High Value Dispute Over Kitchen Installation

Our client had invested in a premium kitchen installation and expected exactly that, a high-quality result that matched the detailed Specification of Works they had signed up to. What they got was something very different. After the work was completed, the kitchen suffered from persistent plumbing leaks and dangerous electrical faults. The finish fell well short of what had been promised, and the safety standards were simply not there. Despite all of this, the contractor had the confidence to demand the full outstanding balance of £72,500.

The claims

The contractor alleged:

• That the installation had been completed to a satisfactory standard

• That the full outstanding balance of £72,500 remained due and payable

• That our client had no valid basis to withhold payment

Our approach

Rather than getting drawn into protracted correspondence, we focused the discussion entirely onto the contractual and regulatory facts.

• The correspondence - rather than issuing court proceedings, we sent a formal letter of claim setting out the breaches identified, and the remedy sought, which opened the door to direct negotiation with the contractor.

• The safety failures - we identified direct violations of electrical and plumbing codes, which removed any reasonable basis for the contractor to pursue the full payment in court.

• The liability - the contractor had fundamentally failed to carry out the installation work with reasonable care and skill, as the law requires of anyone fitting or building a kitchen. Even though the written specification didn't spell out every installation standard, our client was protected by statutory consumer rights that require any tradesperson's work to be performed to a proper standard, and that entitles a consumer to a remedy where it is not.

Our view was simple: if the work didn't meet the agreed specification and breached basic safety codes, the contractor had no standing to demand full payment, and we were prepared to say so formally.

The outcome

Following the letter of claim, further negotiations took place directly with the contractor. The contractor returned to the site and rectified every electrical and plumbing defect at their own cost, and agreed to reduce the final invoice to reflect the stress and delays our client had been put through. Our client received the premium kitchen they were originally promised, fully certified, safe, and for a lower price than the contractor had demanded, without the need for litigation and without our client incurring any legal costs of their own beyond the initial letter of claim.

What this means if you're in a similar position

If a contractor is demanding payment for work that simply isn't up to standard, you don't have to pay up and hope for the best. Early, strategic action can make a real difference:

• It forces the contractor to confront the gap between what was promised and what was delivered

• It shifts the legal and financial risk squarely back onto them

• It can avoid the cost and delay of court proceedings entirely

• And in many cases, it secures a better financial outcome

We know that dealing with a contractor who won't acknowledge their own failings is exhausting, especially when significant sums of money are on the line. That's exactly the moment when it helps to have someone who can look at the situation clearly, apply the right legal framework, and take the appropriate action.