Skip to main content

Beware of Concocted Pretexts for Malpractice and Overcharge in Windows Inspection

  • 2016.05.16

Upon full implementation of the Mandatory Window Inspection Scheme (MWIS) in mid-2012, the number of complaints received by the Consumer Council has been on the rise from 6 cases (in 2012) to 37 cases registered in the previous year.  Most of these complaints were on charges and service quality.  Consumers are advised to choose service providers carefully when hiring the service of window inspection.

The Council expressed its concerns about the service quality of window inspection and maintenance, and reminded qualified contractors of observing their duties to explain clearly the scope of service, as well as a quotation bearing material specifications with cost breakdown to avoid infringement of law.  If the explanation contains any misleading or false representation or concealment of material information, the contractors may be in breach the Trade Descriptions Ordinance.  The following complaint cases demonstrate some malpractices prevailing in the industry:

Case One: Minimum charge and doubtful qualification

The complainant approached Company A which claimed itself as an "approved contractor" for window inspection.  After inspection, the staff advised that 2 window handles were found to be loose.  Without indicating whether these handles should be replaced, the staff asked $500 for "form filling".  Later on, the staff persuaded the complainant to have the repair work conducted.  Under the impression that only 2 handles needed to be replaced, the complainant agreed.  However, during his visit to the complainant's home for further inspection, the staff said a minimum charge of $1,500 was set for each repair work and quoted a fee of $2,100 for replacing 8 window hinges and 5 handles.  Eager to complete the window inspection procedures, the complainant could not help but paid $1,000 as deposit.

Subsequent, the complainant found that the contractor was not on the "List of Qualified Persons" posted in the Buildings Department's website.  The complainant lodged this case with the Council.  Upon the Council's conciliation, the complainant received a full refund.

Case Two: Misleading statements about inspection items and materials used

The complainant alleged that Company B had misled him on the inspection items and the materials used.  After checking all windows in the flat, Company B quoted a total of $12,000 for maintenance works.  It specified that British stainless steel rivets would be used.  On the day when the work commenced, the staff of Company B suggested replacing all the waterproof membranes and repairing glass gaskets to prevent water seepage at an additional fee of $9,000; otherwise the windows might not be able to meet the inspection standard.  The work was completed on that day when the complainant paid the cost in full.

The complainant later found cracks along the inner and outer side of the window frames.  The waterproof membranes were not fully replaced and the rivets were not made in the UK either.  The complainant reported the case to the Buildings Department which told him that the waterproof membranes and glass gaskets were not mandatory inspection items under the Scheme.  The complainant then lodged the case with the Council.  Company B replied that they had performed the contract.  It added that the rivets referred to in the quotation were meant to be made for British aluminium windows instead of manufactured in the UK.  They denied having made any misleading statement.  The complainant found the explanation unacceptable and requested the Council to refer the case to the Customs and Excise Department for investigation.

Case Three: Unrelated items making quotation excessive

After initial inspection, the staff of Company C quoted a fee of $2,800 for replacing parts for the windows and documentation processing.  When the complainant indicated that it was too expensive, the staff showed her 2 sets of hinges for comparison claiming that the "304 hinge" they were using was of better quality than the ones used by other companies.  Without casting any doubt, the complainant paid $1,000 as deposit.  Subsequently, the complainant was given a quotation by another company for the same package at $2,200, which told her "304 hinge" was widely used in the industry.  In addition, she could not arrive at the fee quoted by Company C when calculating in accordance with the fee schedules on its promotion leaflet.  She suspected herself of having been overcharged.

Upon receiving this complaint, the Council requested Company C to present a detailed quotation setting forth the cost of each item.   Company C only agreed verbally to offer a discount of $500.   Later on, the Council was informed by the complainant that Company C has agreed to cancel the contract and refund the deposit in full.

Case Four: Mismatched spare parts and unprofessional service

The complainant commissioned Company D for window inspection and agreed to replace all 10 window hinges in the flat and filling the forms as required at a total cost of $1,500.  Due to time constraint, only 6 hinges were replaced when its staff called it a day.  On the same evening, the complainant found that the windows screeched when they were being closed.

The complainant further found that the original steel screws were replaced by rivets of inferior quality.  He requested to cancel outstanding part of the work.  Company D replied that the complainant still had to pay in full despite the cancellation.  The complainant inquired with the Buildings Department regarding the requirement on the quality of the screws which informed her that both screws could meet the requirement.  However, according to their experience, steel screws would deliver better grip performance.  The complainant filed a complaint with the Council against Company D for its unprofessional service as alleged.  He demanded a refund of $600 for the outstanding work.  As a result of the Council's conciliation, Company D agreed to refund.

When considering to have their windows inspected, consumers may refer to the following suggestions:

  • Beware of the claims of "Free Window Inspection", pay attention to whether there is any item on which charges are imposed;
  • Grasp the details of the MWIS and the ideas about relevant charges.  Ask the persons to be hired for the window inspection service to produce the QP (Qualified Persons) Card for verification.  When in doubt, consumers should visit the Buildings Department website or call the Department for clarification;
  • Obtain quotations and advice on the services of inspection and repair from different qualified persons.  Inspection and supervision of repair work could be carried out respectively by different qualified persons;
  • Read the contract carefully and request the service providers to provide contract and receipt drafted in a clear and detailed manner, with sufficient information including specifications of the spare parts, quantity and price, as well as other costs involved.

The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.