paid for services that i didn't receive

cbr9911

HI can anybody tell me weather i have any grounds for complaint against a company that i paid to install ecobead cavity wall insulation which is pumped into the cavity walls. this happened in May 2006, i have since discovered that the walls are constructed with blocks on the flat and the work could not have been carried out, i have receipts for the work and the company are still in business.

Victor

This would be paid for goods / works, not a service.

Depends on contract. Get thee to a solicitor ASAP. Contract under hand -v- contract under seal and patent -v- latent defects may be of critical importance.

But do check how thick your walls are.


PS Is this homework?

NUTLEY BOY

Also, if you paid by credit card, check if there is any provision for refund (charge back ?) from the bank on the basis that the "purchased" service was not rendered / supplied.

Del2005

cbr9911 wrote: »

HI can anybody tell me weather i have any grounds for complaint against a company that i paid to install ecobead cavity wall insulation which is pumped into the cavity walls. this happened in May 2006, i have since discovered that the walls are constructed with blocks on the flat and the work could not have been carried out, i have receipts for the work and the company are still in business.

Would the statute of limitations mean that an incomplete job from over 11 years ago is non recoverable.

hullaballoo

From when does the statute run in relation to building works again?

everlast75

Del2005 wrote: »

Would the statute of limitations mean that an incomplete job from over 11 years ago is non recoverable.

hullaballoo wrote: »

From when does the statute run in relation to building works again?

The statute should run from the date of the awareness of the loss. IMHO (and I am not a Solicitor and therefore you should consult one) the case is not Statute barred.

Squall Leonhart

Just my two cents, a wall construction with a 215mm block on flat leaf does not mean it doesn't have a cavity. In this eventuality it would be typical for a 215mm inner leaf, a cavity, and a 100mm outer leaf. Unlikely (though certainly not impossible) that the wall is just a solid 215mm block on flat.

Claw Hammer

everlast75 wrote: »

The statute should run from the date of the awareness of the loss. IMHO (and I am not a Solicitor and therefore you should consult one) the case is not Statute barred.

The limitation period in contract is 6 years. Date of Knowledge only applies in personal injury cases. The only exception is, in the case of fraud, the statute only runs from when the fraud is discovered.

everlast75

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The limitation period in contract is 6 years. Date of Knowledge only applies in personal injury cases. The only exception is, in the case of fraud, the statute only runs from when the fraud is discovered.

Good thing I put in that disclaimer about me bot being a solicitor!

Perhaps fraud is in play here, if they claimed for work done which was not done?

Claw Hammer

everlast75 wrote: »

Good thing I put in that disclaimer about me bot being a solicitor!

Perhaps fraud is in play here, if they claimed for work done which was not done?

Perhaps.

Victor

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The limitation period in contract is 6 years.

Depends on the contract. Some standard construction contracts are designed with a 12 year liability period for latent defects.

hullaballoo

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The limitation period in contract is 6 years. Date of Knowledge only applies in personal injury cases. The only exception is, in the case of fraud, the statute only runs from when the fraud is discovered.

What would you call pretending to do work and charging for it even though it hasn't been carried out?

Claw Hammer

hullaballoo wrote: »

What would you call pretending to do work and charging for it even though it hasn't been carried out?

It depends on whether it was my client doing the work or paying for the work.

Victor

hullaballoo wrote: »

What would you call pretending to do work and charging for it even though it hasn't been carried out?

Billing management at a major law firm? It would come down to the materiality of it and to a certain degree, what was documented.

hullaballoo

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It depends on whether it was my client doing the work or paying for the work.

In fairness, there are a few things in play here and the question the OP has cannot realistically be answered without being fully aware of all of the facts and probably an expert report or two.

We are discussing limitation periods and the clock pertaining to them in the abstract here.

Claw Hammer

Victor wrote: »

Billing management at a major law firm? It would come down to the materiality of it and to a certain degree, what was documented.

What does "materiality of it" mean?
What is a certain degree?

Gerry T

OP, have you considered contacting the company and telling them your concern and asking for an explanation. They may explain and demonstrate there is insulation, or offer a full refund, or be awkward. 1 or 2 would be good, 3 leaves you to consider going legal.

nuac

Have you an engineer's report?
If holes were bored in outer wall and beads pumped in, where would they have gone if there was no cavity?

Victor

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What does "materiality of it" mean?

If you ask me to fit a door (grounds, frame, saddle, architrave, door, hinges, lock, lever handles) and I fit a everything except one screw ...

What is a certain degree?

... and you come looking for me to fit that one screw 11 years later and there is no paperwork, guess what I'm going to say?

Claw Hammer

Victor wrote: »

... and you come looking for me to fit that one screw 11 years later and there is no paperwork, guess what I'm going to say?

