Poor Workmanship

Gumbo

Treppen wrote: »

People are being very harsh on the OP with this type of blame.

Its not harsh, its true unfortunately.
The OP took on the responsibility of designer based on the info posted. Normally, people with no construction experience will appoint an Architect, Engineer or Surveyor.

Who confirmed Planning exemption status?

If I had no experience with cars, id ask a mechanic to take a look at one for me, I would not assume myself into that role.

Its may seem harsh posting this info but its the reality.

ElderWanderer

RandRuns wrote: »

All very well in theory, however, unless the client appointed someone as PSDS for the project, then the only person they will be suing is themselves, as they took on responsibilty for ensuring everything was done correctly and to standard.

Yes, that logic works perfectly in the mind of any builder who wants a reason not to fix their crappy workmanship. Not so much in a court though- the law has much lower expectations of the guy getting a house extension as compared to Google building an office block, for example. Same way the law has lower expectations of the punter buying a car Vs the US miilitary buying 1,000 tanks. Depending on the buyer, if they explode after 6 months they will either be fully compensated or can sing for it...(spontaneously explode, rather than by intent of a 3rd party I mean!)

But the real leverage is probably reputation, in fairness- if asking nicely doesn't work, asking not nicely plus promising to tell everyone you meet about the issues you had with him if he doesn't sort them out is potentially taking an order of magnitude more cash out of his pocket than it would take for him to fix it.

RandRuns

ElderWanderer wrote: »

Yes, that logic works perfectly in the mind of any builder who wants a reason not to fix their crappy workmanship. Not so much in a court though- the law has much lower expectations of the guy getting a house extension as compared to Google building an office block, for example. Same way the law has lower expectations of the punter buying a car Vs the US miilitary buying 1,000 tanks. Depending on the buyer, if they explode after 6 months they will either be fully compensated or can sing for it...

But the real leverage is probably reputation, in fairness- if asking nicely doesn't work, asking not nicely plus promising to tell everyone you meet about the issues you had with him if he doesn't sort them out is potentially taking an order of magnitude more cash out of his pocket than it would take for him to fix it.

You're misunderstanding. Unless the client appointed a professional to the role of PSDP/PSCS, they assumed the role themselves. It would be like a self-employed person bringing their employer to court because they are unhappy with the work they've done.

Makes no odds to me, but I'm afraid the OP is unlikely to get any joy other than by the goodwill of the builder.

TheBoyConor

Another thing here is that there was probably no clearly defined Contract of what was or was not included, and no defined defects period wherein the contractor had to rectify any faults arising from defective work, and no retention to hold over on the contractor.
I get the impression that was all a pretty casual type job between the OP and the builder, with the OP relying on the builders opinion on technical matters.

In the absence of a construction contract, is there legislation that can be applied? Would the supply of goods and services legislation apply here? Could the OP pursue them on the basis that the service/goods provided were not fit for purpose, or not as promised?

Bullocks

agoc2809 wrote: »

Hi,

We completed a renovation just over a year ago. We have noticed a number of issues such as bad plastering, poor outside rendering, drainage issues, roof issues etc. With covid the builder was unable to visit the property and when we raised these issues over the phone he dismissed them as us being too picky. When restrictions have lifted the builder has said he will visit the property. However Im concerned that he won't take our greivances seriously. Therefore I would like to have an independent party inspect the property and provide a report.

Can you please let me know what the best options here are? Do I require a structural survery or would a snag list be sufficient?

Thanks

Any chance of a few pictures of the plastering /rendering and roof/drainage issues?
Did you notice anything you didn't like before he was paid? And did you say it then?

agoc2809

Yes we pointed issues out, we were told "do you realise what you got here, I did the job on the budget you gave me, it would have cost another 50k". We were made feel like we were nitpicking. A neighbour of ours pointed out the ridge tiles on our roof and said they don't look right, we then noticed a leak in our kitchen ceiling. The builder couldn't make it out, as well as covid restrictions his wife was also very sick so we didn't put pressure on him. He sent out roofers who said it needed a patch job but rather than take their word for it we got a few roofers of our own to take a look.

It turned out that the roof didn't need just a patch up job. All the valleys had to be replaced, the morter was also of poor quality so ridge tiles had to be removed and replaced. We argued for a number of weeks with him and he eventually agreed to cover the cost using our own roofer.

Gumbo

agoc2809 wrote: »

Yes we pointed issues out, we were told "do you realise what you got here, I did the job on the budget you gave me, it would have cost another 50k". We were made feel like we were nitpicking. A neighbour of ours pointed out the ridge tiles on our roof and said they don't look right, we then noticed a leak in our kitchen ceiling. The builder couldn't make it out, as well as covid restrictions his wife was also very sick so we didn't put pressure on him. He sent out roofers who said it needed a patch job but rather than take their word for it we got a few roofers of our own to take a look.

