Outbuilding and Trouble with Builder

BlueMickey

benson1980 said:

Who has who, over a barrel, so to speak? Does the outstanding/remedial work equate to more than you owe for the works?

I'm in for 11.5k of a 17.5k build so far. The remedial work he is suggesting is another £1,500. I said I would give £750 as a goodwill gesture, he says that's not enough. Flooring has now been dug out.

I really don't understand the viewpoint that the builder isn't at any fault. I haven't told him to build the leaning tower of Pisa, I've asked him to build an outbuilding within the contstraints of a permitted development. It's quite a basic ask.

 If someone asks me for advice, I wouldn't advise them incorrectly and then say it's their fault for following the advice. 

Gavin83

BlueMickey said:

So I sought legal advice via my house insurance, and their advice was that this comes down to reasonable care and skill; and that as a novice in the situation we would be guided by the expert.

Also checked this with two friends who are builders, and both said that should be builders liability. One said when in doubt as a builder, refer to the drawings (of which there are none). So, whilst I am willing to contribute to the remedial work in order to save the hassle and get the build complete and have offered £750, the builder is unwilling to accept this and says I will need to foot charges of £1,500, representing just under 10% of the overall cost.

See I agree with this statement, that you’re the novice and you should be guided by the expert. I think what would be the point of debate is whether the builder counts as an expert. 

I’d expect the builder to be an expert in whether the work he does conforms to building regs, which doesn’t seem to be the problem here. I’d expect an architect to be an expert in whether the plans require planning permission.

While the builder really should have known this I’m not sure I’d consider them in the legal definition an expert. If this went to court I’d assume they’d take the stance planning permission knowledge wasn’t their responsibility, theirs was just to build within regs and honestly I’m not sure what way they judge would go.

Had you employed an architect to draw up the plans I’d certainly expect them to be liable, but you didn’t.

It’s unfortunate and I don’t really think you’re to blame but I think ultimately you’ll end up having to suck up the costs.

Section62

BlueMickey said:

benson1980 said:

Who has who, over a barrel, so to speak? Does the outstanding/remedial work equate to more than you owe for the works?

I'm in for 11.5k of a 17.5k build so far. The remedial work he is suggesting is another £1,500. I said I would give £750 as a goodwill gesture, he says that's not enough. Flooring has now been dug out.

You also need to take into account the difficulty in getting another builder to take over someone else's half-completed job, especially if they know (or guess) that the previous builder left the job without being paid for what they've done.  benson1980's thinking here doesn't factor that in.

BlueMickey said:

I really don't understand the viewpoint that the builder isn't at any fault. I haven't told him to build the leaning tower of Pisa, I've asked him to build an outbuilding within the contstraints of a permitted development. It's quite a basic ask.

Is the BiB in writing?  Your previous posts implied that there wasn't that level of specification in the contract you have.  It would make a difference in what you can do next.

For people with experience in the industry the position is quite simple. With most builders you get what you ask for.  They aren't professionals who can give expert advice on design, planning and building regulations - if something isn't specified they will use their knowledge/experience to do what they think is 'right'.  If you want something done which is right, and have the ability to claim for errors/mistakes, then you need to employ the appropriate professionals - e.g. architects, planning consultants, structural engineers, quantity surveyors, project managers - to make or guide you on the decisions that are in the professional sphere.

Things would be better if builders were more professional (/better regulated) and refused to do unlawful work, but then clients would complain if they were asked to pay for fully compliant work by 'qualified' builders.  For example, taking Bendy's comments about skimping on insulation, what would the reaction be if the builder refused to continue the job with what - in their professional opinion - was less insulation than required? Would clients be happy if their builder had a professional obligation to report any defective work to the local authority?

Clients (generally, not you OP) are often two-faced - they want builders who will do what they are told, taking on the job for the least cost, using all possible shortcuts, ignoring all legal constraints... until something goes wrong and they (the client) then retrospectively wants work done by a builder to professional-levels of expertise and probity.  The current system is deeply flawed, but the people who pay (the clients) generally don't want to change it.

BlueMickey said:

If someone asks me for advice, I wouldn't advise them incorrectly and then say it's their fault for following the advice.

Unfortunately people like to be helpful. This forum is a good example where people are more than willing to offer advice which is incorrect, because they think they are helping. When it comes to building/construction it goes with the territory.

stuart45

Will the new floor be below ground level?

Bendy_House

BlueMickey said:

benson1980 said:

Who has who, over a barrel, so to speak? Does the outstanding/remedial work equate to more than you owe for the works?

I'm in for 11.5k of a 17.5k build so far. The remedial work he is suggesting is another £1,500. I said I would give £750 as a goodwill gesture, he says that's not enough. Flooring has now been dug out.

I'm astonished that the builder wasn't willing to jump at this, surely a very fair compromise? Is he outright denying that he ever said it would conform to P?

Hellish.

I think what I would do - for your own sanity - is to cough up, making it clear you consider it unfair as you were guided by him and his assurance of compliance. However, you have to accept you are unlikely to have a legal leg to stand on (unless your LP are pretty much certain they'd win). So make it clear, in a recorded way, that this additional payment is 'under protest', or whatever the term is. You are making this payment solely to allow the job to complete.

Once the job is completed, you tell the builder that you will be posting accurate and honest reviews, being positive about all the good things, but being frank about the way their error cost you an additional £1.5k; these will probably balance out as 3/5 stars. See if that focuses their minds.

Or, launch a claim using your LP...

benson1980

I’d let them crack on, finish the job, and then raise it at the end and consider making an adjustment to their final payment. I think 50/50 is more than reasonable. A builder should be signposting/declining to advise if they don’t know 100% what the permitted development rules are. Id expect them to be pretty clued up as to whether consultation with planning, or an architect, is required.

im going to hazard a guess that this builder isn’t present anywhere online that allows for negative reviews? I know people say word of mouth and all that but at least checkatrade and similar allows for posting of negative reviews and therefore there is some trader accountability. Last word of mouth/personal recommendation builders I had were a total nightmare. 

Bendy_House

Are you otherwise 'happy' with the builder, Bluey?

I have to say, the quote does seem pretty keen for such a large building.

stuart45

Post a picture of the job.

DB1904

The floor has been dug out, are you still going to be tight for space?

Whats your plan for the roof, warm or cold?

If you're tight for space have a look on YouTube at Oakwood garden rooms and consider their hybrid roof.

Section62

benson1980 said:

A builder should be signposting/declining to advise if they don’t know 100% what the permitted development rules are. Id expect them to be pretty clued up as to whether consultation with planning, or an architect, is required.
 

I think your expectations depart significantly from the reality.

Even within this thread - where people have had the opportunity to use google before posting rather than needing to answer from 'stored' knowledge - there have been more than one contributors unaware that the overall height limitation is different if building closer than 2m from the boundary.

It happens over and over again here on this forum - people oversimplifying the PD rules and not understanding the nuances.  Coupled with the "what can we get away with" approach, the risk is always there of people building without the correct consents.

With the exception of a very select few, builders should almost always say that consultation with planning, a lawyer, an architect etc etc is essential before embarking on a building project.  But the reality is that this only happens on an exceptional basis - and people who adopt the "you need to check..." approach are frequently ignored or passed over for a job, when other builders have more of a 'can do' approach.