Cold bridge at new patio doors – sill resting on brickwork? Installer says “nothing more can be done”

[saveasteading]

It's been interesting to follow how strongly you are making this argument.

I think you are wrong, and have even started sympathising with the other party.

Reasonable care is judged by what skills they may be expected to have. In this case that would not apply to knowing all the building regs, esp as they apply to an existing property, and whether they are expected to write a long list of exclusions.

But the credit card company may decide on some other logic.

So I've no more to say.

[fandyman]

2 hours ago, saveasteading said:

It's been interesting to follow how strongly you are making this argument.

I think you are wrong, and have even started sympathising with the other party.

Reasonable care is judged by what skills they may be expected to have. In this case that would not apply to knowing all the building regs, esp as they apply to an existing property, and whether they are expected to write a long list of exclusions.

But the credit card company may decide on some other logic.

So I've no more to say.

That’s fair - we’re clearly coming at this from different perspectives.

Where I disagree is that reasonable care is limited only to what a trade chooses to concern itself with. It’s judged on the service actually provided and the outcome it creates, not on whether the installer considers certain aspects “out of scope”. I’m not expecting encyclopaedic knowledge of building regulations or retrofit design - I’m questioning whether an installation outcome that produces persistent condensation and mould under normal conditions is an acceptable result of the service supplied.

You’re right that the credit card provider may apply its own logic - which is precisely why I’m comfortable letting an independent process assess it rather than relying on forum consensus. At that point it becomes an evidence-based decision, not a matter of sympathy either way.

I appreciate the discussion - I think we’ve probably taken it as far as it can usefully go here.

[SBMS]

1 hour ago, fandyman said:

That’s fair - we’re clearly coming at this from different perspectives.

Where I disagree is that reasonable care is limited only to what a trade chooses to concern itself with. It’s judged on the service actually provided and the outcome it creates, not on whether the installer considers certain aspects “out of scope”. I’m not expecting encyclopaedic knowledge of building regulations or retrofit design - I’m questioning whether an installation outcome that produces persistent condensation and mould under normal conditions is an acceptable result of the service supplied.

You’re right that the credit card provider may apply its own logic - which is precisely why I’m comfortable letting an independent process assess it rather than relying on forum consensus. At that point it becomes an evidence-based decision, not a matter of sympathy either way.

I appreciate the discussion - I think we’ve probably taken it as far as it can usefully go here.

To round it off maybe.. I think your position is intellectually coherent, but a section 75 claim is not a forum for debating where industry responsibility ought to sit. It is about whether the installer breached their contractual duty as one would normally understand it.

 

It isn’t about whether the outcome is subjectively unacceptable, it’s about whether the installer failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in the service they actually provided. Notwithstanding the issue with poor sealing (which is unlikely to be the condensation root cause), In practice they’ll look at whether the door was installed correctly and in line with manufacturer guidance, and whether the opening and threshold construction were part of the installer’s scope or pre-existing building fabric.

 

Your industry expert will look at whether a competent door installer should have identified the sub-threshold detail as unacceptable and either refused to install or required a thermally broken support.  You’ve actually heard from a number of very experienced builders on here, a structural engineer or two and an actual industry expert that runs a door installation company. Whilst many have sympathised with you, none have agreed with your assertion and I think it likely that your industry expert will not find in your favour. I think it’s quite likely they’ll conclude the condensation risk arises from the underlying construction rather than a breach by the installer.

 

It is though, a fairly low risk approach for you to take.  Good luck and I am sure we would all be keen to hear back from you on the outcome. 

Edited 6 hours ago by SBMS

[fandyman]

1 hour ago, SBMS said:

To round it off maybe.. I think your position is intellectually coherent, but a section 75 claim is not a forum for debating where industry responsibility ought to sit. It is about whether the installer breached their contractual duty as one would normally understand it.

 

It isn’t about whether the outcome is subjectively unacceptable, it’s about whether the installer failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in the service they actually provided. Notwithstanding the issue with poor sealing (which is unlikely to be the condensation root cause), In practice they’ll look at whether the door was installed correctly and in line with manufacturer guidance, and whether the opening and threshold construction were part of the installer’s scope or pre-existing building fabric.

 

Your industry expert will look at whether a competent door installer should have identified the sub-threshold detail as unacceptable and either refused to install or required a thermally broken support.  You’ve actually heard from a number of very experienced builders on here, a structural engineer or two and an actual industry expert that runs a door installation company. Whilst many have sympathised with you, none have agreed with your assertion and I think it likely that your industry expert will not find in your favour. I think it’s quite likely they’ll conclude the condensation risk arises from the underlying construction rather than a breach by the installer.

 

It is though, a fairly low risk approach for you to take.  Good luck and I am sure we would all be keen to hear back from you on the outcome. 

I think we’re actually closer in position than it might appear - though perhaps drawing different conclusions from it.

You’re right that Section 75 isn’t a forum for debating where industry responsibility ought to sit. That’s precisely why I’m not relying on what is customary, typical, or widely tolerated in the trade, but instead on independent assessment of whether the actual outcome of the service supplied meets the standard of reasonable care and skill.

Where I part company is the suggestion that persistent condensation and mould are merely “subjectively unacceptable”. These are objectively observable outcomes, not matters of taste, and they are exactly the kinds of issues that reasonable care and skill are meant to prevent - regardless of how common a particular installation detail may be.

You’re also right that an expert will examine whether a competent installer should have identified the sub-threshold detail and either mitigated it or flagged it before installation. That question sits at the heart of the dispute, which is why speculation about how often this is overlooked in practice doesn’t really resolve it.

I appreciate the confidence expressed about how an expert might conclude. I’m comfortable letting evidence rather than expectation decide that point. If the conclusion is that the underlying fabric alone is responsible, I’ll accept it. If not, responsibility will follow accordingly.

Either way, I agree - it will be interesting to see the outcome, and I’m happy to report back once it’s determined.

Edited 5 hours ago by fandyman