Housing Adaptation Grant Funded Defective Extension Problem

MichaelO

Registered User
Messages
8
Our family home has been destroyed as a result of a defective extension funded by the Adaptation Grant process due to water ingress because of insufficient drainage provisions and floor levels. The builder is claiming he is not responsible as the Council Inspector signed off and the Council have put their wagons in a circle saying that it is only a visual inspection.
We have had to move our elderly mother to alternative accomodation and are experiencing a shameful refusal from both the builder and the council to take any responsibility for this defective construction and upheaval to my 92 year old mother.
We have an independent engineers report that shows the appalling defects in the construction especially defects that only came to our notice when the flood drenched flooring and tiles had to be lifted and removed.
Would appreciate any advice on how to get some justice and prevent this happening to other dependant families who put their trust in a process that is funded by the tax payer and not fit for purpose.
 
Hi. That sounds awful. Looking up the conditions, it seems the onus is on the 'client' to ensure competent contractors. This is from the local authority website...
'Post Works - The Council will not be responsible for any loss or damage that the applicant may suffer as a result of defects in the works whether structural or otherwise. Applicants should be aware that any inspections of the works by staff employed by the Council or by any of the Councils agents is purely for the information of the Council to establish by visual and cursory examination that the approved works have been completed and the Council does not accept any statutory or common law duty of care to the applicant to ensure that the works have been properly constructed or free of defects. It is therefore in the applicant’s own interest to employ a suitably qualified person to oversee the works and to ensure that the works are properly constructed and free of defects.'
I think your complaint is with the contractor regardless of his views on the inspection. Good luck.
 
This has nothing to do with the Council, they are only concerned that the property qualifies for the grant based on the correct measurements re suitable for wheelchair and the access and supports in the bathroom, the Council don't actually inspect the workmanship. I have gone through this process and it never occurred to me to put any weight on the Council's approval as to the quality of the work. Did your builder come recommended? You are going to have to pursue the builder, that is the only hope.
 
Hi. That sounds awful. Looking up the conditions, it seems the onus is on the 'client' to ensure competent contractors. This is from the local authority website...
'Post Works - The Council will not be responsible for any loss or damage that the applicant may suffer as a result of defects in the works whether structural or otherwise. Applicants should be aware that any inspections of the works by staff employed by the Council or by any of the Councils agents is purely for the information of the Council to establish by visual and cursory examination that the approved works have been completed and the Council does not accept any statutory or common law duty of care to the applicant to ensure that the works have been properly constructed or free of defects. It is therefore in the applicant’s own interest to employ a suitably qualified person to oversee the works and to ensure that the works are properly constructed and free of defects.'
I think your complaint is with the contractor regardless of his views on the inspection. Good luck.
Thank You for you help
 
This has nothing to do with the Council, they are only concerned that the property qualifies for the grant based on the correct measurements re suitable for wheelchair and the access and supports in the bathroom, the Council don't actually inspect the workmanship. I have gone through this process and it never occurred to me to put any weight on the Council's approval as to the quality of the work. Did your builder come recommended? You are going to have to pursue the builder, that is the only hope.
Appreciate your help thank you
 
Looking at what is being said - and you need to confirm it - let us assume that the folk providing the grant are not certifying the quality of the work.
Then if what you say is true, your cause of action seems to be along the lines of both negligence and or breach of contract using materials not fit for purpose etc.

First:

- What exactly you contracted for - is it in writing? It doesn't have to be but you need to establish the facts;
- You need to establish exactly what has happened
- then establish who is to blame and who contributed to it
- who has insurance
- is the builder a limited company / sole trader /

If you do this I would consult FLAC or a Solicitor because on what you have said you seem to have a cause of action
 
He will also have to decide if it's worth going after the builder. If he's a cowboy it is probably a futile exercise.

Dreadful that builders can get away with doing this kind of thing to elderly vulnerable people.
 
He will also have to decide if it's worth going after the builder. If he's a cowboy it is probably a futile exercise.

Dreadful that builders can get away with doing this kind of thing to elderly vulnerable people.
Thank you I never thought looking at some of the cowboy builder programmes on TV that it would happen to our family
 
Looking at what is being said - and you need to confirm it - let us assume that the folk providing the grant are not certifying the quality of the work.
Then if what you say is true, your cause of action seems to be along the lines of both negligence and or breach of contract using materials not fit for purpose etc.

First:

- What exactly you contracted for - is it in writing? It doesn't have to be but you need to establish the facts;
- You need to establish exactly what has happened
- then establish who is to blame and who contributed to it
- who has insurance
- is the builder a limited company / sole trader /

If you do this I would consult FLAC or a Solicitor because on what you have said you seem to have a cause of action
Thank you tried Solicitor but the builder just came back using the Council sign off to excuse any liability on his part
 
Dreadful that builders can get away with doing this kind of thing to elderly vulnerable people.
The councils should have a blacklist of builders who do shoddy work (and fail to remedy such) for grant money.
 
