Builder, developer, obfuscation
Discussion
Hi, can anyone point me towards any case law that would demonstrate that a common director across several businesses is liable totally?
To give a brief background, new home has roof leak, repair is less than warranty (£1000) and roofer advises it leaks because the flashing of a flue pipe was not up to building control requirements.
I see this as negligent by the developer (also the seller) who has several companies in relation to this matter. The warranty is with company X and the building control subcontractor was employed by company Y.
Company Y has a much bigger presence than company X - the directors of both ltd companies are the same person.
I'm attempting to claim damages (at the moment the excess of the warranty) however Judging from correspondence so far he seems to want to obfuscate his liability. I contacted him via email at company Y but he said that company was not at fault as it wasn't the developer knowing full well the developer is also his company (X).
So, is there any case law where a director is liable when he has several businesses all with the same aim? I'm worried he will close company X to avoid any responsibility.
To give a brief background, new home has roof leak, repair is less than warranty (£1000) and roofer advises it leaks because the flashing of a flue pipe was not up to building control requirements.
I see this as negligent by the developer (also the seller) who has several companies in relation to this matter. The warranty is with company X and the building control subcontractor was employed by company Y.
Company Y has a much bigger presence than company X - the directors of both ltd companies are the same person.
I'm attempting to claim damages (at the moment the excess of the warranty) however Judging from correspondence so far he seems to want to obfuscate his liability. I contacted him via email at company Y but he said that company was not at fault as it wasn't the developer knowing full well the developer is also his company (X).
So, is there any case law where a director is liable when he has several businesses all with the same aim? I'm worried he will close company X to avoid any responsibility.
JustinP1 said:
John145 said:
I'm worried he will close company X to avoid any responsibility.
Well start contacting him through Company X quick then!What he's done so far in terms of contact with you is totally correct. If you have an issue with Company X, you need to make contact with them and ask them to deal with it.
I'm a practical person, if someone contacted me with a problem, if it was to the wrong address I wouldn't see this as an opportunity to avoid contact.
The Surveyor said:
Isn't this a little drastic for a leaking flashing? Assuming there is no NHBC cover which would suggest that the 'defect' isn't serious, for such a minor matter is there really a risk that this director would fold a company.
Hopefully! It's covered with Buildzone but as I say the warranty excess is £1,000, not a cost I want to absorb 
KevinCamaroSS said:
It should be noted that 'building control' is a local council function, not the builders. Therefore I am not sure what you mean by the building control sun-contractor employed by company Y. The building control inspector is employed by the council to ensure that properties are built according to the regulations. They are therefore independent of the builder.
What I think you mean is Company X is the developer, Company Y is the sub-contractor that built the property on behalf of Company X?
I emailed cambs building control and they advised the sign off was contracted out. On contacting that subcontractor they advised company Y employed them to conduct the assessment.What I think you mean is Company X is the developer, Company Y is the sub-contractor that built the property on behalf of Company X?
I'm struggling to understand the purpose of company Y at the moment. Company X are not builders...
JustinP1 said:
Ahh... if only everyone else was as reasonable as us!
Really though, you do need to contact Company X. Company X is a totally separate legal entity to the director of it, they are not extensions of him.
To be honest, in the same position as him, I would do the same thing and ask you to speak through Company X as if he were to make agreements with you through the branded email of Company Y, it might then bind Company Y to them which would be totally incorrect.
Writing a letter now...Really though, you do need to contact Company X. Company X is a totally separate legal entity to the director of it, they are not extensions of him.
To be honest, in the same position as him, I would do the same thing and ask you to speak through Company X as if he were to make agreements with you through the branded email of Company Y, it might then bind Company Y to them which would be totally incorrect.
The Surveyor said:
John145 said:
....To give a brief background, new home has roof leak, repair is less than warranty (£1000) and roofer advises it leaks because the flashing of a flue pipe was not up to building control requirements.
Just to help with a little clarity, if you have had a roofer visit your home and inspect the flashing, why didn't they repair it at the time? Clearly any leak has taken a while to show so can't be catastrophic so why not repair it there and then to save you any excess on a claim? A new flue flashing would be £50 supplied and easy enough to fit or is there more to the problem, or more to the grievance with the developer?
"Erect an independent tubular scaffold to eaves level.
Carefully remove the ridges above the soil vent pipe and set aside for reuse.
Also remove sufficient tiles to gain access to the soil pipe lead slate.
Remove the lead slate and cart away.
Supply and fix a new lead slate and reinstate the tiles making up any shortfall with new to best match existing as per good practice all nailed as necessary.
Refix the previously set aside ridges bedded in mortar.
Clean down and cart away all rubbish."
House was bought as a new build with warranty. According to the roofer what we have is not a proper waterproofing and never was. The building control subcontractor should've detected it, it's visible from the ground hence my contacting them in the first instance.
SLCZ3 said:
Is this one of a number of new builds or is it a one off?, I would inform the council building Inspections department, also the company responsible for the "sign off" and the warranty people.
