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.

mavenmim

I thought I'd update on this.

I contacted the builder's insurer, Trade Direct, and they confirmed that the builder has a policy with them that covers when he did work for me, and they have a third party claims process. 

ARAG would not shift their position, but have offered £100 compensation for the delay, and said they will reconsider coverage if I send a lawyers' letter stating that in their opinion the case does meet the 51% success criteria (and will reimbuse the costs of getting the letter, within certain provisos).

I've found a local lawyer who thinks the case does meet the standard for reasonable prospects of success, and is happy to write that letter.

I haven't yet seen a copy of the builder's insurance, but the Trustmark/FMB rules state that:

TrustMark Registered Businesses are expected to provide their customers with the appropriate level of financial protection

To comply with the TrustMark Framework Operating Requirements all Registered Businesses are expected to provide a minimum of two-years financial protection for completed works carried out in and around your home covering product warranties and workmanship.

using a TrustMark firm gives you additional confidence and peace-of-mind.

TrustMark Scheme Providers conduct a thorough vetting process to ensure all the right checks have been carried out and, should things go wrong, there are processes in place to help make sure you always end up with what you paid for.

As a minimum the member's insurance must cover:

• 2-year post completion of workmanship
• Rectification of defects or major damage
• Non-compliance with Building Regulations

Cover must provide at least a two year warranty against bad workmanship, and must continue to protect the consumer even if the business ceases to trade.

mavenmim

To update on this never-ending saga, I got a barrister's opinion that the success clause was not correctly interpreted, which ARAG accepted. They then agreed to allocate a new solicitor with clear information about the delay and the barrister's opinion. They chose Irwin Mitchell. I was not permitted to refuse them. There was then lots of further delay before Irwin Mitchell's paralegal wrote to say their conclusion was that I needed to identify, instruct and pay my own experts to prove the case, and gain a copy of the builder's insurance policy myself before they would act on my behalf.

I made a complaint, it was upheld by Irwin Mitchell in relation to the delay and lack of delivery of the promised service. I made another complaint to ARAG who have done nothing to rectify the situation and still will not permit me to instruct any other solicitor.

I finally reached the top of the 7 month queue for the FOS only for them to narrow the complaint I had made about Hiscox (which included 4 components: 1) the misleading sales and policy documents that don't mention any component of the policy will be subcontracted, 2) the fact they didn't consider whether I had any cover against the immediate damage to the house, ongoing rain ingress and dangerous state it was left in under the buildings policy 3) the total failure to provide anything from the home emergency protection* and 4) the issues with ARAG having wasted a full year without providing me with any meaningful legal cover) to a complaint about the delay before ARAG allocated a solicitor only. Their rationale was that they can only deal with a single policy and administratively what I bought was three policies (even though I didn't know this and bought only a single product with a single payment, and only found out in the FOS response that ARAG provide the home emergency protection) and that their investigation can only cover the period up to the final response letter that was issued, and not the year since. They wanted me to start a fresh complaint about each of the ARAG policies and wait another 7 months for those to be allocated!

I therefore made a compaint about the FOS approach, and they have already mostly folded and said that they will set up new files on the other elements of my complaint. I've still said I want to take forward a formal complaint, and have an ombudsman look at the case.

So I am no further forward in raising a claim against the builder, and I have had to remortgage to a degree that is costing me an extra £400/month in interest on the money that I intend to claim back from the builder or his insurance. However, ARAG have paid the cost of the barrister back, and agreed to pay £350 compensation for the delay, and I have also been offered £250 compensation from Irwin Mitchell for their delay and poor service. LWF law are also investigating my complaint about the delays and poor service I experienced from them, and their decision to withdraw cover unlawfully. And an actual ombudsman will soon look at my whole complaint.

I'm looking at how else I can trigger any action here, short of paying my own lawyer. I even wondered whether a journalist might be interested in my story…

mavenmim

*Oh, and in relation to the home emergency cover that was sold as part of my premium HNW policy that covered several buildings? My complaint is unrelated except for being part of the same policy (and, as I discovered last month, provided by ARAG rather than Hiscox). But every time I needed them they had a ridiculous rationale for the issue I raised not being covered:

A leaking pipe in the roof had come through the ceiling and had blown five lights because the circuit got wet? They couldn't find a plumber but if I got my own they'd reimburse up to £100, but they wouldn't send or pay an electrician as if I had any other light or power in the house, it wasn't an emergency.

A toilet where a broken flush led to water gushing out onto my floor? If I had any other toilet in the building it wasn't an emergency and wouldn't be covered.

WIAWSNB

My lawd, it sounds like hell.

I've concluded recently that solicitors are utter carp.