TC09596 - [2025] UKFTT 00895 (TC)

The terms relating to online sales were materially similar to those described above in respect of in store sales before August 2020, save that ‘Clause 8’ of the terms between the Appellant and the customer included the following:

“When purchasing directly in store, the fitting charge will be payable direct to the Installer on completion of the work to ensure satisfactory fitting. When purchasing online, you will be charged for the fitting costs (with exception of any additional chargeable services as agreed directly with the store) during the checkout process. Rooms should be clear of furniture and of old carpets. By continuing with your purchase you confirm your acceptance of this agreement and, if required, will make payment direct to the Installer as shown on your Invoice.”

Where payment was taken from the online sale, the Appellant passed that to the fitter in full, without deduction. As with the in-store sales, there was also a separate ‘Independent Installer Terms and Conditions of Sale’ governing the separate contractual relationship between the fitter and the customer.

Miss McArdle cross-examined Mr Newton about the Appellant’s website from 2017 (which is no longer current), where it is stated:

“We do apply a surcharge for carpet fitting on stairs.”

“Our charges for fitting are…”

We find that this analysis only considers one snippet of the entire sales process, and is not conclusive evidence of a single supply being made by the Appellant. We further find that there is considerable force in Mr Jones’ submission that the carpet fitting services formed no part of any contract between the Appellant and the customer. The Terms and Conditions expressly state that it is for the customer to engage a fitter, and that any fitting service is provided pursuant to such engagement. Despite there being a ‘pool’ of fitters for any given day, the customer is free to engage a fitter of their choice (if that fitter is known to them). As stated earlier, there is no obligation for a customer to opt for fitting services.

Whilst there is a fitting ‘estimate’ included on the Invoice, we are satisfied that this is in accordance with the market rate. We are satisfied that the fitting estimate shown on the Invoice is made on the basis of an agreement with the fitters, and it remains the customer’s responsibility to pay the fitter in accordance with his/her contract with the fitter. The fitter introduced by the Appellant is considered by the Appellant to be properly qualified, but the Appellant gives no promise, or guarantee, with respect to the quality of the fitting service. If the customer is not satisfied with the fitting service, the source of recourse for the customer is the fitter (whose number the customer will have). If, in the rare circumstance, the customer does not have the correct contact details for the fitter, the Appellant can provide that number or make contact with the fitter. There is, clearly, a distinct set of ‘Fitting Service Terms and Conditions’, which set out terms of the agreement between the customer and the fitter.

The Appellant assumes no responsibility for the fitting service as that responsibility lies with the fitter. Furthermore, the Appellant is not liable to pay the fitter for his work as that liability rests with the customer (with payment being made directly to the fitter). Category (3) of the business models in Adecco bears the closest parallel to the appeal before us. Furthermore, the problem that arose in All Answers was that the Writer was “behind the scenes”. That is not the situation in the appeal before us. Having considered the documentation, cumulatively, we are satisfied that the Appellant’s role is limited to introducing the fitters to the customer, with the core obligation to fit the flooring being with the fitter (for which the customer makes payment directly to the fitter).