Unfair manufacturer practices?

[mattgibbs]

We recently have had our Flatroofing membrane finished by an approved installer of one of the ‘big two’ roofing weatherproof manufacturers. 
Without going into detail, things did not end well with the installer.
We now wish to install a solar fixing system that is welded to the roof but the manufacturer have said we need to use the same installer or our warranty will be void.
They would not even allow us to use a different approved installer which seems very unfair to trap us to the will of the original installer.

our warranty states that modifications to the roof are fine so long as we have the manufacturers approval. 
Can the manufacturer force us to use the original installer for this addition?

[JohnMo]

Change the solar fixings to ballast trays or ballast system for different angles, so no roof welding needed?

[mattgibbs]

27 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Change the solar fixings to ballast trays or ballast system for different angles, so no roof welding needed?

I could do but I figured this would add a huge amount of weight to the roof and would require some engineering calcs also.

I just think the manufacturers recommendation is wrong 

[Andehh]

Have you looked into the warranty terms and conditions, to see what it actually stipulates? Or ask them to show you where?

 

That does seem heavy handed.

[mattgibbs]

3 hours ago, Andehh said:

Have you looked into the warranty terms and conditions, to see what it actually stipulates? Or ask them to show you where?

 

That does seem heavy handed.

The warranty which was provided by the manufacturer after the job was completed just states that any modifications need to be approved by the manufacturer. I really don’t see why they wouldn’t let me use another approved installer 

[Onoff]

A bit of an aside but you might be able to take them on on the basis of not providing the warranty info before you bought. My son recently bought a top end graphics card (as in ££££), that had coil whine. When contacted initially, the supplier wrote back that coil whine can be quite normal and doesn't affect the user experience. They would accept the card as a return but only if my lad changed his reason from "faulty" to "unwanted". Bottom line is my brother's a barrister. We went back on these lines:

 

"Regulation 6 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 ("the Regulations") requires you to provide material information about your products to consumers. Failing to do so can constitute an offence under the Regulations. The lack of this information had an effect on my transactional decision because if I had know about the issue the product would not have been bought. A breach of the regulations does not provide me with a direct route for redress but this, together with my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 seems to generate a situation in which you may wish to reconsider my request for a refund on my original grounds?"

 

Thinking you might be able to adapt the wording to say had you been aware of the restrictions you wouldn't have gone with them.

 

Saying that imho I think what they are saying is in some repects quite fair. If someone else messes with their work and the roof leaks, it's going to be a pita dealing with two companies as to liability even if both are approved installers. What does the company small print say on repairs etc? 

 

You could argue what if the installation company folds, you would be forced to seek an alternative, approved installer for repairs etc.

 

You allude to the original install not going well. Care to expand on that? If you're deemed a difficult customer they may be playing hard ball.

 

I'll ask my brother.

[Andehh]

Imagine if any other product took this approach, you can only have your car repaired at the garage you bought it off or else no warranty... Or boiler install....

 

Price gouging would be rampant. An approved supplier fitting a material they are approved to fit should maintain a warranty from the approving supplier.

 

Buying a product that can only be worked on by a single, price gouging entity, would mean I look at other products. That's a material fact that should be up shared up front.

 

Time to read through the small price, and then look to recover costs via money claim depending on what's said.

[Onoff]

Big bruv said:

 

"If that is what the Warranty says then I can't see Reg 6 issue arising from that. It would be more relevant to look at what the customer was told before the work was started/completed. If they were not told prior to the work I would start looking at Reg 6 then. If it was made clear to start with then it is unlikely, based on this that a case exists".