Dispute over Defects and Snagging

TripleH

Looong story that I don't want to go into at this stage.

We moved into a new build in 2021, there are several issues and snags that the developer refuses to fix / has half fixed.

Currently awaiting the surveyor report from the insurance company managing defects.

As they can only cover defects, we still want the snags fixed (they have been reported several times over our tenure) the developer has kept changing the party meant to fix them. 

We are now looking at going down the legal route. What type of solicitor should we be looking for?

I don't believe a conveyancer is suitable as this is more contract law(?) but happy to be corrected.

Grizebeck

You don't use a solicitor on the small claims track  as you can't recover costs. If its over 10k it's a different kettle of fish

[Deleted User]

How much do you think it will cost to put right?

subjecttocontract

Do you have NHBC cover ?
The rules used to be that the developer was responsible for defects during the first 2 years and then the NHBC responsible after that. My understanding is that if the developer doesn't fix the problems the NHBC will step in and apply pressure and ultimately fix the issues.

GixerKate

What exactly are the snags? What is or isn't a snag can often be a sticking point.

KerrBearrxo

subjecttocontract said:

Do you have NHBC cover ?
The rules used to be that the developer was responsible for defects during the first 2 years and then the NHBC responsible after that. My understanding is that if the developer doesn't fix the problems the NHBC will step in and apply pressure and ultimately fix the issues.

This is correct - you may need to go through NHBC for them to take action if the developer refuses to resolve your issues with defects/snagging issues with the property. You have to have reported this to the developer within 2 years of the build and given them reasonable time to action - which it sounds like you have. It's a free service. 

ThisIsWeird

Hi Triple.

I think it would be useful to forum users wishing to help to have it explained what at least some of the issues are that need fixing, since - based on this - the advice could be "You have got to be kidding?!"

Just 2 or 3 of the worst ones, please?

eddddy

TripleH said:

We are now looking at going down the legal route. What type of solicitor should we be looking for?

You would use a litigation solicitor.

But perhaps your first step would be to hire a building surveyor to look at, and report on all the snags/defects.  You could get a standard snagging survey done, or if you expect this to end up in court, you could hire a RICS surveyor who is an accredited Expert Witness.

Your surveyor can also look at the insurance company's surveyor's report, to see if they agree/disagree with the findings.

But I suspect an initial Expert Witness surveyor's report might cost you around £1000 or more.


And/or if you google something like 'building and construction disputes'  or 'newbuild disputes', there seem to be a number of solicitors who claim to specialise in this area. But hiring a solicitor would come later.

CSI_Yorkshire

eddddy said:

TripleH said:

We are now looking at going down the legal route. What type of solicitor should we be looking for?

You would use a litigation solicitor.

But perhaps your first step would be to hire a building surveyor to look at, and report on all the snags/defects.  You could get a standard snagging survey done, or if you expect this to end up in court, you could hire a RICS surveyor who is an accredited Expert Witness.

Your surveyor can also look at the insurance company's surveyor's report, to see if they agree/disagree with the findings.

But I suspect an initial Expert Witness surveyor's report might cost you around £1000 or more.


And/or if you google something like 'building and construction disputes'  or 'newbuild disputes', there seem to be a number of solicitors who claim to specialise in this area. But hiring a solicitor would come later.

'accredited' Expert Witness means precisely nothing.

There is no accreditation required to be an expert witness in court, and having an accreditation (by who exactly?) does not mean that their evidence has any more weight.

eddddy

CSI_Yorkshire said:

'accredited' Expert Witness means precisely nothing.

There is no accreditation required to be an expert witness in court, and having an accreditation (by who exactly?) does not mean that their evidence has any more weight.

The RICS accredits expert witnesses.

(As you probably know, the RICS - Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors - regulates chartered building surveyors in the UK.)

If a surveyor is an RICS accredited expert witness, it shows that the RICS believe they have achieved an appropriate level of training and/or experience and/or expertise to present a thorough and fair case at court.


As you suggest, the OP can use anyone they like as an expert witness - such as "George, the barman from the pub".


But judges in courts aren't building experts. So...

• When "George, the barman from the pub" tells the judge that the house is defective, the judge might not give that statement much weight.

• But when a surveyor, who has the qualifications, expertise and experience to be an RICS accredited expert witness, tells the judge that the house is defective - the judge is likely to give that statement a lot of weight.

(To a lesser extent, the same would be true if one party's expert witness was a 'junior surveyor' and the other party's surveyor had achieved RICS expert witness accreditation. The judge is likely to take more notice of the more experienced, more qualified surveyor.)


Here's some info on the RICS accreditation scheme for expert witnesses:  https://www.rics.org/surveyor-careers/career-development/accreditations/expert-witness-accreditation-service

CSI_Yorkshire

eddddy said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

'accredited' Expert Witness means precisely nothing.

There is no accreditation required to be an expert witness in court, and having an accreditation (by who exactly?) does not mean that their evidence has any more weight.

To a lesser extent, the same would be true if one party's expert witness was a 'junior surveyor' and the other party's surveyor had achieved RICS expert witness accreditation. The judge is likely to take more notice of the more experienced, more qualified surveyor.

If the judge acts like that, without any other considerations, then they are particularly poor at their role.

Similarly, if two suitably qualified and equally credible expert witnesses appear in court, one with accreditation and one without, taking more notice of the former simply due to the accreditation would be irresponsible on the judge's part.