Cowboy Builder - Some advice please

[James676]

Good afternoon everyone,

This is my first post here, although I've been reading the forum for years now. It's helped me a lot. Thanks so far!

I've got myself into a bit of an annoying situation of the past weeks:
- bought a house that needed a total make over
- found a builder to do it all via mybuilder.com (has a 9/10 rating)
- eventaully the guy turned out to be a massive headache with fake ratings and generally very incompetent workers (e.g. flooding the whole basement several times as the forgot to put stops on open pipes before turning on the boiler, massive leakage throughout the house given the bad quality soldering of copper pipes, builders pi**ing in our garden as they were too lazy to walk to the pub while we didn't have a toilet, tiles installed with no run/angle in a walk in shower, several items going "missing", like bathroom extractor fans etc...)
- stupidly we paid the builder 90% of the total cost already, but now just want him out the house. We're at the stage where we're happy to just get someone else in to fix broken things.
- today the builder sent us an email (first time ever), saying he wants the final sum paid by 5pm or will take us to court

Our problem:
The builder needs to provide us with the gas safe, electrics (house was rewired), strucural engineers and damp guarantee reports. He is not willing to give these to us, unless we pay him another GBP 7K. That figure was never given to us and comes as a complete shock. When asked, the builder said it's mainly the cost for him coming by over the past weeks fixing various problems we had at the house (all of which were originally caused by him!).

What are our options?
We can try and negotiate the 7k figure down with him, but he really doesn't deserve another penny and will probably not budge! Are there any other options we have? Especially with regards to the gas safe and electric sign off?

Any ideas are welcome... It's been a stressful time for us!

Thanks,
James

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You need a solicitor, not a DIY advice forum.

Pity that in your years of reading the forum you never came across any of the posts saying what a total scam these rate-my-{tradesman} sites are.

 

[James676]

Thanks - fully aware now...

 

[bernardgreen]

Contact Trading Standards Office with a record of all that has happened.

If the gas plumbing was carried out by the person who carried out the defective water plumbing then involving the Gas Safe organisation might be effective.

 

[ericmark]

I stand to be corrected but think the compliance certificate with scheme members needs to be provided within 2 weeks of completion. Same with completion certificate if using LABC. It does not matter about payment the law does not allow withholding of the Part P paperwork until paid.

You should also get an installation certificate with all test results this is not a legal requirement but it would be required to have the compliance or completion certificate issued.

The IET/BSi regulations are not a legal requirement but they may be used in a court of law and the Part P requires that it follows BS7671 or similar so although in theroy you could follow German or French rules in practice but have to follow BS 7671.

 

[James676]

Thank you for the info - if you happen to have any link to where I can find it saying that Part P is not allowed to be withheld, I would appreciate it (although I'm goggling as I type this..)

The gas works were completed by an extranal contractor (who I do not have the name of).

 

[JohnW2]

... the law does not allow withholding of the Part P paperwork until paid.

Does that not depend upon the contractual agreement between electrician and customer? Even if the electrician 'happens to be' a member of a self-certification scheme, I would not think that there is any legal requirement for him/her to self-certify/notify at all (ever) unless that was part of the contracted deal. As has been said, I think the OP probably needs a solicitor.

Kind Regards, John

 

[sparkwright]

Hang on, why should a tradesman have to walk to a pub to use the toilet?

Pub landlords, quite rightly, do not approve of people using their facility without buying anything.

Now it's hardly right for a tradesman to have to buy a drink or a packet of crisps every time he needs the toilet.

 

[conny]

Hang on, why should a tradesman have to walk to a pub to use the toilet?

Pub landlords, quite rightly, do not approve of people using their facility without buying anything.

Now it's hardly right for a tradesman to have to buy a drink or a packet of crisps every time he needs the toilet.

Then why didn't the builder hire a portable toilet unit and allow for it in the quote?

Not exactly a nice thing to have builders pi$$ing in your garden is it?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Not exactly a nice thing to have builders p**sing in your garden is it?

Could have been worse.

 

[ericmark]

I am sure I read about time limit in the Approved Document Part P although this was before England and Wales split.

There is of course a question as to when it is complete. If I was to submit plans for a rewire which included fitting outside lights then until those lamps are fitted it's not complete so the installation certificate would not be forwarded to the council. So if there is just one small item to be finished he can delay issuing the certificate.

I also had problems with builders who were in the end thrown off site and I have problems with the LABC as it transpired the builder had not informed them about the work he was going to do.

I thought this was the builders problem but I was told in no uncertain terms it is the house holders responsibly to ensure the LABC are informed. The builder may do it for the house holder and 99% of the time they do but it's down to the house holder to ensure the builder has done this.

Part P is slightly different in that scheme members can inform the LABC after the event which is why having any markings on your van or paperwork claiming you are a scheme member when your not is a criminal offence.

What really surprised me was lack of paperwork from the LABC. I would have expected a permit to work system so I as the electrician could only start work with the exception of emergency work after I had received permission to start. However this was not the case so if the house holder says he has informed the council I have to take his word for it.

This means if I say the house holder said he had informed the council and the house holder says he left the informing of the council to me it all falls on the house holder. Which I don't think is really fair.

Up to now builders and electricians have been taken to court for sub-standard work and claiming they are scheme members when they are not but there have been no court cases for not submitting Part P fees before starting work where the work is A1 as in the main unless the electrician is stupid and says he agreed to do the registering of the work it would mean the house holder is fined not the electrician and the councils lucky for us does not seem to want to fine the house holder for simply not paying fees.

Some times to be fair jobs escalate. The council agreed to hard wire my mothers door bell as the batteries had gone flat meaning she had not got her medication. The job should have been very easy just replace the 12vac transformer for a 12 vdc power supply and use existing wiring. No Part P involved. However the electrician could not source a 12vdc direct replacement but there were loads which plug into a 13A socket so he fitted a 13A socket and plugged the power supply in. Simple.

However since it was a 13A socket he now needed to complete a minor works certificate and since it was not RCD protected in theory it would not comply. Jobs do escalate and what was just replace a few cables can lead into a near complete rewire and at what point one should stop and say I need to register work with LABC is rather a grey area.

Doing a bit at a time one could completely rewire a house with the exception of bathroom and renewing the consumer unit without telling the LABC.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I thought this was the builders problem but I was told in no uncertain terms it is the house holders responsibly to ensure the LABC are informed. The builder may do it for the house holder and 99% of the time they do but it's down to the house holder to ensure the builder has done this.

You should have gone in all guns blazing armed with several clauses in the Building Regulations which would become total nonsense if "person carrying out the work" was interpreted as "householder". And show that on the other hand not one single problem or bit of nonsense whatsoever arises if the normal English meaning is used, i.e. the person who does the work, i.e. not the person who orders it.

the councils lucky for us does not seem to want to fine the house holder for simply not paying fees.

Maybe the legal people who make the decisions reckon that it would be madness to try and prosecute someone for failing to do something which the law clearly says is someone else's responsibility.

 

[EFLImpudence]

The Building Regulations actually state that " A person intending to carry out building work in relation to which Part P of Schedule 1 imposes a requirement is required to give a building notice or deposit full plans..."

Is it not quite reasonable to accept that this is indeed the householder?
Does the fact that the householder employs someone else to actually do the work make any difference?
Your definition could be extended to mean that the actual electrician (or bricklayer) would be responsible rather than the manager of the electrical (or building) company.

If not, this could lead to several different contractors having to notify - and pay in advance for - their individual contributions instead of the householder being responsible and paying for the whole.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The Building Regulations actually state that " A person intending to carry out building work in relation to which Part P of Schedule 1 imposes a requirement is required to give a building notice or deposit full plans..."

Is it not quite reasonable to accept that this is indeed the householder?

No, because it is not he who is intending to carry out the work. It is the electrician who will carry out the work.

Same idea as on the EIC

I being the person responsible for the Design, Construction, Inspection & Testing of the electrical installation (as indicated by my signature below), particulars of which are described above, having exercised reasonable skill and care when carrying out the Design, Construction, Inspection & Testing, hereby CERTIFY that the said work for which I have been responsible is to the best of my knowledge and belief in accordance with BS 7671:2008, amended to 2011 except for the departures, if any, detailed as follows.

Your definition could be extended to mean that the actual electrician (or bricklayer) would be responsible rather than the manager of the electrical (or building) company.

No, because the company is a legal entity, and it is the entity with whom the householder has a contract and it is the legal entity which carries out the work.

If not, this could lead to several different contractors having to notify - and pay in advance for - their individual contributions instead of the householder being responsible and paying for the whole.

Notice of commencement and completion of certain stages of work

16. - (2) Subject to paragraph (8), a person carrying out building work shall not—

(a)cover up any excavation for a foundation, any foundation, any damp-proof course or any concrete or other material laid over a site; or.
(b)cover up in any way any drain or sewer to which these Regulations apply, unless that person has given the local authority notice of intention to commence that work, and at least one day has elapsed since the end of the day on which the notice was given..

Why would they have that requirement if the meaning of the term "person carrying out building work" was "person who commissioned building work to be carried out by someone else"? Is there a big problem with householders employing builders and then covering up foundations and drains?


CO2 emission rate calculations

27. —(1) This regulation applies where a building is erected and regulation 26 applies.

(2) Not later than the day before the work starts, the person carrying out the work shall give the local authority a notice which specifies—

(a)the target CO2 emission rate for the building,.
(b)the calculated CO2 emission rate for the building as designed, and.
(c)a list of specifications to which the building is to be constructed..
(3) Not later than five days after the work has been completed, the person carrying out the work shall give the local authority—

(a)a notice which specifies—.
(i)the target CO2 emission rate for the building,.
(ii)the calculated CO2 emission rate for the building as constructed, and.
(iii)whether the building has been constructed in accordance with the list of specifications referred to in paragraph (2)(c), and if not a list of any changes to those specifications; or.
(b)a certificate of the sort referred to in paragraph (4) accompanied by the information referred to in sub-paragraph (a)..

Poor old householder has got to learn an awful lot of stuff these days before he can get the builders in, it seems.

Still - at least he shouldn't get into any arguments when he also gives an energy performance certificate...



... to himself ...


Energy performance certificates

29. — mechanical ventilation..
(2) The person carrying out the work shall—

(a)give an energy performance certificate for the building to the owner of the building;


And just think of how much money all these electricians, plumbers, window installers etc have thrown away over the years taking out totally unnecessary membership of various Competent Person schemes, because it's the householder who has to be a member, not them:

Provisions applicable to self-certification schemes

20. —(1) This regulation applies to the extent that the building work consists only of work of a type described in column 1 of the Table in Schedule 3 and the work is carried out by a person who is described in the corresponding entry in column 2 of that Table in respect of that type of work.

And there he goes again, giving a certificate to himself...

(3) Where this regulation applies, the person carrying out the work shall, not more than 30 days after the completion of the work—

(a)give to the occupier a copy of the certificate referred to in paragraph (2);


Really - it makes no sense to think that when the regulations talk about the person carrying out the work they mean anything other than the person who actually carries out the actual work.

 

[JohnW2]

Really - it makes no sense to think that when the regulations talk about the person carrying out the work they mean anything other than the person who actually carries out the actual work.

I agree that it's very remiss of the Building Regs not to define (in the 'Interpretation' section) exactly what they mean by "a person carrying out work" or "a person intending to carry out work".

I actually suspect that (although I do agree that this is not what the legislation says), the intention was that it should be the person commissioning the work who should be ultimately responsible (for ensuring that notification happened etc.) even though this responsibility would commonly be delegated.

What you suggest above would not really be a workable interpretation. If every individual "person who actually carries out the actual work", had an individual responsibility to notify, there could be countless people working on one building site who individually had responsibility for notifiying the "actual work" which they had done, or intended to do - which would make no sense.

What happens if I appoint numerous contractors to undertake a major project,such as a large extension? Are you suggesting that they are each responsible for (separately) notifying the actual bits of work which they actually undertake?

Kind Regards, John
Edit: I've just seen EFLI's post, which was 'hidden behind' BAS's massive one before I composed this one. It seems that EFLI and myself are thinking similarly.