Use individual tradesmen or one company?

kate1988

I'm going to be undertaking a bit of a renovation project which will require a number of different trades, and just wondering whether the best option is to employ each individually or to get one company in who can subcontract the required trades as we go along?

The works needed include damp proofing, plastering, installation of central heating (from scratch), moving a bathroom, removing a couple of walls (one stud, one load bearing) and finally replacing a timber floor and then sorting out two damp solid floors (been advised epoxy resin but not sure about this).

It seems it would be easier to find someone to coordinate the different trades as I can't really work out what order everything needs to happen, but who would I ask to do this? A builder? Or a damp proof contractor? Are these guys able to bring plumbers/gas chaps in on the job?

Obviously I need to get a few quotes but don't really know which trade would be the best choice as a coordinator of the others.

Any advice would be gratefully received!

Cautious_Optimist

How much spare time do you have?
Are you working at the moment?
What's your job?
What experience and contacts do you have?

You should consider this a full time job.

Ideally, I would advise keeping control, paying each tradesman individually.
Beware of using one builder as a project manager.
You can lose control of what's going on with the subcontractors that way.
You may pay the main contractor, but they may not pay the subcontractor.
It may seem like the easier option at the start.

Also, you want to get to know the individual tradesman, because some will be good and others not so.
So for future work, it's better if you have dealt with them all individually.

Ask advice about the order in which to proceed when you get quotes.
Get references for each tradesman.

If you don't have the time, experience and contacts to manage this well yourself, I would seriously consider not proceeding.

If you do go ahead, keep a VERY close eye on what's going on.

penguine

Having just been through a major renovation project (now almost completed) I'd advise going with a builder for everything especially if you've never done a project like this before. If you don't know the best order for doing everything you risk wasting money along the way by one trade having to do something out of the correct order. A good builder will have the various trades on call ready to start the work when needed so it should also save time doing it this way.

For our job I researched a number of different builders on Checkatrade and ended up having 5 or 6 come around to discuss the job. Gut instinct is important, in addition to good references, because you need to feel that you can talk to the builder about what's going on, ask questions and raise any concerns that you have along the way.

Doozergirl

Cautious_Optimist wrote: »

How much spare time do you have?
Are you working at the moment?
What's your job?
What experience and contacts do you have?

You should consider this a full time job.

Ideally, I would advise keeping control, paying each tradesman individually.
Beware of using one builder as a project manager.
You can lose control of what's going on with the subcontractors that way.
You may pay the main contractor, but they may not pay the subcontractor.
It may seem like the easier option at the start.

Also, you want to get to know the individual tradesman, because some will be good and others not so.
So for future work, it's better if you have dealt with them all individually.

Ask advice about the order in which to proceed when you get quotes.
Get references for each tradesman.

If you don't have the time, experience and contacts to manage this well yourself, I would seriously consider not proceeding.

If you do go ahead, keep a VERY close eye on what's going on.

The reasons for using a builder are kind of the reasons you've stated for not using one.

Lose control of the subbies? So what? That's his job. To manage the subbies and get you the outcome you want.
You pay the builder. He doesn't pay the subbies? His problem, not yours.
Some subbies not up to standard? His problem, not yours.

I don't mind which route the OP chooses, just that using someone to manages does take those worries away and gives you just one relationship to manage. It's only a problem if you're a control freak, in which case you've already googled exactly how to do every job down to the last detail anyway and are probaly set to employ separately.

If you really don't know what you're doing, the best finish will come
from having it managed by someone who does. The best price might come from organising it yourself, if you can avoid costly mistakes. It also depends on how you value your time and how much you have of it.

Cautious_Optimist

Doozergirl wrote: »

The reasons for using a builder are kind of the reasons you've stated for not using one.

Lose control of the subbies? So what? That's his job. To manage the subbies and get you the outcome you want.
You pay the builder. He doesn't pay the subbies? His problem, not yours.
Some subbies not up to standard? His problem, not yours.

What do you mean ''his problem''?
It's YOUR house.
If the subcontractors don't get paid and won't come back to finish the job, then it certainly does become the homeowner's problem.

If the subcontractors do a poor job, it's YOUR problem, because it's YOUR house!

Your argument relies on the main builder taking responsibility and doing a good job etc.
That is a massive gamble.

Doozergirl

Cautious_Optimist wrote: »

What do you mean ''his problem''?
It's YOUR house.
If the subcontractors don't get paid and won't come back to finish the job, then it certainly does become the homeowner's problem.

If the subcontractors do a poor job, it's YOUR problem, because it's YOUR house!

Your argument relies on the main builder taking responsibility and doing a good job etc.
That is a massive gamble.

