Posted by: Russell Govan
Location: Wallingford, Oxford
Company: Trace Surveys Ltd
Company Website:

I paid a deposit of £150 for an operative to come to my home and identify the source of an underfloor leak. He identified the leak as being under one of two floor tiles. My plumber then came and dug up the tiles and excavated the screed below to expose the pipework – but the leak wasn’t there. It required two further visits from my plumber to raise further tiles and excavate a large trench before the leak was identified a long way from where we had been told it was.
Trace Surveys/ then sent me an invoice for a further £399.60. Despite acknowledging that they had identified the wrong location for the leak they refused to waive or discount the invoice. So, even though the additional plumber visits to properly identify the source of the leak cost me more than their invoice – as well as causing additional disruption – they insisted on full payment.

One comment

  1. Response by Trace Surveys Ltd

    We sympathise with Mr Govan’s complaint. However, we stress that the service we offer is to use specialist leak detection equipment that, in 99% of our surveys, gives very accurate indications of leak locations. While we make every effort to confirm that these results are accurate, we can only act on the results that we observe. In very rare cases, such as Mr Govan’s, these results are misleading. It was made clear to Mr Govan, in the Terms and Conditions of our quote, that he would be paying for the use of the equipment rather that the accuracy of the results. As a company we would love to guarantee to provide pin point accuracy in leak detection 100% of the time. Our customers will testify that we do achieve extraordinarily accurate results 99% of the time. However in less than 1% of our surveys the results, due to reasons beyond our control, can be misleading. By comparison, we do not know of many medical tests that can boast to give anything close to 99% accuracy. When dealing with buildings that are put together with differing materials, by a multitude of different trades and in countless different ways, test results can sometimes be misleading. We always strive to better the levels of accuracy that we currently achieve; however we simply cannot guarantee to be 100% accurate, 100% of the time. We have carefully considered Mr Govan’s case and there was, unfortunately, nothing more that our engineer could have done to confirm the accuracy of the result. As the engineer is not at fault in this case we expect Mr Govan to pay his bill.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.