Builder almost brought the house down..literally

[Pheo]

dmsims said:

How would the remedial work affect the future saleability ?

Well if it gets flagged up as having signs of movement by a surveyor a lot of buyers will be wary surely?

[ecksjay]

I work for a large surveying firm and undertake due diligence surveys alongside chartered surveyors. We specialise in commercial but i've earned a bit of a niche doing very high end resi (c. £5m+, highest so far was a £56m belgravia apartment, although we've also done a few of the 'billionaires row' properties and adjacent, winnington road etc). Knowing how they would view these things with respect to the building fabrc (I deal with the services), anything relating to structural issues would be raised as a serious high risk issue. Without written confirmation that the issue has been resolved, any sort of movement would be raised and associated costs included within a decent acquisition report, which could likely extend to demolition and reconstruction given what I can gather after skimming the thread.

To be fair, many people just go for home owners surveys which quite literally arent worth the paper they're written on. Most resi surveys are tick box exercises only, whilst insurers / mortgage lenders demand it, they're useless when you compare it to a proper commercial survey (which realistically wouldn't be a great deal more than a basic resi one).

I'm not sure if there's been any comments regarding whether the property is listed, given it's age. Might be one to consider as this would have to be considered for any works undertaken.

[TA14]

dmsims said:

Cogcog said:

Our engineer will look at the robustnmess of the repair,where upon the potential future issues will be outlined. At the moment they are saying there is no reason it shouldnt be fine but we have a surveyor lined up to revalue the house.

How would the remedial work affect the future saleability ?

Would you pay the same for a house that has distorted window openings and door openings as one without those distortions? Ignoring quiant historic buildings the answer is usually no. Once a building has deflected sometimes the loss of strength from cracking can be repaired by stitching, as has been suggested here, but this will still leave a distorted building. (Trying to jack the building back up to where it was usually does more harm than good by causing more cracking and distortion.)

[Robertj21a]

TA14 said:

Would you pay the same for a house that has distorted window openings and door openings as one without those distortions? Ignoring quiant historic buildings the answer is usually no. Once a building has deflected sometimes the loss of strength from cracking can be repaired by stitching, as has been suggested here, but this will still leave a distorted building. (Trying to jack the building back up to where it was usually does more harm than good by causing more cracking and distortion.)

Quite.

Surely, any corrective work after that much damage is going to leave tell-tale scars that any surveyor should be able to spot (or at least query) in future times ?

[Cogcog]

Not listed, but we will be consulting noth the engineers and the original surveyor (they did have the more detaled version of the residential survey) on any potential loss in value.

[mjb1]

What has the LA's building control people said about this 'situation'?

[ecksjay]

good luck with whatever happens chap. if it's not listed then it does give you more options and poses less obstructions if demolition is the only option.

[hadenough!]

sparks85 said:

elanfan said:

Lastly do report this matter urgently to the HSE. Work of this standard endangers lives and they will want to know about this 'near miss'. Their investigations might lead to fines/convictions etc and ought to lead to an improvement in their working methods. So that ought to improve things for the future. It will also provide you with further Independant evidence to aid your case.

I haven't read all 9 pages, has anyone mentioned if this project is CDM notifiable?

As a Client you have an obligation to ensure the works are managed safely by having competent and qualified persons fulfilling the various roles. Having people working in an unsafe manner and failing to secure a site/stand people down if the site is unsafe is a key responsibility.

Reporting this to the HSE is some serious leverage you may have with the Principal Contractor, a HSE investigation (they appear to be bang to rights) would be a significant issue for the PC given the apparent breaches of H&S at Work Act. Again, not read the whole thread so not sure if the pallet scaffolding photo is a joke but if it isn't, I'd be onto the HSE ASAP.

It's domestic so the clients responsibilities pass to the contractor.

[monkfish1]

hadenough! said:

It's domestic so the clients responsibilities pass to the contractor.

Correct!

[Cogcog]

Update:

Met with the boss on site today. A muted apology, said the subbie was usually very good. We had no idea he was a subbie as he arrived in the sigh written van and had their polo shirt on. They admit to not visiting the site (holidays and illness!). They are doing the bare minimum to repair the damage, Won't do any crack that isnt on the main wall although the engineer says it is probably from the collapse of the wall.

They are taking the needles out slowly over the next 3 days, knocking off Monday/Tuesday, our engineer is coming to tell them what is required to repair next Wednesday and inspect repair before replastering. Tried to justify cutting the floorboards (urgency) and say the window was just them ipening it and the frame is rotten.

My daughter's partner has an appointment with a solicitor tomorrow about the impications, including the idea of letting them finish the work and then not paying the bills ( about £7.5k)

HSE notification if requitred if it doesnt progress as planned as we have the pictures and witnesses. Might be of interest to HMRC to as these sub contractors use the company tools, van and clothes.

[RC1807]

Cogcog said:

....... Might be of interest to HMRC to as these sub contractors use the company tools, van and clothes.

I don't work in the building trade, but we have contractors that have our company business card, so I wouldn't read *too* much into the fact they have a van/branded shirts

[surveyor]

RC1807 said:

Cogcog said:

....... Might be of interest to HMRC to as these sub contractors use the company tools, van and clothes.

I don't work in the building trade, but we have contractors that have our company business card, so I wouldn't read *too* much into the fact they have a van/branded shirts

Often seen this. They tend to just use them for the job.

[Cogcog]

surveyor said:

Often seen this. They tend to just use them for the job.

The HMRC criteria for self employed includes providing your own tools and having control of the work. I guess the fact they didn't visit site suggests they were in ful control of the work!

[joshcowin]

Cogcog said:

The HMRC criteria for self employed includes providing your own tools and having control of the work. I guess the fact they didn't visit site suggests they were in ful control of the work!

Don't see how this will help you resolve the issue in the slightest tbh, focus on that as its enough on its own!!

[Nezquick]

Cogcog said:

Update:

Met with the boss on site today. A muted apology, said the subbie was usually very good. We had no idea he was a subbie as he arrived in the sigh written van and had their polo shirt on. They admit to not visiting the site (holidays and illness!). They are doing the bare minimum to repair the damage, Won't do any crack that isnt on the main wall although the engineer says it is probably from the collapse of the wall.

They are taking the needles out slowly over the next 3 days, knocking off Monday/Tuesday, our engineer is coming to tell them what is required to repair next Wednesday and inspect repair before replastering. Tried to justify cutting the floorboards (urgency) and say the window was just them ipening it and the frame is rotten.

My daughter's partner has an appointment with a solicitor tomorrow about the impications, including the idea of letting them finish the work and then not paying the bills ( about £7.5k)

HSE notification if requitred if it doesnt progress as planned as we have the pictures and witnesses. Might be of interest to HMRC to as these sub contractors use the company tools, van and clothes.

Jesus OP this sounds horrific.

The guy can't just do the "bare minimum" to put things right. That's a disgrace. If that were me, I'd be kicking them off the job pronto, getting someone reputable in to sort the work out properly and then suing them for whatever you've already paid to them and the additional costs of putting it right. Their insurers should cover the entire costs of this.

I think naming and shaming of this company should be allowed on here in this instance.

[megaphone]

The guys on site may well be sub contractors of sub contractors, it happens all the time. I sub to a firm who sub to another firm who have the nationwide sub contact for a national PLC. We are asked to wear the 'hat' of the national PLC, workwear is all branded. The firm I sub to has all their vans branded.

[hairyben]

megaphone said:

The guys on site may well be sub contractors of sub contractors, it happens all the time. I sub to a firm who sub to another firm who have the nationwide sub contact for a national PLC. We are asked to wear the 'hat' of the national PLC, workwear is all branded. The firm I sub to has all their vans branded.

When I worked for the leccy board in the late 90's, having just gone through privitisation, we had the temerity to sell "we're the best" double cost rewires then sub some out to a bunch of 3.14ers rolling around in beat up mkII transit who were then found to be bodging and corner cutting. Main earth bond circuits consisting of a pipe clamp and a short piece of wire stuffed into the ceiling for show was one trick... looked legit, worthless...

[mikeiow]

Nezquick said:

Jesus OP this sounds horrific.

The guy can't just do the "bare minimum" to put things right. That's a disgrace. If that were me, I'd be kicking them off the job pronto, getting someone reputable in to sort the work out properly and then suing them for whatever you've already paid to them and the additional costs of putting it right. Their insurers should cover the entire costs of this.

I think naming and shaming of this company should be allowed on here in this instance.

I think getting it safe and talking to a solicitor to avoid it costing any money makes more useful sense than 'naming & shaming'.
Crack on, OP, I think you have taken the right approach through this nightmare!

[andy43]

Cogcog said:

They are doing the bare minimum to repair the damage, Won't do any crack that isnt on the main wall although the engineer says it is probably from the collapse of the wall.

They are taking the needles out slowly over the next 3 days, knocking off Monday/Tuesday, our engineer is coming to tell them what is required to repair next Wednesday and inspect repair before replastering. Tried to justify cutting the floorboards (urgency) and say the window was just them ipening it and the frame is rotten.

As above : clear out tools, secure house, off site asap. Many photos. Engineers written report.
Compare to a cat D car - is it worth the same as before the structural damage (some of which sounds like they're absolving responsibility of)?
Solicitors are already booked, which is handy. You ideally need somebody who specialises in construction disputes.

[TA14]

andy43 said:

Compare to a cat D car - is it worth the same as before the structural damage.

It's even worse than a cat D though. With a car they don't weld up a few bits onto the distorted shape and paint over that but they do with houses.