Yaffles

First update:

20 minutes with a hose on the dry roof tonight and the gaping void remains dry. No new drips (and as the insulation is no longer there and drips should be pretty immediate. We are cautiously suggesting that the roof membrane is fine.  (Insert cautious smiley face)*

second update to follow after tomorrow’s test of water on the roof light 

*though if I think about remedial work, a failed membrane would be easier to deal with (sad face)

 

Hope you find it with the Saturday test. Fingers crossed for you.

Second update:

water poured all over the roof light this morning. First in the area nearest to the problem on the inside. Nothing dripping through for 5 mins. But then we moved to the higher end of the roof light (it’s on a slope to allow the water to run off). Almost immediately the drips started. And continued for a few minutes after we turned the water off.  So we have found the problem. Now to contact the roof light people. 
 

we can’t see any solution other than to break the seal, crane out the glass, check the frame and (assuming we are tight) remove it and then check the upstands. Looks like the mastic may have failed at a different point but that the water might have run round within the frame to the low point where it then descended thorough into the roof void. 
 

so happy we have found the leak. Now the next bit begins.....

Glad you have found the leak, but I would be worried by a design that relies 100% on mastic.  It should be designed so that components overlap correctly so water runs off not in, and any mastic should be for good measure.

@Weebles

What a massive relief to find the source of the problem

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

Glad you have found the leak, but I would be worried by a design that relies 100% on mastic.  It should be designed so that components overlap correctly so water runs off not in, and any mastic should be for good measure.

 

I agree with this @ProDaveand of course we haven't quite confirmed the exact issue.  I am also not a professional designer of glazing units (though I now know a bit more than I did earlier this week .  ) But if you look at the cross section of the design it looks like this is the only reasonable possibility for how the water is getting in.  Our theory also depends on the failure of the two bits circled in red.

We don't think the water could be going up the inside of the frame (capillary action) as it is quite a way up but that could be the second option but that would require the failure of the silicon bead and whatever is next to the screw in the drawing below.

I wasn't on the roof for the install (HWMBO was, but didn't take too many photos).  The only photos we have before they lowered the glass in are here too for interest.  We wonder whether the water seeps in the outer edge, and then is funnelled round to the lower part of the frame where it deepens until it seeps over / under the blue things (?) and either down the screw thread or over the edge seal (?).  I guess we won't know anything for sure until the glass is lifted.  But we don't see how just repairing the mastic seal is going to solve the problem as there may well be damage to the insulated upstands and more.

About to email the roof light company.....

 

 

I don't like the design of that one little bit.

 

I would have expected there to be some form of gutter around the perimeter of that, with that able to drain somewhere safe, to give a safe exit for any water that does make it past the seals.

 

No doubt they will remove the glass, re seal everything and put it back, and then all will be well.   Until next time......

 

When it is off, make sure every single fixing screw hole is well sealed, that will be where it is getting into the building.  And since the framework does look to be larger than the upstand, I would talk to them about the idea of drilling safe weep holes to allow any seepage out onto the roof.

+1 to the above ^^^

 

I'd very definitely want to see weep holes to drain what amounts to a gutter all around the periphery.  Sooner or later the edge sealant will fail again, for sure.

The roof light company came out yesterday and identified the mastic as the point of failure. They stripped out the mastic, replaced it and drilled some weep holes (from which water poured out).

i asked them how they would like to proceed with our internal roof void damage. This is their response.

 

I’m glad to hear that issue was identified and solved.

 

Unfortunately warranty doesn't cover any consequential or subsequent loss, cost, injury or damage arising of any nature.

 

I am quite cross. Any advice on what to do next? They didn’t fit their roof light correctly and are now refusing to pay up for damage caused.

8 minutes ago, Weebles said:

The roof light company came out yesterday and identified the mastic as the point of failure. They stripped out the mastic, replaced it and drilled some weep holes (from which water poured out).

i asked them how they would like to proceed with our internal roof void damage. This is their response.

 

I’m glad to hear that issue was identified and solved.

 

Unfortunately warranty doesn't cover any consequential or subsequent loss, cost, injury or damage arising of any nature.

 

I am quite cross. Any advice on what to do next? They didn’t fit their roof light correctly and are now refusing to pay up for damage caused.

 

What other insurance do you have in place - have you moved to a standard buildings policy yet or are you still on self build insurance?

 

Do you have a figure for the 'make good' cost? May be worth talking to MBC now and seeing what their part would be, ditto your plasterer. You'll probably do your own painting again but get a quote anyway.

 

If you've not had BC signoff then your warranty is probably not active (although they are quite useless anyway).

 

Irrespective I think you need to take steps to establish your legal position. Do you have any legal cover in home insurance?

 

If not, you can still get a consultation with a solicitor and then kick off some legal correspondence.

We have moved to a standard policy. I’ll check terms when I get home. 

Am on it re getting quotes.

no BC sign off yet.
I feel strongly that they should deal with it. And I can’t believe they can walk away and do nothing. I am not usually vindictive but am feeling particularly pi**ed off at the moment. 

