Report re Damage to Shower Tray – Address Removed, Kings Clipstone, Notts

January 2007

Background

The property is a 3 storey detached dwelling house built by (name removed) in the summer of 2004. Mr (name removed) took possession of the property in September 2004 as the first and only owner.

Around one year after taking possession the shower tray in the first floor master bedroom failed in that it cracked around the waste outlet. This was reported to (name removed) who replaced the shower tray under the terms of their guarantee as the damage was discovered within the first two years.

It was noted by (name removed) that when he reported this damage to (name removed) the response he got from the person on the telephone was that it appeared they had installed a “bad batch” of shower trays as others had failed in the same way on the estate.

About 4 weeks ago similar damage was found to the shower tray in the second floor shower room. It was reported to (name removed) who declined to replace the item as it was outside the two years of their guarantee.

The Damage

The shower tray has failed by cracking around the waste outlet.

This can be seen in Image One overleaf taken whilst the tray was in situ.

It was not clear who the manufacturer of the shower tray was although the enclosure which sat upon it was made by Fordham.

Image One

After removal of the tray the date stamp of 24 Jun 2004 was found on the underside, this can be seen in Image Two

Image Two

None of the household are of excessive weight. The area of damage is not exposed to direct sunlight. Normal use of the shower has taken place and everyday household cleaning products have been used on it.

Conclusions

The shower tray has failed within 28 months of installation. This is far below the standard of durability expected for such as item.

The fact that an identical shower tray failed in the same way in the same property would strongly support the argument that an “inherent fault” existed when it was installed. The comments made by the (name removed) employee would corroborate this proposition although it is accepted it would be difficult to attribute the remarks to a particular individual.

Under current consumer law as the later damage is caused by an inherent fault then responsibility for repair/ replacement clearly lies with (name removed) notwithstanding the time taken for it to manifest itself.

Invoice

Please find enclosed my invoice for the work carried out

Yours faithfully

 Martin Ball

Update Feb 2007 - The builders paid for the work carried out and the costs for preparing the report.