It was a combination of departures from the drawings, paid-for work not provided, poor site conduct and numerous defects appearing within months
We paid well over the initially agreed budget for this project, despite making very few changes to the original scope. Although the structure went up quickly, serious construction concerns and defects remain.
Our biggest concern is that the anti-heave boards specified in the technical drawings were not installed. We were not consulted or informed, and no written advice or revised design approving the change was provided. The drawings were prepared by a qualified professional who considered the clay soil and nearby trees.
The drawings also specified foundations approximately 1.8 metres deep. The builder priced the job without properly checking this requirement. Once noticed, he requested a substantial additional fee, which we paid. However, our photos and videos show that only the section presented for inspection reached approximately 1.8 metres; most of the rest appears to be about one metre deep. We were not told about this change.
The original private Building Control company became insolvent before its final inspection. The council then raised concerns, including about the foundations. A second private controller agreed to take over but stopped when our evidence did not show the anti-heave boards. The builder later helped us find a third controller and a certificate was issued. However, it does not answer our questions about the concealed foundations or workmanship.
The patio was laid without the preparation we expected and paid for. Grass and topsoil should have been removed, approximately 200mm excavated, suitable hardcore installed and compacted with machinery rather than a sledgehammer, and a geotextile membrane used instead of plastic sheeting. We paid a substantial additional fee for the extended area, built in the same way. A few tiles have already become loose, grout is missing and the side render is failing.
Other defects and unfinished items include:
- Falling ceiling plaster and a cracked corner bead.
- Uneven, bulging floors; uneven walls; and doors catching and damaging the floor.
- Gaps around door frames and poor finishing around walls and switches.
- One switch operating in the wrong position.
- Three badly misaligned fused switches, a missing socket plate and other socket mountings requiring adjustment.
- An exterior door catching its frame.
- Loose patio tiles, missing grout and failing render.
- Several promised door vents not fitted.
- A bedroom ceiling mark suggesting possible water ingress.
- A leaking O-ring on the water-heating system.
- A rainwater-pipe end removed, thrown away and not replaced.
- Wide cladding gaps and apparently missing pest mesh.
- Mice appearing in our property and upstairs after the work, despite this not happening here for over 50 years. We believe the gaps or missing mesh may be entry points, although we cannot confirm the exact route.
- Our neighbour's broken planter not replaced and promised roof cleaning not completed.
- Our pipe-joint crimper apparently leaving with the builders' equipment and not being returned, replaced or refunded.
Attendance was intermittent. During a project lasting about two months, we estimate that the team attended for around three weeks, often at weekends. It appeared our job was fitted around several other projects. In our opinion, the rushed programme and lack of continuity affected the quality.
Our neighbour witnessed two workers urinating behind the shed, which they later acknowledged. A portable toilet had been promised but was not provided during the first weeks. We also found three empty vodka bottles at the back of the site. We cannot establish who drank them or when and are not claiming anyone worked under the influence, but finding them there was concerning.
This was not ordinary cosmetic snagging. It was a combination of departures from the drawings, paid-for work not provided, poor site conduct and numerous defects appearing within months. We gave the builder an opportunity to put the items right. Based on our experience, we cannot recommend this company. If the problems are properly resolved, we will update this review