Damage caused by builders, what's fair re. small claims

plumbdog

Hi all, I am most likely making a claim via small claims against some builders, I have done all my research & my wagons are more or less in a circle, I have one point that I've been looking into but am not sure about -


Among other things, there was damage to something that would need to be repaired or replaced (let's say he broke some paving slabs), so I got quotes for materials & labour (nothing unreasonable, just the minimum). However in the time the original dispute has taken the paving has been done away with so builder is now saying that as it's not there = he does not need to compensate. I realize it is now not quite the same as a like for like issue, but that doesn't mean he doesn't owe something for damaging my property, surely? If he had run over my bicycle, whether I intend to buy a new one or not is not the issue (or is it?!)



If anyone can point me at the right direction to research this then thanks ever so much, all I can find are like for like examples at the moment.

nofoollikeold

I think you will only get compensation for a genuine loss. If you no longer want the paving that was damaged, Its hard to see where your loss is. Lucky for the builder.

plumbdog

I may still have had plans to use the paving elsewhere, for example, and at the minimum, it's an item I paid for that has been broken and which I now can't use whether I want to or not? The removing of it was part of a chain of events started by the poor job the builder did, otherwise I would have kept the paving or had it replaced. Like I said, if workmen damage anything - a garden gnome, a pot plant - do you have to prove you will be buying another before claiming for it?

Risteard

Doesn't seem like you've suffered a loss to me.

plumbdog

If the paving was broken through carelessness and poor work, how is it fair that there is no compensatory element? A second builder has also had to remove & clear up after the mess as part of redoing the original job. The paving is something that I paid for and laid in the first place and did not intend to get rid of, and as I said may have had plans to reuse. I'm not disputing your opinion, if this is how things work then it is, and thanks for posting, just trying to understand.

Doozergirl

If you could actually tell us the story it would help.

We can't be guessing.

plumbdog

Sorry it's a bit complicated and I was trying not to be too specific such that the details are identifiable.

I hired this builder to do a job, which was not fit for purpose and which I will be disputing with a small claim. In the course of this the builder (who has been borderline offensive/intimidating & it was obvious I would have to go to small claims for a refund for the original job) damaged this paving unnecessarily. No apology and would have left it as it was, and disputed that he needed to do anything as you have to expect this sort of thing in the course of building work. At best he offered to rectify but for obvious reasons felt entitled to say I did not want him to do this personally so put a modest quote in. He would not have paid this either outside of small claims even if the slabs were going to be replaced.

Starting the small claims option has been done over a period of time for various reasons - I finally had no option but to have his original work redone, the knock on effect of his work meant removing the paving was the only logical option and would not have been my intention. All I wanted in the first place was to have the original job + leave the paving. As his original work was terrible and he has handled the whole thing shockingly badly then I would have thought for goodwill alone he might offer a token amount for the fact I've had to have his work redone and taking the slabs away is part of that, which is all extra time & trouble I should not have had to go to if his work had been ok.

Sorry if this isn't clear, I'm not coping that well with the whole thing.

Is there anything more you need to know that would make a difference to what I'm saying?

ComicGeek

So he offered to rectify and you said no? Can't see how you would win on that basis.

Jackmydad

What I'd be asking myself, is "Do I want compensation to replace something which has been broken?
Or do I want to punish the person who broke whatever it is?"

If it's the latter, then considering the fact that the "paving" has now been removed anyway, personally I'd let it go. If you're intending to reuse them elsewhere, then what you are actually looking at is the value of some secondhand slabs.

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I'd save the hassle of court claims for stuff where I really had suffered a financial loss.

plumbdog

Jackmydad wrote: »

What I'd be asking myself, is "Do I want compensation to replace something which has been broken?
Or do I want to punish the person who broke whatever it is?"

If it's the latter, then considering the fact that the "paving" has now been removed anyway, personally I'd let it go. If you're intending to reuse them elsewhere, then what you are actually looking at is the value of some secondhand slabs.

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but I'd save the hassle of court claims for stuff where I really had suffered a financial loss.

Thank you. I will have to go to small claims with the main job so it was simply a matter of where I stood for any additional damages. Based on the fact they had refused to compensate even a tiddly amount all along to have the slabs redone I assumed they were just continuing the same line of flat refusal to everything. I was not prepared to have them on the premises again (not least because he had already trespassed in order to take a photo 'proving' that the slabs were not there, which I had already made a point of telling him) so having someone else do the job was the only option. I really didn't think I was being unreasonable in still asking for minor compensation for mess, time, trouble &c. Lots of people have asked who did the original bad job & I didn't badmouth him, or leave bad reviews, which I could have. Anyway thanks for your time.

Tojo_Ralph

plumbdog wrote: »

Thank you. I will have to go to small claims with the main job so it was simply a matter of where I stood for any additional damages. Based on the fact they had refused to compensate even a tiddly amount all along to have the slabs redone I assumed they were just continuing the same line of flat refusal to everything. I was not prepared to have them on the premises again (not least because he had already trespassed in order to take a photo 'proving' that the slabs were not there, which I had already made a point of telling him) so having someone else do the job was the only option. I really didn't think I was being unreasonable in still asking for minor compensation for mess, time, trouble &c. Lots of people have asked who did the original bad job & I didn't badmouth him, or leave bad reviews, which I could have. Anyway thanks for your time.

So I understand. You are/will be going to the small claims court in relation to being compensated for the original job, which you declined to have rectified by the builder? If so, is part of that claim not the slabs reportedly damaged (slabs I assume were not installed) during that job? As for what you did or did not do with the damaged slabs is really neither here nor there if you ask me as long as you have the evidence.

My only similar vaguely similar experience was a contractor causing a leak that caused property damage. Images of said property damage was all that was required.