Boiler valve leaking caused by a plumber

[Davidhall]

I employed a plumber to change a diverter valve on my combi gas boiler. He did so ok, but when he put the boiler back together again, another valve started leaking. It wasn't leaking before he changed the diverter valve. The plumber now wants another £200 to repair the leaky valve. I think this is all part of the same job? Am I right or can he charge extra?

 

[ShaunCorbs]

I’m guessing it’s a boiler isolation valve tbh it’s one of them tbh I would as you cover the parts and he waves the labour

these days with sealed systems I always drain down it’s easier in the long run else you find like you have or the valves don’t hold

 

[SimonG]

Would it be leaking if he hadnt had to replace the diverter, no. The valves are designed to isolate the boiler. Should he have to pay for something that fails through no fault of his own? No.

Plus the diverter change would have been more expensive not touching those valves. Drain down, refill, inhibitor etc.

 

[Scott_D]

If a mechanic is to service your car and the bonnet cable snaps should he have to pay?

Not his fault unfortunately, if the valve leaks performing it’s only function on\off then it was already broken.

 

[john the plumber]

I employed a plumber to change a diverter valve on my combi gas boiler. He did so ok, but when he put the boiler back together again, another valve started leaking. It wasn't leaking before he changed the diverter valve. The plumber now wants another £200 to repair the leaky valve. I think this is all part of the same job? Am I right or can he charge extra?

It’s not the plumbers fault.

 

[rpm]

If a mechanic is to service your car and the bonnet cable snaps should he have to pay?

Not his fault unfortunately, if the valve leaks performing it’s only function on\off then it was already broken.

I am not saying that the plumber should bear all the cost but it wasn`t already broken according to the OP. We all know that these things are bad luck and as a tradesperson I would work with the customer not hit them with a £200 bill.

 

[Knappers]

I would obviously use experience to try and ensure the best outcome for customer (as you would by draining down) but I do often use boiler valves without issue.

I would probably discount remedial work but entirely on goodwill.
It's in no way the guys responsibility to do so.

During a service I once drove over a cast manhole on customers tarmac drive and it broke, when I looked the frame was loose not bedded in and in a dangerous state.
I offered to refit properly if she paid £40 for new manhole but she demanded I pay for everything so I removed my offer and advised instead that I'd bill for any damage to my van!

Both offers fair IMO

 

[Last Plumber]

The valves (presuming this is an isolation valve) are designed and installed to facilitate working on the appliance. If they leak when used, that would not be the fault of the person using them. That person did not design or manufacture them and is not responsible for their performance/failure.

If I were in the same position, I would be charging the customer for parts and labour to replace them after explaining myself well enough for the customer to understand the situation.

 

[Ben-gee]

Think of it this way, if this exact thing happens to a plumber 20 times through no fault of their own it is clearly unfair to expect them to cover the cost of the bad luck.

Each customer pays their own one, one each - or the plumber pays for all twenty?

 

[Ric2013]

Customer should pay the reasonable cost of the extra parts and labour. Unless a fixed-price quote (not an estimate: a proper quotation) was given, in which case the plumber should already have included a fluff-up factor to cover this kind of eventuality.