Loft conversion- damage to the property due to heavy rain

Section62

Bendy_House said:

Section62 said:

SoJacob said:

Our builder left early so couldn’t talk to him in person. We requested to see him tomorrow. He told us he got something to discuss with us. We have a feeling that he wanted to do increase the quote 😳(I hope not). When we first discussed this project we told him that we do not have the fund at the time but if we are able to get loan then we can go ahead. We have about the funding.. I really hope he don’t put us in a financial crisis ☹️.. so worried 

If you think you are likely to get into a conversation where the builder is asking for more money than you can afford then you need to have a pre-prepared list of 'must-haves', things that you absolutely need the builder to finish asap, with a separate list of the things you could live in the property without.

For example, it is an absolute 'must' that the builder gets the shell of the house weathertight again. That needs to be top of the list, and the thing the builder is absolutely focussed on.

Then look at what things you need to live in the property.  For example, having enough rooms for family members to sleep in, taking into account any options for children to share a room if necessary.

Take a hard look at everything else - for example whether you need ensuites to be fitted out and finished off.

In your discussions with the builder you can then aim to get them to agree to complete the job for the original price, but have the ability to agree to knock items off the list in return for the builder either sticking to the price, or offering a price reduction.  It isn't ideal to have rooms unfinished, but better than the relationship with the builder breaking down completely and leaving you with a roofless house in the middle of winter.

On what basis could the builder legitimately increase his quote?

Change in project scope?

Unforeseeable issues?

A contractural term allowing price fluctuation?

Or, bottom line, that the OP has the roof off their house which is leaking water and they have a mortgage to pay with no rental income, and that forcing the builder to complete the job at an agreed price is neither straightforward nor quick.

As Doozergirl explained, getting another builder to take over a project which is half-done and in dispute is not an easy task, and there is no guarantee they will do the work cheaper or even for the same cost.

This is one of those situations where practicality needs to balance consumer 'rights' and the all-powerful LP. There's no point emerging from court saying "I won!!!!" if the builder is bankrupt and what is left of the plaster from the walls and the chipboard ceilings are laying in a soggy heap on your newly installed floors.

It would be legitimate for the builder to increase his quote if the client agrees to it, or conversely agrees to less work being completed for the original price.  This should be an option under consideration if the builder is about to say that they can't complete the job as originally agreed.

Bendy_House

So, it's on the 'over the barrel' basis

All the other scenarios are certainly legitimate, but I haven't seen them evidenced on here. The 'unusual' ceiling material was a unexpected surprise, yes, but seemingly 'not' an issue in its own right - according to the BCO, but a view seemingly distorted by the builder. (Tho' the vulnerable material probably made the resulting damage more severe.)

I would see an offer by the OP to cover the cost of materials for the ceilings as being very understanding and reasonable of them, and should not be an expectation by the builder. And if the builder now wants 'more' JUST because of the water damage, then I think that's unreasonable, and I 'suspect' LP will say so as well.

Any extra should be justified, surely. And a barrel is not justification in my view. It's more being held to ransom. 

Section62

Bendy_House said:

So, it's on the 'over the barrel' basis

All the other scenarios are certainly legitimate, but I haven't seen them evidenced on here. The 'unusual' ceiling material was a unexpected surprise, yes, but seemingly 'not' an issue in its own right - according to the BCO, but a view seemingly distorted by the builder. (Tho' the vulnerable material probably made the resulting damage more severe.)

I would see an offer by the OP to cover the cost of materials for the ceilings as being very understanding and reasonable of them, and should not be an expectation by the builder. And if the builder now wants 'more' JUST because of the water damage, then I think that's unreasonable, and I 'suspect' LP will say so as well.

Any extra should be justified, surely. And a barrel is not justification in my view. It's more being held to ransom. 

Nobody has mentioned a 'barrel' yet, the builder just said he's got something to discuss with the OP.  I'm suggesting the OP adopts a strategy where they could respond to a proposed increase in price with a counter-proposal of a reduction in scope.

