I am willing to wait up to one week for a response. If you find someone who is an expert on case law related to the word "damage" and the "duty of care" an NHBC inspector owes to the policy owner I would be willing to increase the offer to £100
The total of the estimates for remediation is between £60K (at the low end) and £100K (at the high end).
The foregoing figure does not include the cost of alternative accommodation whilst remedial work is carried out. We estimate the latter to be around £1K per month for approximately six months (rental of a local terrace house).
The main things I am looking for are case law in relation to the word "damage" and the NHBC in general.
In this context, the term damage is damage will begiven its normal dictionary meaning:
physical harm that impairs the value,usefulness, or normal function of something
if you Google "complained about anNHBC" you will get plenty of reading.
I can tell you that we had a client whoactually got wood flooring and the kitchen replaced by the NHBC but trust me, she was persistent. You willfind this incredible what it was because there were too many knots in the woodflooring!
I can tell you that if there is noventilation in the loft or roof void and there is moisture then you will end upwith either dry rot or wet rot.
You will have gathered that NHBC are notoriousfor trying to wriggle out of paying claims. I would therefore not be putting upwith their shenanigans for long. Fortunately, they are regulated by the FinancialServices Authority (they are basically an insurance company) which means thatyou can refer any complaint to the Financial Ombudsman. Their Customer Chartersuccinctly omits to tell you that.
The NHBC Inspector and indeed the BuildingRegulation Inspector (who also appears to have failed in his duty) both owe aduty of care to the eventual owner of the property. If they did not only dutyof care to the eventual owner of the property, then there would be absolutelyno point in them inspecting the building.
Your response seems to end prematurely -
Regarding Building Control - Whilst there are a horrendous number of regulations there are a very limited number of statutory inspections associated with the regulatory framework. Most of them relate to drainage and foundations. However if a Building Control inspector notices any deviation from the regulations, even if not covered by a statutory inspection, he can raise an enforcement order to compel the builder to sort out the problem if he declines to do so voluntarily.
Building Control have gone through their records and found they were only called to site for the statutory inspections and made note of the fact that everything was sealed up (ceilings, walls, etc) so it was impossible for them to observe any problems beyond the statutory inspections.
We are preparing our claim at the moment.
Having read of the NHBC's escapades in refusing claims we want to spend a bit of time researching the wording of our claim - we have until late next year to submit it.
I have had previous dealings with the Financial Ombudsman service and know that we cannot add any supplemental information to the claim between the time the NHBC reject it and when we submit it for review.
We wish to be reasonably certain of our legal footing before we challenge the NHBC's interpretation of the word "damage" and likely denial of any "duty of care" to the policy holders.
We believe that the manifest failure of the NHBC's inspectors to detect what are patently obvious defects when they are visible will be the strongest line of "attack" so to speak.
Because we have caught the "damage" before it has become serious we only have structure that is currently incapable of meeting its design loadings but it could be argued that this is due to the "defect" itself rather than the "damage" caused by the "defect".
We suspect the NHBC's counter argument will be the "damage" is not sufficiently significant to justify a claim as this seems to be their "standard response" to claims in the late years of policy cover.
It would be very helpful to know if there is any case law where someone took the NHBC to task in similar circumstances and won their case either on the issue of interpretation of the word "damage" or in regard to their "duty of care". This is the main reason I came to the "Just Answers" site.
I agree with all the points you make but as I am unable to answer your specific questions, I will opt out for another expert. I also note that you had been waiting for some time for an expert already which is why I was asked to look at this.
I will however, be frank and tell you that this is probably outside the remit of the questions and Answer website and would strongly suggest that you sought Counsel's opinion which would probably cost you between £500 and £1000 plus VAT.
You are into a very specialist and very specialised area of law and you are going to need a lot of expert opinion.
The fi bit of advice that I will give you is that although you may have till late next year to submit it, allow yourself at least six months leeway because there will be inevitable delays.
Hello, I am willing to wait but I have very specific questions I need answers to.
The previous answers did not provide anything new as I have already done extensive research. I am specifically interested in case law and do not have access to the on-line resources that solicitors and barristors have.
The one thing I am fairly certain about is the NHBC is going to mess us about over the word "damage" because this is clearly what they have been doing with everyone else who has published a complaint on the internet abut the NHBC.
We have quite a number of very serious "defects" which any reasonably competent NHBC inspector should have seen during the course of construction if there was a reasonably rigorous inspection regime in place.
We also believe the builder had never built a 4-story block of flats before ours and, given the negligence/incompetence of most of the hidden defects doubt that the NHBC exercised reasonable dilligence in allowing the builder to offer NHBC insurance policies. To us this is failure in their duty of care to the general public because it gave the builder commercial credibiltiy he clearly did not deserve.
There is a very cosy relationship between the NHBC and their registered builders that is, in effect, a self-regulating system designed to maximise the NHBC's profits. This is a clear commercial choice by the NHBC but it also appears to result in an unreasonable level of trust between the NHBC inspectors and the builders which is clearly not in the interest of the homeowner.
In our case we believe the NHBC manifestly failed in its "duty of care" to the policy holders by failing to carry out a reasonable level of inspections during the construction works.
What I am looking for is case law where the NHBC has lost a case in regard to legal arguments regarding "damage" and "duty of care" with particular interest in the latter.
We intend to seek QC opinion but wish to cast a wider net to the solicitors providing expert advice on Just Answer to help us provide specific instructions to the solicitor who prepares the brief to the QC.
Clearly if there is case law regarding the NHBC in similar circumstances and they lost the case it will significantly improve the chances of our claim succeeding without having to resort to legal remedies with an unpredictable outcome and the possibility of an appeal. The latter processes could easily exceed the cost of us just paying for the remedial works ourselves. Doing so would also give us a guaranteed outcome and be far less stressful.
Leave the question open until the end of the week (Friday, 5-Oct) then close it.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).