Inflated quote for gutter replacement

subjecttocontract

My understanding is that it's not necessary to have a gradient when fitting guttering. It's perfectly ok to have the guttering fitted horizontally. Obviously the guttering will handle a larger volume of water if it has a gradient......but many properties have the guttering horizontal because it looks better.

TELLIT01

Discharging onto a drive might be OK from a shed or a porch roof, but I certainly wouldn't want it for the discharge from a main roof.  It could be extremely dangerous in the winter months if it rains during the day and freezes overnight.  You could end up being sued if anybody slipped on it and was injured, for example postal or courier deliveries.

ThisIsWeird

itm2 said:

Yes I was conscious of being seen to quibbling over the "s" in the quote, but it was mentioned in the plural in two places on the written quote, and in my view it was a pretty significant part of it (particularly at £250+VAT a pop):

• “To remove the necessary downpipes”
• “To install new black round UPVC downpipes and fixings where necessary”

There's a more-or-less identical gutter at the back of the house, which we had replaced a few years ago. It had exactly the same issue with the fascia, but on that occasion the roofer just worked around it and there was no additional cost. 

The new downpipe discharges onto our drive, as there's no drain nearby.

I still wouldn't quibble over the semantics, as he quoted to 'remove downpipes' and to 'install new downpipes'. This he did.

But, I would be prepared to quibble over a couple of technical issues. Whereas the addition of an extra DP is, I think, generally a 'good' thing with the increased rainfall from our climate error, I would not want it if (a) it drains on to my drive - almost certainly against local water board by-laws, and (b) if it takes a normal level of rainfall away from the original main DP, one which is presumably draining happily where it should - either to a soakaway or to the mains sewer (if older property). 

Could you let us know where the original DP on your neighb's property drains to?

I don't wish to plant an element of suspicion in to your mind, but I wonder if your neighb - who arranged all this - had a word with the fellow to 'add a DP on my neighb's property, won'tcha, so I don't have to handle it all...'

We have no reason to suspect that this is the case, of course, but - to be blunt - if the original system worked, then a direct replacement should work too. And if the original didn't work, then a deep-flow gutter likely would.

You could have a quiet word with your WB and ask them if water drained on to the driveway and out to the street is ok...

itm2

I think if the written quote said 'remove downpipes' and 'install new downpipes' then invoicing an additional £300 to install a new downpipe is maybe unreasonable?

To make matters worse, we noticed a leak from the left hand end of the gutter the day after it was fitted. The roofer came back yesterday (when we were away) and said that he had resolved it, and also fitted an "EPS" (??). But I guess we'll have to wait for the next heavy rain to see if he really has solved the problem. As we explained to him at the time, the whole point of replacing the gutter was because the old one was leaking.

Anyway I've attached some photos of the gutter (our side is on the left). The original downpipe is down the side of the right-hand bulding, into a drain. 

We know our neighbours pretty well, and spoke to them about this job beforehand. There's no way that they would have had a quiet word with the roofer about having a 2nd downpipe.

I also contacted Thames Water re. local bye-laws. They told me that I'd need to speak to a private engineer to get an opinion on it.

ThisIsWeird

itm2 said:

I think if the written quote said 'remove downpipes' and 'install new downpipes' then invoicing an additional £300 to install a new downpipe is maybe unreasonable?

The additional £300 was for an additional DP. 

Darned good earnings, yes, but he asked and you agreed. 

AfaIk, no-one - not you, prob not him - was expecting to be adding this extra DP at the start of the job, or else the quote would surely have said summat like, "...to remove all downpipes and replace with new, including one additional DP" and the quote would likely have been £300 higher as a result.

I just don't think you can argue or claim that this additional DP should have been included in the original quote amount, as no reference was made to it, and you didn't expect one to be fitted.

There are more important issues here.

ThisIsWeird

itm2 said:

To make matters worse, we noticed a leak from the left hand end of the gutter the day after it was fitted. The roofer came back yesterday (when we were away) and said that he had resolved it, and also fitted an "EPS" (??). But I guess we'll have to wait for the next heavy rain to see if he really has solved the problem. As we explained to him at the time, the whole point of replacing the gutter was because the old one was leaking.

Anyway I've attached some photos of the gutter (our side is on the left). The original downpipe is down the side of the right-hand bulding, into a drain. 

We know our neighbours pretty well, and spoke to them about this job beforehand. There's no way that they would have had a quiet word with the roofer about having a 2nd downpipe.

I also contacted Thames Water re. local bye-laws. They told me that I'd need to speak to a private engineer to get an opinion on it.

And these are the more important literal issues.

