Property Condemned and Builder done a bunk

D

deroiste

Guest
Our house is 3 yrs old. We had issues cosmetically with it from the start. In the process of trying to determine the problem the builder did a bunk of sorts and left us high and dry. We have had tests and investigations done on the house and have just been told our house has major problems. The only definitive solution is to knock the house and build again. The builders insurance have washed their hands of it, saying they don't cover faulty and bad workmanship. We have paid a fortune on engineers trying to determine the problem. We have advised the bank of the issue but they are saying nothing at the moment. We can't show or say that our engineer was negligent as he was only there for mortgage sign off and no other engineer is willing to get involved to see if he was in any way negligent. The legal process is so frustrating. We have done nothing wrong and yet we have no protection. The builder is now trading under a new company - of course ltd liability again. We have a hefty mortgage. There are problems with the strength in the walls due to blocks, mortar, wall ties, roof ... can anyone give any guidance as to what to do ... maybe I should go and do what the builder attempted .. only he could no do that right either.
 
Is this a one off house? Was the builder supervised for the build?

mf
 
hi there, it is certainly a one off! Yes it is a large detatched house with separate garage and out building. The engineer/architect drew up the plans and said he would prefer to be involved in the sign off. Since problems have been determined, everybody is now covering their behinds. The engineer is saying that he was only signing off for mortgage draw down. He says he was not there to stand over each trade person, but was merely there to ensure that works were done for the bank purposes!?! The building contractor was an "always absent" foreman and contracted in the trades.
 
deroiste said:
The engineer is saying that he was only signing off for mortgage draw down.
Click to expand...
What exactly did the engineer sign? Is he a qualified, chartered engineer? Does he have professional indemnity insurance?

I don't think you're going to get much help on a problem as complex as this on the web. It's really down to the legal folks.
 
hi, engineer is qualified with prof indemnity insurance. But problem is trying to get another engineer to verify that he was negligent.

Does anyone know what the standing with the bank would or should be .. if their security is now of no value ...
 
I know of a case taken against an engineer who signed off on a house built on a former sand pit. He lost the case and his insurance had to cover the cost of demolition/removal and rebuilding of the house on another location.
 
"The building contractor was an "always absent" foreman and contracted in the trades. "



Not what the OP wants to hear but..........

There is always a risk factor whenever you decide to build your own house. You protect yourself , inasmuch as you can, by employing a reputable builder and engaging a suitable professional ( be it architect or engineer) to supervise the works. Patently, OP has taken legal advice but what is not coming through from the posts is the extent of the engineers input into the house. So, was he paid to supervise the works? Or was he simply asked to confirm ( inasmuch as a superficial, drive by inspection would confirm) that the works appeared to have been properly completed for mortgage draw down purposes. There is a world of a difference in the two. If the problems are as extensive as stated, then if there was any degree of supervision by anyone ( and you have to include the OP in this) they should have become apparent long ago.

I know that I have always wondered at people who wanted to build their own houses but who will not put the effort/ cost into professional supervision. I have recently said equally that I am horrified at the minimalist fees some engineers appear to charge for certifying works.

mf
 
OP should have no problem getting an engineer to testify against another engineer as construction problems are common-place.

First and foremost, OP needs a full analysis by an independent engineer who is also willing to act as an expert witness and has experience in doing so. OP needs to know if there was an error in design and/or supervision and/or construction. OP needs to review bank documentation signed by the engineer.

Second of all, OP needs ot issue proceedings against all possible responsible parties.

OP needs to clarify what the contractural position with the Engineer/ Architect was. What were the terms of engagement (oral or written)? What are the standard terms of engagement (works stages as per IEI / RIAI)? What are the banks terms and conditions? What was paid for? How much was paid? What expertise did the Architect/Engineer hold themselves out as having and providing? Who selected the contractor? Who assessed the contractor's skills?

OP needs to ascertain whether the builder can rely on limited liability and whether a judgment is worthwile. OP needs to know if OP can stick the builder or his company with the other parties' costs. OP needs to find out who the subcontractors were and if OP can sue them for negligence outside of contract.

In fairness to OP's engineer, he has likely notified his insurers at this stage and his main focus will be to avoid prejudicing his insurance cover (e.g., by admitting liability).

I take it there is no conflict for OP's solicitor in suing the Engineer? Small town Ireland and all that!
 
Last edited:
It is very much a case of small town Ireland. I have had to get an new engineer and he says that there is no option of pursuing the engineer ... but that will have to be hammered out more.

