Extension Cost

[PTS]

Hi all,
First post here, so hoping it's in the correct place.

We've had an extension put onto house by a specialist window/door company. They came out, viewed site, designed, quoted and completed project themselves. Quoted for 5m x 3m on initial contract/invoice, and final build size is 4.6m x 3m.

They're expecting full invoice amount, despite being 8% smaller (externally, so closer to 10% smaller internally).

How much should I be expecting to pay? Consumer advice is that I'm being overcharged as it's not what was originally agreed.

I'll add more details if required, but just wanting thoughts on this.

Thanks all.

[nod]

Is the 4.6 internal floor 

and the 5 m external 

Have you questioned the difference in sizes 

 

 

[Jilly]

@Russell griffiths did you use the correct icon?

[PTS]

50 minutes ago, nod said:

Is the 4.6 internal floor 

and the 5 m external 

Have you questioned the difference in sizes 

 

 

Ah, nope, both the outside sizes. Initially spec'd at 5m, then reduced to 4.6 through what I'd describe as the architect/inspectors fault and lack of knowledge.

[Russell griffiths]

1 hour ago, Jilly said:

@Russell griffiths did you use the correct icon?

Yep. 

[Mr Punter]

47 minutes ago, PTS said:

Ah, nope, both the outside sizes. Initially spec'd at 5m, then reduced to 4.6 through what I'd describe as the architect/inspectors fault and lack of knowledge.

Did you discuss / agree this as a variation, or were you unaware?  Bear in mind if the extension is 3 sided and the 4.6 is on the end, they have done 10.6 l/m instead of 11.0 l/m of wall, so about 3.6% less.

 

Most of the costs would be the same, unless they reduced sockets, radiators, kitchen units etc.  Prelims would be the same.

 

You could use it as a lever to get a bit of paving done.

 

If you think they did a decent job, pay up.

[nod]

1 hour ago, PTS said:

Ah, nope, both the outside sizes. Initially spec'd at 5m, then reduced to 4.6 through what I'd describe as the architect/inspectors fault and lack of knowledge.

Probably isn’t that relevant 

Just for curiosity What was there reasoning behind reducing the size 

 

There costs would probably be the same So I wouldn’t go down that route 

But you haven’t got what you ordered 

[PTS]

So, size was reduced to keep a manhole accessible, then to comply with building fire regs, each losing 1x brick from the 5m length, so 2 bricks shorter. Was agreed in principle as foundations had already been dug at the larger (5m) size, then inspections required it to shrink. @nod, Agreed that I've not got what ordered, that's the reason for my questioning. Work is good, although wasn't without hickups during build.

@Mr Punter, 4.6 x 3m rectangle, from 5x3, so 8% shorter externally. This also changed roof aesthetic which includes 2x skylights, which are closer than designed.

Again, please, just looking advice, not abuse.

Edited February 11 by PTS
Calf

[Lofty718]

I don't think you have any right to withold money in this instance. Just sounds like you are looking for an excuse to reduce the final bill for something that happened early on and that there was no way around.

 

 

Edited February 11 by Lofty718

[Roundtuit]

On the basis that the additional changes and dicking about probably cost your builder* more than the marginal saving in materials, I'd suggest just paying up.

 

* 'specialist window/door company': are we talking conservatory?

[Jilly]

All building work throws curveballs, the presence of the manhole isn’t the builders fault. 

[nod]

9 hours ago, PTS said:

So, size was reduced to keep a manhole accessible, then to comply with building fire regs, each losing 1x brick from the 5m length, so 2 bricks shorter. Was agreed in principle as foundations had already been dug at the larger (5m) size, then inspections required it to shrink. @nod, Agreed that I've not got what ordered, that's the reason for my questioning. Work is good, although wasn't without hickups during build.

@Mr Punter, 4.6 x 3m rectangle, from 5x3, so 8% shorter externally. This also changed roof aesthetic which includes 2x skylights, which are closer than designed.

Again, please, just looking advice, not abuse.

I missed the bit where you received abuse If you had stated above from the beginning the answers would have been short NO you have no right to try and reduce your bill 

[torre]

It's disappointing that circumstance meant not getting exactly what was planned but ask yourself - if conditions had led to building a couple of bricks wider, would you have offered them 8% more or just thought "it's only a few bricks"?

 

It sounds like you agreed to the changes, I think you needed to re-negotiate and discuss the roof aesthetic at the time, not after the works were completed. I'd congratulate yourself on finding a company who've done good work, try to enjoy the results and not get hung up on trying to recoup what will be a very small sum at best for a lot of stress and effort

[PTS]

Thanks all, yes, this answers queries, disappointing that what was planned wasn't achievable, not a major expense for company in terms of size.

Mathematically, I was wondering if

5m x 3m = £X , what does

4.6m x 3m = £Y

Eg Y=X-£10 or Y=0.95X

But in this case Y=X, as I should have complained at the time...

Edited February 12 by PTS

[PTS]

0.95 😜

[Roundtuit]

11 hours ago, PTS said:

0.95 😜

Hope you managed to get it sorted out amicably.  So is that a 5% reduction on the quote?  Possibly with -0.5% chance of getting them back for snagging or warranty work?