It turned out that the roof didn't need just a patch up job. All the valleys had to be replaced, the morter was also of poor quality so ridge tiles had to be removed and replaced. We argued for a number of weeks with him and he eventually agreed to cover the cost using our own roofer.

It would be beneficial to get a definitive list prepared and try to sit down with the builder.
Something might come of it, nothing might come of it, but best to get it done, sort it out and move on as you don't want this hanging over you long term, get on with enjoying your new space.

ElderWanderer

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Another thing here is that there was probably no clearly defined Contract of what was or was not included, and no defined defects period wherein the contractor had to rectify any faults arising from defective work, and no retention to hold over on the contractor.
I get the impression that was all a pretty casual type job between the OP and the builder, with the OP relying on the builders opinion on technical matters.

In the absence of a construction contract, is there legislation that can be applied? Would the supply of goods and services legislation apply here? Could the OP pursue them on the basis that the service/goods provided were not fit for purpose, or not as promised?

Without getting into needlessly boring detail, there is a contract. Whether it's written down is irrelevant; if it is written down, the written terms are to a certain extent irrelevant- long story short (unless the OP has a fair few legal and/or construction qualifications they haven't mentioned yet) the power & knowledge imbalance between the OP and Builder X is such that the terms will generally be interpreted in favour of the OP, and that includes implied terms which may or may not directly contradict & overrule some written terms.

The enforceable terms of the contract are basically that the OP engaged the contractor to do agreed work of the appropriate standard for an agreed price. The price is agreed, the work is agreed, and the appropriate standard is basically that standard which the OP had a legitimate expectation of being done.

For more detail please see Contract Law & Equity for a few semesters.

The only real question legally is whether the work was actually done to the appropriate standard. It sounds like it wasn't, but what the hell do I know about that in fairness?

But also in fairness, it's my opinion & experience that if you end up in a courtroom arguing the law & facts or any case of any kind, everyone there except the lawyers has already lost. It should be the last resort, but still a source of leverage which can be used if necessary.

Metric Tensor

The post above is very good. Explains the legal situation quite nicely.

A few comments:

First the terms PSDP or PSCS are the wrong ones to use here - they are defined roles under the health and safety legislation and have very little to do with quality of construction except where it directly applies to construction and residual risk. These roles are often assumed by people who's job also includes design, quality control, building regs compliance, etc. but that's not what the legal aspects of the terms PSDP and PSCS mean. Better to talk of designer and contractor for this case.

To the OP: You've gotten enough lectures about having an independent professional represent your interest. It's "penny-wise pound foolish" not to employ one but hindsight is 20/20 so it's no use dwelling on that.

You were entitled to expect that a professional builder would carry out their work to an appropriate standard and just because he is fully paid does not mean you can't still expect that standard - however, the fact that he has all "his" money will make it harder to get him to come back to rectify things. Likewise you need some professional advice on whether your expectations are too high or not. (Your description of the roofing would make me thing the expectations are not too high but only a professional can guide you.)

You need a list of things that need to be rectified prepared by a professional. Then you need to massage and gently coerce the builder back because if you have to go down the legal route you have already lost and the solicitors are the only ones happy. The builder is not going to be too thrilled because he both underpriced the job and then had to pay towards the roof repairs so feels like it has already cost him money - this shouldn't matter to you but if you are going to rely on a non-legal route you need to have that at the back of your mind during negotiations.

tabby aspreme

OP, can you put up some pictures of the work done, particularly the roof and any internal finishing , it will give people commenting an idea whether it was penny pinching or poor workmanship by your builder, there are plenty of supposed builder's around, and no matter how much money you gave them it would still be a botch job, because they, and their employees don't have the knowledge or skill to do things correctly.

mickdw

Gumbo wrote: »

Your not listening.
Even exempted development require these certs. Does it comply with the other requirements? Area of garden space remaining? Window distance to boundary?

You are only exempt from the process of applying for planning permission. You still need to comply with building regulations and planning regulations (exempted development).

This is further evidence of not having a professional involved in the project unfortunately.

Interesting question. Where a homeowner takes on a planning exempt extension, does everything correctly as in actually meet the requirements of the planning exemptions, are they legally bound to hold a cert of compliance / exemption for the property - I dont see how they would be. Sure they will need it if going to sell but otherwise i dont think so.
In relation to Building Regs, it would clearly make sense to keep as much record as possible to prove compliance.

Treppen

Gumbo wrote: »

Its not harsh, its true unfortunately.
The OP took on the responsibility of designer based on the info posted. Normally, people with no construction experience will appoint an Architect, Engineer or Surveyor.

Who confirmed Planning exemption status?

If I had no experience with cars, id ask a mechanic to take a look at one for me, I would not assume myself into that role.

Its may seem harsh posting this info but its the reality.

