These days, with all the junk mail and offers of free interest if you take out another credit card, about 10 per cent of my mail is important.
But this day did not disappoint. There in a buff woven envelope was a request to act as an adjudicator in a case just south of Bath. Hmm! Not been to Bath for a long time, the city that is. Who, what, and why are the three questions that spring to the fore. The old conflict of interest must make sure. None? That's all right, so back went the letter with contracts, yes I will do it.
Back come the contracts, followed by the documents relating to the case. Upon reading it would appear that Window Fitter Co had really fouled up. You name it was wrong according to the report prepared by a fellow fenestration surveyor. More non-compliance with the codes of practice than a blind man fitting windows with nails and a big hammer. Frames too big, not square, fixed too close to the corners, not enough fixings, doors not lockable – in fact a complete bag of spanners. And the report said that!
Next, we are joined by the most financially carnivorous species known to man on board, yep solicitors. Now I don't have a downer on solicitors and I have several friends that have followed this particular calling. But, be honest, is there such a thing as a poor solicitor? I think it would be hard to find enough to form a queue.
Well the party is complete and it produced more paper than a paper mill in 24 hours. Nonetheless the adjudication went ahead. All was well until the householder made the statement that because the installation was so bad he just had to have it replaced immediately. On this I asked where the removed frames and glass were. Still lying in my garden, replied the householder.
On the request of both parties I duly inspected the removed frames along with the newly installed ones. At this point it became blindingly obvious that the householder was trying to claim for a Rolls Royce type replacement when he had nailed down the contractor for a much lower specification.
After much deliberation over the facts I made the decision that due to the fact that the contractor had made a mess and had been given 12 chances at remedial, admitted the faults and did not want in any way do the remedial work. I had no alternative but to find that he was liable for the cost of the contract. That bit was simple and accepted by both parties after much mumbling from the solicitors.
The extra cost of the new installation would have to be paid by the householder as he had chosen a job with a much higher spec. Not that he was pleased, but after a quick round the corner chat with his solicitor, who made this point clear, he reluctantly accepted the betterment.
And the costs? Each party paid their own costs and split the adjudication costs. So make a note, if there is a dispute and replacement is on the cards it must be like-for-like or the benefactor pays the difference as in this case. It may be a fact that in time evolution creates a situation where a like-for-like is not available. The claimant must emphatically prove this. Then, and only then, will alternative specification be not penalised in the decision.
Conservatory, or not?
One small point cropped up recently, which could cause havoc in the conservatory side:
Q: When is a conservatory not a conservatory?
A: According to a certain council planning department (in England), when it does not have a transparent or semi-transparent roof!
You see the contractor changed the spec on request. Up went brick pillars and on went a very nice slate roof. Unfortunately, ignorance is no excuse in these cases, as we all know.
The planning officer was very nice about it, but then they always are while they are mentally pushing bamboo slithers under your toenails, so to speak. I will let you know how the planning application fares in a later issue.
Source
Glass Age