What has that got to do with a certain degree?

Stoner

Very same thing happened to me , when I changed windows I saw there was nothing in the cavity

BattleCorp

Stoner wrote: »

Very same thing happened to me , when I changed windows I saw there was nothing in the cavity

Was there no insulation anywhere in the cavity? It wouldn't be totally unusual for there to be pockets where the insulation didn't flow but there should be some insulation somewhere in the cavity if it had been pumped.
Sometimes blobs of mortar left inside the cavity can stop the insulation from flowing and filling the entire cavity.

Back to the OP's problem, it would be very unusual for the walls of a house to be constructed of a single leaf of blocks on their side/flat. House walls generally consist of two walls with a cavity between them. This cavity is to stop the damp passing through into the house if it gets through the outer leaf.

I'd guess that if it was only a single leaf construction, the OP would have problems with damp. I recommend confirming 100% that there is no cavity before I'd go any further.

barman linen

Pyrite, Priory Hall, Spencer Dock etc etc.

None of these were resolved easily ( or at all ) so I do wish you the best of luck chasing this one.

sunshine and showers

barman linen wrote: »

Pyrite, Priory Hall, Spencer Dock etc etc.

None of these were resolved easily ( or at all ) so I do wish you the best of luck chasing this one.

There is the distinction here, though, of potential breach of contract versus building defect. There doesn't appear to be an alleged building defect in this case.

Victor

sunshine and showers wrote: »

There is the distinction here, though, of potential breach of contract versus building defect. There doesn't appear to be an alleged building defect in this case.

Buildings are required to comply with the Building Regulations, which specify minimum insulation standards.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Back to the OP's problem, it would be very unusual for the walls of a house to be constructed of a single leaf of blocks on their side/flat. House walls generally consist of two walls with a cavity between them. This cavity is to stop the damp passing through into the house if it gets through the outer leaf.

Unusual yes, but not unheard of, e.g. in three-storey construction and/or concrete upper floors I've seen 215/100/100 construction.

I'd guess that if it was only a single leaf construction, the OP would have problems with damp.

It would depend on the detailing, e.g. if a dry-lining or external cladding detail was used.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I recommend confirming 100% that there is no cavity before I'd go any further.

I concur.

Sleeper12

First thing you need to do is to drill a hole through the wall. An inch diameter is probably enough. You need to find out if you have insulation or not. Some homes have cavities in the blocks & it's a waste of money pumping this. Some homes have cavities between the blocks / wall. This is worth insulating & is most likely what you had done.

sunshine and showers

Victor wrote: »

Buildings are required to comply with the Building Regulations, which specify minimum insulation standards.

I wouldn't have thought that that counted as a structural defect as in, for negligence purposes.

Victor

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What has that got to do with a certain degree?

If there is no paperwork, 11 years later, it's going to be hard to prove the door was paid for or even done by a particular carpenter.

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought that that counted as a structural defect as in, for negligence purposes.

While 'normal structural defects' are serious, they don't necessarily compromise a building any less than other defects. Imagine a lack of insulation causes a pipe to burst while you are away and you return to a flooded building that needs to be dried out, source of problem solved, re-insulated (flooding can soak certain insulations), rewired, replastered, repainted, floor coverings, furniture, etc. In serious cases, you could be looking at redoing floors and partitions.

sunshine and showers

Victor wrote: »

While 'normal structural defects' are serious, they don't necessarily compromise a building any less than other defects. Imagine a lack of insulation causes a pipe to burst while you are away and you return to a flooded building that needs to be dried out, source of problem solved, re-insulated (flooding can soak certain insulations), rewired, replastered, repainted, floor coverings, furniture, etc. In serious cases, you could be looking at redoing floors and partitions.

Yes, but the position in negligence cases seems to be that the 6 year time limit runs from the date the damage becomes manifest. Academically speaking, how could one prove damage here? I'm interested to know if this would come under negligent building type cases such as pyrite, etc. Or perhaps I've misunderstood you entirely.

Claw Hammer

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Yes, but the position in negligence cases seems to be that the 6 year time limit runs from the date the damage becomes manifest. . .

That is only the case with regard to personal injuries and only then from when it is capable of being discovered.

hullaballoo

Except in the case of fraud where the limitation period is suspended until such a time as the fraud is discovered or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.

sunshine and showers

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That is only the case with regard to personal injuries and only then from when it is capable of being discovered.

No it's not. There is a six year statute of limitations for property damages in tort. The Supreme Court determined when the limitation period starts in Brandley v Deane in November. It's when the damage becomes manifest. The written judgment hasn't been released yet to see exactly what "becomes manifest" means.

hullaballoo

That's in relation to latent defects but that's not the case here. An undiscovered but extant defect isn't a latent defect. A latent defect is undiscoverable until it manifests.