LP can give whatever advice they feel is correct - but converting that into the OP getting the job done at the agreed price is something else.

I'm not entirely sure the BCO is not saying the 'chipboard' is a problem, it feels like there is some hedging of bets going on.  I certainly wouldn't keep it, in addition to the other issues already discussed, there's a possibility that whilst it was Ok as a ceiling under an empty loft, the effects of daily activities on the new floor above it may have led to unfixable problems with the ceiling plaster cracking.  There are reasons why it isn't common to find chipboard ceilings which have been plastered.

Consider an alternate scenario for a moment.  Imagine there weren't the problems there have been, the builder finished up and left the site.  A few months later the OP notices cracks on the ceiling and comes to this forum for help. They are advised to ease out one of the lights to see what is going on in the ceiling - and they post a picture of a chipboard-like material.  Would a likely response be "The builder knew the ceiling was chipboard and didn't replace it? Call your LP right away!"   ...or something like that?

Bendy_House

I know that no barrel has been mentioned, but it seems premature to be suggesting to the OP to perhaps consider options like not having bathrooms fitted out in order to mitigate possible price increases.

I just can't why why that should be the case.

The 'only' justification I can see for a price increase would be if, say, materials from this moment on had increased in price. Or additional, unanticipated work was required. ('Possibly' the ceiling comes into this).

There would be no justification that I can see for the builder adding costs for this rain damage - that's what HIS insurance is for. 

What would happen if the OP had come on here after the work had been completed and discovered that their ceilings were chipboard?  I guess they'd either be reassured that it's 'acceptible' (which it does appear to be) or should 'ideally' be replaced - which would then be their choice. The builder wouldn't be liable. (It would have been nice if they'd point these these out at the time as a matter of professional courtesy, but no 'obligation' to do so that I can see - unless a genuine hazard like a wall about to fall down was noticed...)

Bendy_House

Another way to put this might be, I don't think that this thread would exist if Doozer was doing the work; a, rain wouldn't have come in, and b, if it did, Doozer would be sorting the damage. There would surely be no suggestion of 'be prepared to shelve your bathroom refits 'cos it might cost you...'?

Section62

Bendy_House said:

I know that no barrel has been mentioned, but it seems premature to be suggesting to the OP to perhaps consider options like not having bathrooms fitted out in order to mitigate possible price increases.

I just can't why why that should be the case.

It is never premature to consider what-if scenarios where the available budget for a project is close to the expected cost.

In fact I'd recommend that anyone employing a builder to do a significant project like an extension sits down with the lead-designer before a spade goes in the ground and figures out which are the 'musts' and which are the 'can do withouts (for now)'.

The difference here is the OP potentially arriving in a situation where (subject to what the builder says) that process may have to be conducted in a hurry whilst the rain drips in through the missing roof.

You can say 'LP' all you like, but it won't make a builder finish the project off. At this point a big dose of pragmatism is needed. (if the building shell was weathertight then things might be different)

Doozergirl

Bendy_House said:

Another way to put this might be, I don't think that this thread would exist if Doozer was doing the work; a, rain wouldn't have come in, and b, if it did, Doozer would be sorting the damage. There would surely be no suggestion of 'be prepared to shelve your bathroom refits 'cos it might cost you...'?

I'm not a magician, rain might come in if there's no hat on the house, but the ceiling wouldn't have been freshly plastered or the floors brand new.  I'm going to mitigate! 

I have to say that we learned lessons very quickly a long time ago about trying to accommodate everything a client wants instead of managing their expectations.  If an un-renovated ground floor is unacceptable for a potential client to live in then they either need to stay elsewhere or find a different builder.  We won't be paying for the results of a client doing things in the wrong order.  

We will always try to cover all bases in our prices because we've seen a lot of stuff and know to expect that if it something is likely to be a problem it will be, but even I will cover myself with an estimate (that works both ways - if we're under, we're under).

If I found a well in your back garden whilst digging footings, or it turns out the roof timbers that weren't being replaced are rotten and the while roof needs replacing, then we have an issue if you have no more money.  

