The facts of the case

A consumer bought two garage doors from a local company. Around a year and a half after the doors were installed, the consumer noticed that the doors were covered with a protective plastic film and dirt was accumulating underneath it. When the consumer tried to remove the plastic, he encountered difficulties while removing the plastic of one of the garage doors.

As the consumer tried to pull the plastic off, it broke in very small pieces and did not come off. At this point, the consumer sought help from a professional but the problem remained unresolved as the plastic could not be removed without damaging the door.

Following this, the consumer contacted the original seller and enquired why the protective plastic could not be removed from one of the garage doors. The trader told the consumer that upon installation, they had informed him that the protective plastic needs to be removed within three months from installation. They informed the consumer that since he did not remove the plastic as instructed, the company rejected any liability.

The consumer denied that he was ever informed about the protective plastic or that he was instructed to remove it, and instead insisted that since the plastic film could be removed from one garage door but not from the other, that only meant that the door was defective. The consumer, hence, insisted that the company is obliged to provide a suitable remedy.

When the company rejected the consumer’s claim, the latter lodged an official complaint with the Office for Consumer Affairs to start the conciliation process with the aim of reaching an amicable agreement. But as no agreement was reached, the consumer opted to submit a claim for compensation for the defective garage door with the Consumer Claims Tribunal.

The tribunal’s considerations

The tribunal noted that the dispute concerns a claim of €1,000 as compensation for a garage door that the consumer is claiming is defective because he could not remove the protective plastic.

The consumer also claimed that the company did not inform him that he was required to remove the plastic within three months of installation. In view of this, the consumer is requesting the company to either find a way to remove the plastic without damaging the garage door or, if this solution is not possible, to replace the garage door with a new one at the seller’s expense.

On the other hand, the company argued that all the doors they install are covered with a protective plastic so that the doors are protected in situations where consumers are still doing construction works at the property where the doors are installed. The company also claimed that they always instruct their clients to remove the plastic within three months from installation.

The company claimed that in this particular case, the plastic was not removed immediately after installation because the pavement where the garage door was installed was not ready and the consumer wanted the garage doors installed so that he could close the property to be able to apply for the electricity compliance certificate.

The tribunal was faced with two contradictory versions where on one hand, the consumer denied having been informed about the protective plastic and on the other, the trader insisted that the information was clearly given to the consumer. While the tribunal acknowledged that both versions were plausible, it considered the fact that it took the consumer over a year to decide to remove the plastic and to contact the company about the problem.

Furthermore, the company also submitted proof that the consumer was aware of the protective plastic but decided to leave the plastic on the doors for over a year. This strengthened the trader’s version that it was the consumer who decided not to remove the protective plastic.

In addition, the consumer’s claim that the garage door was defective because he could not remove the plastic was not supported by any proof. In fact, the consumer never claimed that the garage door was not working properly but the problem was purely a cosmetic one.

The tribunal’s decision

Upon consideration of the abovementioned facts, the tribunal denied the consumer’s claim for compensation. The tribunal also ruled that the expenses of the tribunal’s sitting must be paid by the consumer.

ODETTE.VELLA@MCCAA.ORG.MT

Independent journalism costs money. Support Times of Malta for the price of a coffee.

Social rights for children and young people – Michael Falzon

We recommend using Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.