It's questionable here whether defect is even the right word for what the op says happened. It seems the work may simply not have been carried out.

sunshine and showers

hullaballoo wrote: »

That's in relation to latent defects but that's not the case here. An undiscovered but extant defect isn't a latent defect. A latent defect is undiscoverable until it manifests.

It's questionable here whether defect is even the right word for what the op says happened. It seems the work may simply not have been carried out.

I was thinking that, hence my question about how it would fit in to pyrite type litigation (as someone mentioned).

I was responding there to a post that six year time limitations only exist for personal injuries, which isn't the case.

Victor

hullaballoo wrote: »

That's in relation to latent defects but that's not the case here. An undiscovered but extant defect isn't a latent defect. A latent defect is undiscoverable until it manifests.

I'm not sure if I would agree. You use both the words "undiscovered" (potentially because nobody even gave it a cursory look) and "undiscoverable" (it's buried 2 metres under ground), which are different things.

Imagine I have a basement car park, near a river that rarely floods, but I design the basement with the risk of flood in mind. The builder does everything correctly, but the seal on some of the waterproofing is omitted in error. The engineer attends site on a weekly basis and for major events, but can't be expected to supervise every last workman. Even if the engineer looked at this particular piece of work, he might not see that the seal is missing. Years down the line, after a heavy rain event, the river level is higher than normal and the basement springs a leak at the point with the defective waterproofing. The leak has been undiscovered and for practical purposes undiscoverable. However, if someone specifically looked it would have been discoverable, but that might mean engaging in digging up the ground and opening up the work.

If steel columns in a building are meant to have intumescent paint on them, but that paint is concealed under another material (say plasterboard), then there is a defect. It isn't a patent defect, as it is not readily discoverable and might only be discovered if there is a fire and the steel deforms much more than expected. This would categorised it as a latent defect.

In contrast, if the columns are meant to have intumescent paint on them, but they are obviously bare steel (with no paint or plasterboard), then that defect is patent.

Similarly, you can't (normally) see into the cavity of a wall and see there is no insulation. Until someone opens up the wall and looks, it is a latent defect.

RORY O CONNOR

If your blocks are 215 high as you are saying then they are possibly a hollow block rather than solids. The hollow blocks do have small cavities inside them. Its impossible to determine if the insulation has been successful to get into all of the cavities! A thermal imaging camera will show it better. If as you say the blocks are sold then a thermal imaging camera will show it too.

davo10

cbr9911 wrote: »

HI can anybody tell me weather i have any grounds for complaint against a company that i paid to install ecobead cavity wall insulation which is pumped into the cavity walls. this happened in May 2006, i have since discovered that the walls are constructed with blocks on the flat and the work could not have been carried out, i have receipts for the work and the company are still in business.

When you say you have "discovered", do you mean that from a layman's point of view, or do you mean an engineer/builder has confirmed this? If you have a single leaf with no cavity in blocks, the cold/dampness would be incredible, your house would be like a shed. All houses have either two leafs with a space between for insulation or cavity blocks. The ecobeads could be in the blocks or between the leafs, gravity being what it is, they can drop and in some places there can be voids. Get a professional opinion from an engineer if you haven't already gotten one, if you make an accusation or begin legal proceedings, it will be extremely easy for the ecobead company to show prove the beads are there, thermal imaging or a good old fashioned hole drillled in the wall will do the trick for them.

Sleeper12

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

If your blocks are 215 high as you are saying then they are possibly a hollow block rather than solids. The hollow blocks do have small cavities inside them. Its impossible to determine if the insulation has been successful to get into all of the cavities! A thermal imaging camera will show it better. If as you say the blocks are sold then a thermal imaging camera will show it too.

This is the most likely scenario IMO

I just can't imagine someone turning up each day, drilling the holes & then not filling them.

lawred2

cbr9911 wrote: »

HI can anybody tell me weather i have any grounds for complaint against a company that i paid to install ecobead cavity wall insulation which is pumped into the cavity walls. this happened in May 2006, i have since discovered that the walls are constructed with blocks on the flat and the work could not have been carried out, i have receipts for the work and the company are still in business.

2006?

Whoever did the work is more than likely out of business.

maccydoodies

davo10 wrote: »

All houses have either two leafs with a space between for insulation or cavity blocks.

Not true in my gaff. My house is like a shed. We are riddled with condensation and damp issues almost all year round. turning on the heating is like pissing against the wind. Useless. The walls consist of a rice krispie type mixture with plaster boards put over them on the inside and a plaster skim with dashing on the outside. Shocking. The house was built in the early 70s. We are currently getting quotes done for the external insulation.