Gava Interiors case

Dr Andrew Borg Cardona writes:

'On behalf of Gava Interiors, I refer to what was published in The Sunday Times of August 17.

'The failure to communicate, as is evident from the letter, parts of which you reproduced, is on the part of the complainant. As you are aware, Gava Interiors had forwarded you a copy of their communication with the customer, which, apparently, was insufficient. As the customer appears to be unable to define precisely the nature of his complaint, or what he expects from Gava Interiors, it would have been futile to add anything to that which had already been sent.

'From the contents of the letter, it is apparent that the complainant was unable, due to restrictions on his ability to communicate with Enemalta, restrictions that were entirely out of Gava Interiors' control, to arrange for testing of the voltage on installation. The complainant apparently expected his own difficulties of trying to reach Enemalta to be solved by Gava Interiors. This is clearly unreasonable, and the complainant fails to define what he expected Gava Interiors to do about a problem that was not of its making.

'The complainant further fails to mention that he did not pay Gava Interiors for the five service visits which, after the voltage issue was settled, were instrumental in resolving the voltage problem.

'Kindly publish this letter prominently, so that my clients will be able to consider the matter closed'.

Chris and Claire Ciantar replied:

'Since Dr Borg Cardona believes we did not properly define the nature of our complaint, we are hereby disclosing the facts of the case, so that they can be clear to all and sundry.

'Our complaint refers to a Novatron solar water heater, purchased from Gava Interiors. This product has, on various occasions, proved to be defective and not how Noel Gauci, the person in charge, had described it.

'A few days after we started using the heater, which was installed by Gava Interiors, its element developed problems. When contacted, the company explained that the whole shipment of water heaters had a defective element and were in the process of replacing them.

'The element was replaced but after a couple of days it stopped working again. When contacted about this, much to our surprise and disgust, the company explained that it had installed a second hand element and had expected it to break down.

'For the second time, it agreed to replace the element, and assured us that the element would be new and that it should work perfectly. Again, after a few days, the element broke down. We contacted the company informing them of the recurrent problem and expressed our frustration at the defective product.

'The company agreed to replace the element for the third time and one of its technicians checked the voltage available at our residence and confirmed that it was fine.

After a few days, the element broke down again and this time the company was unfriendly and rather reluctant to send another technician.

'The company said the element was breaking down because of unstable voltage and that the element supplied was very sensitive to changes in voltage. Finally we reached a compromise. We also arranged for an appointment with Enemalta to record the stability of the voltage.

'If the voltage proved to be fine, this would mean that the product was really defective and the company would agree to remove the product and provide us with a full refund. An Enemalta technician recorded the voltage supply over a couple of days and certified that it was stable and in conformity with standard supply.

'We provided this information to the company. However, it refused to honour the verbal agreement to remove the product and provide us with a full refund. The only thing it agreed to was to change the element again, arguing that it would install a new one which was more resistant to changes in voltage.

'Since it is summer, we cannot test the new element since the heater is currently using solar energy. However, following the usual pattern of events, we expect the element to break down unexpectedly within a short time after it starts to be used on a regular basis in winter.

'In view of the facts, we feel that the company is legally obliged to remove the defective product and provide us with a full refund. We would also like to highlight that the company has refused to honour its verbal agreement. Mr Gauci told us that if we do not want the product we should give it to someone else.

'Instead of excusing itself for the inconvenience caused and providing us with a full refund, the company is now trying to bill us for its technicians' visits.

By doing so, the company is blatantly taking advantage of its own errors and is billing us for a service which it had agreed to provide for free'.

This is proving to be a long drawn-out case.

I inform Dr Borg Cardona that there is an e-mail address he can contact me on: avmuscatinglott@hotmail.com. At this stage I appeal to both parties to establish a dialogue with a view to concluding this case.