Roofer failing to undertake promised rectification work

[prophet01]

Homowner friend has written to roofer setting out the sequence of events over the last year.

Starting with:​

"At the beginning of January 2023, following your inspection of my property, you provided a quotation for work to rectify the issue of ingress of rainwater causing damage to my walls. On 6 January 2023, after undertaking the rectification work, you sent me an invoice for the cost of the work, £2,620, which I subsequently paid..."​

​

Finishing with:​

"My last communication to you was on 23 December 2023, I quote:​

“It’s been a week since I last contacted you and, as on so many previous occasions, you’ve failed to respond.​

I can’t understand how you can behave in such a way knowing how distressful this matter has become to me.​

Please respond as a matter of urgency to inform me how you intend to rectify matters.”​

​

Given that:​

• The work you quoted to undertake to rectify the issue failed to do so.
• You have failed to resolve matters over the course of the succeeding year.
• You are refusing to engage with me to amicably resolve matters.

I deem you in breach of contract and of my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. As such please accept this communication as my formal complaint.​

​

I would be grateful to promptly receive your statement setting out your proposals for permanent rectification, detailing precisely what work you will undertake to achieve this, along with your proposed timescale for completion.​

​

You have refused to engage with me for almost four weeks now. Unless I hear from you, as requested above, by Monday 15 January 2024 I shall have no option but to instruct my solicitor.​

I look forward to your prompt response."​

​

Assuming that the roofer fails to respond do you think she should proceed from this point by instucting a solicitor or by other means? Your views would be most appreciated.

​

 

[WaveJumper]

On past history this roofer should be throwing his hands up and surrendering today if your on the case best of luck with this one

 

[Mark T Jones]

At this level I'd be using County Court

 

[Nico Albrecht]

after undertaking the rectification work

Is this contract for a repair of an old existing roof structure or a brand new roof structure? Also what type of roof was the repair done to, e.g flat roof , sloped tile, slate, dormer, ridge or flashing details or valleys ?

 

[WaveJumper]

House insurer ...... legal advice help line ?

 

[Frank the Insurance guy]

House insurer ...... legal advice help line ?

This^^^

Check you friend has legal expenses advice/cover under their home insurance policy (most do!) - if so, best they use it as they will provide the correct legal advice based on their specific circumstances.

 

[prophet01]

Is this contract for a repair of an old existing roof structure or a brand new roof structure? Also what type of roof was the repair done to, e.g flat roof , sloped tile, slate, dormer, ridge or flashing details or valleys ?

He initially concluded that it was a ridge and valley issue then, months later, concluded that it was a pointing issue and agreed to re-point the area of wall shown yellow hatched in the image.

 

[prophet01]

House insurer ...... legal advice help line ?

This^^^

Check you friend has legal expenses advice/cover under their home insurance policy (most do!) - if so, best they use it as they will provide the correct legal advice based on their specific circumstances.

Good call chaps. Never thought of that.
She initially contacted the insurer when the ingress issue initially arose but they said it wasn't covered as it was a case of wear and tear.

I've asked her to check the house insurance legal cover then I'll revert. Thanks for the input.

 

[Fagin2021]

Not a builder or a lawyer but...

The roof tiles, valleys, guttering and exterior wall look a complete mess, with multiple possible entry points for water.

Did the roofer quote to rectify the water ingress or did he quote to (for example) replace the valleys or repoint the wall. If the former he's at fault. If the latter, he may have an argument.

 

[prophet01]

That most relevant of points was one I raised with the owner in the first instance.

Whilst the written quotation doesn't state that the work would resolve the water ingress issue, neither did it say that his proposed works might not resolve the issue, though he made it quite clear verbally, following his inspection of the roof and loft interior, that the work he proposed to undertake would resolve the ingress issue.

There's always potential for him to argue that was not the case. However, I would counter argue that she contacted him only because of the water ingress issue and had a reasonable expectation that a competent roofing contractor would identify the cause of the problem and rectify matters.

Regardless, he's accepted responsibility by confirming in November:

"I did offer a solution to a problem, which hasn't worked. I have offered to do extra work at my expense [pointing] and you've said you're ok to wait for that to happen."​

​

By the way, the work he did undertake was completed in a day, £2,200+VAT ?

