New roof dispute - doesn't meet building regs - what do I do?

System

Annie1960 wrote: »

Consumer Rights Act 2015. The roofer should have used reasonable care and skill, and should have known what the regs are.

Don't pay until the work meets regs. If you want further advice, google to find the number for Citizens' Advice consumer helpline.

I must have missed that quote in the Consumer Rights Act? Exactly where does it say that contractors are required to know the building regulations, the work could have done with great care and skill, there's nothing that evidences otherwise.
If they detailed what the works involved including rockwool - then they have done their job.
It's different if they had said in a quote that the works will comply with current building regulations.
You would be very surprised the number of contractors and sub-contractors who don't have in depth knowledge of the latest building regulations intricacies (most have very good working knowledge but uvlaues and insulation specification is something we always have to go over on jobs because they vary from product to product and build up to build up)

moneyistooshorttomention

the_r_sole wrote: »

I must have missed that quote in the Consumer Rights Act? Exactly where does it say that contractors are required to know the building regulations, the work could have done with great care and skill, there's nothing that evidences otherwise.
If they detailed what the works involved including rockwool - then they have done their job.
It's different if they had said in a quote that the works will comply with current building regulations.
You would be very surprised the number of contractors and sub-contractors who don't have in depth knowledge of the latest building regulations intricacies (most have very good working knowledge but uvlaues and insulation specification is something we always have to go over on jobs because they vary from product to product and build up to build up)

I don't think some of us would be surprised...

But I imagine OP did the same as I did when I replaced my roof - ie given a copy of the Council's specifications to the roofer concerned and said "Like that - just as they say please". I know I was certainly glad they had laid down the specifications in some detail - as I wouldnt have known exactly what to specify.

xyz123

tacpot12 wrote: »

If you didn't specify compliance with building regs, you owe the builder as they have met their side off the contract.

Is that even an option I. E. Not complying with building regulations?

System

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I don't think some of us would be surprised...

But I imagine OP did the same as I did when I replaced my roof - ie given a copy of the Council's specifications to the roofer concerned and said "Like that - just as they say please". I know I was certainly glad they had laid down the specifications in some detail - as I wouldnt have known exactly what to specify.

Obviously if the OP has provided a specification which complies with building regs they shouldn't have any issue with having the work done to comply, however, this is not the norm at all.

Annie1960

the_r_sole wrote: »

I must have missed that quote in the Consumer Rights Act? Exactly where does it say that contractors are required to know the building regulations, the work could have done with great care and skill, there's nothing that evidences otherwise.
If they detailed what the works involved including rockwool - then they have done their job.

I have cut and pasted the below from the Act:.

'It is generally accepted that relevant to whether a person has met the standard of reasonable care and skill are industry standards or codes of practice.'

Industry standards in construction would include knowing the regulations. The test is whether a 'reasonable' roofer should have known this.

The 2015 Act gives greater comfort to consumers than the previous 1982 Act. If a good/service is not 'fit-for-purpose' then the consumer is entitled to redress. Clearly, if a roof fails building regs, it is not fit-for-purpose.

If the consumer asked for something that is clearly not compliant with the regulations, the trader should have spotted it and advised the customer accordingly before starting work. This is part of reasonable care and skill.

The OP may wish to speak to the Citizens' Advice consumer helpline for further assistance. They will outline the procedure the OP needs to go through to give the original roofer a chance to put things right first.

System

Annie1960 wrote: »

I have cut and pasted the below from the Act:.

'It is generally accepted that relevant to whether a person has met the standard of reasonable care and skill are industry standards or codes of practice.'

Industry standards in construction would include knowing the regulations. The test is whether a 'reasonable' roofer should have known this.

The 2015 Act gives greater comfort to consumers than the previous 1982 Act. If a good/service is not 'fit-for-purpose' then the consumer is entitled to redress. Clearly, if a roof fails building regs, it is not fit-for-purpose.

If the consumer asked for something that is clearly not compliant with the regulations, the trader should have spotted it and advised the customer accordingly before starting work. This is part of reasonable care and skill.

The OP may wish to speak to the Citizens' Advice consumer helpline for further assistance. They will outline the procedure the OP needs to go through to give the original roofer a chance to put things right first.

You are absolutely incorrect in your assumption that something not meeting building regulations makes it not fit for purpose. The op may wish to speak to citizens advice but without knowing what instruction was given to the contractor or what the basis of the quote was, it would be a waste of a lot of time.
Industry standards for workmanship and installation, use of materials.etc have zero relation to the building regulations, something can be fit for purpose and fall outside of the regulations, something can also comply with building regulations and be installed incorrectly/against industry standards.

Furts

the_r_sole wrote: »

You are absolutely incorrect in your assumption that something not meeting building regulations makes it not fit for purpose. The op may wish to speak to citizens advice but without knowing what instruction was given to the contractor or what the basis of the quote was, it would be a waste of a lot of time.
Industry standards for workmanship and installation, use of materials.etc have zero relation to the building regulations, something can be fit for purpose and fall outside of the regulations, something can also comply with building regulations and be installed incorrectly/against industry standards.

I give a huge second to this mindset. The notion that Citizens Advice Bureau can offer decent, practical advice on building matters is almost pie in the sky. Whilst the new Act has tightened up legalities it has done nothing to improve standards in the building industry. If anything the opposite has occurred, or will certainly occur over time. This is because consumers believe they have protection, and backing, so fail even more to take on reasonable standards of being aware, of being savvy, and of being street wise.

This thread could be a typical example of this. OP is unhappy but has failed totally to detail what design, what specification, what Building Control procedure, what contract, what inspection, and what stage payment regime. Clearly the job has gone wrong, which is regrettable, but OP might have an input into all this.

Annie1960

Furts wrote: »

This thread could be a typical example of this. OP is unhappy but has failed totally to detail what design, what specification, what Building Control procedure, what contract, what inspection, and what stage payment regime. Clearly the job has gone wrong, which is regrettable, but OP might have an input into all this.

The OP clearly states:

'I was told the roof would meet building regs - but it doesn't'

Which part of this do you think is the customer's fault?

The OP is right to ask for repeat performance by the roofer, and if this does not happen then he should tell the roofer he will get someone else to remedy the work to the correct standard, and will be claiming anything over £800 from the original roofer.

Unfortunately the construction industry is not adequately regulated. Anyone can set themself up as a roofer, and make a complete mess of someone's house. The customer then has the hassle of taking it to court under the CRA 2015.

I have taken legal advice on a similar matter. What are your legal qualifications?

AndyMc.....

Annie1960 wrote: »

The OP clearly states:

'I was told the roof would meet building regs - but it doesn't'

Which part of this do you think is the customer's fault?

The OP is right to ask for repeat performance by the roofer, and if this does not happen then he should tell the roofer he will get someone else to remedy the work to the correct standard, and will be claiming anything over £800 from the original roofer.

Unfortunately the construction industry is not adequately regulated. Anyone can set themself up as a roofer, and make a complete mess of someone's house. The customer then has the hassle of taking it to court under the CRA 2015.

I have taken legal advice on a similar matter. What are your legal qualifications?

Probably the same as yours. Zero.

Annie1960

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Probably the same as yours. Zero.

Mine are not quite zero as I did some contract law exams with my accountancy training. i know enough to know when to call in the legals, and have recently taken qualified legal advice on a similar matter.