Damage classification
- Thread starter pipbl
- Start date
Sponsored Links
I completely agree with Noseall,s last post as regards the Builder is responsible and should sort this out.
For my sins, I compile shall we say several Insurance Claims per week / day, to repair Escapes of Water, Fire Damage Etc. when I formulate a repair Spec for any room or space I will add an item for full protection by adding an item to totally cover the entire floor area with Hardboard that has all edges taped. the so called Protection item is the first item I put in every room that is being worked on.
If the repair Contractor does not use hardboard and taped joints, then any damage to the flooring, no matter what type of floor it is, then the Contractor is clearly responsible.
In larger contracts, where a tender is involved, there is a Mandatory item for what the Standard Method of Measurement calls "Protection" the protection can take any form from Dust sheets to plywood fitted over floors and at times walls, the basic premise is that the areas of the property not being worked on must be protected from any damage by work being undertaken in the immediately surrounding areas.
Kicker in the tail is that should the Contractor fail to install the so called protection, no matter what form the Protection takes, and then some damage occurs to shall we say in the context of this post some parquet flooring, then clearly the Contractor is fully and totally responsible to have any damage made good to the satisfaction of the customer.
Likewise if damage has been occasioned to some parquet flooring by the Builders Sub-Contractor, then the Main Contractor is fully and totally responsible for the actions of his directly appointed Sub-Contractor, after all the main Contractor is on to a Kick-Back from the Subbie?
Bottom line?
An agent of the main contractor has occasioned damage to the property being worked on.
What else is there to say? Really!!!
Ken.
For my sins, I compile shall we say several Insurance Claims per week / day, to repair Escapes of Water, Fire Damage Etc. when I formulate a repair Spec for any room or space I will add an item for full protection by adding an item to totally cover the entire floor area with Hardboard that has all edges taped. the so called Protection item is the first item I put in every room that is being worked on.
If the repair Contractor does not use hardboard and taped joints, then any damage to the flooring, no matter what type of floor it is, then the Contractor is clearly responsible.
In larger contracts, where a tender is involved, there is a Mandatory item for what the Standard Method of Measurement calls "Protection" the protection can take any form from Dust sheets to plywood fitted over floors and at times walls, the basic premise is that the areas of the property not being worked on must be protected from any damage by work being undertaken in the immediately surrounding areas.
Kicker in the tail is that should the Contractor fail to install the so called protection, no matter what form the Protection takes, and then some damage occurs to shall we say in the context of this post some parquet flooring, then clearly the Contractor is fully and totally responsible to have any damage made good to the satisfaction of the customer.
Likewise if damage has been occasioned to some parquet flooring by the Builders Sub-Contractor, then the Main Contractor is fully and totally responsible for the actions of his directly appointed Sub-Contractor, after all the main Contractor is on to a Kick-Back from the Subbie?
Bottom line?
An agent of the main contractor has occasioned damage to the property being worked on.
What else is there to say? Really!!!
Ken.
While your post seems reasonably accurate, and pretty much mirrors what I and others have said, the excerpt above is unfair and patronising.
A "kick-back" is an unnoficial payment made from one party to another to induce the granting of, say, a contract.
In the context that we are discussing, any difference between the subbies charges, and the amount charged to the client is simply Profit, - which all companies rely upon. And has to cover, amongst other things, risk.
Whilst its being very wise after the event, I would question was this type of damage protection incorporated the original quote ? ( bet it wasnt)
My guess is that because this was high traffic area for the builders they anticipated they would clean up after the dirty work had been completed , I cannot see lumps of plaster on the floor or stairs, so my guess is that the wet plaster soaked through dust sheets that have been removed before the photos were taken.
( the customer was not living in the property whilst the work was being carried out)
The customer came home early, threw a wobbly, demanded a cleaning firm in to clean up,
the cleaning firm realised the work was in dispute and decided it was not for them , thus leaving the Customer and the builder to fight it out between themselves
Sponsored Links
In short, yes. Not sure they did put any sheets down though, they probably just scraped up the lumps as they went along. And no, nothing was discussed at the sales/design/planning stage regarding floor protection. It was all "very little disruption, you might just have to vacate the bedroom where the knock through occurs".
There is still money outstanding so this might be used as leverage when it comes to them asking for the final payment. Plus having to move out for seven weeks etc.
Main contractor should have carried out a 'risk assessment' when first considering the job. No assessment, or not considering possible damage, is, in short, negligence.
Again, a lot comes down to what the customer is prepared to pay, what the customer prioritises and time.
If the afore said boxes have all been ticked, then no excuse. We do get one sided posts so be pragmatic when reading between the lines and commenting on lax tradesmen etc.
Agree.
Note what the poster has finally said.
" there is still money outstanding so this might be used as leverage when it comes to final payment"
The contract apparently says client is responsible for floor protection (post no15), although it seems the client (OP) didn't actually read the contract/terms until after the work was carried out.
Personally I always quote to protect everything and build in a contingency for possible forseeable minor damage (plus PL insurance not that it's ever been needed). I can't imagine why any builder would want to leave that (floor protection) to the client, unless it was originally included then dropped after the client demanded a lower price (ie less work).
Insurers will pay for a whole room to be decorated when any ceiling plastering is needed because plastering always makes a mess.
Personally I always quote to protect everything and build in a contingency for possible forseeable minor damage (plus PL insurance not that it's ever been needed). I can't imagine why any builder would want to leave that (floor protection) to the client, unless it was originally included then dropped after the client demanded a lower price (ie less work).
Insurers will pay for a whole room to be decorated when any ceiling plastering is needed because plastering always makes a mess.
They seem to pay for decoration regardless, so has nothing to do with justifying a messy contractor.
I had some insurance work done, involving small areas of wall plasterwork, and 3 whole rooms were decorated.
My daughter recently had a water leak from a WC connection (3 yo house). No plasterwork, apart room a 1 foot sq area which I knocked out searching for the elusive leak. They paid for decoration to all
affected rooms
Re-read #15, and you are right. I misread the first time as NO mention of protection, so most of my comments are based on a misunderstanding
.However, any quality tradesman would still not make that mess.
True, if the existing floor was to be retained, work shouldn't have started until it was protected (or else you'd just be asking for trouble!). The plasterer's mess does look bad, but I've yet to meet one who doesn't make any mess (eg floor splatter). The stairs are new and from the same job (correct?) Pretty shocking to hand them over like that if so (albeit without knowing the details of the contract/works).
Sponsored Links
