Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By danielmurphy1985
a main building contractor was in charge of constructing a block of flats and they sub-contracted the plastering work to an apparently competant subcontractor. the sub-contractor failed to follow the instructions of the main contractor, resulting in very poor plasterwork.
When "Joe Bloggs" purchased the flat from the developer he wqs told the plasterwork would need repairing at a considerable expense.
Could anyone tell me what the legal position of "Joe Bloggs" is with the main contractor and the sub-contractor?..
Cheers
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By lewes
I would have said that it was a 'latent defect' as the finished article was not to the required standard/specification.
The main contractor is at fault as he who was responsible for the building works and the fact that he sub-contracted the work is no concern to Joe Bloggs. Joe Bloggs did not have a legal contract with the sub-contractor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark Bywater
Daniel,
I'm not sure if this is a safety related question as there is no implied "loss" apart from maybe a monetary value for replastering.
Any "Duty of care" owed by the main contractor to Bloggs will be around the safety of the work carried out surely, not about the standard of workmanship, unless it presents a hazard / risk of some description.
Perhaps a few more details about the "loss" would help to build a better picture for a more complete answer.
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tony Brunskill
I think there is a loss here. The financial loss of the flat owner/purchaser. The issue is a civil one and it would be necessary to establish what contracts existed, written or otherwise, to determine who should "make good" the loss. My guess is that the Contrctor owes a duty to the owner. In turn the "Subby" owes a duty to the contractor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tony Brunskill
Having re-read the details if the work was done by the contractor + Subby for the developer who subsequently sold on the property then there is probably no case. Caveat Emtor - Buyer Beware. On the other hand there may be guarantees or warranties that are enforceable through NHBC or similar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By bigwhistle
Im with Tony on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Joe Bloggs contract is with the person who sold him the flat. Who did what during construction is irrelevant. Suggest Joe Bloggs takes the matter up with local Trading Standards or Citizens advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Dear Daniel,
In this case there is unlikely to be a breach in tort; however, there is likely to be a breach of contract. But, the person who has the right of action is the developer and not the current owner.
Hope this helps.
Regards Adrian Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Sanders
If I'm reading situation correctly, Joe Bloggs was told of the poor plaster work and that it would be expensive to repair at the time of buying the flat, yet he still progressed the purchase.
If he had a problem with the state of the plastering he should have got it sorted or come to some agreement about it prior to purchase, if he didn't the only negligence is Joe's
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Daniel
I'm with Steve on this as it sounds as though JB brought the flat as seen. It now depends on the advice given by his solicitor at the time as to whether there is a case against that party.
If the plastering is that bad there may be recourse through the NHBC as all mortgages are normally conditional on their guarantee before mortgage issue. If a guarantee has been issued it cannot have been that far out of specification.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.