The client undertook a major refurbishment of her property and appointed a project manager to oversee the works, manage contractors and handle all payments. She paid all sums to him directly, including substantial cash payments made at his request. She believed she had signed a JCT contract, but it was later confirmed not to be a genuine JCT agreement.
The contractor’s performance deteriorated, culminating in them locking the property, demanding an unjustified £20,000 payment and abandoning the project. The client later discovered extensive defects including structural issues, damp, roof leaks, unsafe electrics, an unstable chimney stack and missing certifications. A defects report confirmed widespread failings. Both the project manager and contractor now deny liability and attempt to shift blame onto each other, the architect and the client. The client disputes these allegations and maintains that she relied entirely on the project manager, had no direct dealings with the contractor and did not issue instructions independently. She has begun compiling payment records, WhatsApp messages and work schedules. The client wishes to sell the property but is concerned that the defects and lack of certification will reduce its value.
There are significant questions regarding defective workmanship, breach of building regulations, failure to supervise, misrepresentation of the contract, and the project manager’s handling of payments. The contractor alleges late payments and unauthorised subcontractors; the client denies this and states that all subcontractors were known to the project manager. The project manager alleges client absence and interference; the client disputes this and has messages showing she repeatedly sought updates. There are evidential challenges due to cash payments and the absence of formal invoices. The architect’s role and planning documentation may also become relevant.
Counsel advised that the client must now compile a full payment schedule, cross‑referenced with correspondence and work schedules, to meet the burden of proof. A complete rectification cost must be obtained through a contractor’s estimate and structural engineer’s assessment. Once this information is assembled, counsel will issue a further, more robust letter addressing each allegation and requiring evidence, warning that proceedings will follow if responses remain inadequate. The client must decide whether to pursue adjudication, litigation or one final attempt at resolution. Insurers will become involved once a formal Letter of Claim is issued.
The client confirmed she wishes to proceed and will prepare the required documentation within ten days.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy