Personal Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Home Improvement Contracts and Building works – ‘Good foundations’

Posted on December 2, 2021June 5, 2025 by Wellers

During the last year many of us have spent more time at home than ever before due to Covid-19 restrictions. Some of us have used this time as an opportunity to carry out home improvements and minor building works. Between the aftermath of Brexit and the pandemic, we have seen the inflation rise significantly and specifically an increase in the price of building materials and delays to their supply.. These unpredictable events can cause real problems for both the trader and the home-owner/customer and can lead to expensive disputes and disgruntled parties. In response to an increase in these types of enquiries, we have provided some useful tips for consumers. Traders stand to benefit from these tips too. Knowing what is important to your customer and reflecting this in your dealings could instill more consumer confidence in your business and secure more contracts.

Top Tips to avoid disputes

It seems obvious, but many of us do not spend enough time preparing for the intended home improvement project and as a result, we run into difficulty later. Before engaging a contractor or tradesperson to undertake work, we recommend you consider the following steps:

Do your Research

Check the identity of your tradespersons/contractors to confirm whom you are actually contracting with. Are they individual sole traders, partners or a limited company?
Check the trading address for the contractors to see if it is a post box or an actual address. You may be able to do this online or using an app.
Check the company’s financial status at Companies House to see whether there is likely to be any risk of the company being struck-off or going into liquidation in the future.
Search for online reviews from trustworthy sources.
Check the trader’s website, paperwork and vehicle to see if it is licensed and/or holds a current registration/ membership of a relevant Trade Association or Affiliation. Check it holds the relevant qualifications for the work. Members will usually have to comply with the organisation’s code of conduct and a breach of that code by the member could result in the member being penalised or even removed. The organisation will have its own redress scheme that may assist you in resolving any dispute. It is not unusual to find opportunists falsely using emblems associated with trade organisations, so it is important to check the membership to satisfy yourself that all is legitimate.
Ask to view examples of work. Many reputable traders arrange for customers to display their signage for marketing purposes and provide a cost incentive to the customer so potential customers can view the work carried out.
Check if the contractor has insurance backed cover to protect you in the event any accidents and/or damage arise during the works.

Quotations or Estimate

If you want the certainty of knowing what price you will have to pay, then you must ask for a ‘quotation’. This will be a fixed price for the work requested. Be sure to get this in writing and check if it has an expiry date.
An estimate is a rough indication of the likely costs to be charged and may vary.
Try to get at least three different quotes or estimates for comparison.

How are you intending to Fund the works?

If you are taking out a finance agreement to buy new windows or a new kitchen and/or to pay for the installation works, you may find that you have a contract with the finance company and not the trader. This will depend on the type of finance agreement you take out. Ask questions and read any financial information provided to you thoroughly to ensure that you understand what you are agreeing to, before signing on the dotted line.
Check whether you have a time-limit and/or a right to cancel the agreement.
If the main contract for services is conditional on you obtaining finance, then you need to make provision to withdraw from any main contract if it transpires that you cannot get the funding. Check whether any cancellation rights exist.
If you make a payment by credit or debit card, depending on the contract value, you might have added protection.

Payments

Check if you need to pay a deposit and if this is refundable.
Consider making staged payment so you only pay out an amount reflective of the actual stage of the works.
Consider having a retention clause in the contract to allow you to hold back a percentage (usually 5%) until the works are completed.

Contractor’s Standard Terms of Business

Read the full terms and conditions in the contractor’s standard Terms of Business. If the terms do not meet your needs, then consider making agreed amendments to the relevant terms and document these.
A Trader is obliged by UK law to comply with consumer protection law. Check that the clause dealing with the applicable law and jurisdiction provides that the Law of England and Wales applies.
Notice of your cancellation rights should be referred to in the Terms of Business. Your right to withdraw from a contract will differ depending on when and where you entered the contract.

Prepare a written contract and outline the key terms

It is so important to be clear what the expectations are from each party and it is even more important to document these in a written agreement so that the parties can refer back to the document to decipher what they have agreed to do at various points in the contract. Having a well-drafted contract will avoid confusion and provide certainty for all concerned. It could save money and avoid you having to pay thousands of pounds in litigation.
Key terms should make provision for most eventualities. At the very least, the contract should address and identify the following :
full names and contact details of the contracting parties;
a relevant point of contact;
a description of the works and where necessary, attach a Schedule of Works and Materials: confirm the start/finish dates and working hours;
identify who is responsible for sourcing and delivering the materials and if any planning or other services such as architectural designs or structural surveys are required, specify who is responsible for obtaining and paying for that;
outline the price of the works and when and how payment is to be made;
when and how variations are to dealt with;
identify the VAT position and outline the complaints procedure.

Our solicitors at Wellers Law Group can assist in drafting bespoke contracts to suit the particular needs of the contracting parties. They can also provide specialist advice on consumer related contracts including home improvement contracts and residential building disputes. They advise both traders and consumers on issues that arise in this specialist area of the law. Realistically, employing a solicitor may not appear to make financial sense unless it is a major project but more often than not, seeking legal advice at the earliest opportunity could be money well spent for your own peace of mind.

If you are in any doubt as to your legal rights or obligations, we strongly advise you to seek legal advice at the earliest opportunity. If you would like to speak to our Consumer Specialist Patricia Wollington in our London office please call on 020 7481 2422 or email patricia.wollington@wellerslawgroup.com.

Buying property together and the importance of clearly identifying beneficial ownership

Posted on November 24, 2021June 5, 2025 by Wellers

Whether you are partners buying your first home together or investing with family and friends in the purchase of a property, it is incredibly important that you identify how you intend to own the property from the outset. Normally, you will be asked to complete a form known as ‘TR1’. This is the transfer deed and within it, is contained a declaration of trust which identifies how the purchasers intend to own the property. Purchasers can elect to own the property jointly or as tenants in common in equal or unequal shares.

Caught up in the excitement of the transaction, purchasers can simply tick a box without understanding or giving due consideration to what they are actually ticking and agreeing.

The transfer deed will be the starting point for identifying the purchasers’ intended beneficial ownership. If either party seeks to argue otherwise, he or she will have to produce strong evidence to convince the court that what they had stated in that deed was not their true intention.

In the recent Court of Appeal case of ‘Ralph v Ralph’, Mr David Ralph (father) failed to obtain an order for rectification of a transfer deed based on common mistake.

The facts

In October 2000, David was unable to get a mortgage to buy a property and he asked his son, Dean Ralph, to assist him. Dean obtained a mortgage against the property and David paid the balance of the purchase price. The property was transferred into their joint names and box 11 of the TR1 form which deals with declarations of trust, had been ticked to indicate that the purchasers intended to own the property as tenants in common in equal shares. The TR1 form was only signed by the transferors.

The Court of Appeal considered the findings of the lower courts and found that they had been incorrect to allow the TR1 to be rectified but they accepted that the trial judge had found on the facts that there had not been a continuing common interest as to the split in the beneficial ownership of the property.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that, since the parties had not discussed their intentions at all, rectification was not possible. For rectification to be available, the parties’ needed to have discussed their intentions at the very least. In the absence of any discussion as to intention, the Court could not order rectification for common mistake.

Points to note

A party seeking rectification of a document based on common mistake needs to prove that a common intention existed between the parties for a mistake to have occurred. If the party is unable to demonstrate common intention, then the court cannot rectify the document.

This case illustrates why joint purchasers need to discuss and identify how they intend to share their beneficial interest in the property before completing the TR1 form. It is also good practice for conveyancing solicitors to check that the purchasers have understood the significance of the TR1 form and have signed it.

Upon the death or insolvency of a joint owner or following the breakdown in a relationship, many clients find themselves in protracted litigation seeking to prove their beneficial interest in a property. The solicitor instructed to advise on the purported claim to beneficial ownership, will always consider the prospects of any claim by referring back to the conveyancing file and the declaration of trust specified in the TR1. What they find will often mean the difference between a strong or weak claim.

If you need assistance

Whether or not you intend to sell your property soon or in the future, it is worth checking how and if your interests in a property have been recorded. It is better to fix any problems now by having a new declaration of trust drawn up rather than wait for a dispute to arise. If you find yourself in dispute about your interests in a property and you require legal advice or guidance in either bringing or defending a claim, please contact Patricia Wollington in our London litigation team on 020 7481 2422 or email patricia.wollington@wellerslawgroup.com or call 020 8464 4242 for our Bromley team.

Thwarted by Planners? Persistence and Legal Advice Can Still Win the Day

Posted on December 29, 2020June 10, 2025 by Wellers

Obtaining authorisation for construction projects can be extremely demanding, but a combination of persistence and the right legal advice will often win the day. In a case on point, a householder whose hopes of building a garden room were time and again thwarted by planners was finally granted his wish by the High Court.

The householder twice applied to his local authority for a certificate confirming that his proposed development was automatically permitted under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) and that formal planning permission was therefore not required. His applications were rejected on both occasions and his appeals to planning inspectors were dismissed.

His challenge to that outcome hinged on whether his plans fell within Class E of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Class E permits the provision within the curtilage of a dwelling any building which is for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of that dwelling. There was no dispute that the proposed garden room fell within that definition.

However, Class E places tight restrictions on the height and scale of new buildings. Relevant to the householder’s proposal was the requirement that the height of any structure, measured from the ground immediately adjacent to it, must not be more than three metres. Where a building is within two metres of a dwelling’s boundary, and is more than 2.5 metres in height – again measured from the immediately adjacent ground – it is also excluded from Class E.

