Protecting installers against expensive legal procedures
RISA, the GGF company that specialises in inspections and auditing, is launching an ‘Expert Determination’ service to help settle cases in the event of a dispute.
The service will help window companies save significant time and costs by avoiding legal action and court proceedings. Through the scheme, installers will have access to independent RICS trained experts who are qualified to provide impartial determinations.
Expert Determination can be added to an installer’s terms and conditions, giving them peace of mind and protection against potentially high legal costs. The findings of the service are a legally binding form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) which can avoid lengthy delays in payment, court proceedings and legal fees.
“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.”