Your friends D has to get in touch with all the enforcing authorities to get some movement from one or the other of them inclusive of planning + if she has a loan she needs to contact the loan company as a condition of the loan is usually 'to be properly built' [or words to that effect] + stop any payments to the builder + talk to the builder about the local [or even national] 'press' + talk to the local inland revenue about the builders practices e.g. the cash deposit she paid. In other words she has to do something & stick to her guns

Mgray,

Whoever constructed the conservatory should have been aware of the requirements re gas flues and whilst its unlikely that they would have been willing to do the work (despite verbal agreement), they should have pointed out that the flue requires re-routing and that it is the customers responsibility. Certainly the paperwork seems to neglect to state any such agreement.My experience of most "reputable" conservatory suppliers is that they will not start work until the flue has been moved by the customer, or a gas fitter. This instruction is usually part of the written contract which is signed by the customer.
BUT things do go wrong!
If the contract doesnt state "move flue" as part of the schedule of works, then it will be difficult to argue that the builder has that responsibility. The builder, however, should have been aware of the need to move the flue to conform with Gas Regs and should have told the customer, but then you are into a "he said, she said" arguement which are always difficult.
I'd be extremely wary about going "public" with any "bad press" until the contractual facts have been established.

Without stating the name of the conservatory builder, can you give any clues? I'd be interested to know whether its a national company or "Bill and Bob the Builder"?

Holmezy

without being

Another thing we / U have to consider is the wrapping up of a company

A 'dubious' person can wrap up a company one day and start a new one the next day and all the old company troubles goes to that company ------- a despicable practice but carried out in the UK without hindrance every day and is a major factor behind the lack of enforcement, inclusive of tax, of all kinds

Holmezy

I'm sure that is the case, and it must drive you mad, and I'm sure that less reputable companies may well crash on regardless.

You do the right thing which is to wait until the remedial work has been done...but in the event of work being carried out which is dangerous, falling back on the contractual obligations shouldn't save a disreputable company form having to account for their (in)actions.

Although HSE may not follow through t olegal action they should at least make sure the company are aware for future. The evidence of unsafe work would also be a good thing to take to a civil court if the occupier wanted to claim money back to rectify the dangerous work... Oh to live in an ideal world!