How long are builders liable?

jjlandlord

Mrs_Wilson wrote: »

In an ideal world, I would like him to come back and offer to do the work free of charge

While wearing a tux and carrying a red rose between his teeth... It seems more than an "ideal world" expectation, TBH.

You had 14 years with that window without any issue.
If you now think about replacing the window again, just make sure that you also get a lintel fitted.

Poppie68

14 years ago it most probably didn't need a lintel.
These days window fitters do have a duty to advise and price a lintel if they consider the structure unstable...I would think if there was a problem with your brickwork 14 years ago, it would of been evident one way or another way before now.

Mrs_Wilson

Poppie68 wrote: »

14 years ago it most probably didn't need a lintel.
These days window fitters do have a duty to advise and price a lintel if they consider the structure unstable...I would think if there was a problem with your brickwork 14 years ago, it would of been evident one way or another way before now.

Over the years, there have been leaks, where water has seeped in via the frame, especially in bad weather, this has caused damage to the plaster on the inside of my property. I can only imagine this is due to the substandard fitting of the upvc window.:mad:

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

BoP offers the following.

I understand that a uPVC window has been fitted to a bay window, where there is also an upper floor bay. As this was a replacement for a previous wooden window, the wooden window was sufficient to support the weight of the bricks, and upper floor bay window. Hence no lintel being placed when the house was built.

The replacement window is such that is does not have the structural integrity of the removed wooden window, hence the problem today of either sagging or partial failure of the bay structure being apparent.

The question is, who selected the replacement window. Structurally sufficient uPVC windows are available. I had one fitted to a previous property in 2001. If the builder selected the window, and this is on the itemised bill as such then the builder is responsible for not doing an adequate installation. That is they failed to fit a lintel, or a structurally sufficient replacement.

If the house owner selected the window, and asked the builder to fit, there may be problems over the task that the owner asked the builder to carry out.

Poppie68

neilmcl wrote: »

To be fair you have a reasonable expectation for the builder to be aprofessional and perform due diligence, eg, if the upvc window wasn't suitable due to there being no lintel then he shouldn't have proceeded. Simply arguing that he wasn't asked to install a lintel isn't good enough.

There is nothing to suggest that the window wasn't suitable or fitted incorrectly or a lintel was needed at the time.. we don't have Intel's on any of ours and have no problem but in time maybe its something we will face but as a homeowner it's down to us to maintain the property.

Pennywise

You'd have had to pay more to have a lintel fitted at the time - it's a bigger job than simply a window exchange.

Yet now you want the builder to do it as a freebie? Doesn't make sense.

In my opinion, you're only claim would be had he quoted on the basis of a replacement window and lintel and you now find out that he didn't do the lintel after all.

unholyangel

Mrs_Wilson wrote: »

Over the years, there have been leaks, where water has seeped in via the frame, especially in bad weather, this has caused damage to the plaster on the inside of my property. I can only imagine this is due to the substandard fitting of the upvc window.:mad:

That makes things even more complicated.

For starters, it may mean that the period defined in the limitations act has already passed. If your windows were leaking then imo you should have been aware of there being an issue with them.

Which brings me to my next point...you may find you are at least partially liable for some of the damage. This is because your inaction could break the chain of causation.

If (for example) the window could have been easily removed and replaced when first noticing the leaking but now the wall needs rebuilt, replastered etc due to the repeated exposure to water it has had.

arcon5

zaax wrote: »

In the motor trade it is (or supposed to be). If a tyre fitter notices your brakes are shot they can't allow the vehicle back on the road.

I hope you're not in the motor trader

pendragon_arther

Is this a windup? 14 years later...

Money-Saving-King

Also is the builder still in business? That was ages ago and not all small building firms last!