Why is there an excess on the warranty?, NHBC do not have that unless there has been a change recently, a number of houses on the estate I live on had roof and venting problems sorted out about 5 years after the build, and as far I am aware no one had any "excess" to pay. You have the potential for more grief if the standard of acceptance is indicative of the overall building standard
One off. Buildzone have an excess... I suppose it's for cockups like this! Why is there an excess on the warranty?, NHBC do not have that unless there has been a change recently, a number of houses on the estate I live on had roof and venting problems sorted out about 5 years after the build, and as far I am aware no one had any "excess" to pay. You have the potential for more grief if the standard of acceptance is indicative of the overall building standard
Already in communication with cambs BC.
I am a little concerned about the standard of work now but TBH in 4 years this is the only issue. Think it's worth a full structural survey?
The Surveyor said:
John145 said:
Based on the location the following work was indicated by 2 separate roofers:
"..... ...."
House was bought as a new build with warranty. According to the roofer what we have is not a proper waterproofing and never was. The building control subcontractor should've detected it, it's visible from the ground hence my contacting them in the first instance.
That scope sounds well considered but doesn't say what the actual problem is. If you are going down the warranty route, why have you obtained quotes? Who is this 'roofer' working for? I ask because normally if you are being asked to cover the excess, all that running around should be done by the warranty provider. If you are organising it direct, be careful you don't invalidate your warranty!"..... ...."
House was bought as a new build with warranty. According to the roofer what we have is not a proper waterproofing and never was. The building control subcontractor should've detected it, it's visible from the ground hence my contacting them in the first instance.
...
You don't say if there is any rainwater actually getting in, only that you can see it's not right from ground level, you also say that the roofer says you don't have 'a proper waterproofing' but what does that mean? Is there something missing, the wrong material used, the right material used incorrectly, or just something that they don't like. It's not clear from the schedule of works what they are going to do differently to cure this problem other than replacing one lead slate with another. How is that going to add 'a proper waterproofing' that wasn't there before? If you are going to make a claim, you will need this detail.
Are there other properties built the same way around you? If so, are they all as bad or is yours a one-off problem? That may help you if there is a group claim?
If the flashing is visibly defective from ground level, why did nobody notice when it was finished, or when you moved in, or during the first winter etc,? What has changed that has made this a problem now? If this is damage caused by bad weather you could consider an insurance claim and let them deal with the developer on the basis that your insurance excess may be less than the house warranty.
Did you have a survey done pre-purchase as you may have some comeback on them if the defect is clearly visible, most don't when you have a warranty to rely upon but that may be an alternative route if you did.
...
I tried the home insurance route but as they've reported it's not storm damage they're not interested. Their inspector said what has been done is not normal and I'm sure you're aware of what a normal flashing job would entail (he showed me examples but did not mention building control).
I got quotations knowing the cost of the warranty and that the excess was likely to be outweighed by the cost of repair. They've agreed I can undertake the work to repair and to submit a claim form in parallel. I'm doing this such that an independent person holds a record to avoid he said she said.
None of my immediate neighbours have a flue exiting the roof but it's a fairly standard affair generally in housing.
Rain water is not getting in but there is consistently moisture being produced overnight and moreso with rain. This has only become visible this year as damp has become evident and gotten worse.
I think the joint has been concreted in, bodged basically and over the years it has failed hence only having the issue this year.
I only had a valuation survey conducted as with a new build we had a warranty so did not see a reason for anything more than that...
My house is a one-off build for this developer.
KevinCamaroSS said:
Quick question as a follow up. Who built the house? Was it a company in the group of companies that has the common director?
Company X is the developer, according to Companies House their secretary is also a builder. Yes.Edited by John145 on Friday 9th December 16:52
The Surveyor said:
Sorry but the photo doesn't show any real defect. It's an ugly looking detail with all that mortar pointing below and at the sides, but the real rain water seal will be from the dressing between the lead collar and the lead slate, and how that lead slate is lapped into the tiles and sarking above and below. As an observation, the flashing is nice and close to the ridge so there won't be huge amounts of rain running past and it looks nicely protected by the adjacent roofs. If you can get close, any defect that is letting in water here should be very clear, get some photos to show exactly what the original roofer did wrong as that will be essential for any claim.
As a side, is it possible that the damp you are seeing is condensation rather than rain water? If the insulation is located at rafter level and is cut back to clear the flue, it's a very common cold-bridge which leads to condensation dripping when there's a noticeable temperature difference. Replacing one lead slate for another won't address that if that's the actual problem.
As before, if you are looking to go beyond the warranty claim and recover your excess, speak to a solicitor before going too far with any repairs as you may lose any opportunity to structure an effective claim.
Is there a regulation encompassing how the collar should be? I've asked this question of Cambs BC but yet to hear a response. I think my best method is to challenge any deviation from the norm. As a side, is it possible that the damp you are seeing is condensation rather than rain water? If the insulation is located at rafter level and is cut back to clear the flue, it's a very common cold-bridge which leads to condensation dripping when there's a noticeable temperature difference. Replacing one lead slate for another won't address that if that's the actual problem.
As before, if you are looking to go beyond the warranty claim and recover your excess, speak to a solicitor before going too far with any repairs as you may lose any opportunity to structure an effective claim.
It is possible that the damp is condensation. How is it best to determine this? Attached is a picture from the interior, it's an attic master bedroom.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff