If you value your sanity DO NOT GO NEAR CONCEPT WINDOWS
Awful, simply awful experience. Horrendous. Late delivery (months late), so had to spend hundreds of pounds fixing the old door (on top of the steep price the new front was costing us) which I therefore withheld from the final amount to be paid.
The owner (Kevin Attreed) tried to BLACKMAIL me into paying by refusing to comply with the Building Regulations (and when I pointed it out, he accepted he was breaching the Regs, but carried on with breaching them anyway - all in order to try and blackmail me into paying) and threatened me with his (non-existent) legal team. I made him an offer to settle (basically, to get lost) which he rejected.
He never had a legal leg to stand on, but undeterred, Kevin (not his 'legal team') decided to issue a claim against me in a small claims court, and months later, after going through the hassle of filing a defense statement, a witness statement and evidence, justice prevailed, and the court struck out his claim.
Piece of advice for you, Kevin: Suing a customer for a few hundred quid is a pretty rogue move, especially when you're in the wrong and lose. If it doesn't damage your reputation, I don't know what does.
Oh, and next time, maybe take the advice of your 'legal team'?
So long and thanks for all the fish.
****************
Just seen Concept's reply to my earlier post. Here's my reply:
1. "At no point did you say..." - We did say. Both when we placed the order and every few weeks, when Concept called us to say there would be a few more weeks' delay, we told you guys we needed the new door asap.
2. "(on the date agreed)" - not true, you finally installed the new door months after the agree time frame. That is not "on the date agreed".
3. "At no time were we informed of this" - I'm mighty glad we didn't tell you until you had installed the door; not that I was obliged to tell you anything. All I did was allow to (FINALLY) go ahead and perform your contractual obligations.
4. "I'm unsure why you think Concept should cover the cost of arranging a locksmith" - this has been explained many times over. It's because Concept breached its obligation to deliver the door within the agreed 6-8 weeks period following 16 April. Concept is therefore liable for all loss/damage caused by the breach. The loss of £300 flows from your breach, because BUT FOR for Concept's breach, the old door would not have needed to be repaired. The "but for" test for causation of damage is elementary contract law, which your non-existent legal team ought to have explained to you.
5. "Concept did threaten you with court action etc." - Load of tosh. You did more than that - you STARTED a court action.
6. "We finally decided to not pursue the claim ... as it would have been a waste of time and money etc." - Even more tosh. You did pursue the claim. You ended up wasting your money on issuing the claim and wasting a lot of everybody's time. The reason the claim was struck out a mere two days before the hearing was because you did not pay the court fee; having seen my defense, witness statement etc. I think you realised this was one customer who was not going to be pushed around by you and who had a valid legal defense. It is bizarre that you are now rewriting history and saying you are sure you would have been successful in court. I have no doubt this is not true. The better view is you realised I was serious about defending my case and decided not to chuck good money after bad by paying more court fees. Perhaps on the advice of your non-existent "legal team"?
You didn't "cancel the application". The court struck out your claim because you didn't pay the hearing fee. Had you cancelled the application you wouldn't have refused to answer whether you had paid the fee on time when I asked you.
You "decided to let it go". You mean, you finally realised you couldn't win.
7. "I'm still doubtful this actually happened" - An outrageous and spurious claim. This is the first time you have cast doubt on this, not least because I provided you with evidence of the same very early on. Shame on you.
8. "You say I tried to blackmail you, but again this is untrue" - You are a little fibber, Kevin. You know full well that you refused to comply with the Building Regs in order to try and force me to pay. When I pointed out that you were breaching the Regs, you emailed me saying "I take your points on board, but as per my previous email we will not be ...[complying with the Building Regulations]... until payment has been received in full." You words, not mine. If that's not blackmail, what is?
9. "After beginning the application" - you mean, after filing and issuing a claim, submitting your witness statement and evidence, receiving my defense, my WS and evidence and going through mediation. In other words, after making yourself a complete pain in the nethers for months on end.
2 August 2022
Unprompted review