Roofer, have we been scammed

Kazmck

We needed a new roof on our 1930's bungalow and arranged for 3 quotes. We made our decision on which roofer to use having looked at reviews, recommendations and checker trade. They started work and on their second day they said we had wet rot, and informed us that we needed a full tin hat scaffold so they could cut our the affected areas. This would be at a cost of another 4k. The roofer said that it was urgent as our house was going to loose its roof. They sent the scaffolders round the same day and the scaffolders started to erect this new addition to the scaffold they had already put up. Over the next 24hrs we decided to get a friend of the family who was a retired clark of the works to examine the roof and were told that indeed we had some small area of wet rot but this was only 5% of a 5 inch beam and did not need to be taken out and could be treated amd dealt with in situ. Also there would be no need for the 4k tin hat scaffold. We contacted our roofer who agreed now that it could be dealt with without the need of the full scaffold BUT we still needed to pay for the tin hat scaffold as it had been half erected. At the time when the roofer initially said we needed the full scaffold we did ask if we could do the work without it but he was adamant that he need this scaffold. We really are very unhappy about the scaffold 4k and the fact that we could of been conned out of anther 4k for each side of our roof. We feel that this company were trying to create more work and obtain more money from us. Any advice on what we could possibly do really would be appreciated. We did feel we had checked and double checked the roofing company out so really are in shock.
Thanks in advance for any assistance.

Jeepers_Creepers

Hellish situation for you - it's always awkward when the builders are actually there and have yet to complete the work.

But, write down the facts;

1) The 'wet rot' has presumably not become 'structural' and can just be treated in order to stop it developing further? Rafter/joist ends don't need to be cut and new ones sistered? Cool - that's great news.

2) You didn't need a tinhat, don't need a tinhat, and never needed a tinhat. So why should you pay for a tinhat? Correct - you shouldn't. If these guys really want to work under a tinhat in this warm and balmy weather, they can pay for it.

Anything else is speculation. It could be that they are trying it on, but it could also be that they anticipated significant work being required, and deemed a tinhat to be standard practice for this. I have my own take on this case based on what you said, but I'll keep my cynical thoughts to myself...

So, it's a horrible situation, but it looks as tho' you are on solid ground - they have agreed that the rot can just be treated, and have agreed that the tinhat is not (and wasn't) required.

Time to be calmly assertive - just stick to the facts as above, and make that your mantra; "Look, you may have thought it would be necessary for some reason, but the fact is that it isn't, and never was. I'm not going to pay for something that isn't and wasn't needed. If you want to continue with the tinhat, that's your call, but it'll have to be at your expense."

IMPORTANT - do you have some sort of record of them accepting the rot doesn't need cutting out, and that they agree the tinhat ain't needed? If not, you need to put this down on 'paper' - text, email, letter, whatever - so that you can show that you have discussed this with them, and they agreed with what was said. Send that to them by some recordable means - if it's by letter, you need a witness.

Whatever they say to try and cover themselves, don't get sidelined - just let them speak, and then go back to the mantra; 'the tinhat was never needed, so I won't be paying for it. The wet rot is treatable, and that's all that's needed...'. Be 'understanding' - "Yes, I know that it's extra cost for you, and I'm sorry about that, but this wasn't my doing. It was your judgement to make. And you have agreed that it wasn't necessary. Why should I have to pay for this?!"

Do you have Legal Protection on your house insurance? If so, call them up for advice (not 'action' - at least not yet). they should guide you in what to say - they may even pen a letter for you, I don't know. But, with their backing, you'll know you are on solid ground.

It's gonna be awkward, but this is THEIR fault and not yours.

If you fear/suspect any sort of bolshie or aggressive response from them, then have your phone recording any communication you have with them - I'd suggest covertly. Ideally have a witness there as well, and let them do the recording. The phone should be obvious in their hand, but not aimed at the situation; they will then likely be wondering if you are recording, and will hopefully be on their most reasonable behaviour.

