Builder problems - failed buildings control inspection

mavenmim

Doozergirl said: 

Is he a member of the FMB?  Being part of Trustmark means that they should be offering you at least a two year insurance backed guarantee in the case that the company ceases to trade.  They do not have to include it, but there should be a conversation at the least.  

If he hasn't offered you that then he is in breach of his Trustmark membership.  

If he hasn't provided a contract then he is also in breach of his FMB membership.  They do have a Trading Standards Approved alternative dispute resolution service that can offer mediation, but that is not going to draw blood from a stone if he hasn't got money. Either way, by reporting him, you can potentially stop him from using those services to provide credibility for him.  

Re: professional indemnity insurance, that is not something that builders usually carry unless they are offering a design service of some description, so it's interesting that he does!  

He is a member of the FMB. I've asked Trustmark about the promised two year insurance backed guarantee in the case that the company ceases to trade, but so far they have just referred me to the FMB mediation scheme, which isn't of any use as it has no teeth.

He didn't provide a contract. I asked for one, and he sent me the FMB one, blank, and said he'd complete it but never did.

I may have the wrong term for his insurance (in my field you have to have professional indemnity insurance), but I understood that he had to have insurance that extened to covering his work, and not just injury to the public. However, checkatrade have called it "Public Liability Insurance" which suggests that it might not be the kind of product I was led to believe. I'll have to find out more. I only have a name for the provider.

But presumably, if I sue the company and it folds because it has no money the TrustMark scheme would still offer some safety net?

mavenmim

GDB2222 said:

mavenmim said:

I now have details of the professional indemnity insurance, which was indeed in place and is still current.

Have you studied that? Does it cover poor quality workmanship? 

I don't have a policy, just the name of the company and the expiry date, and it may be I used the wrong term to describe it, as it may just be Public Liability Insurance.

GDB2222

mavenmim said:

Doozergirl said: 

Is he a member of the FMB?  Being part of Trustmark means that they should be offering you at least a two year insurance backed guarantee in the case that the company ceases to trade.  They do not have to include it, but there should be a conversation at the least.  

If he hasn't offered you that then he is in breach of his Trustmark membership.  

If he hasn't provided a contract then he is also in breach of his FMB membership.  They do have a Trading Standards Approved alternative dispute resolution service that can offer mediation, but that is not going to draw blood from a stone if he hasn't got money. Either way, by reporting him, you can potentially stop him from using those services to provide credibility for him.  

Re: professional indemnity insurance, that is not something that builders usually carry unless they are offering a design service of some description, so it's interesting that he does!  

He is a member of the FMB. I've asked Trustmark about the promised two year insurance backed guarantee in the case that the company ceases to trade, but so far they have just referred me to the FMB mediation scheme, which isn't of any use as it has no teeth.

He didn't provide a contract. I asked for one, and he sent me the FMB one, blank, and said he'd complete it but never did.

I may have the wrong term for his insurance (in my field you have to have professional indemnity insurance), but I understood that he had to have insurance that extened to covering his work, and not just injury to the public. However, checkatrade have called it "Public Liability Insurance" which suggests that it might not be the kind of product I was led to believe. I'll have to find out more. I only have a name for the provider.

But presumably, if I sue the company and it folds because it has no money the TrustMark scheme would still offer some safety net?

If it ever gets to court, the judge may decide that the FMB contract applies. It appears that both parties were happy with it, after all. 

mavenmim

GDB2222 said:

If it ever gets to court, the judge may decide that the FMB contract applies. It appears that both parties were happy with it, after all. 

That's interesting to know, and potentially helpful.

I feel very disappointed with my insurer who are saying that even though they sold me the policy and included the summary of the legal protection in their summary of coverage (that does not mention any exclusions around credit checks, just having more than a 51% chance of winning the case), they will not be able to do anything about the legal policy which is administered by another company. 

And ARAG law who administer the policy have done nothing in 8 weeks. Not even answered a very specific question about the template letter they told me to use in my first call to their advice line. They took 4 weeks to allocate it to a law firm only to find out they don't take on work in the construction sector, then sent it to another firm who did conflict of interest checks and then credit checks, and then told me they won't cover it, even though he has both his own policy and the Trustmark policy that covers workmanship and protects me if the company folds. And now they are dragging their feet to even respond to my complaint.

Mistral001

I have not read all the posts, but it does not seem clear what drawings were produced for the builder to work from.  Many of the items could be simply poor workmanship and others could be due to the drawings not being in accordance with The Building Regulations. In the latter the designer would be held responsible.

mavenmim

Mistral001 said:

I have not read all the posts, but it does not seem clear what drawings were produced for the builder to work from.  Many of the items could be simply poor workmanship and others could be due to the drawings not being in accordance with The Building Regulations. In the latter the designer would be held responsible.

I sent a pack with all the drawings and the engineering requirements (which included some hand-drawn diagrams about how the foundations had to be built). I'm fairly clear that the workmanship was the problem rather than the drawings when it came to the majority of the problems - especially leaving up the two walls and not building the necessary foundations. Some problems (like the mortar mix, the damp proofing, the levels, and use of roof tiles in the foundation) were clearly due to the quality of the building work and unrelated to the plans. 

The only thing where the drawings were potentially an issue was the beam and block floor, where the design was done by the supplier. The builder didn't have the schematic, but decided not to contact the manufacturer for a copy as he thought it was simple and said he had built several before. The result did not use half the beams, and felt bouncy to walk on. When I contacted the beam and block maker for a copy of the design their engineers had signed off on, what had been built was nothing like it. Now that the new builder has built the correct design it fits together perfectly, uses all the beams and there is no movement.