Builder overcharging vs quote given

[BSBWest]

Hi all,

 

I have an issue with some builders who carried out some groundworks for me and just looking for guidance on how I can end what has been a bit of an ordeal.

 

After viewing the architects plans and the site the quote was submitted and the builders were engaged to carry out the work. The groundwork was difficult and messy and during the poring of the concrete I could see that they were losing interest and the quality was being effected.

 

Building Control then suggested a change in the planned subfloor. The builders requoted for the new flooring and I suspected that they were overcharging to recover profit margin they had potentially lost through pouring the concrete. At this point, after a discussion on the way forward, we both agreed they would complete the concrete footings and I would then engage other builders to continue with the extension (including the new subfloor).

 

The builders submitted a breakdown of costs so we could agree on what they would complete (and the cost of this) and what they wouldn’t complete (and the cost of this). It appeared fair. To accommodate the change suggested by Building Control, the builders did carry out some additional work (2x 5m long footings) which I was happy for them to do.

 

I knew roughly what the cost would be based on our conversation at the time, but I did ask for it to be put in a quote. They subsequently completed the additional work before submitting the quote. They completed the work before giving me the quote as they wanted to offload the plant (excavator) and it was a relatively straight forward task so it was done in a day. I estimate it at c.£1700 based on knowing the time they took and the materials used.

 

On completion of all their work they have now submitted a final bill which includes “additional costs” to the tune of £5805. The work they are invoicing at £5805 includes additional time and material not only for the work I described above, but also for labour and material needed to complete the concrete footings that were part of the original job – they have described this as such in their email.

 

The builder has told me that the footings took longer, they had to dig more than they expected and that they ended up using more concrete. I was out the country when the final work was done and I had no conversation about paying extra at the time.

 

I am concerned that since the relationship has broken down (the company owner has been threatening when I complained about some poor work they left), they have said that should I contest the additional charges they will find more additional costs to add to the bill! I don’t want to get into a tit-for-tat argument with them.

 

My additional concern is that the quote I have from them, clearly states “quote” on the letter head content and has a quote number. The email it arrived on it was generated from one of these auto-generators (https://invoice.2go.com/) and the auto generated email subject states “estimate”. Is this potentially a grey area that could lead them to dispute the quote?

 

Many thanks for your help in advance.

[BankFodder]

Firstly, I am not certain that the fact that it has been headed quotation has any particular status in law .

 

It should be taken on the basis of guidance rather than a firm rule, in my view.

 

I am only looking at this from a telephone and it is difficult to follow your very long solid blocks of text .

Do I gather that the price quotation was not given to you until the work had actually been completed?

 

[unclebulgaria67]

Overall building work costs can increase, as additional costs are found during the progress of the works.

 

Best course of action is to employ someone to work out whether what is being charged is reasonable and that works have been completed to a satisfactory level.   What about speaking to the architects to see if they would recommend anyone. If this could end up in court, you need someone professionally qualified to provide a report.

[BSBWest]

5 hours ago, BankFodder said:

Firstly, I am not certain that the fact that it has been headed quotation has any particular status in law .

 

It should be taken on the basis of guidance rather than a firm rule, in my view.

 

I am only looking at this from a telephone and it is difficult to follow your very long solid blocks of text .

Do I gather that the price quotation was not given to you until the work had actually been completed?

 

Hi, 

 

Thanks for the feedback.

 

You comment on the status of the work "quotation" and I mentioned this point as several sources seem to indicate that estimates are a rough idea of price whereas quotes are binding and form the basis of a contract/agreement.

 

They were not the cheapest but reassured me that they would ensure the work was carried out in line with the quote. They were therefore specific in the quote as to what work it did and did not cover. 

 

My main driver for going with them was reassurance that I knew the cost of the work.

 

The quote was given to me in advance of the work following a review of the drawings and two site visits. 

 

The part about the quote not being received, was for a piece of additional work they carried out that I knew about.

 

The issue I have is that they have added costs for "additional work" which was not additional but just harder than they anticipated when quoting.

 

I hope that clears it up a little.

 

Mark.

[BSBWest]

3 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

Overall building work costs can increase, as additional costs are found during the progress of the works.

 

Best course of action is to employ someone to work out whether what is being charged is reasonable and that works have been completed to a satisfactory level.   What about speaking to the architects to see if they would recommend anyone. If this could end up in court, you need someone professionally qualified to provide a report.

