Roofer did shoddy work and has now filed court claim against me

[Mike_hawk]

Really depends on what kinger wants and what compromise can be reached.

 

The issue is that if it goes back in front of the judge it could result in an order for instructing a sje, costs in the case, further engaging with BC and underwriters etc etc.

 

By the time its resolved he could easily burn up another 4 or 5k with no guarantee of recovering a penny.

 

The DJ will have this in the back of his mind when ordering a remedy and it shouldn't be lost on either side that (with very few exceptions) he will always grant what is essentially a fair days pay.

 

I personally would want to resolve outside of the court at the lowest negotiable price possible. If that means no warranty on the build but a compromise of say 50% then its worth investigating.

 

Let's wait to see what the builder proposes for rectifying the leaks and how that sits with the underwriter.

[maddiemay]

I'm just wondering if the builder/ roofer has had any payment yet? I think maybe he should be paid off so to speak, an idea is to get someone round to have a look at the work so far, to get an idea of 'loss' to the builder, then go back to court with that figure, and all the evidence from Velux and ins company, plus a couple of quotes to rectify it to a standard acceptable to Kinger.

 

Obviously Kinger has no faith in the builder, and understandably doesn't want him to do anything more, but he does have to be paid for some of the work.

[Kinger122]

Thanks for the input guys. I have received a response from Velux who have said the following:

 

 

Good morning,

Looking at the attached photos of your email it is clearly that the installation of the roof windows is far from correct. Below you find details of two installers in your area who had practice installation training with VELUX. Hopefully they can advise you what the best solution is for your roof windows.

Regarding the insurance terms and conditions the underwriters have said they will get back to me in 3-5 days with the policy information. The roofer has still not replied to my email. Shall I maybe send him an email saying that I am happy to pay for his costs regarding the materials used and then I will pay myself to have to roof corrected to the appropriate pitch?

[Kinger122]

I'm just wondering if the builder/ roofer has had any payment yet? I think maybe he should be paid off so to speak, an idea is to get someone round to have a look at the work so far, to get an idea of 'loss' to the builder, then go back to court with that figure, and all the evidence from Velux and ins company, plus a couple of quotes to rectify it to a standard acceptable to Kinger.

 

Obviously Kinger has no faith in the builder, and understandably doesn't want him to do anything more, but he does have to be paid for some of the work.

 

 

 

The roofer has not been paid at all and he has not replied to my email asking him when he can attend to do the "repairs"

[maddiemay]

I wouldn't trust him not to be taking it back to court as he threatened a few weeks ago, so ignoring your contact.

 

I wonder if anyone can enlighten Kinger on whether he/ she can get the judge to re-evaluate the situation, given all this new information, which technically it's not new information, as Kinger knew it was a rubbish job, hence why the claim was brought in the first place, but is better equipped now to state the exact defects and the necessary remedy.

 

Is this where the counterclaim would have come into play??

[Kinger122]

I wouldn't trust him not to be taking it back to court as he threatened a few weeks ago, so ignoring your contact.

 

I wonder if anyone can enlighten Kinger on whether he/ she can get the judge to re-evaluate the situation, given all this new information, which technically it's not new information, as Kinger knew it was a rubbish job, hence why the claim was brought in the first place, but is better equipped now to state the exact defects and the necessary remedy.

 

Is this where the counterclaim would have come into play??

 

The roofer has agreed for his workers to come out on Monday 12th May. I also had the a velux certified installer out today who said that the installation of the windows was completely wrong. He has taken photos and said he will provide me with a report soon and Velux themselves

 

Maddie, the judge said that he was going to dismiss the counterclaim at the hearing. Legally, I don't know where I stand regarding this, and the whole situation is very confusing.

[maddiemay]

I think it's such an unusual situation nobody really knows the legalities now the judge has put a spanner in the works.

 

Really don't know what to say, except pay him off, strip it back to where it went wrong, and start again.

 

Who knows, they may rectify it properly to avoid any further delays in payment, here's hoping!

[f16]

Kinger

So the roofer is coming back on Monday.

That is good

Has any more leaks showed up in the meantime ???

 

I know what you are saying about not knowing where you stand.

 

On the legal side of things you could do with some "Input"

Regards

F16

[Mike_hawk]

It's not so much an odd order, more a question of performance ordered on both sides with the inherent risk that one side can fail prior to conclusion. I can't see grounds to appeal at this stage as it remains a possibility the claimant can't comply with the order in which case no final judgment remedy would be in place. It does appear open for either party to apply for an alternate remedy but I don't believe the court will entertain any new evidence with the exception of anything flowing from a failing of the order.

[f16]

I don't believe the court will entertain any new evidence with the exception of anything flowing from a failing of the order.

 

So "IF" the roofer fails to get the insurance (Due to the fact that ALL the materials must be fitted at 15 degrees and they are not)

Which formed part of Kingers original defense and therefore "Flowing from a failing of the order"

 

Can kinger introduce the new reports from the Velux installers and Velux themselves to bring about his "counter claim".

 

OR

 

Should he accept a "compromise" on this case and then issue proceedings against the roofer as a new case on the grounds of "breach of contract" ?

[f16]

Just to add some "Meat" onto the bones.

 

When I spoke to the contact at Velux to day (yesterday now).

 

Quote :

 

"When you contacted me originally and said that it is one of the worst jobs you had ever seen in 30 years.

I thought you might have been exaggerating. .....

... But having now received the photos from your "friend"

I would confirm that there is not one aspect of the Velux window fitting that is correct"

[Mike_hawk]

So "IF" the roofer fails to get the insurance (Due to the fact that ALL the materials must be fitted at 15 degrees and they are not)

Which formed part of Kingers original defense and therefore "Flowing from a failing of the order"

 

Can kinger introduce the new reports from the Velux installers and Velux themselves to bring about his "counter claim".

 

OR

 

Should he accept a "compromise" on this case and then issue proceedings against the roofer as a new case on the grounds of "breach of contract" ?

 

I have a suspicion the builder will turn up mob handed on Monday and make the necessary repairs as he sees fit. Whether that rectifies the remaining problems with the quality of the build is debatable but he will have complied with that part of the order.

 

i suppose the question is whether he will have done enough to satisfy the warranty provider without it's requirement for policy exclusions to enable him to comply with the remainder of the order.

 

Counter claim has already been disposed of so there's not much point attempting to set aside the previous order as the likely end position would be the same as now only with added costs in the case, any proceedings would be confined to arguing the final settlement price.

 

Any compromise of the case would have to be negotiated out of court and sealed by order if the parties can agree terms, as above this would really only come in to play if the builder failed to secure a warranty for the build........... or, if on viewing the roof had a moment of clarity and decided the problems were too great to overcome on a limited budget and decided to propose a reduce settlement.

 

I'm not suggesting Kinger should give up but I am conscious of the costs that can accrue and the amount of good money that can be frittered away over time if this isn't put to bed.

[Kinger122]

Thank you for your input Mike. It is much appreciated and helpful.

 

 

I think the main issue which has arisen is that the judge has expected building control to act as a safeguard to ensure the correct installation and finish of the roof work. However building control in essence have said "as long as the roof is not leaking at this moment in time we have no issues." I am sure the judge had intended building control would ensure we would not get a bad build from the roofer, hence his stipulations that the roofer should bear any additional costs incurred by building control. However (rightly or wrongly) building control have wiped their hands of us The building inspector has just send this email to me today.

 

 

 

 

"I received your telephone message yesterday and understand (company) roofing’s request that I am present when they return to carry out repairs to the roof on Monday morning. However, this is not a statutory inspection and Building Control has already undertaken a substantial number of inspections of these building works and would not intend to return to inspect the roof prior to completion of works. I would also be concerned at taking on a role of one who is officiating between two parties over this matter and it is not Building Control’s function to stand over and supervise a contractor whilst carrying out works.

I appreciate both your concerns but, if a third party is required to oversee the roof repairs, I would suggest that (company) ask an officer from the NFRC to attend or inspect following the repairs. Likewise, if you have questions over how the repairs will be undertaken by (company) , I would direct you back to my previous advice and suggest that you would need to engage a chartered surveyor or an independent and experienced roofer.

Following my inspection last week, I should also take the opportunity to point out some outstanding matters which were noticed but which do not pertain to the roof covering and flashings. This is not an exhaustive list, but these items will require attention prior to the issue of any completion certificate upon satisfactory completion of works:

• The wrong type of roof insulation has been used. It is generally not good practice to use mineral wool between rafters in a pitched roof, simply because approximately 300mm thickness is required to ensure the adequate thermal U-value, and it is difficult to achieve a tight fit between rafters and to ensure an air path for ventilation of the rafters. This type of insulation is usually used over flat ceilings with roof voids, (as was indicated in the original plans). For pitched roofs and vaulted ceilings, as you have had built, it is better practice to use a tight-cut foil-backed PIR insulation (eg. Kingspan or Celotex) of a minimum 100mm thickness between the rafters and 30mm continuous across the underside.
  
• There currently appears to be a lack of mechanical extraction to both the kitchen/utility area and to the WC room. The requirement for this was noted on the architect’s drawings and both the WC and the open plan utility/kitchen area (but preferably the kitchen itself, once the cooker/hob is installed) should have mechanical extract fans ducted to outside air.
  
• As well as attending to the roof repairs, on completion of works all plasterwork and internal finishes will need to be made good and door and window frames externally sealed.
  
• A Part P electrical certificate will be required and a gas-safety test certificate should be provided from a Gas-safe registered person for the boiler and flue relocation.
  
• If you do decide, at a later date, to install a solid fuel-burning stove, hearth and flue then this should all be undertaken and commissioned by a HETAS registered person to the requirements of Part J of the Building Regulations. Please inform me if you intend to carry out this work.
  

I trust the above is useful to you but please do not hesitate to contact me if you need clarification."

So the inspector is willing to comment on every other aspect of the build but he won't help on the most important and main part of the extension. I know the insulation is wrong as it was a temporary measure due to the possibility of the roof needing to be stripped off. Of course the extractors and other bits and pieces are not in place. Why do I want to buy a complete kitchen and fittings and then find they are damaged due to water or other reasons when repairs are carried out. I feel like the inspector is deliberately avoiding his responsibility on ensuring the roof is safely and correctly build. Why is the inspector saying the installation of flashing vents etc. are not within their remit? How can they pick and choose?

[Kinger122]

Can I not go back to the court and say that the inspector is unable to do the role which the judge expected him to do, and therefore there needs to be an expert allocated to ensure that the work is carried out correctly?

 

 

Thanks

[Mike_hawk]

Am I reading the email correspondence correctly that building control will not undertake any further inspections or sign off the roof until /unless all works are completed (including those items noted which you are responsible for) ?

[Kinger122]

Am I reading the email correspondence correctly that building control will not undertake any further inspections or sign off the roof until /unless all works are completed (including those items noted which you are responsible for) ?

 

That would be my understanding of it too Mike

[Mike_hawk]

If that is the councils position I'm struggling to see a way forward for the order to be complied with.

 

Perhaps a short email to the other side advising of the issue before it goes to the expense of engaging staff for Monday. As a suggestion you could propose it considers building controls solution and if in agreement consent to an application to vary the order.

[Kinger122]

I have sent an email stating that building control would not attend. I informed the roofer than they should try and get building control to attend as per the judge's directions. I have told them to inform me of any days which are suitable.

 

I have also read the complaints procedure regarding building control. I have found this part on the ombudsman's website

 

If you can consider my complaint what will the Ombudsman look for?

 

We consider complaints that the council has done something wrong which has caused you problems. So we look at what effect the council’s error has had and what problems this caused for you. Some faults we might find are that the council:

 

• wrongly said that consent under Building Regulations was required
  
• wrongly suggested a form of construction that does not comply with the Building Regulations
  
• failed to notice significant non-compliance with Building Regulations, and
  
• did not take enforcement action against a significant breach of the Building Regulations.
  

What do you all think about raising a complaint about building control and escalating it to the ombudsman if need be? On the website http://www.lgo.org.uk/publications/fact-sheets/complaints-about-building-control/ it states that there have been successful claims for compensation when building control have failed in their duty. I am sure a roof at the incorrect pitch against manufacturer specs and without any specific adaptations must not comply with the relevant regulations. I am not sure how the appeals process would work. I was thinking about emailing the inspector and telling him I would like to invoke their complaints process.

[Mike_hawk]

Really not sure, as far as I'm aware a completion cert only identifies the build meets current regs at that time and has no bearing on the quality of work.

 

There's plenty of horror stories on the web of builds failing in later years

 

I would imagine it (the roofing co) will be on the blower to BC in the morning trying to ascertain whether the council will assist and if the roof can be signed off prior to completion of all remaining works. If he gets the same response as your email this evening you may have other options open to you in resolving the matter.

[f16]

Kinger

As discussed

The BC is pointing out all your "short comings" with regard to BR.

But over looking "Ventilation" because he is trying to cover his "bottom".

 

He is attempting to take you down the "Warm Roof" route a new idea in it's"infancy"

Which you will not be able to "comply " with because we know there are no "vapour" kits on the Veluxes.

It's a "Mine Field" and we are not taking that route.

 

Council "Complaints". Failing that the "Ombudsman"

[f16]

Mike

Thank you for the legal input again.

 

BC can sign off the roof (If they are "Happy" with it)

 

The "Completion Certificate" is the "Final" piece of the process. .....

... But they are going to be "Obstructive".

I can see it coming looking at their Email to Kinger.

[Kinger122]

Message this morning from roofer:

I have this morning spoken at length with (other building control inspector (the colleague who attended with original inspector)) who confirms he attended your property last week. He is happy with the Velux windows and that they do not leak, but I will state that we need to correct the screws if they are not Velux standard as discussed at court. He has confirmed that the tiles need to be removed to expose the flashing and this needs correction. At this point he is then happy to return to site to confirm the work is complete. Building Control do not see it necessary to attend until completion as they have confirmed what is required and they do not provide a Project Management Service.

 

This now leaves me with 2 options:

 

 

1. Mr xxxxxx, as Contract Manager will liaise by telephone with Building Control today to confirm the above necessary work and will attend your property with 1 squad Monday 12th May 2014 at 8.30am. Once completed he will request a site visit from Building Control to attend and confirm the work is completed and carry out a final inspection. This will then enable me to provide you with a Guarantee and also an Insurance backed indemnity as pr the Court Order.
   

 

 

1. If you refuse access to the property to undertake works required to allow Building Control to sign off: I will write to the District Judge to request a return to Court and will also request a subpoena for Mr xxx and Mr xxx to testify.
   

 

I hope you consider option 1 to avoid further court time and cost. I will await your reply.

[Kinger122]

Wow. So building control are unwilling to mediate between the two parties but now the will go to court to provide evidence? One minute they are saying that it is beyond their remit to evaluate the condition of the roof, and now they are saying that the veluxes are not leaking? They are leaking and they did not see water as there is plasterboard on the roof. Can they request a subpoena for the building inspectors? I thought they were unwilling to be involved in this dispute. I can't believe how this situation is getting even worse.

[Kinger122]

I am considering sending this email. let me know what you think:

Dear Roofer,

Thank you for your email. May I clarify a few points. Firstly, I have never refused access and do not intend to do so. I have agreed to allow workers to attend on Monday 12th May. When (Building Inspectors) attended they stated in a follow up email on 2/05/2014 the following:

“Following a night of substantial rain, which continued throughout until today’s late morning inspection, there was clear evidence of moisture ingress from the roof in several places, notably at the ceiling and roof abutment to the main house wall, with damp continuing down the piers and walls below. This would point to a possible defect in the external roof finish / flashing on the wall abutment.

There wasn’t any obvious evidence of leaking to the flashings of the Velux roof windows, though I appreciate that you have previously noted and recorded occurrences of this. In order to illustrate further evidence of this it may be necessary to open up and remove the plasterboard and mineral wool insulation material.”

I therefore cannot understand how building control have asserted that there is no leaking from the flashings. They did not inspect the flashings nor carry out any test on the roof. They themselves have said “it may be necessary to open up and remove the plasterboard and mineral wool insulation material.” I therefore cannot understand how they can inform yourselves of remedial work which is required when they themselves have admitted it is beyond their expertise.

Building control informed me that the roof and its installation was beyond their remit and that the workmanship of the roof was not something which they evaluated. As I assert that it is the workmanship which has directly caused the leaks I do not believe their inspection to be sufficient nor what the Judge ordered. I therefore feel it is beneficial that we instruct an independent expert witness together to ensure that the correct work is carried out on the roof. As the Judge also said that any inspection costs should be borne by (company) , I do not see it unreasonable for (company) to pay for an inspection as building control have carried out inspections under my initial payment thus far. I am copying building control into this email and I would like them to explain how they have come to the conclusion that there is no leaking from the Velux windows despite my evidence. I would also like them to explain how they have managed to provide you with a list of remedial work required when they wrote to me stating they were unable to do so. The roof has been leaking yet again, and around the velux windows. I am attaching pictures today of the leaking after a night of heavy rainfall to this email.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10p0x1t&s=8#.U2yryk1OXcs

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2ppgfoo&s=8#.U2yr7E1OXcs

http://i57.tinypic.com/2hehqwp.jpg

http://i60.tinypic.com/2pqnbmd.jpg

Yours sincerely,

[Kinger122]

After discussing with F16 it was decided that a shorter email should be sent.

 

 

Dear Roofer,

 

Thank you for your email. May I clarify a few points. Firstly, I have never refused access and do not intend to do so. I have agreed to allow workers to attend on Monday 12th May. The Velux windows are leaking as I have informed yourselves and building control on a number of occasions. It leaked again last night and this morning due to heavy rain. Please see the attached photographs.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Yours sincerely,