Oh, and whatever staged payments you had agreed, make damned sure they don't receive at any point more than is need to actually complete the job...

Finally - would you be prepared for a compromise in order to get relations back on a sound footing? £1k, say, from you?

Kazmck

Wow you have been very helpful. The roofer said verbally to us that it was not needed 'the tin hat' and that the work is not bad.  We will email him a confirmation of our conversation. We do have house insurance with legal protection so off to talk with them now. Thank you again and ill update you with any updates.

Mickey666

I mostly agree with J_C.

I have three large sections of roof and each was in very poor condition.  In some places the rafters had rotted away from the roof plate.  No doubt the OP's roofers would have said that the roof was about to collapse.  Thing is, it had been in very poor condition for at least 25 years previously!

Roof structures can be surprisingly robust, and almost certainly won't collapse even if a complete rafter is removed, so there is rarely any need to panic.   It's such a shame that the family friend could not advise before the builders started work.

Has the OP been 'ripped off'?  Well, £4k for a full 'tin-hat' scaffolding seems a reasonable price to me, but the problem is that it's just totally unnecessary.  I did all my roof work without such extensive scaffolding and simply used tarpaulins when it rained.

As for the 5% rotted rafter, again I agree this would be a very simple repair job - even I could do that within one day, in fact it could probably have been done from inside the roof and not needed ANY scaffolding.


Unfortunately, where I agree less with J_C is not on the principle of trying for a price reduction but the likelihood of getting one.  There are usually a number of different ways of tackling a job and while 'tin hat' scaffolding may not be strictly necessary there's no doubting that it's a legitimate option.  'Gold standard' perhaps, but that's what was quoted and that's what the OP agree to. 

It's a bit like getting a quote for painting first floor windows - some painters would be happy working off a ladder, others would specify scaffolding.  Is that a 'rip off'?  Probably not - a rip off would be quoting and charging for scaffolding but then doing the job from a ladder.

If these builders stand their ground I'd be surprised if the OP wins their case - because they seem to have done the work they quoted for.  Yes, it was an over the top specification, so yes it will cost a lot more than absolutely necessary, and yes the OP accepted the quote.  It's hard to see the 'rip-off' here.

Is a Rolls Royce a 'rip off' compared to a Mondeo?  Not really, they are just two different ways of achieving the same goal of mobility.  Unfortunately, the OP seems to have bought a Rolls Royce as far as this roof work is concerned.

Jeepers_Creepers

Mickey666 said:

Unfortunately, where I agree less with J_C is not on the principle of trying for a price reduction but the likelihood of getting one.  There are usually a number of different ways of tackling a job and while 'tin hat' scaffolding may not be strictly necessary there's no doubting that it's a legitimate option.  'Gold standard' perhaps, but that's what was quoted and that's what the OP agree to. 

As I understand it, Mickey, the tinhat was not part of the original quote, and was not being entertained UNTIL the roofers discovered this 'additional' work. What could Kaz possibly say to this other than "Oh... Dearie me. I guess if you say it needs doing..."?

Fortunately Kaz knew a CoW who was able to examine the additional work required, and concluded that (a) the 'additional' work is minimal and (b) to fit a £4k tinhat for this is nuts.

Double-fortunately, the roofer seemingly capitulated right away. He's acknowledged the two things - the rot can simply be treated, and the tinhat is not required. But he still expects Kaz to fork out £4k for this?!

Recovering a roof is a very straight-forward task, and experienced roofers have this organised down to a T; strip one side, re-felt and batten. That's it sealed from the weather. Repeat for other sides.

The only time a tinhat is required is for extensive rafter/joist replacement where the roof could be left open for days, or for structural alternations, or if it's a winter job.

A tinhat for just a roof recovering in Summer is an extravagance, and was 'sold' to Kaz with false information.

Again, I ain't going to speculate why... But this is a roofer, a professional who specialises in this area; there should have been no confusion about the job or what was needed.

