Best resolution of damage issue

[john east]

Someone recently had quite a lot of building house work done and also had a very expensive fireplace surround installed (talking here about several thousand pounds).

The subcontractors who installed it turned out to be muppets and have damaged, dented and scratched it. They then made a very rough job of filling and retouching. They are returning to have another go, but everyone already knows from their whole attitude and standard of work on the first attempt that its very unlikely to be a satisfactory job.

The person having the work done has not yet released all the money due to the main builder and this sum is in total is a couple of thousand pounds short of the cost to buy a new fireplace surround.

An estimation to have repair work done professionally at a guess is probably easily up to 800 pounds or so.

What would be the normal way for the client to proceed in a situation like this? The subcontractors already are wanting to say there is nothing wrong. Should the client say, I will have it professionally repaired and take that from what I owe you. Or say get me a new one ? If she held out for a new replacement, what would a court's view likely be on such a move? Having it repaired is always going to be a less preferred option.

The client is not vindictive, they have already overlooked some mistakes in the build, and would like a fair way of going about this issue; for all concerned.

But is unwilling to go along with the sub contractors who say that nothing is wrong with their retouching work. The view that it is not good enough is a view that is agreed on by others who have seen the mess made on what was an expensive bit of kit and a showpiece for the room that it is in.

What would be the usual way for the client to try to resolve such an issue ? Thanks.

[Dave Liquorice]

The contract is with the main builder, take it up with them. Site visit maybe required to show the problem properly, one persons view of a "bodge job" may be perfectly acceptable to some one else. A site visit enables the client to show exactly what they feel is substandard and get the main builder to agree if not totally then at least in part.

The sub-contractors and the quality of their work is the main builders problem. During the site visit it can be made clear that the orginal contractors have had one unsatisfactory attempt at repair and they are not to be given a second chance.

Is the work being done under a "Minor Works" contract or just on the basis of an agreement over a quote?

[Martin Pentreath]

Probably better to see a lawyer, but a couple of points occur to me.

As you point out the contract is with the main contractor, not the sub- contractor, so it is their attitude which matters here.

Was the agreement over the fireplace to supply and install? In other words will the cost of buying the fireplace appear on the bill? If so, and the matter gets litigious, then it will be easier to sort out. The agreement will (either expressly or impliedly) be to supply (and then fit) a fireplace which is of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. In this context, as the decorative centrepiece of the room, that undoubtedly means one which is free from any blemishes and is pretty much perfect. They have clearly breached that element of the contract. Your remedies are the question.

Rejection would be a remedy, but it is available for a limited amount of time, until such a time as it could be said that you have accepted the goods. If you threw a hissy fit as soon as you saw the work and demanded it was all ripped out immediately and your money refunded you would have been within your rights. Unfortunately by allowing the workmen to bodge around with it you have accepted it, so rejection as a remedy will no longer be available. So the question then is what can they do to to achieve what they promised. If the fireplace can be repaired and made good, then you will have to go along with this. However, if it is beyond repair then they will have to find you a new one and make a good job of it.

In practical terms witholding the money might well work, because although that may technically put you in breach of contract, the builder would need to sue you it, which seems pretty unlikely to happen in the circumstances, and if it did you would counterclaim. However, do your best to keep as many miles away from litigation as possible!

All the above subject to my original advice of seeing someone who knows what their talking about!

[js.b1]

Does the Main Contractor have insurance?

Someone should have... a) claimed for a new one b) had it sent to a specialist repairer / restorer if appropriate (at some cost) c) had it sent to the manufacturer (some do repair items, again at some cost)

You can still reject a repair if it is patently unacceptable, otherwise someone could polyfilla hand carved stonework back together. An example would be buying a new car, but pre-delivery it receives damage which is repaired, on delivery it is found to have a visually rippled body panel, miss-matched colour, mis-aligned trim, mis-aligned panel fit.

Certain items do require visual perfection - the Devil Is In The Detail. In which case someone better cough up, either for a proper repair or a replacement.

[Rick]

The Builder is prime contractor hold back what is "fair & reasonable", and state that resolution is with them, for a professional repair.

They will of course try to get you to deal with their sub-contractor ... refuse this route.