Builders retainer fee ?

annie_cardiff

Hi, I recently had an estimate for building works and paid a 'retainer fee', on the day the work was about to start I was told that I needed building control/regs in place and immediately called builder to clarify, he told me that they would be taking 'photographic evidence' as the work progressed as this was the way it was done. !! I immediately postponed `work and found that not to be the case and also told I would be in serious trouble should work start without full planning permission ! I was installing bi fold doors to the back of my g/f flat .

I have tried to contact builder following an explanatory mail to him but surprise surprise no response. Where do I stand ? nothing was signed but retainer fee paid , anyone with any advice ??:mad:

Carrot007

Be thankful it was not any more?


You might try something but I would think from a dodgy builder it would be like extracting hen's teeth. And costly.

Furts

Your post comes across as a confusing mix of Planning and Buildings Regualtions. I am uncertain exactly what happened. Are you saying you needed Planning Permission to put in your bifolds?

Regardless, the main guilty is player is OP. Planning is the responsibilty of OP. Likewise Buildings Regulations is the responsibilty of OP. Since it appears OP did neither it is difficult to fire a huge attack at the builder even though this company was a rogue. In essence, had OP performed their legal duties then the rogue behaviour would not have occurred. Or put another way, OP allowed rogue behaviour to occur.

As for going after the retainer, it was foolish to ever pay a retainer. All the more so when everything was so wishy washy with both parties from the beginning. Do you really want to be dealing with, and chasing, a rogue contractor? They are probably far more savvy than you. Instead adopt a porofessional approach, go about matters again, get the necessary Regulations, then choose a decent contractor.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Furts wrote: »

Regardless, the main guilty is player is OP. Planning is the responsibilty of OP. Likewise Buildings Regulations is the responsibilty of OP. Since it appears OP did neither it is difficult to fire a huge attack at the builder even though this company was a rogue. In essence, had OP performed their legal duties then the rogue behaviour would not have occurred. Or put another way, OP allowed rogue behaviour to occur.

I would imagine most people rely on the person they are hiring to guide them.

Sure doing so doesn't always pan out but this applies to everything and it is very difficult to be an expert in everything you come across in life.

Letter before action and small claims to get the retainer back if you have an address for the builder.

annie_cardiff

In response to Furts post , yes it was planning permission needed , originally told it was permitted development , then the council could not give me a definitive answer as to whether I would need building regulations or full planning permission . It appears that it will need full planning . I really thought that a builder would have brought up the subject of building control/regs /full planning , I had numerous quotes and never was this brought up and please bear in mind that this was my first ever dealing with builders , just thought as they are the experts in the trade they would have advised accordingly .

annie_cardiff

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

I would imagine most people rely on the person they are hiring to guide them.

Sure doing so doesn't always pan out but this applies to everything and it is very difficult to be an expert in everything you come across in life.

Letter before action and small claims to get the retainer back if you have an address for the builder.

Thank you for your response, I have sent a mail to him through the website I used to obtain quotes a bit like checkatrade .com but nothing back from him . This site advised me to go through them so that they could track messages between us. I take responsibility for my lack of building knowledge and as you said not everyone is an expert . If I was building a conservatory or extension I could understand the need for full planning but why can't the so called experts guide people as surely if the build had gone wrong it would not do their business any favours .

annie_cardiff

ps . Just to clarify that it was not my builder that advised I needed building control or planning it was my local council .

GrumpyDil

Are you really sure you need planning? Building regs would make sense to me and as you mention it is a flat freeholder permission as well but I don't understand why you would need council planning permission?

annie_cardiff

GrumpyDil wrote: »

Are you really sure you need planning? Building regs would make sense to me and as you mention it is a flat freeholder permission as well but I don't understand why you would need council planning permission?

Yes definately ! I thought building regs would cover this work but apparently not according to my local planning dept . when I first enquired i was sent from person to person and nobody could give me a definitive answer , but when my new builder asked he was told full planning required :mad: I am really sorry I started with this now as it has been a nightmare so far

Furts

annie_cardiff wrote: »

Yes definately ! I thought building regs would cover this work but apparently not according to my local planning dept . when I first enquired i was sent from person to person and nobody could give me a definitive answer , but when my new builder asked he was told full planning required :mad: I am really sorry I started with this now as it has been a nightmare so far

I suggest you get an Architect on board. That way you can establish exactly where you stand with your flat. Then move to Planning, and perhaps you are in a Conservation Area here? Once this is established then you need to consider Buildings Regulations. If you are increasing the size of an opening - typical with bi-fold doors then a steel(s) may be required to be built in to support the opening. This means engaging a Structural Engineer to design this. When all this has been considered/actioned you may end up going back to your original contractor. However, this may not be wise bearing in mind your experience so far.


Bear in mind your contractor is neither a Planning expert nor Buildings Regualtions expert. Neither are they an Architect nor a Structural Engineeer. Then toss in you appear totally confused on what you are required to be doing. The end result is this. Your contractor may be confused by your inaction, by your failures and by your expecting too much from them. Yes they may be rogues, yes they may be taking advantage of you. Unfortunately by not doing your homework, and by being indecisive, you have created the scenario where the contractor can take advantage of you.


You have not said how much retainer you have paid. Nor if this is on credit card. Nor if the bifolds have been ordered. Nor what work has been done - if any. Everything sounds vague and confusing.

Furts

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head wrote: »

I would imagine most people rely on the person they are hiring to guide them.

Sure doing so doesn't always pan out but this applies to everything and it is very difficult to be an expert in everything you come across in life.

Letter before action and small claims to get the retainer back if you have an address for the builder.

Suppose it turns awkward -solicitors and court involved. The contractor only has to say "When I arrived to start work the client informed me they had not made an application for Planning, neither had they made an application for Buildings Regulations. These procedures should have been in place before I arrived for work. I do not condone illegal behaviour, nor do I collude with it. I was compelled to leave the site. The "retainer" is witheld because I had no other work to fill the slot allocated to the client. I have suffered a loss of income as a resul of the client failing in their duties"


Judges have to weigh up matters, people, judgements, and use reasonableness. Having heard this from the contractor do you really believe a Judge would order the retainer be reimbursed to OP?