lek28

Very helpful, all. Based on the diversity of opinions, sounds like it's not crazy that this fell through the cracks. It would have been nice if they could have been a little more professional, and figured this out by talking to each other... But we're at the end of the project, so I think this was too much for either of them ? Thanks again for the views

Very helpful, thanks. Contractor was originally going to supply the kitchen (or facilitate someone else to supply the kitchen), but after we had agreed a design and price, when it came to finalising the plans, they increased the price by £5k (unrelated to any upgrades), we threw our toys out of the pram and found our own supplier for a much better price. Contractor was (understandably) peeved at losing the margin and has made things difficult for the kitchen supplier ever since (or possibly gone out of their way not to make anything easy) which the kitchen supplier has reciprocated with various inconsiderate behaviour. Both essentially acting very unprofessionally, then throw in a personality conflict and it's been super painful!

Hello there What is standard as included within a "dry fit" installation? In particular, whose responsibility is it to fit the taps? Background is that we used a separation kitchen supplier from the main contractor we used for the rest of our major renovation (they obviously hate each other); however, the kitchen supplier only offer a "dry fit" installation, and so we paid our main contractor to do all the kitchen connections. There is now a dispute over whose responsibility it is to install the tap - each says it's the other's responsibility: contractor says they are only responsible for the plumbing (which they did), and kitchen fitter says they are not qualified to do anything touching the plumbing. Ideally it be great if I could point to whatever the industry standard is. (As a layman, I can see how it might be either way.) To complicate matters, the tap we wanted arrived after the kitchen was installed, so the kitchen fitters are no longer on site. Thanks!

Super helpful, thanks!!

Yes, they even did the planning application themselves!

We used a design and build company who has done everything including the initial 'as existing' drawings, planning applications, detailed design drawings (including window schedule), project management and construction. (We have an independent QS to keep them honest and used a separate structural engineer.) We did get planning permission before starting and have had an independent building regs firm along the way to confirm compliance. We only realised the contractual bit after the fact, but what we actually signed was a RIBA architect appointment letter, JCT homeowners contract and side letter tying it all together.

Exactly... Although their argument is they made the window longer and in a matching style to the second floor one and that the drawings/plans they did were not intended to be that accurate.

For sure on the project management piece! Is there an accepted threshold for variances that I could point to in arguing that the window is not to spec and needs to be remedied?

Yes, there were Stage 4A and 4B drawings, but these were actually identical to what was submitted to planning. The only incremental piece of (non-)information was a "Proposed Window Schedule." However, here the window was put down as S/O "As Existing" and Type as "Refurb", which was clearly an error since they did install a new window.... We never the saw the actual construction drawings where the new window with the wrong dimensions might have been included (by the D&B company).

We are in the process of renovating a Grade II listed early Victorian house, and the builders have put in a window that is the wrong size. There was previously a small window on the ground floor outrigger (approx 46cm x 70cm), and permission was granted to enlarge this to match another window on the second floor. The planning application specifically described "Replacing the window in the ground floor closet wing with a new window to match the existing window on the 2nd floor above to enhance the symmetry of the outrigger" On the plans on which planning permission and listed building consent were granted (both the proposed plans and demolition plans), the new GF window was drawn in proportion to the second floor window as intended. The second floor window is 59cm x 127cm. However, the window that was actually installed is only 46cm x 110cm. What seems to have happened is that on the 'as existing' plans (done by the D&B company), the GF window was drawn out of proportion so that it was the same width as the second floor window, so in the demolition overlay it only looks like the window needs to be lengthened rather than made wider. The D&B company's argument is that the window was never intended to be made wider and that they have made the window longer and any variations are just rounding errors. I know that there is always some acceptable level of variation versus plans, but is there a potential (credible) argument that this level of variation might be acceptable based on generally accepted construction standards? (The length is off by 13% or 17cm and the width is off by 22% or 13cm.) We have a JCR homeowners contract if that’s relevant. Thanks in advance for any thoughts/advice!

Hello everyone I am at the tail end of two-year renovation of a Grade II listed terraced house. Looking forward to getting advice from members lek28