Builders liability for damage?

woffle99

Hi there,

I have a quick question that I'd really appreciate some input on.

I'm about to have some roof trim replaced (fascias, soffits etc) and having had three quotes, I've picked the one I want to go with.

Looking at the terms and conditions of the contract they have sent me, one of them says:

"The company will take all reasonable care of the Purchaser's property, but cannot accept liability for damage or redecorations"

Is this a standard clause? Could this mean that, say, if they stick a scaffolding pole through my conservatory they can simply walk away without paying for repairs?

It seems contrary to what I imagine most people would expect, in that if you cause damage to something, you should pay to repair it.

Thanks,
Mark

Leif

I would not employ them. Also it might not be legal in the sense that they might not be able to absolve themselves of responsibility on the grounds that it is an unreasonable contract. I'm only guessing. But that is a bodger's charter. Yee haaa.

woffle99

Thanks for the reply.

Thing is this isn't some dodgy cowboy company, but a long-established local firm (over 20 years) for which I've only seen good feedback for, which is why I'm wondering if this is just a standard covering clause that all companies like this slip in because their lawyers think it's a good idea.

iamcornholio

Lots of companies are guilty of excessive T&C's and trying to exclude all and sundry.

The fact remains, under contract law, they can't exclude their liability for their own negligence. In addition, it may well be that clauses become unreasonable and unenforceable, so don't be scared of contract clauses

The wording of that particular clause is itself questionable "The company will take all reasonable care of the Purchaser's property, but cannot accept liability for damage or redecorations"

What is "reasonable care"? It would be a minefield to interpret that, and the company has clearly put in a clause which is of no help to them.

You can ignore that clause

phill99

You need to try and look at it from their prospective. I don't think they are trying to get out of liability if they're negligent. What they are saying is that ' we are going to remove your old facias and soffits. We will do our best to not damage the rendering on the front of you property which abuts the soffits. However, given the age of the property we cannot guarantee that their wont be some minor damage to the render. If that happens, it's down to you, the homeowner to have it fixed'.

In that example of render damage, it may well be that all of the render on the front of the property is blown and the slightest amount of tampering will cause it all to fall off. This is hardly negligence on the part of the builder, but is simply a deterioration in the building fabric which happens over a period o time.

Another example is window fitting. Removing a window will always result in some damage to plaster work. This isn't the builder being negligent. It is just a fact of life. The homeowner needs to accept that this happens and be prepared to deal with redecorating himself.

Leif

phill99 wrote: »

You need to try and look at it from their prospective. ...

That sounds reasonable.

woffle99

phill99 wrote: »

You need to try and look at it from their prospective. I don't think they are trying to get out of liability if they're negligent. What they are saying is that ' we are going to remove your old facias and soffits. We will do our best to not damage the rendering on the front of you property which abuts the soffits. However, given the age of the property we cannot guarantee that their wont be some minor damage to the render. If that happens, it's down to you, the homeowner to have it fixed'.

In that example of render damage, it may well be that all of the render on the front of the property is blown and the slightest amount of tampering will cause it all to fall off. This is hardly negligence on the part of the builder, but is simply a deterioration in the building fabric which happens over a period o time.

Another example is window fitting. Removing a window will always result in some damage to plaster work. This isn't the builder being negligent. It is just a fact of life. The homeowner needs to accept that this happens and be prepared to deal with redecorating himself.

I totally agree - this was the case when I had the windows replaced and I certainly didn't expect the company that did those to paint over the bits of render they had to replace around some of the frames.

If the clause went into a bit more detail along those lines that would be fine, but the totality of the 'we are not liable for any damage' phrasing just seems far too broad and has me a little concerned.

phill99

woffle99 wrote: »

I totally agree - this was the case when I had the windows replaced and I certainly didn't expect the company that did those to paint over the bits of render they had to replace around some of the frames.

If the clause went into a bit more detail along those lines that would be fine, but the totality of the 'we are not liable for any damage' phrasing just seems far too broad and has me a little concerned.

As others have said, this phrase is unenforceable. If the builder puts his foot through your roof, he will be liable, regardless of the clause within the contract. If he sets fire to your house while using a heat gun, he will be liable. If he puts his ladder through a window, he will be liable. A clause such as this doesn't discharge his liabilities in Common Law. So I wouldn't be too worried about it.