PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LTD, Poor Quality Dispute, This builder did not fulfil our contract - his work was not - Disputes Register
Login Create an account
PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LTD
Ref: 2233
Filed: 03/07/2023

Accused Company:

PHOENIX CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT LTD

File a Dispute against this company

Company number: gb-13599816
Website: pheonixcm.andrew@yahoo

14 Merchants Park, Pembroke, SA71 4HD
United Kingdom

Allegation: Poor Quality



Value: GBP 2,500,035.00


Dispute details:

This Builder did not complete the contract and the work was terrible quality

This builder did not fulfil our contract - his work was not compliant with building regulations , for example lintels were too short , floors were not level or insulated to requirements, steps unequal , half complete electrics and plumbing, paving slabs lifting, floors not repaired , framework not done to standard for plaster boards. Most work will have to be undone & redone to standard, including re doing of damp proofing, redoing of underfloor heating, taking out and refitting of bifold doors due to new lintels needed and unlevel floors and no damp proof under door lintel . He claims to be in financial difficulty, he has made constant demands for more payments despite us asking him to correct defects and poor work. He has now walked off the job and will not tell us if he is a member of a trade or conciliation service. He did not follow the spec causing delays with other contractors.

Attempts to resolve dispute:

Yes, we have tried writing many letters, showing reports from building control and from surveys , he will not tell us if he is a member of a trade or conciliation service. The builder has tried to re-calulate his bill on an hourly basis ( so many hours he could have done the job twice over!)and is demanding more money. He is not making any offers to correct and bring his work to a standard. We have already over paid for this stage of completion.

Response to accusation (by accused):

We note that the dispute raised based on poor quality was raised after the fact that the client received an invoice for additional works. We also note that we requested a meeting in December whereby we informed our client of the financial difficulty we are incurring as a result of their special contractor delaying us along with works that we had not quoted for. The client had the opportunity to terminate the contract but was happy to continue. Further on site meeting took pace when we encountered further delays and at no point did we receive any informal or formal complaint about our quality, in fact our client had further instructed us to commence a new patio for them whilst the works in side could not progress. We even purchased the additional items for them at trade cost for them to save more money and would add that there was no breakdown or dispute at this time. We could not continue the works as we had run out of funds and after seeking legal advise it could not be viable to sustain our employees knowing our client was not prepared to pay anymore money. After providing a full breakdown of additional works and our delays we informed the client that the money that we had received was way short of our spend. It was only after this point that the client had then started to quote poor quality, this being the very first time, and whilst they engaged an engineer they had failed to notify the appropriate building regulations expecting ourselves to act on their behalf. We explained that any work in progress could be criticised but we followed fullbguidanie and offered full advice to our client on every aspect but it was clear they did not have the funding to complete the works. We have put in writing on many occasions to enter into an agreement or settlement at the same time still waiting acknowledgement of these extra items, and the only response we have is a refusal asking us to return at more cost to ourselves. We also acknowledge the fact that we had arranged for a team of subcontractors to engage directly with our client whereby she could pay them directly and we would reduce our bill accordingly to assist, and again our client refused. The original contract value was circa £45k which we reduced to £38k following omissions of work the client requested, our costs to date are £51k as a result of extra work and a 9-week delay, and having explained rising costs the client only paid £32k so we could not continue. We estimated to complete the remaining works at circa £20k so are shocked by the valuation from Mrs Bowman of such an high valuation. I would further add that all purchased materials were also left at the property by way of a further gesture. Even up to our last correspondence we were still prepared to enter into an agreement but the client seems to forget these facts that have been raised on more than one occasion. We are now in the process of seeking insolvency as a result of being unable to pay our suppliers/creditors and we have informed them that this outstanding debt will likely form part of the insolvency arrangement.





Complainant:

Ruth Bowman

Haverfordwest , United Kingdom