 

[prophet01]

Good call chaps. Never thought of that.
She initially contacted the insurer when the ingress issue initially arose but they said it wasn't covered as it was a case of wear and tear.

I've asked her to check the house insurance legal cover then I'll revert. Thanks for the input.

So she does have legal cover and, today, called the helpline. They confirmed that the letter setting out the sequence of events was the correct thing to do and sent her a link to initiate a claim which, presumably, they'll assess as to its merit.

 

[Frank the Insurance guy]

So she does have legal cover and, today, called the helpline. They confirmed that the letter setting out the sequence of events was the correct thing to do and sent her a link to initiate a claim which, presumably, they'll assess as to its merit.

Thats good news. Usually, they will assess and if they think there is a greater than 50% chance of success, they will appoint solicitors to act for her and pay legal costs.

 

[The Organiser]

Homowner friend has written to roofer setting out the sequence of events over the last year.

Starting with:​

"At the beginning of January 2023, following your inspection of my property, you provided a quotation for work to rectify the issue of ingress of rainwater causing damage to my walls. On 6 January 2023, after undertaking the rectification work, you sent me an invoice for the cost of the work, £2,620, which I subsequently paid..."​

​

Finishing with:​

"My last communication to you was on 23 December 2023, I quote:​

“It’s been a week since I last contacted you and, as on so many previous occasions, you’ve failed to respond.​

I can’t understand how you can behave in such a way knowing how distressful this matter has become to me.​

Please respond as a matter of urgency to inform me how you intend to rectify matters.”​

​

Given that:​

• The work you quoted to undertake to rectify the issue failed to do so.
• You have failed to resolve matters over the course of the succeeding year.
• You are refusing to engage with me to amicably resolve matters.

I deem you in breach of contract and of my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. As such please accept this communication as my formal complaint.​

​

I would be grateful to promptly receive your statement setting out your proposals for permanent rectification, detailing precisely what work you will undertake to achieve this, along with your proposed timescale for completion.​

​

You have refused to engage with me for almost four weeks now. Unless I hear from you, as requested above, by Monday 15 January 2024 I shall have no option but to instruct my solicitor.​

I look forward to your prompt response."​

​

Assuming that the roofer fails to respond do you think she should proceed from this point by instucting a solicitor or by other means? Your views would be most appreciated.

​

Does she have contents/building insurance? If yes, she might have legal cover, contact the legal team for advice before instructing any solicitor as they may also be able to act on her behalf ?

 

[prophet01]

@The Organiser

Didn't you read the previous post, #12, to yours?

 

[fisicx]

@The Organiser

Didn't you read the previous post, #12, to yours?

They never do.

 

[prophet01]

Anyway, the insurer has instructed a legal services provider to "assess the legal merits of the claim". They contacted the owner on Friday requesting:

• The relevant terms and conditions relating to the agreement;​

• Any other contractual documentation;​

• Full details of any verbal agreements made;​

• Copies of any reports you have obtained relating to the defects;​

• Copies of any quotations for remedying the defects;​

• A copy of any complaint made to Trading Standards/Furniture Ombudsman;​

• Copies of all correspondence between you and your opponent and any other relevant party.​

​

The wheels are turning.

 

[Frank the Insurance guy]

That is a positive result - if they believe they have a greater than 50% chance of success, then they will pay the costs.

If the chances are less than 50%, they will walk away.

At least, either way they will have a better idea of the situation and if insurers walk away, they know that of they through their own money at legal costs, they know the risk of losing.

 

[prophet01]

@Frank the Insurance guy
Would it have been the case that her insurance provider would have made their own initial assessment before instructing the legal service provider?

 

[Frank the Insurance guy]

@Frank the Insurance guy
Would it have been the case that her insurance provider would have made their own initial assessment before instructing the legal service provider?

HI @prophet01

It is unusual for insurers to make their own initial assessment on something like this.

 

[WaveJumper]

HI @prophet01

It is unusual for insurers to make their own initial assessment on something like this.

I know it can be pretty painful pulling all the relevant info together but this seems pretty encouraging, fingers crossed here

 

[prophet01]

UPDATE:
Following submission of the requested documentation, the insurer's legal services provider has come back with their assessment.

