A client instructed Counsel in relation to a dispute arising from roofing works carried out at their property. The client entered into a verbal agreement with a roofing company for the replacement of the roof at an agreed price of £9,800. An initial payment of £500 was made, with the parties also agreeing that the balance would be paid by instalments. The client was told that a written contract would subsequently be prepared, but no written contract was ever provided or signed.
When the works commenced, the client discovered that the works being undertaken appeared materially different from those originally agreed. The client raised concerns with the contractor and requested an explanation and evidence supporting the change in the proposed works. The contractor subsequently referred to a core sample as the basis for the change, but the client was not informed of the core sample beforehand and repeatedly requested copies of the findings without receiving them. Following further water ingress and deterioration to the property, the client instructed an alternative contractor to rectify the issues at additional expense.
The principal issue was whether the roofing company was entitled to pursue the client for the outstanding balance where the works carried out differed from those originally agreed. Counsel considered the effect of the verbal agreement and the fact that no written contract had been signed, together with the contractor’s alleged unilateral alteration of the scope of works. The client was also concerned about debt recovery correspondence threatening court proceedings and the potential impact of the dispute on their financial record.
Counsel advised that, based on the information available, the contractor appeared unlikely to have a viable cause of action for the full outstanding sum where the agreed schedule of works had been changed without the client’s agreement and the works had allegedly failed to address the underlying disrepair. The absence of a signed written contract did not necessarily mean that no contract existed, as the parties’ verbal agreement and subsequent conduct could establish contractual terms; however, the lack of written terms was relevant to establishing precisely what works had been agreed.
Counsel advised that the client had grounds to dispute the contractor’s claim and should not simply accept liability for the sum demanded. In particular, the contractor should be required to provide evidence supporting the alleged change in the scope of works, including the purported core sample findings and any documentation relied upon. In light of the threatened court proceedings and debt recovery action, Counsel advised that a substantive response should be sent setting out the basis of the dispute and rejecting the demand for payment. The matter highlights the importance of ensuring that the scope and price of building works are properly documented and that any material changes to agreed works are communicated to and accepted by the customer.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy