Snakes and Ladders
Having building work carried out at your home can lead to endless problems. From cowboy builders to unsatisfactory work, a home owner can be left feeling helpless and may find it difficult to put things right. Here we look at various examples of improvements to home owner’s rights providing protection to those engaging contractors (although sometimes the results can be a little frustrating).
Home owners can now obtain protection against cowboy builders and rogue traders by using the Bondpay Scheme endorsed by Trading Standards. The home owner pays the full amount of money for the work up front which is then held by Bondpay and only released to the builder upon satisfactory completion of the works. The scheme is free to homeowners and provides protection and peace of mind. Bondpay also offer a 1 year guarantee on all works at no additional cost which covers faulty workmanship and materials. The guarantee will also provide cover if the builder ceases trading.
All works which are undertaken by the builder must comply with the strict Consumer legislation and Building Regulations. In the case of Lowe –v- Machell Joinery Ltd the Claimants purchased a bespoke oak staircase for their barn conversion at a cost of £16,000. It transpired that the design of the staircase was in breach of the Building Regulations because the spindles were too far apart. The Court found that the staircase was not fit for purpose or of satisfactory quality, as required by the Sale of Goods Act. The Judge held that the fitness of goods for purpose must include compliance with the Building Regulations. On the basis that the staircase could not lawfully be used for its intended purpose, it was not fit for purpose and not satisfactory. The Claimants were therefore entitled to reject the staircase.
Home owners can also find themselves facing claims from builders who suffer injuries while working on the properties. However, the Court of Appeal ruled in the case of Kmiecic –v- Isaacs that home owners were not responsible for the safety of workmen on their property. The Claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained after a fall while working at a house in Hampstead. The owner of the property had given him a ladder to access the roof and had prevented him from taking the safest route to the roof because she did not want him walking on her white carpets. The Court held that it was the duty of employers and not home owners to ensure the safety of their workmen.
But it’s not all good news for home owners. In the case of Atwal –v- Rochester, the Claimants entered into a contract with Mr Rochester, a builder, but after starting the extensive works he suffered a heart attack and was unable to return to complete the works. The Claimants argued that the builder was in breach of contract and sought damages from him. The High Court held that the work was to be personally performed by Mr Rochester and because he was seriously ill and unable to complete the job, the contract was frustrated. This meant that the builder was not in breach of contract and he was able to claim damages from the home owners for a reasonable sum for the work he had performed. The contract was held to be a personal one because the builder was known to the home owners, he had agreed to perform the works substantially below the market price and the Claimants knew that there was no-one else who could have done the work on his behalf.
Home owners should be wary of entering into contracts with sole traders without clear terms in the contract setting out the parties’ rights and obligations where the contractor is prevented from working and the steps to be taken to remedy that situation.
Partner and Head of Dispute Resolution
Commercial Dispute Resolution
LPatel@LawBlacks.com
0113 227 9316
@LukeLawBlacks
View profile
Luke Patel