Essentially they've concluded that, on the basis of the information provided, breach of contract has not been demonstrated.

Disappointingly they've simply taken the quotation alone, itemising the elements of work the roofer proposed to undertake, as being the contract and stating that there is no evidence that the work undertaken was faulty.

What they've failed to take into account is that the roofer was contacted solely because of the water ingress issue. Following his inspection of the property he quoted to undertake work which he stated would rectify the issue of water ingress.

In my view the roofer was actually contracted to undertake work to rectify the issue of water ingress, not simply to do some work. The work he undertook did not rectify the issue of water ingress therefore he is in breach of contract.

As stated earlier, in a text message he actually admitted that his solution didn't work and has accepted responsibility to rectify:

"I did offer a solution to a problem, which hasn't worked. I have offered to do extra work at my expense [pointing] and you've said you're ok to wait for that to happen."​

​

This text message was specifically highlighted in the submitted documentation but appears to have been ignored.

@Frank the Insurance guy
Would appreciate your opinion before responding to the legal services provider.

 

[bodgitt&scarperLTD]

I'd say that at £2200 plus VAT for a day's roofing work the most obvious problem is that the 'roofer' may well not have a fixed address!

Are you sure you have an up to date address where they can be found? You're on a hiding to nothing with the legal route otherwise I'm afraid.

Did the invoice have a VAT number and if so does it check out? If not then HMRC may be interested as charging VAT when you are not entititled to is something they take a very dim view of, and they may also be able to put more resources into finding them than you are able to.

 

[prophet01]

@bodgitt&scarperLTD
The legal services provider's view:

"Financial prospects:​

In order for your claim to enjoy reasonable prospects of success, it must be more likely than not that you will be able to enforce any judgment obtained in your favour against Mr XXXXXX.​

​

As Mr XXXXX is a sole trader, we completed a land registry search and he is the owner of property as per his invoice therefore, we consider this requirement satisfied at this stage however, this will be kept under review."​

​

VAT number is also legitimate.

 

[Frank the Insurance guy]

@Frank the Insurance guy
Would appreciate your opinion before responding to the legal services provider.

For the legal insurance cover to step in, the legal opinion must be that there is a greater than 50% chance of being successful. It may be that they thin the chance of success is 49% - if so, they will not provide cover.

I'm not sure if they will respond, but I would suggest contacting them to request what they fee the % prospects of success are?

If they can release this information, it will give you some guidance of the benefit in pursuing with legal action at your own cost.

Interestingly, if you pursue them at your own costs and are successful, the legal service providers may retrospectively pay your legal costs (I have known this happen in the past). You may wish to ask them to clarify that this will be the case.

 

[bodgitt&scarperLTD]

@bodgitt&scarperLTD
The legal services provider's view:

"Financial prospects:​

In order for your claim to enjoy reasonable prospects of success, it must be more likely than not that you will be able to enforce any judgment obtained in your favour against Mr XXXXXX.​

​

As Mr XXXXX is a sole trader, we completed a land registry search and he is the owner of property as per his invoice therefore, we consider this requirement satisfied at this stage however, this will be kept under review."​

​

VAT number is also legitimate.

Excellent!

Do have fun and load this up with plenty of 'expoert witness' costs! £2200 plus vat for roofing works completed in a day by one man is total rogue trader territory.

 

[prophet01]

Excellent!

Do have fun and load this up with plenty of 'expoert witness' costs! £2200 plus vat for roofing works completed in a day by one man is total rogue trader territory.

Indeed she was taken advantage of by an apparently unscrupulous individual.
She only accepted paying so much on the basis that he stated his proposed works would resolve the issue, which it didn't.

 

[prophet01]

@Frank the Insurance guy
Appreciate the feedback.
They stated the following

"In accordance with your policy requirements, a minimum threshold of 51% prospects of success is necessary. Presently, based solely on the photographs, our prospects are 50/50 at best."​

​

The issue for me is that they're basing their assessment from the standpoint of only the quotation for the work being the contract. They appear to have ignored the element of the contract whereby a supposedly competent contractor stated that his proposed work would resolve the issue of water ingress, which it didn't.

He subsequently admitted in writing that his proposed resolution hadn't worked and that he'd undertake further work at his own cost. That appears to me to be confirmation and acceptance that he'd led her to believe his proposed work would resolve the matter.

