pipework and you're 100% right, I asked him to stop and thank God I did because unbeknownst to him, he had already exposed the naughty pipe so continuing would have just caused more unnecessary damage so you're theory that he would have been successful had I have given him free reign is false.

 

[scottiejd]

The fitting spurts out water while the pipes are filling up but once they are full, it stops - .

I rest my case.

I'm sorry but what 'case'?

 

[gaswizzard]

The fitting spurts out water while the pipes are filling up but once they are full, it stops - .

So only when the 'pipes are filling' does the leak occur , so in other words there is no leak when the water is 'on' , so how did you expect the 'plumber' to find a non-existant leak? , I suggest you leave the water 'ON' in future in order to eliminate any future leaks.

 

[HERTS P&D]

He told you the hourly rate and you agreed to cut access to your ceiling, he then charged you for his time.

Everyone new what was going on, no one was conned.

Out of interest, how old was the plumber (approx)

Andy