 

Hi, 

 

I could do that. The trouble is that most of the work is in the ground so difficult to assess. However although some of their work was not great, my issue isnt with that specifically, it is with the additional charges for work that was agreed in the original quote.

 

I hope that clarifies it a little.

 

Mark.
 

[BankFodder]

It is a little more clear I think we will help you work at it.

Firstly, were you contracting on your own behalf privately or is this a trade/commercial venture?

Secondly, despite what you say, the court nowadays employs a pragmatic approach and I think that it is broadly accepted that once building work begins, there can be new developments or new understanding of the work site which could lead to extra work and unexpected increases in costs.
I think what is interesting here is that they apparently said that they would carry out the work "in line with" the original quote. Already we see an indication that the quotation is meant to be flexible and you have agreed with that.

This is not unreasonable, in my view.

A hundred years ago, the contract was everything and would have been treated as gospel. Now the courts tend to take a more reasonable and balanced view.

 

I gather that in effect there were two contracts. One for the original work which was quoted for. A second one was for the additional works which was not quoted for you to circumstances.
They have now sent you a single bill in respect of both contracts combined but I gather that the additional works are itemised on the bill and that they appear to have build you a new summer for the additional works which in fact you say had already been taken into consideration in the original quote.
If this is correct then you are saying that they are double billing you for one element of the work. Is this correct?
 

[BankFodder]

And I don't seem to find that you have given us the name of the company that you are dealing with. Is there a reason for this?

[unclebulgaria67]

Speak to the architect about this and see if they can recommend anyone to verify the costs.

 

Does not matter if most of the work is in the ground. They can conduct a survey of the site and look at all of the documents available.

 

You think you are being ripped off and you need to try to prove this is the case. This is where you need someone professionally qualified to report on this, as without proof, you are just making allegations, based on the builder wants more money than the quotes. As Bankfodder says, quotes are not necessarily a fixed position of the costs, as during building works more work may be found.  Also, in the current financial climate the builder could point to there being exceptional circumstances e.g., Inflation, war in Ukraine, supply issues following Covid.

[BSBWest]

On 26/11/2022 at 17:55, BankFodder said:

It is a little more clear I think we will help you work at it.

Firstly, were you contracting on your own behalf privately or is this a trade/commercial venture?

Secondly, despite what you say, the court nowadays employs a pragmatic approach and I think that it is broadly accepted that once building work begins, there can be new developments or new understanding of the work site which could lead to extra work and unexpected increases in costs.
I think what is interesting here is that they apparently said that they would carry out the work "in line with" the original quote. Already we see an indication that the quotation is meant to be flexible and you have agreed with that.

This is not unreasonable, in my view.

A hundred years ago, the contract was everything and would have been treated as gospel. Now the courts tend to take a more reasonable and balanced view.

 

I gather that in effect there were two contracts. One for the original work which was quoted for. A second one was for the additional works which was not quoted for you to circumstances.
They have now sent you a single bill in respect of both contracts combined but I gather that the additional works are itemised on the bill and that they appear to have build you a new summer for the additional works which in fact you say had already been taken into consideration in the original quote.
If this is correct then you are saying that they are double billing you for one element of the work. Is this correct?

So,

 

This is not a commercial venture, this is my own house that I bought and intend to move into once the work is complete.

 

"In line with" - my own words - they sold me their service based on it being complete to the price quoted. 

 

They have sent a bill which does not discriminate between the true additional work that I agreed on (but didn't receive an additional quote for), and what they consider additional work that they quoted me on (but didn't discuss an increase in price to complete). Therefore I don't know how much they are apportioning to the work that I am happy to pay for, and how much they are just wanting to recover for lost profit.

 

To answer your second reply; I don't know why I haven't mentioned them. I suppose it is because I don't see how that would help me resolve my issue at this point. My first priority is to the safety of my family. I work away a lot, they know where I live, they have been threatening over the phone. A dispute over money isnt worth the safety of my family. I am after all just trying to establish where I stand in this dispute. I could completely be in the wrong and I will just have to take that as a lesson learnt. I don't want to appear as if I am dragging them through the dirt to benefit my cause.

 

I hope you understand this second point.

[BSBWest]

4 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

Speak to the architect about this and see if they can recommend anyone to verify the costs.

 

Does not matter if most of the work is in the ground. They can conduct a survey of the site and look at all of the documents available.

 

You think you are being ripped off and you need to try to prove this is the case. This is where you need someone professionally qualified to report on this, as without proof, you are just making allegations, based on the builder wants more money than the quotes. As Bankfodder says, quotes are not necessarily a fixed position of the costs, as during building works more work may be found.  Also, in the current financial climate the builder could point to there being exceptional circumstances e.g., Inflation, war in Ukraine, supply issues following Covid.

You do raise good points although if I may address some of them.

 

The work commenced soon after the quote was given and not that long ago - the exceptional circumstances you mentioned were already in play before they quoted. None of the materials used during their work increased  in price during their work. 

 

The cause of their additional costs were attributed to; not reading the architects plans correctly and subsequently using more concrete than they had planned, having to dig down further than they expected due to the type of soil encountered (which was the same soil present when they carried two site visits) and re-digging the excavations in some areas after leaving them open for too long resulting in the side walls to collapsing.

 

The first point was accepted by the ground workers - they tried to charge me extra to cover the cost for this earlier in the work but stopped doing so when it was clear they had mis-read the design. The third point was raised by their excavator driver who couldn't understand why he had been sent to site knowing that the excavations would collapse and he would be back the following day to re-dig them out.

 

Can I ask, out of interest, if verification of costs is successful. Surely this relies on a vary prescriptive breakdown of costs from the supplier for it to be verified by a third party?

[BankFodder]

This thread is now starting to drag on with unnecessary narrative.

It's clear that you desperately want the quote to be firm and you want to base everything on that. We disagree.
We think that a quotation is reasonably fluid depending on circumstances.

However, you have suddenly disclosed one new fact which is that apparently the builders have admitted that they failed to read or to understand the original architects specification correctly.
Do you have evidence of this?

Secondly, you have now said that the builders have been making threats against you. What are the threats that they have been making and you have evidence of this?

Finally we have no idea of the value that we are talking about here.

Frankly I think we are still trying to unravel this and I think it would be helpful to know the value of the initial quotation, what is the final bill you have received and it will probably be a good idea if you posted up a copy of the final bill in PDF format.

Also post up a copy of the initial quotation in PDF format.

One thing you can be certain is that if you want to challenge anything here, then you will have to get at least one independent inspection with corroborates your position

[unclebulgaria67]

If you are as confident in your case as you express in your posts, then don't pay the additional costs amount and tell the builder in writing why you don't think they are due. And then wait to see, if they take you to court.  You could look at what dispute resolution service is available e.g. RICS and suggest this as a way of looking at the issues

 

[BSBWest]

Thanks all, 

 

I will look into getting an inspection. I have attached the initial quote and the summary which was sent by email. I suppose my main question has been answered though and I don't have the assurance assumed I had from the quote for the work.

 

 

UB Quote - groundworks.pdf summary final bill.pdf

Edited November 27, 2022 by BSBWest
attachments

[BankFodder]

If you want to get into semantics, then the word "price" would probably give you more certainty than "quote".

However, even if your discussions had referred to a price, I can imagine that a judge would still be interested in considering the fluidity of a price in a building contract where it was clear that it wasn't possible to ascertain all of the conditions until the site had been investigated.

I notice that in the documents you have supplied above, they refer to "prices" but it still seems to me to be open.

However, what is interesting is that they go on to reserve certain exclusions and they have reserved to themselves some flexibility there. That might reasonably be said to infer that all the figures above the exclusions are fixed.

I think that that gives you some leeway to argue - – the fact that they envisaged that they would be uncertainties and they refer specifically to those, thus excluding the possibility of uncertainties in the preceding part of the quotation.

The reason for the fluidity and the quotation is precisely because of the exclusions in which they have reserved flexibility.

You spoke earlier on of there being an overlap between the additional works and the items contained in the original quotation.

I haven't had the time to go through and try to identify them. Maybe you would be kind enough to do so as I am sure you are familiar with it all


 

[BankFodder]

I notice that there is about £3000 outstanding.

Are you withholding all of this or are you putting your hands up to some of it?

 

Also, I asked you if you evidence that they had not interpreted the architects and correctly – and you haven't responded.

Also, I asked you if you had evidence that you had received threats from them – and you haven't responded.

[BSBWest]

24 minutes ago, BankFodder said:

I notice that there is about £3000 outstanding.

Are you withholding all of this or are you putting your hands up to some of it?

 

Also, I asked you if you evidence that they had not interpreted the architects and correctly – and you haven't responded.

Also, I asked you if you had evidence that you had received threats from them – and you haven't responded.

