Think Kitchen & Bathroom Ltd

We are a local family business that receives most of our work from recommendations, and we regularly receive letters from satisfied clients. If there are issues, we go out of our way to resolve them to the client’s satisfaction. I am sorry that in this case this was not possible & Mr Herbert felt that he had to join and place a negative review on this and other sites because we would not give in to his demands to replace a shower tray, with all the associated work, free of charge under guarantee (fitted two and a half years earlier).

Mr Herbert claims in this post to have evidence from other bathroom companies that our decision was incorrect and yet he has failed to provide that evidence to us. I was notified by email within a few hours of the negative reviews being placed that they would be removed ‘when you decide to treat us with care and attention’. I was also informed by a separate email that a complaint had been made to Trading Standards and the comment ‘ if you are right then that’s fine’. We have not heard from Trading Standards.

Occasionally projects do not progress as hoped. However, a review should be fair and we feel this review is neither fair, nor accurate and is in fact is exceptionally misleading.

It is true the larder was delivered incorrectly, it is not true the electric meter was overlooked. The joiners and the client discussed these issues without consulting me, and decided on the resolutions stated. We have in fact adapted larder units previously in the same way at the request of other clients (brooms don’t fall over). I would happily have replaced the larder unit if required but this would have inevitably delayed the installation. The cabinetry was planned to be placed over the meter box but it was easier for the joiner to place it beneath and the client agreed to this. Again we sometimes do this by design and our showroom does in fact have a display set out this way. The handles had not been chosen by the client, and when they were, they were fitted within a few days.

The statement regarding the flooring is incorrect. The flooring specified did not require the existing floor to be lifted. It was in fact, for this reason, that this flooring was chosen, as it reduced the cost of the project. The client decided to lift the existing flooring himself without consulting with us. He did it badly and this necessitated considerable extra work to make the floor acceptable; work that would not be paid for by the customer.

The client also removed the existing lighting to the utility and disposed of it, assuming we were fitting spotlights. The client complained and we gave them replacement lighting at our own expense. This is not mentioned in the review.

The client also pulled off the plastic trim to the double glazed door assuming we would be fully plastering the utility walls. The condition of the walls (stripped by the client to reduce the cost of the installation) meant that we had to crossline the walls prior to painting. Again, we undertook this work at our own expense not even mentioning to the client about additional cost. I was asked why we were not fully re-plastering. This was because it was not required, I hadn’t quoted for it, and the cost to do so was high. I had been told to keep the cost of the utility to a minimum. The client’s answer was, ‘that is your answer to everything’. The client refused to speak to me further and asked for another member of staff to come to the phone. I had to ask another member of staff to take over running the project.

As per the client statement they reported that the toilet seat was not aligned properly. On inspection the seat was found to be aligned correctly, but as stated it was later discovered that it was the toilet pan itself that was badly cast in manufacturing and the client forwarded images. We ordered a replacement pan and it took several months and 4 toilet pans to get this from the German manufacturers as a faulty batch had been manufactured. This was unfortunate and a rare case but this was something outside of our control.

The £200 added to the final cost was a genuine mistake by the member of staff involved with regard to the computer software. The client came to pay the bill and there was a discrepancy, our member of staff did not insist on payment, in fact she explained she would need some time to clarify the discrepancy and the customer returned home until she could clarify, particularly since the client refused to pay for the additional work regarding the flooring. The member of staff received an email shortly afterwards complaining this was disgraceful behaviour.

The client eventually settled the account on the 26/01/2016.

We received an email on the 6th February 2016 advising us that a crack had been discovered in the shower tray fitted over two and a half years earlier and asking if we could inspect and advise on how to proceed. A member of staff responded within 2 hours and asked for a time that our Project Manager, could call and inspect. We received an email back, four days later, on the 10th February 2016 but we could not have access until the following week and we duly visited on the 16th February. Photographs were taken and sent to the suppliers of the shower tray. It is not true that we sent an email to Mr Herbert advising him that he must have damaged the shower tray and we could not help. It was the suppliers that had emailed Mr Herbert, advising him on the 19th February 2016, informing the customer that they did not consider the crack to be a genuine manufacturing fault but the result of an impact. He forwarded that email on to us. He clearly was not happy with the conclusion so asked if we could help further. A reply was sent within a few hours and we tried again with the suppliers but they were adamant there was no claim on the guarantee. Mr Herbert was notified of this on the 26th February 2016.

On the 7th April 2016 we received a further email from Mr Herbert. He stated two local bathroom companies had inspected and disagreed with the suppliers assessment. I did not dismiss the content of the email out of hand and I replied to this email on the 8th April 2016. I explained that we had thoroughly investigated his claim but stated I would look at the matter again if he could forward the evidence from the two bathroom companies. No evidence has ever been provided.

On the 18th April 2016 this post, and those to other sites were placed. We were notified by email a few hours later that the negative review would be removed ‘when you decide to treat us with care and attention’. I was also informed by a separate email that a complaint had been made to Trading Standards and the comment ‘ if you are right then that’s fine’. We have never heard from Trading Standards.