Pleased that your neighb is unlikely to have nudged the installer towards fitting another pipe down your side.

The original pipe empties into a drain? Cool. That will likely go to one of two places; on older properties, it was quite common for rainwater to end up in the main sewer - two of my DPs, 1930's house, still do this. The other - proper way - is for it to go to a soakaway (my garage's and new extension's ones do this).

The reason the former is not considered 'good', is that it places a greater load on the mains sewerage system, and can even overwhelm it in heavy rainfall.

A third way is what you now have - the spout empties directly on to your land. That is not considered good simply for the damage and localised flooding it can cause. If that is the only option, then it is usual to try and at least divert it away from the house as far as practicable.

Actually not surprised, not I think about it, that TW aren't concerned about this, as it doesn't affect them - only potentially your house! Had you directed this DP into a mains sewer, then they'd be cross...

I am not an expert on this issue, so hopefully someone who does know the rules will add their comments. But there appears to be two issues here - the (possible) first one is the general cost of the job, but that - I would suggest - is a fait accompli. The other is having the rainwater drained right outside your house. A possible third is the quality of the work, but nothing stands out to me as being 'bad', but I'm no 'pert.

itm2

Re. me agreeing to the additional £300 - I only agreed because, when I told him that I thought he had already included downpipes in the written quote, he insisted that the quote had referred to "downpipe" in the singular, and I took his word for it. It was only when I referred back to the written quote afterwards that I realised that he had misled me on this.
Since the original quote was for £1,440 I really didn't see any reason why it shouldn't have been included. By this time I was already aware that he had charged my neighbour £3,000 for replacing a Velux roof window with a solar powered one, whereas I had just been referred by Velux to a couple of certified installers who quoted me £2k or less for exactly the same job on our house. So in short, I didn't trust the roofer not to rip me off.

ThisIsWeird

itm2 said:

Re. me agreeing to the additional £300 - I only agreed because, when I told him that I thought he had already included downpipes in the written quote, he insisted that the quote had referred to "downpipe" in the singular, and I took his word for it. It was only when I referred back to the written quote afterwards that I realised that he had misled me on this.
Since the original quote was for £1,440 I really didn't see any reason why it shouldn't have been included. By this time I was already aware that he had charged my neighbour £3,000 for replacing a Velux roof window with a solar powered one, whereas I had just been referred by Velux to a couple of certified installers who quoted me £2k or less for exactly the same job on our house. So in short, I didn't trust the roofer not to rip me off.

Ok, you caught him out on a turn of phrase.
But, from what you've described, this additional DP was only mooted by the roofer after the job began, because he claimed that a slope could not be added to the length of gutter. Ie, even he had no original intention of adding this extra DP?
And that was your understanding too - a straight replacement of what was currently there?
So, pursue this point if you wish, but I can't see it bearing fruit.
Yes, the guy appears to be very expensive, but that's largely irrelevant, surely? He quoted, you accepted. 
I don't understand why a gentle gradient could not be introduced - perhaps this gutter is taller? But in that case it should drain just as effectively as the old one. 
Personally, I feel the one big issue is the water coursing down the drive, and soaking the area right in front of the house. You accepted that outcome at the time because you are a layman and aren't expected to have detailed knowledge of rainwater systems - and not do I. So, I'd focus on finding that aspect out, and challenging him on that. 
You clearly are not going to have a soakaway constructed - £ks and disruption - since the single DP coped beforehand, so IF the current outlet is unacceptable, I'd be pursuing him for removing that extra DP, and recovery of the £300 on that basis.
But that's your call. I don't know the facts of this.
Do you have LP on your house insurance?

itm2

Yeah I'm pretty much resigned to paying the £300 and accepting what I suspect was a bit of a rip-off, one way or another. Pursuing the issue of the water discharging onto the drive would be even more difficult, as I didn't raise any objections to it at the time (assuming again that the roofer would know best).
Sorry I'm not sure what you mean by "LP" on house insurance?

ThisIsWeird

Sorry, LP is Legal Protection, a usually £25 add-on to your policy which covers issues like contractual breaches and stuff. Really worth while.
For you to have accepted the roofer's DP setup is perfectly understandable. As I said, you are a 'layman' and are not 'meant' to know this kind of stuff! 
Tbh, I'm not sure myself, but I am a touch more experienced in such matters, so would have questioned him as soon as he suggested a new DP; "Um, where's the water going to drain to?!". (As well as "Really?! It's worked perfectly well before with the one DP..."
That is not your fault in any sense - you accepted the reasoning and explanation of the 'expert'. 
First thing, I'd suggest - IS having the DP discharge like that an issue?

Where the hell is Section62 when you need him!