We even do it at the beginning.  What is your budget?  What is most important?  Because the compromise will be in scope, not my margin.  

Bendy_House

SoJ, at the moment, you are very much on the back foot; "What if ..what if..."

Calling my LP for ADVICE and GUIDANCE (that's all) would have been my FIRST move. 

THEY will tell you where you stand.

If it's "Ooh, dodgy - be careful they don't walk off the site...", then at least you'll know. If it's "They are completely liable for all this damage, and need to put it right. If they refuse, demand more money, or threaten to leave the job if you don't cough up, then they will have broken their contract, and will also be liable for any subsequent damage if they leave the property vulnerable; check out their business status, and a claim against them will almost certainly be successful - and that will include any extra due to having to source an emergency builder...", then you'll know too. 

But ALL you are doing by calling them up is getting GUIDANCE. It's not the start of 'action' or anything like that.

I presume this is an established and reputable company in the area? If this goes pear-shaped, they will damage their reputation - just imagine the sobering scenario here; they let a house flood, and demand more money to fix it. Not a good look.

Yes, it is always a risk and a far more complex issue should a builder walk - I've heard the 'threat' of that happening so many times on here, I feel it could be written into builder's contracts; "We have the right to walk away at any point, so there..." But just give that a brief moment of consideration; it is blackmail and bullying IF the builder is in the wrong. You should be finding out IF that is the case. 

Yes, this is my view, based on what you've told us, and is almost certainly be what I would do. I'd CERTAINLY have been in touch with LP way before now. In addition, I'd be checking this builder's credentials - are they established, reputable, backed by a certifying body, insured - or fly by night?

I'm also NOT saying you pin them to the wall for everything, but it'll hugely strengthen your negotiating position if they know that THEIR worst-case scenario (being successfully sued) is as bad as yours (them walking away). If they take the Mick, you'll have something to counter with. 

It also helps you to be 'matter of fact'; "Our LP is absolutely clear of your liability here. It's not us saying it, it's our solicitor." "Hmmm, you SAY that, but our LP says it's actually like this..." etc.
But you need to KNOW.

Bendy_House

Just a couple of practical points from your post; I don't think it matters that the builder would have known what the ceiling boards were made of. I think we can conclude that, while it's 'unusual', it isn't against BRegs. (But I don't know). So, if your builder didn't mention it, it wasn't an 'omission' by them - they didn't 'have' to - but it would have been 'nice' and interesting of them to have done so.

(Of course, what IS not good of them is their seeming distortion of the BCO's comments)

And Blue Grit. I would 'suggest' (because I don't know for sure) that the fact the BG was applied to a remaining layer of wallpaper - which is likely an ok thing to do in its own right (tho' I haven't seen 'wallpaper' mentioned on the product) - HAS contributed to increased damage to the skim, as the water coming down from the ceiling corners would have been soaking in to that thin paper layer, BEHIND the BG, and loosening the whole skim layer. Ie, that wall MAY well have escaped that damage from a brief flooding if there had been NO paper layer.

And plasterboard Vs 'chipboard'. P'board ( the normal stuff) is NOT waterproof, but WILL cope with a surprising amount of water. The main factor is whether the 'soaking' is brief or prolonged. 'Brief', and the board becomes damp on its surface and partly into the plaster layer, but it usually dries out with few issues other than requiring redecorating. Prolonged, repeated, and the plaster will swell and soften, bulge, sag and ultimately fail. As soon as you notice any 'sag', that board - whilst it might stay up - has been quite compromised. 

So, YOUR material was seemingly intolerant of pretty much ANY water. P'board would largely have survived a single soaking, provided the source of water was brief. P'board would NOT survive 'pooling' water, an all-night soaking, or repeated soakings. Ergo, again in MY view and experience, many of your ceilings would have been damaged beyond repair even if p'board. Some may have survived - it all depends.

SoJacob

Thank you @Bendy_House. 

Can someone please advise, is there anyway I can check if the builder do have a liability insurance?