With original engineer/architect he was most anxious to be involved to make sure his design was built properly, but this is all verbal. Without any document saying this, then I have been told by my solicitor that we cannot pursue him. The engineer compiled build spec, had site visits, site meetings, snagging and so on. He certainly visited more times than we had mortgage drawdowns .. but in documentation he issued after the problems arose he is stating very clearly that he was only signing off for mortgage ... I have spent three years running around in circles with this fiasco.

It is so frustrating that people can hide behind limited liabilities and the like. This was our first build and even though we felt we had everything looked into and tick boxed, the building contractors insurance is not sufficient as his contractors indemnified their own works. As we did not have contract with them then we are not able to pursue them. The building contractor is now trading under a different ltd company and I am led to believe he is causing havoc all over the place .. and he is allowed walk away scot free from the mess he has left us with.

Unfortunatley due to the huge mortgage and the damned house, I can't simply wait for "what goes around to come around"!

Do we simply walk away from the house and leave the mess to the bank ... I am so loathe to be paying mortgage every month for a house that certainly is not a home.

I hate to think that the recession will have disappeared and regarless, we will have this mess hanging over us (unless the house falls down in meantime) for the rest of our lives!
 
First of all, the second engineer has no role in saying whether you can sue the former engineer. He is only there to say if he is negligent. Engineers regularly over-estimate their own understanding of the law. His job is to identify where and how the problem occured and whether all the parties exercised due skill and care.

Secondly, if it is small town stuff then maybe you need to get an engineer from a big company in Dublin. You really need somebody with experience of giving expert evidence becasue this is now a legal matter.

Thirdly, you can sue on representations made without them being in writing. Maybe you need a solicitor who is not in a small town either!

Lastly, weren't you ever able to insure this property? If you had insured it then you should have claimed against the insurance company and let them go after the builders, engineers et al.

There is a lot to your case. If you feel you are getting the run around then you should consider taking it elsewhere. It would be worth paying a good fee up front to an engineer and/or solicitor to see if they wil take it on a no foal/no fee basis after that. If there is an engineer involved and he has insurance then a Court may well decide to lay the liability on him.
 
By the way, the engineer may be a limited liability company too. Therefore you need to make your claim while he has professional indemnity insurance cover. Otherwise you could end up suing two companies with no assets! Time is of the essence.
 
"the building contractors insurance is not sufficient as his contractors indemnified their own works"

What does this mean? You should be able to sue his insurance and let his insurer pursue subcontractors who were domestic to him. If the building contract excludes responsibility for works carried out by subcontractors but doesn't provide a mechanism for you to sue the subcontractors directly and no subcontractors insurance details were provided then you need to start asking does the person who drew up the contract or reviewed it on your behalf have a problem.

It is more likely that the contractor's all risks insurance doesn't cover workmanship. In that case you need to know whether there should have been professional indemnity insurance to cover negligence which may have caused the faulty workmanship. If there wasn't any professional indemnity insurance then who was responsible for advising you of the risks? Architects and Engineers can have duties in that regard. So can solicitors. If your solicitor advised you in relation to the building contract then there could be a conflict of interest in him representing you now.
 
deroiste said:
It is very much a case of small town Ireland. I have had to get an new engineer and he says that there is no option of pursuing the engineer ... but that will have to be hammered out more.
Click to expand...
As others have said, it is not up to the engineer to decide this. What brief was given to the 2nd engineer, i.e .what was he asked to do? You really do need an engineer who is experienced in court/expert witness matters.

deroiste said:
With original engineer/architect he was most anxious to be involved to make sure his design was built properly, but this is all verbal. Without any document saying this, then I have been told by my solicitor that we cannot pursue him. The engineer compiled build spec, had site visits, site meetings, snagging and so on. He certainly visited more times than we had mortgage drawdowns .. but in documentation he issued after the problems arose he is stating very clearly that he was only signing off for mortgage ...
Click to expand...
So what exactly does it say on the documents that he signed off for the bank? Can you give us the wording?

deroiste said:
This was our first build and even though we felt we had everything looked into and tick boxed, the building contractors insurance is not sufficient as his contractors indemnified their own works. As we did not have contract with them then we are not able to pursue them. The building contractor is now trading under a different ltd company and I am led to believe he is causing havoc all over the place .. and he is allowed walk away scot free from the mess he has left us with.
Click to expand...
Just so I understand, you had a contractor with the main contractor, but not with the sub-contractors - right? Who drew up this contract? Who paid the sub-contractors?

deroiste said:
Do we simply walk away from the house and leave the mess to the bank ...
Click to expand...
It's not that simple - the bank will pursue you for the money you borrowed. Is it really fair to expect the bank to bear the loss for this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top