DIFFERENT TOUCH LTD, Unfulfilled contract Dispute, Different Touch was engaged for a partial demolition and partial construction renovation - Disputes Register
Login Create an account
Ref: 2010
Filed: 01/03/2023

Accused Company:


File a Dispute against this company

Company number: gb-12039099

76 Omnibus Way, London, E17 4QF
United Kingdom

Allegation: Unfulfilled contract

Value: GBP 4,000.00

Dispute details:

Took full deposit for construction work but did not do any work

Different Touch was engaged for a partial demolition and partial construction renovation in a residential flat. The main tasks were kitchen and bathroom replacement. The contract was to be completed within 6 weeks. I was not in London during the period of work.

After 8 weeks, the demolition had been 80% completed, although much of the rubble was not removed from the flat. At the threat of not continuing with any work, Different Touch had coerced me into making a payment for the construction work, even though they refused to provide clear photographic evidence that the demolition was completed. After this second payment, virtually no work was done.

Different Touch began to invent excuses for why the work could not be started, seeking to blame me for any delays. All materials were on site and Different Touch had full access; there were no reasons why work coudl not proceed. It was apparaent that Different Touch had problems with readining and understanding plans and documents, and had virtually no prokject management skills.

At one stage, Different Touch were ordered by the estate managers to stop work because they were leaving rubbish in the common areas and disturbing residents. At another time, they were told to stop work because their actions caused water leaks in the flat below mine. As time went on, the works manager treated me with more and more disrespect, verbally abusing me, and refused to take any instructions or to provide information about the job. Again, I was not even in the country.

I returned to Londoin at the end of 2022 to find an uninhabitable flat full of dust and rubble, new fixtures and fittings strewn around the flat, some damaged, and piles of rubbish to be cleared filling every room. This was three weeks after the job was supposed to be fully completed.

I terminated their contract on the grounds of incompetence, theft, untrustworthiness and unwillingness to do the work they had been paid for. They are a nightmare to deal with.

So far, two momths after their contract was terminated, Different Touch has refused to refund any monies.

Attempts to resolve dispute:

Repeated requests to refund money paid for work not done have effectively been ignored, including lengthy discussions where they refuse to accept responsibility and seek to deny absolutely clear photographic evidence that the work has not been done.

Response to accusation (by accused):

FULL DEMOLITION COMPLETE ■ FIRST FIXING COMPLETE ■ INSTALTION OF KITCHEN & BARTHROOM NOT COMPLETE □ REMAINING BALANCE TO COMPLETE WORK £5,055 We exhausted our complaints procedure with Mr Ford and have been very much in communication with him. The facts of what happened at his property was he does not understand UK Regulations "Parts" and in the building trade we have to follow Regulation guidelines to minimise any potential health and safety issues. We were happy to see this job through even with the difficult nature of Mr Ford disrespectful entilted attitude. One of our major concerns was safeguarding issues with Mr Fords instructions as well as his persona and attitude, the workmen felt intimidated and continualy patronised by him. We have done everything legally and fair, Mr Ford breached our Terms & Conditions on many occasions and we still kept his job open. He did indeed cancel his job with us however it was for the reason we would not take Regulated instructions from him, Mr Ford never expressed concerns, complianed or suggested the quality of our work was unprofessional and he paid the halfway fees as he was happy with the work that was taking place. We as a company have a strict policy in terms of materials being present at the job this is to eliminate any delays. Mr Ford did not have the materials at the property at stages of need. Mr Ford continually was asserting his authority over the process of the build assuring the workmen he has 40 years expirence. We had to make a new agreement tailored specifically for Mr Ford to ensure that the job could be finished in a non- hostile environment for the workmen however Mr Ford refused to sign because he felt that it was unfair to give him less control over the method of the work being done. From that point we could no longer come to a solution for work to commence as we take UK Regulations seriously. We hope that he finds the right tradesmen to complete the work in his property and that they follow the UK Regulations.


Matthew Ford

Fitzroy , Australia