@Weebles A quick read of the supplier's standard terms on their website does not mention "consequential or subsequent" losses, at least from a skim read. I have the link to them but not sure whether to post it here as I notice you the named the supplier, possibly deliberately.

 

Do you receive or sign any other T&C's during the purchase process that mentions consequential or subsequent loss?

1 hour ago, Dreadnaught said:

as I notice you the named the supplier, possibly deliberately.

not named on this thread I think. I have made every effort not to name them because I wasn’t sure if the source of the leak. But I think named on my other blog post. 
I wouldn’t want to name them here until they have been given a chance to rectify it. Which it appears they won’t. ☹️ 

 

will check all the paperwork tonight.

@Weebles, sorry meant to say "I have noticed you have not named the supplier". My bad typing.

 

Makes sense. Hope it works out well for you. As I say, I don't see any limitation on consequential loss in their standard T&Cs (from a quick read).

I have heard that clause before but is it legal? Especially this day and age where you need insurance to do anything. What's it all for 

 

Well this was a long cup of coffee...

 

On ‎12‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 11:49, Weebles said:

Unfortunately warranty doesn't cover any consequential or subsequent loss, cost, injury or damage arising of any nature.

 

It's common to try and exclude consequential loss but my understanding is it may only be enforceable with business customers unless the contract was specifically negotiated with you rather then being standard T&Cs. I believe you, being a "consumer customer", also have statutory rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in that excluding consequential loss probably amounts to an unfair contract.

 

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/somethings-gone-wrong-with-a-purchase/claim-compensation-if-an-item-or-product-causes-damage/

 

Quote

If an item causes damage to your property through no fault of your own, you may have a legal right to claim compensation (also known as claiming ‘damages’). For example, you may be able to claim compensation if your washing machine starts leaking and damages your kitchen floor.

 

https://www.consumercouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-09/A_Guide_To_Consumer_Law_for_Businesses.PDF

 

Quote

Consequential loss If the consumer suffers injury or damage to other goods or property as a direct result of a faulty or wrongly

described product, they may be able to make a claim. For example, if a faulty refrigerator causes the weekly food shop to go to waste. Claims for consequential loss do not normally cover distress, inconvenience or disappointment.

 

https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/~/media/files/insights/publications/2015/10/the-consumer-rights-act-how-does-it-impact-on-brand-owners/cra-article-for-consumer-brands-alert.pdf

 

Quote

The Act extends the non-exhaustive, indicative and illustrative ‘grey list’ of terms that may be regarded as unfair. Guidance from the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) says that it considers terms which exclude liability for consequential loss as potentially unfair because they have the potential, in certain circumstances, to prevent a consumer from seeking redress when it should be available.

There is a separate and distinct requirement of transparency, which will be met if a term or notice is expressed in plain and intelligible language. (A further condition of “prominence” applies to contract terms only.) CMA guidance states that, in the interests of transparency, references to terminology such as “indemnity” and “consequential loss” should be avoided – as consumers are unlikely to understand their true meaning.

 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

 

Quote

Unfair contract terms guidance Guidance on the unfair terms provisions in the Consumer Rights Act 2015

5.6.6 Consequential loss exclusions. Businesses often wish to protect them-selves from liability to pay damages for remote ‘knock-on’ consequences of breaches of contract on their part. To achieve this they commonly use terms that exclude liability for ‘consequential’ losses. The CMA considers that the use of this technical term (or the similar term ‘indirect losses’ where the same effect is produced) is potentially unfair in two separate ways.

5.6.7 First, the special legal meaning of ‘consequential loss’ is unknown to most people and very different from its ordinary meaning. Its use in standard contracts can lead to consumers thinking – and being told – that they have no claim for any loss which is a consequence of a trader’s breach of contract. In the absence of legal advice, this misunderstanding may effectively deprive them of the chance to claim any compensation at all.
5.6.8 Secondly, an exclusion of consequential loss, even if given its proper legal meaning, has the potential to stop the consumer from seeking redress in certain circumstances when it ought to be available. That is because it is liable to be understood, as a matter of law, as involving a disclaimer of liability for all losses except those which anyone could see would flow directly and naturally from the trader’s breach. It can be argued that it therefore excludes liability for less obvious risks, even if the consumer actually told the trader about them and asked him or her to take care to avoid them.

 

 

Reading on it appears they believe the exclusions of unforeseeable consequences would be ok but the exclusion of foreseeable ones would be unfair. If that gets raised I'd argue that the consequences of a leak were reasonably foreseeable by both parties!

 

Quote

5.6.10 Fairness is more likely to be achieved, for example, by excluding liability for:

(a) losses that were not foreseeable to both parties when the contract was formed;
(b) losses that were not caused by any breach on the part of the trader; and
(c) business losses, and/or losses to non-consumers

 

So looks like a pretty certain that a consequential loss exclusion is unfair when the buyer is a consumer.

 

I'd get quotes for the repairs and send them a letter asking them to pay up before you do any work. Point out that clauses in contracts with consumers which use terms like "consequential loss" are considered unfair. I believe you have to give them the opportunity to fix it before you can get it done yourself by a third party and claim compensation.  Give them a two week deadline to respond?

