Help, Cowboy builder!

cyclonebri1

You guys have missed the fact that this situation is only 2 weeks old.
Only a week longer than planned. The issues have now started in the 3rd week.

Look I'm no lawyer but things take time to go wrong and times to fix, that time has not elapsed.:o:o

Look, this is the single and simple reason why you do not want to get to the litigation stage, some bad advice posted here.

qwerty75

It sounds as if you could argue that the house had become dangerous and needed urgent attention.

Yes, this is the advice that I have been given, I could not allow water to run into electrics until he decided when he would get back to me and I did give him a chance to fix the problem.

Just the extra costs and mess to deal with now....:mad:

cyclonebri1

But no one will judge that long enough. The extra costs are another (valid) reason altogether, the original contract will still be in place, take care

qwerty75

Four days with water pouring from my kitchen ceiling into electrics without being able to make contact with him is not long enough?!

How long is deemed necessary to put up with this? Surely this is a fire hazard?

Please remember this is not the only incident where we questioned this mans competence either, there were many others.

cyclonebri1

qwerty75 wrote: »

Four days with water pouring from my kitchen ceiling into electrics without being able to make contact with him is not long enough?!

How long is deemed necessary to put up with this? Surely this is a fire hazard?

Please remember this is not the only incident where we questioned this mans competence either, there were many others.

Please, I do understand this, check my 1st post, but in LAW it will be judged to be an unreasonable amount of time to fix the whole thing.

I was trying to point out why your complaint would fail, not if it was justified or not.

I'm on your side, the problem is the law gives an almighty amount of leeway, ;)

STOCKWIRE

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

But no one will judge that long enough. The extra costs are another (valid) reason altogether, the original contract will still be in place, take care

He agreed to carry out the work in 7 days so surely he has breached the original contract. I don't think anyone would apart from yourself
find toilet water leaking into the kitchen acceptable for any length of time let alone days. if it was me I'd be checking legally to see If I could recover all the money paid to him + damages

Leif

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Please, I do understand this, check my 1st post, but in LAW it will be judged to be an unreasonable amount of time to fix the whole thing.

I was trying to point out why your complaint would fail, not if it was justified or not.

I'm on your side, the problem is the law gives an almighty amount of leeway, ;)

Unless you are a lawyer, then I would question that statement. Assuming the OP's description is accurate, then surely it would be argued that the original builder has shown himself to be incompetent and dangerous, and hence the OP was within their rights to get someone competent in to rectify the damage. My view is that I would not allow the original builder near my house once he had caused somuch damage. The faults described are rather basic, and not consistent with a competent trade. However, this all assumes the OP's description is both correct, and provable. Whilst I am not questioning that it is correct (we can only assume in good faith), the problem is proving it. The fact that the OP has photographs is a help, but for example, did they agree in writing on a specific bathroom suite, and then the builder installed the wrong one? This needs to be in writing.

This is not an easy situation to be in. Since it is a home, the need is to get it sorted. I am involved in a similar incident, and I did not allow them to come back. But I had 3 surveys confirming that the work was poor.

But ... the OP needs good advice, from Trading Standards, Citizens Advice, etc. We are just guessing.

qwerty75

I really appreciate your comments, this is causing me and my family considerable distress.

I have the original quote from the builder for the goods to be supplied (that we chose from brochures provided by him). Not one of these items have been installed....even down to the taps. This was down to items found to be broken on arrival, wrong stock sent or found to be out of stock.
Is this quote is part of the contract? And will it stand for anything if none of the items match what has been fitted?

cyclonebri1

Leif wrote: »

Unless you are a lawyer, then I would question that statement. Assuming the OP's description is accurate, then surely it would be argued that the original builder has shown himself to be incompetent and dangerous, and hence the OP was within their rights to get someone competent in to rectify the damage. My view is that I would not allow the original builder near my house once he had caused somuch damage. The faults described are rather basic, and not consistent with a competent trade. However, this all assumes the OP's description is both correct, and provable. Whilst I am not questioning that it is correct (we can only assume in good faith), the problem is proving it. The fact that the OP has photographs is a help, but for example, did they agree in writing on a specific bathroom suite, and then the builder installed the wrong one? This needs to be in writing.

This is not an easy situation to be in. Since it is a home, the need is to get it sorted. I am involved in a similar incident, and I did not allow them to come back. But I had 3 surveys confirming that the work was poor.

But ... the OP needs good advice, from Trading Standards, Citizens Advice, etc. We are just guessing.

I am simply giving a view, not advice. And that view is that if the op tries to make this a legal battle then the 4 days they have given the builder to rectify will not be considered enough. If you think it is then fine you pay the court costs if it fails.

The other issues are 2ndary, the builder will claim, probably correctly that the wrong suite was delivered, and that it was delivered damaged in 2 instances. That can probably be substantiated and will not be held as the builders negligence.

I'm saying don't tell the op that it's cut and dry when if it isn't it could cost them far more than it has already.

Yes you are right about one thing, we are all guessing, I'm just trying not to compound the issue for the op.

Leif

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I am simply giving a view, not advice. And that view is that if the op tries to make this a legal battle then the 4 days they have given the builder to rectify will not be considered enough. If you think it is then fine you pay the court costs if it fails.

The other issues are 2ndary, the builder will claim, probably correctly that the wrong suite was delivered, and that it was delivered damaged in 2 instances. That can probably be substantiated and will not be held as the builders negligence.

I'm saying don't tell the op that it's cut and dry when if it isn't it could cost them far more than it has already.

Yes you are right about one thing, we are all guessing, I'm just trying not to compound the issue for the op.

That is an interesting viewpoint, and it does illustrate why expert advice is needed. I must admit I would have contacted Citizens Advice before employing someone else to rectify the work, as it reduces the risk. The law is a strange beast.

Incidentally court costs are minor for the small claims court, unless the judge asks for experts to be hired to provide an assessment.