I always thought that the applicant or the builder had to supply appropriate tax clearance certs to the council in order for the grant to be drawn down. This would suggest that the builder may not be a cowboy but may be chancing his arm to see what he can get away with

Secondly, I also always thought that the only approvals the council gave was from an Occ Health expert as to whether or not the works were fit for purpose for the person, not as to whether or not the build met required standards.
 
You do have to supply the tax clearance certs but sure some registered builders are woeful too so that doesn't guarantee they know what they are doing.

Yes the council's main interest on inspection is that the works meet the criteria laid down for measurements re turning circle of wheelchair etc and bathroom requirements. It was a council inspector that inspected our job but I don't know what qualifications he would have had if any, all that was checked were measurements.
 
I always thought that the applicant or the builder had to supply appropriate tax clearance certs to the council in order for the grant to be drawn down. This would suggest that the builder may not be a cowboy but may be chancing his arm to see what he can get away with

Secondly, I also always thought that the only approvals the council gave was from an Occ Health expert as to whether or not the works were fit for purpose for the person, not as to whether or not the build met required standards.


thank you for your observation and Yes there was a checklist of requirements from the County Council during the process looking for a tax clearance cert for the year involved and the OHA did actively inspect the build and flag up some non compliance issues but these were disengeniously fixed like cutting the blades off the fan in the bathroom so that the unit would fit which resulted in a visual but non funtional fan. Airvents were cut half way into the surface of external wall giving the impression that they were in place but completly false impression to say the least.
I believe Builders familiar with teh County Council's light touch toothless inspection process know they can fool the system
 
You do have to supply the tax clearance certs but sure some registered builders are woeful too so that doesn't guarantee they know what they are doing.

Yes the council's main interest on inspection is that the works meet the criteria laid down for measurements re turning circle of wheelchair etc and bathroom requirements. It was a council inspector that inspected our job but I don't know what qualifications he would have had if any, all that was checked were measurements.

thank you for taking the time to view our issue. what has been a suspension of belief for us is that the County Council immediately put their wagons in a circle of defending the indefensible. Any representations by elected councillors have been warned off raising any issue of misappropriation of grant funding because the administration and inspection process is so light touch and unfit for purpose to protect elderly home owners applying for the Home Improvement Grant.
 
"It is therefore in the applicant’s own interest to employ a suitably qualified person to oversee the works and to ensure that the works are properly constructed and free of defects.'

But its your problem.

"Any representations by elected councillors have been warned off raising any issue of misappropriation of grant funding because the administration and inspection process is so light touch and unfit for purpose to protect elderly home owners applying for the Home Improvement Grant."

If you can write that impossibly wordy sentence - you should know enough that your only recourse is from the builder- you're trying to scapegoat the Council to find an easy target.

mf
 
The builder is hiding behind the Councils sign off. The Council and the Home Improvement Grant is not fit for purpose when it expects senior citizens and applicants to source independant professional stewartship of the process. The Council maintains its not accountable as it took legal advice years ago to avoid such liability. My view is that this is not what local goverment should be about, just a lazy unaccountable inefficient costly way of serving the needs of those in need of home improvement nd as a result it attracts cowboys to provide defective and dangerous work knowing they can get away with it. Yes this has been my problem and I am sorting it out no thanks to the Council or the Builder who both deserve to be held to account for their dishonesy. As for mf1 the Council fan above all I have to say is before you criticise someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticise them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes if that's not to wordy for ya.
 
" As for mf1 the Council fan above all I have to say is before you criticise someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticise them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes if that's not to wordy for ya.!

Still missing the point, I'm afraid

"your only recourse is from the builder- you're trying to scapegoat the Council to find an easy target. "

mf
 
MichaelO:


The following might be express or implied terms of the your agreement with builder:

a) That the goods supplied would be of merchantable quality.
b) That the work would be carried out with due skill, care and diligence.
c) That the Defendant has necessary skills to perform the said work
d) That the good supplied would be reasonably fit for their purpose.
e) That the works would be completed by the….
f)That the works when completed would be free from defect
etc

Your would allege:
a) FAILED to supply goods that were of merchantable quality.
b) FAILED to carry out the work with due skill, care and diligence.
c) FAILED to have necessary skills to perform the said work
d) FAILED to supply goods that were reasonably fit for their purpose.
e) FAILED to complete the works…
f) FAILED to ensure that the works when completed would be free from defect
etc

Your cause of action might be:

The Plaintiff suffered severe inconvenience, distress, loss and expense caused by the leak.
Due to the damage caused by the negligence of the defendant ...the Plaintiff incurred ...

etc

As MF1 is simply pointing out, it does not appear from what you have said that the Council did anything than see that the job was actually done as opposed to not done. It was you who agreed the work with the Builder.

My starting point for you is to go FLAC immediately with your documentation.

Your remedy lies with the Builder and his first statement to you would be to deny all responsibility. That is what MF1 is saying. The Council look remote to this from what you have said. It would be similar to your Aunt agreeing to pay for the work and she paid you after she saw the work appeared to be done. And then she is blamed by you for the negligence of the builder. There may be an element of liability if they had a panel of 'approved' builders. But you have not given enough information on this

Get going!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top