Not long ago RISA was called in over a dispute between an installer and a homeowner. The two had been in dispute for over a year, and the homeowner, believing there to be an issue with the installation, was refusing to pay for half the final contract cost until it had been rectified. The installer was adamant there were no issues, and was refusing to cooperate, demanding the balance of the contract.

RISA was instructed by the homeowner, but as always, the results of the report were wholly independent. RISA found the project to be lacking in some areas of compliance. It also identified several defects. The homeowners were proven correct in their evaluation of the finished project and as a result made an offer to settle, reducing the overall £ 8000 contract value.

Unfortunately, the installer was not so accepting of the report and decided to pursue the case through the courts, lodging a claim against the homeowner for non-payment. This proved to be his first expensive mistake.

The homeowners engaged legal representation and issued a counter claim that was many times the value of the original settlement offer.

During the court case, the installer represented himself. This was his second mistake.

The Judge was initially patient with the installer but grew noticeably less so as he made multiple errors in presenting the case, despite having spent many months preparing.

The installer relied heavily on the contract terms as part of the defence, for example that they could not be held responsible for delays, and that they had a right to return as many times as they needed to complete the installation. It was ruled that these contract terms infringed the Consumers statutory rights and were therefore unfair.

Not only did the court case drag on for a year, but the financial and psychological impact the ongoing dispute would have had on both parties would have been

considerable. A little bit of knowledge is often more dangerous than no knowledge at all, and this was definitely the case here – a window installer is not legally trained. In this case, under cross examination from the homeowners’ barrister the installer did not fare well!

Ultimately the Judge found in favour of the homeowners and awarded them a substantial part of their counter claim – a sum that was considerably more than the original contract value. Crucially, the installer was also ordered to pay for the homeowners’ costs as well.

It is due to this, and many similar scenarios, that RISA launched an Expert Determination service. Expert Determination( ED) is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution( ADR) which is geared specifically towards the technical disputes and requirements of the fenestration industry.

Had the installer used ED early on when the dispute first arose, the case would have been settled quickly, confidentially and while the installer would still have been responsible for installation defects. As a

result, the costs to the installer would have been many times less.

“ The independence of Expert Determination is key to ensuring both homeowners and installers get a fair assessment of the issue,” said Dave Mechem, RISA director of inspection and assessment.“ In the event of a dispute, an expert can be called in to help make a ruling within, on average, 28 days. This saves a significant amount of time, expense and stress for all parties involved- taking a dispute through the courts can often take months if not longer, and cost thousands of pounds.”

If a dispute arises between an installer and a homeowner and Expert Determination is included within the terms and conditions, both parties can agree to call in an expert who acts impartially. After carrying out a thorough inspection of the installation and assessing both sides of the dispute, the expert makes a determination that is legally binding.

“ This RISA Expert Determination Service has been specifically formulated by RISA for the window and door industry,”

added Lee Galley, independent inspections manager.“ It is a recognised form of ADR equivalent to other resolution methodologies such as arbitration and mediation but is specifically geared towards the technical disputes and requirements of the fenestration industry.

“ RISA recently provided expert evidence in a case where homeowners were refusing to pay the final balance to an installer due to claimed technical defects,” Lee added.“ The installer chose to issue legal proceedings. The case took two years to come to court and the homeowners presented a counter claim many times the value of the original dispute. The Court ruled in favour of the homeowners and also awarded their costs. ADR in the form of Expert Determination could have settled this case in a matter of weeks, the counter claim would have been unlikely to arise, and the five figure legal costs would not have accrued.”

www. risaltd. co. uk / risa-expert-determination