Do you have an opinion on that specific point please?

 

[Michael Loveridge]

The first point I'd make is that as he's offered to try and solve the problem by repairing the pointing it would seem sensible to accept that offer. Who knows, it may solve the problem, and if it doesn't work she's no worse off than she is now.

But if, for any reason, this isn't an option then I suspect that the reason your friend's claim has been declined has far less to do with the merits of the case than it does with its economics.

Legal expenses insurance is in reality a marketing device for solicitors. When you contact your LX insurer they will pass the case to one of their panel solicitors. These solicitors pay substantial annual subscriptions to be on LX panels, and would obviously have been hoping that your friend's case would be one that they can take on and make money from.

However, in a case like this there is no prospect of making any money out of it, as it’s clearly a small claims case, and consequently, the solicitors would not want to take it on. In those circumstances the solicitors / insurers are remarkably adept, at finding an excuse not to do so.

If she can be bothered, it may be worth going through the formal complaints process with the LX insurer, and then to the ombudsman if that fails to resolve it. However, it's a tedious and long-winded process, and even if she succeeds she's then got to press on with a legal claim.

Is the contractor a member of any trade association? If so, they may have some sort of dispute resolution process that she could employ. Also, she could always go through the small claims process. The fact that he is VAT-registered and owns his own property at least means that if she succeeds with her claim she will probably get paid.

 

[prophet01]

The first point I'd make is that as he's offered to try and solve the problem by repairing the pointing it would seem sensible to accept that offer. Who knows, it may solve the problem, and if it doesn't work she's no worse off than she is now.

The offer was made, and accepted, on 2 November. Despite promising on several occasions, during November and December, to undertake the work he failed to turn up each time. During that time the water ingress continued.

As stated above the legal services provider has based their assessment on the inaccurate premise that "the contract" was simply to undetake the elements of work stated in the quotation.

The contract was, in reality, to rectify the issue of ingress of water. The work which the roofer proposed to do and which he stated would rectify the issue failed to do so. The issue is not with the quality of the work carried out but that it failed to rectify the issue as the roofer stated that it would.

I think the first step is to challenge the decision of the legal services provider on this basis. That's why I asked @Frank the Insurance guy for his opinion on this particular issue.

 

[Frank the Insurance guy]

@Frank the Insurance guy
Appreciate the feedback.
They stated the following

"In accordance with your policy requirements, a minimum threshold of 51% prospects of success is necessary. Presently, based solely on the photographs, our prospects are 50/50 at best."​

​

The issue for me is that they're basing their assessment from the standpoint of only the quotation for the work being the contract. They appear to have ignored the element of the contract whereby a supposedly competent contractor stated that his proposed work would resolve the issue of water ingress, which it didn't.

He subsequently admitted in writing that his proposed resolution hadn't worked and that he'd undertake further work at his own cost. That appears to me to be confirmation and acceptance that he'd led her to believe his proposed work would resolve the matter.

Do you have an opinion on that specific point please?

As with all legal actions, you never quite know what will happen and what decision the courts will take, until it happens.

I'm not a legal expert so can't comment on whether you have a more than 50% chance of success - I would take insurers legal opinion on this - don't forget these are legal professionals (not insurers' own claims team) that have looked at the case and advised at best you have a 50/50 chance of success.

They are not saying that you don't have a chance of success.

If she can be bothered, it may be worth going through the formal complaints process with the LX insurer, and then to the ombudsman if that fails to resolve it.

No point in taking up a formal complaint and then ombudsman - to do so you will have to demonstrate that you have a greater than 50% chance of success, which will mean to paying for a second legal opinion!

 

[prophet01]

As stated above the legal services provider has based their assessment on the inaccurate premise that "the contract" was simply to undetake the elements of work stated in the quotation.

The contract was, in reality, to rectify the issue of ingress of water. The work which the roofer proposed to do and which he stated would rectify the issue failed to do so. The issue is not with the quality of the work carried out but that it failed to rectify the issue as the roofer stated that it would.

Appreciate the input.
As I said previously, we'll initially try challenging the premise of the decision and see what they come back with and take it from there.
If you don't ask you don't get.