You're missing the point, if you had no experience of cars and the mechanic says ya I'll fix it, would the owner be at fault if he didn't get an experienced mechanic to wire up the dash cam properly and your battery ran flat. He put the young lad who changed the tyres on the job.

Oh well that's the owners problem for not checking the work! They took on the role of electronic engineer.

At this stage you'd think builders know how to build extensions properly if they've done others. Also they should stand over their work and be available if issues come to light. I wouldn't blame the OP.
In saying all that I hired an architect technician to supervise my extension and it's solid after 10+ years, but that's because I don't trust any tradesman, the op did.

Sleeper12

Gumbo wrote:

Your not listening. Even exempted development require these certs. Does it comply with the other requirements? Area of garden space remaining? Window distance to boundary?

Without these certificates might operate have difficulty selling the property in the future? Would the buyers solicitor allow to close without them. Would a lender be happy to proceed without the correct certs?

booooonzo

very interesting to see both sides here.
are those putting blame on the OP in the building game by any chance?

Bullocks

Treppen wrote: »

You're missing the point, if you had no experience of cars and the mechanic says ya I'll fix it, would the owner be at fault if he didn't get an experienced mechanic to wire up the dash cam properly and your battery ran flat. He put the young lad who changed the tyres on the job.

Oh well that's the owners problem for not checking the work! They took on the role of electronic engineer.

At this stage you'd think builders know how to build extensions properly if they've done others. Also they should stand over their work and be available if issues come to light. I wouldn't blame the OP.
In saying all that I hired an architect technician to supervise my extension and it's solid after 10+ years, but that's because I don't trust any tradesman, the op did.

As a tradesman I'd hate to work for someone that doesn't trust me . I know you have to earn someone's trust too but it must create a bit of tension on a build when you start out not trusting any of the tradesmen.
We seem to be in a bit of a boom at the minute and it's hard to get lads but are reputations that bad at the minute?

iColdFusion

I can see both sides of this but OP just wanted their extension for reasonable money, if they paid a builder to do work and that work is defective then I would assume they have a clear case to get that work rectified and I don't see any legal body siding with the builder in this case if it comes to that irrespective of sign off certs etc
Its not as if an architect is going to pick up on every possible issue that could raise its head anyway, they're not on site every day and some things only arise when you are living in the space, even if they kept some retention it probably wouldn't have been large enough to fix the issues the OP is talking about.

In reality I would hope the builder sees the potential legal costs and reputation damage long term as being far higher than just fixing the issues but that also kind of depends on where in the country you are OP, is this a local builder in the countryside or are you in a major city?
Any local builder I know in the countryside values their reputation as work is few and far between, if you were in Dublin far higher chance of them telling you to jog on as they will always get work no matter what.

TheBoyConor

I agree that there absolutely is a contract in place, however, it may just be verbal or implied, and correct, there would be the reasonable expectation that the job would be done to a standard of workmanship that would be acceptable in the industry. However, since the contract or a specification is not written down with clearly defined terms of what is or is not covered, it leaves an awful lot of grey areas that can be argued to and fro.

I only mentioned PSCS and PSDP in the context of H&S not quality. Since that is the only relevance those terms have. OP would by right have needed to appoint them, but I am guessing they didn't. However, your PSDP is usually your designer anyway, and it seems there was no real designer here, just a homeowner and a builder doing the job ad hoc.

seamus

agoc2809 wrote: »

It turned out that the roof didn't need just a patch up job. All the valleys had to be replaced, the morter was also of poor quality so ridge tiles had to be removed and replaced. We argued for a number of weeks with him and he eventually agreed to cover the cost using our own roofer.

One thing that's worth noting about professionals is that they'd often rather redo the work their own way than patch someone else's.

This is the old joke that a workman will always tell you someone else's work is shoddy and needs to be redone.

It's an understandable thing; if they try to fix someone else's work, then they're on the hook if the fix doesn't take. But if they pull it out and redo all the work, they can be more certain that's it done right/their way.

This is where the surveyor is again your friend. They'll tell you whether something actually needs to be redone from scratch or if it can be patched up.

onrail

RandRuns wrote: »

This should be shared to the thread about the guy looking to do his house direct labour.

"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.”

Unfortunately, as mentioned by others, these issues should have been picked up either during the build or during snagging, and would have been if there had been a professional in charge. Now you are at the mercy of the builder and whether he will help as a geture of goodwill - if this was a "lowest possible price for everything" job then it is unlikely he made much margin, and this may affect his willingness to put more time into it.

I think that's me. Having read the thread, still not 100% convinced that going the contractor route rather than direct labour would prevent poor workmanship.

I'd still plan to appoint a designer, who presumably would oversee and 'sign-off' on workmanship...?

[Note the word 'presumably' - I obviously haven't a bull's notion]