Building contracts

Doozergirl

...because everyone knows what an ADR is.

ryder72

The JCT contract is 'Building Contract for a home owner/occupier who has not appointed a consultant to oversee the job'.

The builder is comfortable using either their own contract or JCT. They are not part of FMB but a NHBC registered firm. I know NHBC means nothing, but just flagging the point.

I am comfortable with what their contract terms say and they have been very frank about amending terms in the contract.

As several on the forum have already said, the key to a successful build is not a contract but a good and reasonable relationship where one party is not seen as getting an upper hand over the other. I work in a trade closely aligned with building and our most successful projects are the ones where the clients have been reasonable and accommodating and we are more than flexible and accommodating in return. Its the ones that think that we are fools that get the contract executed to the letter of the contract, no more no less.

In terms of the payment terms, the contract has been split into 5 broad stages with 20% payable at the end of each stage on completion as much as is reasonably viable. This means in theory I have 20% retainer at each stage. Some of these stages will run in parallel and I understand that building is not a perfect science, so I have a verbal agreement that is a stage is not 100% complete but another is more advanced than expected, we will pay and vice versa. I have known this builder and seen their work on some major projects to appreciate the detail in their execution and quality of work.

In summary, I felt the JCT conttracts while established and time tested are probably going to be left open to interpretation while their own contracts being wordier will be more of a 'terms in the contract type of situation'.

It appears that there is no preference as such on which type of contract is the preferrred option here.

Furts

ryder72 wrote: »

The JCT contract is 'Building Contract for a home owner/occupier who has not appointed a consultant to oversee the job'.

The builder is comfortable using either their own contract or JCT. They are not part of FMB but a NHBC registered firm. I know NHBC means nothing, but just flagging the point.

I am comfortable with what their contract terms say and they have been very frank about amending terms in the contract.

As several on the forum have already said, the key to a successful build is not a contract but a good and reasonable relationship where one party is not seen as getting an upper hand over the other. I work in a trade closely aligned with building and our most successful projects are the ones where the clients have been reasonable and accommodating and we are more than flexible and accommodating in return. Its the ones that think that we are fools that get the contract executed to the letter of the contract, no more no less.

In terms of the payment terms, the contract has been split into 5 broad stages with 20% payable at the end of each stage on completion as much as is reasonably viable. This means in theory I have 20% retainer at each stage. Some of these stages will run in parallel and I understand that building is not a perfect science, so I have a verbal agreement that is a stage is not 100% complete but another is more advanced than expected, we will pay and vice versa. I have known this builder and seen their work on some major projects to appreciate the detail in their execution and quality of work.

In summary, I felt the JCT conttracts while established and time tested are probably going to be left open to interpretation while their own contracts being wordier will be more of a 'terms in the contract type of situation'.

It appears that there is no preference as such on which type of contract is the preferrred option here.

I assume your NHBC Registered builder has advised they/you register your work for an NHBC warranty?

ryder72

This is a house demolish and rebuild. We are getting a structural warranty from a different supplier though we were offered one from NHBC.

Didnt realise NHBC offer warranties on geenral building work also.

Furts

ryder72 wrote: »

This is a house demolish and rebuild. We are getting a structural warranty from a different supplier though we were offered one from NHBC.

Didnt realise NHBC offer warranties on geenral building work also.

I was thinking you were creating a new home. Hence my reference to NHBC. A structural warranty from elsewhere is fine, provided this is backed up by inspections and standards - some are not.

Furts

Annie1960 wrote: »

Having just had a problem builder, I think it's more important to hire someone who is a member of some type of ADR scheme so that, if problems arise, the builder must go through ADR. This avoids all the hassle and costs of court.

This way, any problems should be sorted out as they arise.

As Doozergirl alludes,not everyone will know what ADR is. My penny worth is this is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. All consumers should be getting building work undertaken so there is only a minute possibility that ADR or any legal recourse ends up being required.

It is probable none of the contributors on this forum who work in the construction industry have ever needed ADR, or Conciliation. or Mediation, or Arbitration or court action. With domestic work, it really should never get like this.

By all means get a contract signed, and have a disputes procedure in conjunction with this. But in 99.9% of cases should not be necessary to use it.

ryder72

The structural warranty is from LABC in conjunction with the LA. Its a useless piece of paper but one that the mortgage guys require. I cant find a better example of cartelized nonsense.

Furts

ryder72 wrote: »

The structural warranty is from LABC in conjunction with the LA. Its a useless piece of paper but one that the mortgage guys require. I cant find a better example of cartelized nonsense.

The last housing scheme I was on with a LABC Warranty package came complete with a technical standards requirement. There was a huge download of requirements, probably a crib of pieces of NHBC Technical Standards.

No Warranty can be regarded as "nonsense". Indeed this comment is nonsense for it defies any concept of consumer rights.Regardless it is your choice who you go with, and also whether you consider this worthwhile. Your tone suggests you do not.

As you are aware the warranty exists to protect those lending the money, which is a reasonable stipulation. They are taking a risk on your project, however small you may deem this to be.

Your building contract is mentioned as without a consultant overseeing matters. Not a route I would recommend the majority to go down, though if one is with a package company it might be worth a punt here.

ryder72

Hi Furts - I understand the premise of the warranties but mainstream housebuilders in conjunction with the likes of NHBC have made a mockery of it and this is undeniable.

As a self builder we will be far surpassing any building standards laid out in the regulations which is why I said its a bit of nonsense as far as I am concerned. I have lived in a new build and had a reason to call on the NHBC for a badly built bay window (the build was skewed and one side was 4 inches longer than the other). The builder didnt want to know nor did the NHBC and the take away message was that unless the house is falling to bits, the warranty isnt worth the paper its printed on.

So in summary I see this whole building warranty lark as nothing more than a perfect compromise where no one meaningfully gains but a lot of window dressing is done to create the pretence that something substantial stands behind it.

Similarly, I have looked into hiring project managers and came away disappointed with the level of competency and initiative, ultimately taking me to the decision that a level of involvement myself with a good builder on the project would appear to be the best way forward.