By Rod Appleyard, chartered building surveyor, chartered project manager and accredited mediator.

While winding down for Christmas, I picked up the December issue of Glass Times to have a good read and see what the trade was up to.

After reading several commentaries, I arrived at page 62 and Faisal Hussain’s (DGCOS) article – oh dear!

For those that do not know me, I work as an expert witness and forensic investigator of all things glass and fenestration and as such have more than a firm foot in dispute resolution.

On reading the article I think that a few things need to be straightened out. The installer has a contract with the householder. If the householder gets finance or pays, even partially, by credit card, then there is section 76 that allows a claim against the installing company via the credit card company.

The only time that this can change is that if – and it is a big if – in a domestic contract, a collateral warranty is in place, linking the fabricator/glass manufacturer to the householder. It’s unusual but possible. The answer to this is, what does the contract say?

If the installing company goes to the wall, then that is the end of it with the exception of the credit card company if payment by this route was made, as even just the deposit is sufficient.

There is no legal link between any company supplying the installers and the householder. This point has been argued many times in court without success.

The householder is seen as a simple creditor at best, along with many others, and just has to get in line. The administrator/liquidator often appointed by the bank is not there to be generous but to liquidate assets and as the bank is often the prime creditor they get paid just behind HMRC as preferential creditors – the rest just scrabble for the crumbs.

This brings me to the nub of my almost ruined Christmas. It begs the question of ‘why on earth would a supplier step up and place themselves in the firing line’?

This could be taken to its extreme where the fixing suppliers are in the firing line. One word – ‘bonkers’. If they do get involved and it is not set out clearly, their position prior to involvement (without liability) is that they can be seen to embrace liability in the broadest sense under tort.

I agree that it is sad that this sort of thing happens but it is no different to the whole construction industry, fenestration is not a special case. If the contractor goes to the wall, all else falls away.

I agree that it is helpful for the supplier/fabricator to assist but this can only be on a very guarded basis and not directly as things can get out of hand by the householders perception of liability. Unless a professional is in the frame between the suppliers and the householder, my best advice is ‘don’t go there’.

We all wish the best for our industry, but sometimes the full picture is not apparent in terms of the relationship between householder and installer. There is much that can tarnish this, as I have often found out when investigating.

Please Faisal Hussain, it is not ‘the right thing to do’ it is simply putting the suppliers at risk. Let the legal professionals sort it out and not put the industry in a compromising position unnecessarily. We all have integrity and look at things charitably, but don’t use it as leverage.