Kazmck

Hi thanks for your response, we weren't quoted for the tin roof, they said that the roof was about to collapse and that we needed the tin hat and the next thing withing a hour or so the scaffolder was onsite delivering some of the scaffold. We literally had no time to think we went from not worrying to worrying that our roof was going to collapse to scaffold being delivered in the space of two hours. When we challenged the roofer he said that he had to strip the entire roof off all in one go and as we are not in the building trade we didn't know anything different.  Sadly we could not get our family friend to check before work started as our loft has been converted so no chance of being able to see from inside. Our family friend is not local so would never had been able to get there sooner than the 5 hours it took him to travel.  I am sure you would agree that having found what we have now seen in one rafter/joist with 5% rot on it, it was totally unnecessary for a tin hat. Also given they had already completed one side of the roof and found no rot or any other issues. 

We fully understand "gold standard" but one joist/rafter on a detached bungalow when one other side is 100% fine does appear to be excessive. 

We never thought having our bungalow retiled would be so stressful.  
Thank you for your help, it is appreciated.

Jeepers_Creepers

'Gold Standard' means having safe scaffolding to work from so the roofers are not at risk of personal injury - ie they aren't working off ladders!

Gold Standard does not mean you have an enclosed covering over your house in Summer* - that's just nuts.

Ok, it's off the ridge tiles for me - I suspect the roofer knows the scaffolder as they recommend each other for jobs, and suggested he could get him a nice extra earner.

*I know, I know...

Kazmck

After a little digging we found out that one of the partners of the roofing company also owns the scaffolding company !! Tgis fact made us even more worried that we were being conned.

Mickey666

I'm not at all surprised the roofers would know the scaffolding company - the two types of business are so complementary that's I'd bet ANY roofer would have their own 'go to' scaffolder.  In this case the link seems to be even closer!

I entirely agree the whole thing was over-sold and 'railroaded' through  The issue is how to make a successful claim.

If the scaffolding was never quoted and the OP never ordered it then presumably there is no contract between the OP and the scaffolder.  But if the roofer claims the OP agreed to the scaffolding then what?

Jeepers_Creepers said:

'Gold Standard' means having safe scaffolding to work from so the roofers are not at risk of personal injury - ie they aren't working off ladders!

Gold Standard does not mean you have an enclosed covering over your house in Summer* - that's just nuts.

That's just your interpretation of 'gold standard' isn't it?  I doubt it's a legal definition - though btw I agree with you. 

But what if the builder claims they often use this approach to roofing repairs?   Perhaps they were being cautious about the weather at this time of year.  Perhaps they thought there might be additional repairs required, based on their long experience in the roofing business such that the roof might be exposed for many weeks?  Better safe than sorry?  Who knows what excuses reasons they might come up with?  They are the 'experienced professionals' and how would a layman householder counter such arguments?  Would they need their own expert witness, etc, etc?

I'm not defending the builder, just playing devil's advocate and trying to understand how this might play out in a court. 

I sincerely hope the OP can win the case.

Jeepers_Creepers

I don't think the Devil's Advocate is required here. Kaz was given a quote for the roof which did not include tinhat scaffolding. It wasn't needed for the original job, it wasn't included, the roofer wasn't intending to fit it.

If the builder made tinhats a standard, normal fitment, they'd have included it in the original quote. As would the other roofers.

He won the contract, and then - most likely - thought he had an excuse to earn a bit more cash. Had Kaz not been fortunate enough to know a CoW, then he/she would have been none the wiser, but £4k skinter.

The builder said "You need this..." Kaz said "Ok..." Kaz then found out - before it was half-completed - "No, actually, you don't need this." and the roofer said "Yes, you're right."

And then the roofer said "You still need to pay for it!"

All that's left is for Kaz to say ".... off."

Mickey666

All perfectly reasonable, but people have a habit of being unreasonable - even, dare I say, not being entirely truthful.

I agree with your last sentence and wish Kaz good luck if the builder takes it to court.