 

You could probably also claim for your time locating the source of the leak but I think I would just point out that that by taking action to promptly identify the source of the leak, and removing sodden insulation yourself, you have minimised the possible damage and the cost to the rooflight company. 

 

I've also been reading something about the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Directive which provides an alternative to court action. I think TrustMark is an ADR provider. Perhaps find out if the rooflight co is a member and involve them?

 

Edited March 13, 2020 by Temp

I was about to say the same thing until @Temp beat me to it. Almost all supply contracts seem to have language similar to this and it is totally unerforceable.
 

I think I quoted something similar in a post about a similar issue previously. Basically you cannot just wish away your liability for negligence by saying so in a contract. Imagine where that would leave us.

I've had a rather similar experience with a Vision AGI skylight on a flat Bauder (same as Sarnafil) roof.

If i've interpreted your earlier blog posts and pictures correctly you made your own upstand and then the skylight was fitted onto it frame first then the glass inserted.  You'll need to have been fairly hands on involved really to be able to answer the following points, but the top flat surface of your upstand needs to be really quite good in terms of its flatness in order to provide continuous full contact with the whole circumference of the skylight frame.  It also needs the roof membrane to have been lapped both up the side of the upstand AND over the full width of the top surface.  You wouldn't think this was critically important based on the supplied technical drawing but what if the frame actually does have weep holes, say where i've put a blue mark on your drawing.  For me there were weepholes not illustrated, ask the supplier.  Given the wide fitting variation of 12mm min to (103-8mm) max possible the actual whereabouts of the weepholes wouldn't necessarily sit where i've marked blue, but in this position they'd drip inside the membrane IF the membrane terminated on the vertical and didn't roll over.

If they're blaming the mastic failure, thats the easiest fix for them and the first thing they want to try before getting more 'deconstructive'.  I'd presume they've now drilled a weep hole at the lowest possible point so about where i've marked purple, on your lowest falling edge....so I've tilted the image for a fall and added a pale purple 'wedge' representing the potentially trapped water that drained out.  To form that wedge of water all mastics and gasket seals had to get breached and the wedge height reached the screw through the frame into upstand.  Maybe the screw became the leak point....otherwise the wedge would have to grow to overflow the internal edge of the frame, at which point water would escape directly behind your internal finish...can you see any staining or evidence there.

These are my thoughts anyway, hope something is useful.  Mastic was initially blamed and replaced in my case but it was not the final answer.  I actually ended up with a replacement skylight but that was in part due to a concurrent problem not relating to the leak(blown glass unit leading to condensation between panes).

My initial skylight was supply only and I made my own upstand.  The replacement (on the grounds of the blown unit) was offered supply only, leaving me with the consequential costs of removal/refitting totalling approx £1000 for me, largely due to need for crane/lifter/banksman.  They denied liability for getting the skylight onto the upstand but having ascertained the info' that @Temp has uncovered for you I persisted and so they delivered and fitted it with their own team and hydraulic lifter 'in the interests of being helpful'.  I still paid £500 for a local crane though but reserved the right to make a small claims when I have time (which will be never).  I would fully expect to win that claim as should you regarding your peripheral damage.

 

Edited March 15, 2020 by mvincentd

Wow - it has been ages since this drama began.  Lockdown has a lot to answer for.

We have finally had the first stage of our repair done.  Ceiling void re-insulated, air tight membrane replaced and sealed with air tight tape.  Thanks MBC.

We have emailed Vision AGI to request they reimburse us.  Thanks to all the replies on here I have put some hopefully suitable wording in said email.  We will see.

We aren't charging for our own time in erecting a scaffold tower (luckily we have one), breaking out our own plasterboard, taking out all the sodden insulation, identifying  and investigating the source of the leak.  And we won't charge for our efforts in re-painting the repair when it is finished.  Hopefully they will see sense and reimburse the third party costs we are incurring.......I'll keep you posted.

A story with a happy ending.  Vision AGI were receptive to paying for our third party costs and have paid up.  Plasterer in Friday to cover the hole and then we paint.  Good as new.  Thanks everyone for the support and the words for the email.  Phew.  

Great news!

 

I'm still trying to schedule my render replacement, contractor has agreed to do so 'in principal' but still trying to nail them down to a slot.

On 25/11/2020 at 18:51, Bitpipe said:

Great news!

 

I'm still trying to schedule my render replacement, contractor has agreed to do so 'in principal' but still trying to nail them down to a slot.

Wow. That’s been going on longer than our drama.  Good luck in getting them nailed down. 

11 hours ago, Weebles said:

Wow. That’s been going on longer than our drama.  Good luck in getting them nailed down. 

 

I know, called them again yesterday and the guy I've been dealing with has left but he was confident they'd stand by their commitment to resolve. Sent a long polite email to the other director with all the key events and photos summarised and now they're coming to site next week for another inspection. Anyway, didn't mean to hijack your thread! Will come visit when lockdown allows