Building work gone wrong...
Discussion
A relative has had a brick garage built. To do this the old concrete base and aspestos garage were both demolished, new foundations and floor laid and the garage erected. To say there have been issues along the way is an understatement but it finally got (just about) finished. Part payment (about 2/3rds) has been made, but not the full amount because.....
The floor remained dusty, and not just dusty, it's piles of the stuff coming up, and soft enough you can chip it away with your fingers. In trying to rectify that, under the advice of the builder, we had a joint meeting (with builder/contractor) with the firm that supplied the concrete. They've offered to sand it back and put a hardener over it.
However, relative wasn't convinced this would be secure enough, and employed a surveyor to look over the floor. In doing so the surveyor has picked up quite a few other points and was of the opinion that the whole structure needs to come down and be done again. There are some very obvious (small) things that are wrong that even I can see but sort of assumed were mainly cosmetic, but apparently there are major structural issues too. Full report from surveyor not back yet, should be arriving soon.
Relative has been advised by a neighbour who is currently running a dispute with a different company for something going wrong that they don't have to offer the builders the chance to rectify but can immediately pursue them for the funds for another firm to do the rememdial work. I'm not convinced this is correct and was under the impression you had to initiall give the company the chance to rectify, so wondered whether anyone knows what their position would be exactly?
Thanks!
The floor remained dusty, and not just dusty, it's piles of the stuff coming up, and soft enough you can chip it away with your fingers. In trying to rectify that, under the advice of the builder, we had a joint meeting (with builder/contractor) with the firm that supplied the concrete. They've offered to sand it back and put a hardener over it.
However, relative wasn't convinced this would be secure enough, and employed a surveyor to look over the floor. In doing so the surveyor has picked up quite a few other points and was of the opinion that the whole structure needs to come down and be done again. There are some very obvious (small) things that are wrong that even I can see but sort of assumed were mainly cosmetic, but apparently there are major structural issues too. Full report from surveyor not back yet, should be arriving soon.
Relative has been advised by a neighbour who is currently running a dispute with a different company for something going wrong that they don't have to offer the builders the chance to rectify but can immediately pursue them for the funds for another firm to do the rememdial work. I'm not convinced this is correct and was under the impression you had to initiall give the company the chance to rectify, so wondered whether anyone knows what their position would be exactly?
Thanks!
Obviously a quicker and legally cheaper solution all round (let alone your time and effort) is to get existing builder to rectify - we'd all probably dig out heels in without such an opportunity and especially to avoid hard cash being paid out. If he's just going to do a quick and dirty job to shut you up then it needs to take the harder course.
The position will be laid out in the contract (assuming you have a JCT or other form of contract?).
Most frequently used contracts place the responsibilty on rectification at the contractor. Even if the dispute escalates, and you fall out completely with the original builder, you still have to show a material loss in court. i.e. a bill from another company to do the rectification works (AFAICR).
Litigation is expensive.
Most frequently used contracts place the responsibilty on rectification at the contractor. Even if the dispute escalates, and you fall out completely with the original builder, you still have to show a material loss in court. i.e. a bill from another company to do the rectification works (AFAICR).
Litigation is expensive.
There's an estimate (I know, I know, only just getting involved at this stage) but that doesnt say very much...
Relative doesn't want existing builders anywhere near the property. I've suggested conversations and they rectify but relative is reluctant to do this. I do understand why but worried about the expense of the legal route.
So essentially they can go the direct route to getting them to stump up cash (assuming they've not been too clever with how they run things to be able to duck out of it)? I was under the impression they couldn't?
Relative doesn't want existing builders anywhere near the property. I've suggested conversations and they rectify but relative is reluctant to do this. I do understand why but worried about the expense of the legal route.
So essentially they can go the direct route to getting them to stump up cash (assuming they've not been too clever with how they run things to be able to duck out of it)? I was under the impression they couldn't?
Ken Figenus said:
Obviously a quicker and legally cheaper solution all round (let alone your time and effort) is to get existing builder to rectify - we'd all probably dig out heels in without such an opportunity and especially to avoid hard cash being paid out. If he's just going to do a quick and dirty job to shut you up then it needs to take the harder course.
I honestly don't know. I'd suggest it's ignorant incompetence rather than a pulling the wool job, but that said, but just not quite sure.I'd be happy to go the conversation route but the relative isn't quite so keen currently. I do understand why, but time and money will not be on our side if we go legal and already the relative is getting rather tired of having them in and around the house, this process started end of April...
Mojooo said:
You need to mitigate losses - you usually do that by letting the original contractor have a go before getting someone else in.
I suspect the original builder will tell the customer to get lost so it may be a moot point.
Yes I do wonder this actually. It's superbly difficult to know who to believe to be honest, 2 surveyors have said different things. Once suggested it's rectifiable, one said whole thing needs to be re-done and that we needed building regs, one didn't. One solicitor said straight to court, one said you have to give them to chance to fix it first. One of those times when we're trying to get professional advice as we simply have no clue and getting such conflicting views I've no idea who to suggest is the right one. I suspect the original builder will tell the customer to get lost so it may be a moot point.
Doesn't help that I've not been involved throughout the process (wasn't allowed) but now having to try and help sort now it's all gone wrong!
guillemot said:
Doesn't help that I've not been involved throughout the process (wasn't allowed) but now having to try and help sort now it's all gone wrong!
If I have got the right end of the stick, your relative didn't want you involved (from the off) but is now hoping (expecting?) you to charge over the hill to extract them from the resulting mess. Seems a bit dog-in-the-manger to me.Sorry, but I can't offer any practical help. Professionals disagree as much as anyone else. The best course is usually to find somebody with a good reputation in their field of expertise. Personal recommendations can be a useful pointer as well. Is there anyone you know who can provide one?
I think more a case of wanting to take ownership of it, but now needing some support. But yes, it doesn't help things...
I agree with the personal recommendations, trying to find some without upsetting a fairly local apple cart if that makes sense! Just really wanted to know the legal position if they insist on going straight to trying to extract money for rebuild rather than allowing chance to rectify (if that option will be entertained!).
Ho hum, we'll plough on. Thanks for the responses all.
I agree with the personal recommendations, trying to find some without upsetting a fairly local apple cart if that makes sense! Just really wanted to know the legal position if they insist on going straight to trying to extract money for rebuild rather than allowing chance to rectify (if that option will be entertained!).
Ho hum, we'll plough on. Thanks for the responses all.
I'm currently involved in a similar situation albeit on a larger scale and my client has engaged a specialist lawyer.
They have been told that they must give the contractor a chance to rectify the work and that the contractor must respond by a certain date.
To claim loss of faith in the contractor's ability to rectify the work might be an option but could be difficult to prove unless you discover they have a history of unhappy clients.
They have been told that they must give the contractor a chance to rectify the work and that the contractor must respond by a certain date.
To claim loss of faith in the contractor's ability to rectify the work might be an option but could be difficult to prove unless you discover they have a history of unhappy clients.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff