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

[Kinger122]

ddd

[Kinger122]

eee

[Kinger122]

fff

[Kinger122]

ggg

[Kinger122]

hhh

[Kinger122]

iii

[Kinger122]

jjj

[Kinger122]

kkk

[Kinger122]

lll

[f16]

Kinger

I will allow you to update the thread on to days events,prior to me making a comment.

 

In the meantime .... Photos listing as follows

 

Group. bbb Shot 2 +5 Velux and Forticrete

 

Group. ccc Shot 1 +2 Velux

 

Group. ddd Shot 1 +3 +4 Velux

 

Group. eee Shot 1 + 2 + 4 Velux

 

Group. fff Shot 1 + 2 +3 +4 Velux and Forticrete

 

Group. ggg Shot 1 Velux

 

Group. hhh Shot 1 Velux and Forticrete

 

Group. iii Shot 1+2+3+5 Velux

Shot 4 Velux and Forticrete

 

Group. jjj Shot 1+5 Velux

 

Group. kkk Shot 2+4 Velux

 

Group. lll Shot 1 Velux.

 

Catch up with you tomorrow.

[f16]

Kinger

 

You need to do a covering letter to the contacts I gave you for both Velux and Forticrete.

They require your contact details and address.

You will need to label each photo pointing out the errors as previously discussed.

 

Both these guys know their stuff and can assist.

Not "What you know, but who you know". .......In your roofers case ... neither !!!

 

I'm talking to Velux tomorrow... Ooops Today I mean. (just checked the time)

 

As I said before "The show ain't over till The Fat Lady Sings"

 

Keep your chin up. I'm up for the next 10 rounds.

 

Look at it like this.. One door shut.... I just opened another two.

F16

[Kinger122]

Hi. Sorry for the delay in updates. The building inspector attended and refused to climb and inspect the roof. I told him all of the flaws which F16 had kindly helped me with and he told me that it was too specialised and not within building regulation's remit. The two inspectors were not interested in the poor installation, the lack of ventilation.

 

 

They did say that because the roof was leaking at the time they attended they would not issue a certificate but they would do so once the leak was rectified. They said that they have no issues with the pitch either and that I should hire a project manager or a surveyor to ensure the other aspects of the roof are satisfactory ( but the roof is already completed!)

 

 

With the help of F16, I have contacted Velux and Forticrete and they may inspect the roof and provide me with a report. They seem genuinely interested in this case especially as it involves their products and both have reiterated that the combination of windows and tiles cannot be installed at less than 15 degrees.

 

 

Can I present additional information at court and can I reject the building inspectors certificate and withhold payment as I believe the roof is still not fit for purpose? Especially considering that the building inspectors have essentially said that the roof is too complicated for them to pass judgement on.

 

 

I will post any replies I receive and keep this updated.

[Mike_hawk]

What about the builder, have you set dates for his inspection yet?

 

You can apply to the court at any time, I'm just not sure that throwing good money after bad is going to provide you with the remedy you want.

[f16]

Hi Mike

Yes I will confirm on Kingers behalf that the "Roofer" has been sent an Email asking what dates in the next 2 weeks he would like to attend

to resolve the issue.

[Mike_hawk]

Sensible not to encourage an application from the other side.

 

I did look at the pics and to be polite, it appears ( from a laypersons pointy of view) to be a shoddy finish and I don't think I'd be excited by it if it were my home. Having said that, the case is what it is, people spend thousands and exhaust years of their lives on cases just such as this. I think I'd aim for the best finish possible without the courts further intervention and put it down to experience.

[f16]

Mike

Due to the Building Control deciding that as long as the roof is not leaking they will "Pass" it. (It appears they "make up" the "rules" as they go).

 

What Kinger and I are working on is the"insurance clause". Materials not to manufactures spec.

I think I've negotiated a "deal" with Velux and Forticrete tiles where they will provide Kinger with "expert" reports.

 

The question is:

After it is proved the insurance will not "cover" the roof.

 

Can these reports be submitted to court ???

 

And how should Kinger go about this ???

 

Cheers F16

[Mike_hawk]

Building control was to be expected, it won't go beyond its remit. I think you should cross that (insured risk) bridge as and when the time comes. Settlement is subject to underwriting, if that isn't possible it will either fall to a compromise of the case (consent order of lower value) or back to the courts intervention.

[f16]

Building control was to be expected, it won't go beyond its remit.

 

I agree but ..........

 

Roof Ventilation was within their remit, but they "Side stepped it" (Ignored it)

Roof straps (ties) again within their remit but conveniently "side stepped"

 

Kinger has been miss lead by the architect and roofer regarding the "Pitch" and now let down by Building Control.

 

To cap it all. .. "Mr magoo with a blind fold" fitted the roof.

(Kinger Google "Mr Magoo". ... You will understand. I'm old,your young)

 

The only "fail safe" now is the insurance clause (underwriting) backed up by expert statements / reports

[Kinger122]

What about the builder, have you set dates for his inspection yet?

 

You can apply to the court at any time, I'm just not sure that throwing good money after bad is going to provide you with the remedy you want.

 

I have tried to be as flexible and accommodating as possible by allowing the roofer to select the dates he wants to attend.

[Kinger122]

I agree but ..........

 

Roof Ventilation was within their remit, but they "Side stepped it" (Ignored it)

Roof straps (ties) again within their remit but conveniently "side stepped"

 

Kinger has been miss lead by the architect and roofer regarding the "Pitch" and now let down by Building Control.

 

To cap it all. .. "Mr magoo with a blind fold" fitted the roof.

(Kinger Google "Mr Magoo". ... You will understand. I'm old,your young)

 

The only "fail safe" now is the insurance clause (underwriting) backed up by expert statements / reports

 

Hi f16. I think the insurance is the last and final thing we can fall back onto. After that I don't know what else there is. It seems like almost every avenue has been exhausted and justice has definitely not been done so far. I'll be posting any replies to emails I receive tomorrow

[Mike_hawk]

I have tried to be as flexible and accommodating as possible by allowing the roofer to select the dates he wants to attend.

 

I don't doubt it kinger, I'm just cautious of you losing more than the price of an unsatisfactory build if this is protracted.

[f16]

Hi f16. I think the insurance is the last and final thing we can fall back onto. After that I don't know what else there is. It seems like almost every avenue has been exhausted and justice has definitely not been done so far. I'll be posting any replies to emails I receive tomorrow

 

Kinger

He won't get past that one !!!

[f16]

I don't doubt it kinger, I'm just cautious of you losing more than the price of an unsatisfactory build if this is protracted.

 

Mike

I don't do the legal bit. .... Said many times.

That is what I find so interesting on this forum... "Balanced debate".

 

The way I view this is.

 

The Judge "kindly" gave Kinger more than enough rope to "hang" the roofer.

This "piece of rope" has just been shortened by Building Control.

Thanks to the Judge including the Insurance there is still enough rope.

 

This is going to be the last "throw of the dice" on this judgement.

I can't see Kinger has anything to lose.

 

I agree that if he proceeded past this point he would have to consider the costs involved and "what he has to lose"

 

What is your view on the situation ???

[Mike_hawk]

My view persists, the claim is relatively low in quantum, DJ's have a relatively high expectation of professional damage/loss ( comes with the salary) and a low expectation of lips losses. Hearings are held and decided not necessarily on legalities within the SCT but on fairness of the judgment. I don't agree its right, it is what it is and utterly dumbfounding at times.

 

In this case the DJ appears to have considered the claimants case as reasonable ( in respect of meruit) but has erred on the side of caution in allowing for building control and risk underwriter to decide for him.

[f16]

I don't agree its right, it is what it is and utterly dumbfounding at times

 

Amen. I agree with that !!!!

 

So "IF" it ends up in front of the DJ because the roofer can't get the correct insurance.

 

Can kinger produce further evidence to back up his counter claim ????

 

Or does he have to make a separate claim ????