Honestly, for residential work aka downtown 'Slammersville, if it wasn't in writing... the owner should have to pay more. The slammer should've accounted for it, and maybe they did, but just didnt want to do the work. That's why they're a slammer.
The homeowner wants an upgrade (to keep the old cameras) or to simply have the old ones pulled down?
I believe it is on the owner since no call out was specifically made. If you had 5 lights on your house that did not work and had an electrician come and install 5 new lights in different locations but near the old would you expect him to remove them? How would he know that they did not work (although the cameras are pretty obvious)?
No, not explicitly. But when examining the outside and deciding where they should go, the owner said something to the effect of let's keep that view the same, when it came to the two locations that now have an old and a new. He also said he offered them to him, since they were "probably junk", but never actually uttered the required "just toss'em then."
I figure it's like this: Slammer commits to a price thru e-mail, where owner wants a "new" camera system installed, but when there was no actual mention of old camera system. Shows up and doesn't want ask about them because afraid the guy will act like that is part of the deal. Just plays dumb. So then he probably didn't overcharge, but maybe the new cameras could have been mounted over the old, with a possible better cosmetic result.
I'm waiting to hear back what he actually paid for the system and the work...
is anybody familiar with these online Amazon/Home Depot/Lowes select a slammer options?
Problem resolved, neighbor is going to use CAMOVER removal services. ;)
So in essence your neighbor is surprised that he went with a very low-cost solution and he didn't get a high-end outcome?
I'll bet that local guy (and honestly, the whole "trunkslammer" thing seems overly derogatory here, what do you have against a local guy trying to make a living?) had been burned in the past going beyond the scope of work. He takes the old cameras down and inherits and all new problem (rotten wood behind the camera from a bad seal, mismatched paint, whatever).
Really this is just basic contractor-101 stuff. Spell out what you want done when hiring people, don't make any assumptions, if something seems like a gray area then ask for clarification.
If your neighbor had purchased the equipment through a local installer, and had asked for some advice/input, discussion about removing the old units probably would have come up in conversation and he would have gotten what he expected. Of course, he would have also had to pay more money most likely.
IPVMU Certified | 01/27/15 07:59pm
Defining the Scope of Work is basic for any purchase agreement. Most RFPs I ever responded to for replacing a surveillance system included a clause specifically mentioning removal of old equipment, ie:
In this case, the end user assumed the installer/tech would do it, but I don't see room to fault the installer for failing to meet an expectation not addressed explicitly up front.
Maybe you can say "The installer failed to ask about disposal of existing gear", but that is not the same as "The installer failed to dispose of existing gear" which implies it was a failure to perform contracted work when it wasn't.
IPVMU Certified | 02/02/15 06:18pm
Faced with an old, obviously non-working system, I can't understand why an installer wouldn't take the even easier path of pulling the old cameras, using whatever cable existed to pull new cables through, and mount the new cameras in the same location. This tactic would benefit the installer with an easier project, and less labor time/trouble to finish (assuming these aren't dummy cameras now in place with no cable or pathway).
Benefits to customer would be no removal, no patching/painting of old mounts, and less opportunity for the slammer to make mistakes and cause new damage in making his new pathway.
Ultimately, it looks like the installer did nothing 'wrong', just missed a perfectly good shortcut. Shame on customer for assuming so much ...