Hire a builder, not an idiot.

Are you suggesting that one can successfully employ a series of decent tradespeople and manage them, and expect them to work in synchronicity with each other, having had no experience, but can't employ one half decent builder and manage them?

It's not a massive gamble. Employ someone decent. Someone with a clear track record of happy customers, someone that you checked on correctly, someone who can produce a contract and a proper invoice. Someone who doesn't operate special prices for cash amd carries proper insurance for the cost of works. If you don't find them straight away, keep looking. Do it once, or do it several times and be expected to have all of the answers yourself.

If course it's your house, but any decent builder understands that they have a full responsibility to get the job right. Your house is your responsibility but having a clear delegation of the management of subcontractors and quality of workmanship with one person makes it pretty easy to know who is ultimately responsible to you. Instead of you screwing up on employing one shoddy trade, you've got someone who already knows a good one or, if he does get someone wrong, has to take responsibility for it.

Subbies know exactly who employs them and who is therefore the one responsible for paying them. Fact is, they won't work for someone who doesn't pay, so if the guy organising isn't a payer, the subby wouldn't be on the job.

If you're going to presume that all managing builders are idiots and theives, then you're not going to prosper any better trying to manage several of them. It would be like trying to herd cats.

phill99

Big problem with using individual subcontractors is that there is always the bit which falls between two trades which neither of them is willing to take control of or responsibility for. Therefore it doesn't get done. That has a knock on affect down the line.

Someone has to have a helicopter view of the whole project to make sure that the trades dovetail together, that their quality is appropriate and that they can be chased if something isn't right. If you don't know what order trades come in, then you will struggle.

Also, if you employ different trades directly and something goes wrong, they will simply blame each other and you will never resolve the issue. By having one builder acting in a coordinating role, you have one backside to kick if there is an issue' one bill to pay and one phone call to make to get an update.

Yes you will pay more for it, but you will get a better result.

Cautious_Optimist

Doozergirl wrote: »

Hire a builder, not an idiot.

Are you suggesting that one can successfully employ a series of decent tradespeople and manage them, and expect them to work in synchronicity with each other, having had no experience, but can't employ one half decent builder and manage them?

It's not a massive gamble. Employ someone decent. Someone with a clear track record of happy customers, someone that you checked on correctly, someone who can produce a contract and a proper invoice. Someone who doesn't operate special prices for cash amd carries proper insurance for the cost of works. If you don't find them straight away, keep looking. Do it once, or do it several times and be expected to have all of the answers yourself.

If course it's your house, but any decent builder understands that they have a full responsibility to get the job right. Your house is your responsibility but having a clear delegation of the management of subcontractors and quality of workmanship with one person makes it pretty easy to know who is ultimately responsible to you. Instead of you screwing up on employing one shoddy trade, you've got someone who already knows a good one or, if he does get someone wrong, has to take responsibility for it.

Subbies know exactly who employs them and who is therefore the one responsible for paying them. Fact is, they won't work for someone who doesn't pay, so if the guy organising isn't a payer, the subby wouldn't be on the job.

If you're going to presume that all managing builders are idiots and theives, then you're not going to prosper any better trying to manage several of them. It would be like trying to herd cats.

I agree with your theory, it makes perfect sense.
But in reality, it is much harder and I would advise the OP to walk away from this project, unless they are 100pc confident in the builder they hire.

Cautious_Optimist

phill99 wrote: »

Big problem with using individual subcontractors is that there is always the bit which falls between two trades which neither of them is willing to take control of or responsibility for. Therefore it doesn't get done. That has a knock on affect down the line.

Someone has to have a helicopter view of the whole project to make sure that the trades dovetail together, that their quality is appropriate and that they can be chased if something isn't right. If you don't know what order trades come in, then you will struggle.

Also, if you employ different trades directly and something goes wrong, they will simply blame each other and you will never resolve the issue. By having one builder acting in a coordinating role, you have one backside to kick if there is an issue' one bill to pay and one phone call to make to get an update.

Yes you will pay more for it, but you will get a better result.

You make some good points.
But in reality, finding a builder who can manage a job like this is difficult and risky.

phill99

Cautious_Optimist wrote: »

You make some good points.
But in reality, finding a builder who can manage a job like this is difficult and risky.

Rubbish. Thats what builders do all the time. And how can it be risky? It has to be more risky to employ different trades and not know if they will turn up when they are needed to be on site.

phill99

Cautious_Optimist wrote: »

I agree with your theory, it makes perfect sense.
But in reality, it is much harder and I would advise the OP to walk away from this project, unless they are 100pc confident in the builder they hire.

What goes on in side your head?