Ground to the north of the proposed building had been excavated some years previously and the planning inspector who most recently rejected the householder’s case ruled that the height of the planned structure, measured from the existing level of immediately adjacent ground, would exceed three metres. The householder pointed out that the excavated ground would be back-filled in the course of the development. His argument that the structure’s height should be measured from the level of the ground post back-filling was, however, rejected.

Overturning the inspector’s decision, the Court found that the only sensible reading of the relevant parts of the GPDO accorded with the householder’s interpretation. Back-filling formed part of the plans he had submitted and the Court found that the building’s height should be measured from the level of the immediately adjacent ground on completion of the development. That height would be less than three metres.

The south flank of the building would abut a wall marking the property’s boundary and the inspector found that, when measured against the immediately adjoining ground – which could not be back-filled – that part of the structure would exceed 2.5 metres in height.

However, in also upholding the householder’s challenge to that ruling, the Court found that the ground immediately adjacent to the south flank should be taken as being his neighbour’s garden. That was less than 2.5 metres lower than the nearest part of the proposed building.

The Court concluded that the only correct answer to the issues raised by the case was that the proposed development fell within Class E and would thus be lawful development. The Court had no power to substitute its own decision for that of the inspector. However, it remitted the matter for reconsideration by the Welsh Ministers in accordance with its judgment.

Upset By Your Neighbours’ Building Plans? You Are Far From Powerless

Posted on November 17, 2020December 18, 2024 by Wellers

If your neighbours have obtained planning permission for building works to which you object, you may think that is the end of the matter. However, as one case strikingly showed, with the right legal advice you can still win the day.

A company obtained planning permission to build a large, six-bedroom family home on a vacant plot of land. The project, however, would breach a restrictive covenant in the plot’s title deeds which forbade construction of any substantial buildings in front of a line 50 feet away from its rear boundary. With a view to overcoming that difficulty, the company applied to the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to either discharge or modify the covenant.

A couple whose home was on adjoining land objected to the application on the basis that the height and bulk of the new house would overshadow their own. The development would harm their views, together with their sense of privacy and seclusion, and would substantially reduce the value of their property. The company retorted that the new house would have little or no effect on the couple’s amenities and enjoyment of their home.

Ruling on the case, the FTT found that, although the new house could be regarded as overbearing, its construction would represent a reasonable, even desirable, use of an empty plot. In refusing the company’s application, however, it ruled that the covenant continued to yield practical benefits of substantial value or advantage to the couple and that it should therefore remain in place, unmodified.

Construction of such a large house, much of which would encroach over the line set by the covenant, would thoroughly spoil the rural outlook from the couple’s garden and change the whole character of their property. If it were built, the couple’s privacy, particularly during the winter months, would depend on the survival and proper maintenance of a hedge over which they had no control. The FTT noted the uncertain future of any such organic barrier.

Disappointed Homebuyers Secure Six-Figure Damages From Negligent Surveyor

Posted on October 30, 2020June 10, 2025 by Wellers

One good reason why sensible homebuyers engage the services of a surveyor prior to purchase is that, if things go wrong, they at least have someone to sue. In a case on point, a couple who paid £1.2 million for a seaside home which turned out to be riddled with defects won six-figure compensation from a negligent surveyor.

The property had been largely rebuilt in the months before the couple bought it. They instructed a surveyor to conduct a non-structural inspection. He reported potential problems with drainage, rainwater pipes and gutters. In the light of his report, the purchase price was reduced from £1.24 million prior to completion.

After the couple moved in, it swiftly became apparent that the property was riddled to a remarkable extent with defects of varying severity, many if not all of which would not have been observable by a surveyor performing a non-structural survey. By far the most serious problem, however, was damp ingress.

After the couple launched professional negligence proceedings against the surveyor, the High Court noted that its task was to decide whether he fell below his normally high standards in reporting on the property’s condition. He had carried out numerous damp readings during the inspection, none of which revealed any problem.

He had, however, breached the duty he owed the couple in failing to report that he could not see visible damp proofing and that further investigations were required. He was also negligent in failing to advise the couple that they should obtain a professional consultant’s certificate in order to establish that the rebuilding works had been carried out to a satisfactory standard.

The Court found that, had the surveyor’s report contained the advice that it should have done, the couple would never have bought the property. Their damages thus stood to be calculated on an assessment of the difference in value between the property with the defects as reported by the surveyor and its value with all the defects which in fact existed.

Calculating the diminution in the property’s value by reference to the cost of demolishing and rebuilding it, the Court found that the couple were entitled to £750,000. Giving credit for sums that they had already received from third parties, the Court awarded them a total of £389,000. That included £15,000 to reflect the distress and inconvenience that they suffered.