Admission of liability or goodwill gesture?

[SpidersAreShitheads]

I bought a shower tray 9 months ago which has cracked. I asked the online retailer to replace the tray.

After a full month of questions back and forth, together with technical questions for my bathroom fitter, I got a reply from the retailer saying the manufacturer had agreed to replace the tray.

I thanked them for accepting liability, they responded and said the replacement would be sent out the next day.

The fitter says it will take two days to remove and replace the tray. I have gone back to the retailer and quoted the Consumer Rights Act, and asked them to cover the cost of re-fitting. I genuinely didn’t realise this was possible when I initially asked them to replace the tray and very conveniently they decided not to point it out.

They've now responded to say that a tray wouldn’t normally break after nine months if there was a genuine flaw, and it was only replaced as a gesture of goodwill. I queried this and pointed out they never said this previously and didn’t previously correct me when I thanked them for accepting liability.

They’ve now returned with a letter from the supplier saying the tray was replaced as a gesture of goodwill. No explanation why. Also though, the letter from the supplier is dated yesterday - not when the original decision was made to replace the tray.

So my question is, if they didn’t say the tray replacement was a gesture of goodwill originally, can they rely on that now? Can they insist after the fact that it was only goodwill to avoid their obligations under the Consumer Rights Act?

Would really appreciate any advice - thanks

even if they had admitted a fault in the original product… they still would not be responsible for fitting costs

I’m not asking for the manufacturer to cover the cost, but the retailer.

Section 23 (I think) of the Consumer Rights Act says the retailer has to cover the labour and materials for any refitting required. This only applies if I’m entitled to a replacement tray.

So if they have accepted liability for the fact that the tray is faulty, that means I am entitled to a replacement tray - and thereby entitled to receive the cost of having it refitted.

If they can legitimately claim it’s only a goodwill gesture, I would have to somehow prove that I’m entitled to a replacement tray before they’d be obligated to cover the cost of refitting.

Who originally fitted it? Was it a third party? How can you prove that they didn’t damage it?

It was a bathroom fitter, so yes, a third party.

I’ve just spent a month going back and forth replying to their requests for information, including technical info from the fitter.

The point is that they didn’t have to replace the tray and could have refused if they believed it could have been damaged by the fitter. However, they agreed to replace the tray - after receiving photos and lots of info about how it was fitted. At no point did they say the tray replacement was a goodwill gesture.

In essence they’ve accepted the tray as faulty by agreeing to replace it. If they wanted to check whether it was damaged by the fitter, they had their opportunity but decided to replace the tray without needing to do so, presumably on the basis of the information I supplied.

Having agreed to replace the tray, there now arises an obligation to pay for the cost it being refitted - but they’re trying to wiggle out of it by claiming it was only a goodwill gesture. My point is that it was never stated to be a goodwill gesture and I don’t know if they are allowed to claim this retrospectively.