 

Apologies, to hopefully answer your questions:

 

There is £3000 outstanding. I am open to paying some of it if it relates to the additional work that I agreed for them to do - however they have not disclosed how much this proportion is.

 

With regard to the misinterpretation of drawings; The drawings specified a minimum depth of concrete (600mm). On the 24.9.22 they sent me a request asking for additional money as they had assumed/planned to pour concrete to a depth of 300mm (so wanted paying for the difference). Once I emailed them pointing out the minimum depth on the drawing that they had used to provide their quote, this amount was no longer asked for.

 

No evidence of threats. It was done over the phone in reply to me asking them to correct some faulty work. It was a one off, but still not nice to receive.

 

To answer your last question on post #14 - The final summary states "additional concrete to rear legs and front" and then lists a number of spoil costs and manday costs associated to this work.

 

The work on the "front" was footings for a garage - part of the original price/quote.

 

The work for the "rear legs" are what I agreed as additional work - This is what they completed before giving me a quote so I don't know how they are apportioning the costs.

email 24.9.22.pdf

[BankFodder]

Well, I think that you should put down your concerns in writing- concisely .

Explain to them the problem that you have about the final bill.

You can do two things. You can either come up with your own calculation and give them a detailed account of how you have arrived at that figure and pay it to them immediately  And then tell them that you invite the comments as to the outstanding balance, but that you have no intention of paying anything more and they must decide up on what action to take.

 

Or else in your letter to them, having explained your concerns, you can ask them to detail their calculations and to propose a reasonable figure .

I suggest that the former approach is better

 

 

 

 

 

[BSBWest]

Ok. Thanks for that. 
 

May I ask if there was something specific in the information I sent that caused you to come to that conclusion? Earlier in the posts I felt your advice may have been that I should accept their bill. 

 

Also it felt like your view was that by calculating the costs myself, I was opening myself up to potential difficulties.  

[BankFodder]

No, I didn't say that you should accept their bill .

I think you should accept the principal that there is flexibility in building contracts.

 

However, we hadn't seen the structure of the quotation and that made me think that there was an arguable case at least in terms of the first part of the quoted work.

 

In terms of the additional work, section 15 of the supply of goods and services act 1982 says that where no price has been agreed then a reasonable price will be implied .

 

I think that this sets a good working basis.

 

The objective now is to whittle down the disputed amount to as small sum as possible .

 

This will have the effect of making them wonder whether it is economically worthwhile pursuing it.

 

If they decide to pursue it, then at least by reducing the amount to the minimum, if you lose then the costs you will incur will be far less .

 

Also, if you can show a court that you have bent over backwards to reach out and to discuss sensibly and openly with the other side then this will stand in your favour

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BSBWest]

Thankyou. Good summary and I wholly agree with what you are saying. I appreciate you taking the time to give some neutral perspective. 
 

I am nervous that if I rub them up the wrong way, they will act on their earlier threat and look to add even more costs to the final bill. Does anyone have any experience to suggest there is any substance in this statement? 

[unclebulgaria67]

Late payment fees ?  Yes they could add reasonable amount for late payment.

[BankFodder]

Do you have evidence that they threatened additional costs?

 

You should be keeping a close detailed verbatim note of all telephone calls – date, time, duration and who said what to who.

 

You should really record your calls.

Read our customer services guide

[BankFodder]

 

 

1 hour ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

Late payment fees ?  Yes they could add reasonable amount for late payment.

I have a feeling that late payment fees only apply in business to business dealings.

 

3 hours ago, BSBWest said:

I am nervous that if I rub them up the wrong way, they will act on their earlier threat and look to add even more costs to the final bill. Does anyone have any experience to suggest there is any substance in this statement? 

 

Don't be fazed by threats of this kind. If possible try to get evidence of them, record calls and make notes.

I'm not sure that late payment fees do apply to consumer contracts and so any additional costs would have to be manufactured in some way and I think that this would leave the company rather vulnerable in court if this could be proven.

[BSBWest]

9 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

Late payment fees ?  Yes they could add reasonable amount for late payment.

They were not talking about late payment fees. They were suggesting that they had been lenient with the additional costs and they would find more items to add to it.

Thanks both. 

 

Again, no I have no record. It was said over the phone when I called to ask what the additional costs relating to the work at the front of the property was for.

 

I shall have a read about recording calls as this isnt something I thought about.

 

Regards.

[BankFodder]

customer services guide