Unauthorised work - where do I stand?

Yeah it's a big call to go and not as cushy,but the company car and company house and company phone that runs 24 x7 need to be weighed up.
There was one hospital in qld that had a plastics Dr manning Ed, so never say never! Just fill a few weekends for play money!

 

What's the benefit? More screws in the roof?
Can he put more screws in my neighbours roof and send them a bill?

(Not meaning to argue, but financially interested in the possible legal argument)

Does this apply to everyone who ever gets a quote? What if I had gotten a quote for a pool? Three quotes, and three pools?

 

The locum rates aren't worth it.
I need a day of 10+ procedures, privately funded.

 

What bs.
Surely an email stating quote only is clear enough for court, he wasn't authorised to proceed.

Perhaps go to the police as he was trespassing

 

Whatever you asked the quote for. If you were not asking for any services there would be no need for a quote. Your neighbour didn't ask for the quote.

I am not siding with the tradie, just telling you what could happen.

 

He seems to have been invited onto the land so hard to argue trespass. An email asking for a quote would be evidence which could work in his favour.

 

@Bran Now from the above messages it looks like you're kinda stuffed with this, If I were in your position i'd be trying to get quotes from other people, and hoping for a cheaper one, and then trying to negotiate a lower price rather than not pay the bloke. It's not as if he's done work that wasn't needed or doesn't benefit your property.

 

Give it to the P M. There's been miscommunication between her and tradie. Let them fight it out. If she doesn't understand, speak to the manager of the agency. Let them have a meeting and see if they can come to some arrangement that suits you. Someone stuffed up and it wasn't you.

 

Here's the communications: (and thanks @Terry_w, understand you aren't siding)

Can you please arrange a roofing inspection (unless we already have

something on file) to indicate whether it is up to current standards?

I need it for insurance purposes ASAP.


PM: You did not give the go ahead to do all the work on the last quote – just clean out the leaves – still requires more work on the gutters - $400.00. Do you want me to have that done and I can ask him to mention on the invoice that the roof is OK.


We are approaching 2 months on that roofing information/inspection!


Can you please let me know the result ASAP


PM: It has been ordered – not sure if they have finished but should not be too far away – roofers are bit slow due to volume of work.


Thanks


PM: You will have to have a building inspector to verify whether it meets cyclone rating – it is an old roof and I am not sure what the specifications are. I will ask the roofer!


Can we get that done then please? Instead of the roofer if need be?


PM: Looks like the roof is not to standard – to begin with it needs extra roof screws to comply. Do you want me to arrange a quote?



Yes please -a quote for now. thanks


PM: I have attached the quote for the new screws in the roof. Thanks


I just phoned the roofer to clarify whether adding roof screws would get the roof up to the required standard. He tells me that he is currently on my roof, and is nearly finished the job! I didn't give authorisation for this, as I am waiting to hear from the insurance company as to there requirements.


Please advise where to from here


PM: I didn’t give him an order either


Wow! He is literally on the roof!!


PM: Definitely did not order the screws – Have asked roofer to submit a report stating the roof is cyclone safe. I will le t you know when we receive it. Thanks


Under whose authority did he carry out the work? If no-ones, then how and why???


I phoned DJ Roofing to clarify their quote, and was told they that were already on the job completing the work.


It was not my authority, thus I am not going to pay the invoice. I did not need this work, or necessarily require it.


I was enquiring for a quote to achieve complete compliance, with the view to discussing this with various insurance companies.


PM: I Understand that – that is why I am sending the info to see if it meets your needs.


What did the roofer say about it? Was it his mistake?


PM: Yes it is his mistake


IF this meets the insurance companies needs, AND the insurance premium reduction is then worth it, then I will happily pay. Otherwise, it is a job that I never would have gone ahead with.

 

Anyway, Ill leave it to the PM and see what happens.

 

How are you going to check if Insurance co. is happy. Seems to be the crux of the matter?

 

Let the pm fight it out, withhold the money for the work that was done without authorisation

 

They were happy, but the quote didn't come in any cheaper than my existing policy, without the improvement. I was simply going to call them and say, 'is this work going to be enough', and 'if i get it done, whats the premium'.

The company I went with (suncorp) didn't care.

 

Bran,how did this non compliant roof come to the attention of the insurance company?
Who did the roofing inspection and why was their word accepted by the insurance company?
Who verifies that the completed work is compliant?
I will repeat from my previous post,this is a massive can of worms! Insurance companies normally insure property over a telephone with no idea if it meets current compliancy or not.
We are a building inspection company and I can assure you that 99 % of Australian homes are not compliant with the Building Code of Australia ,this includes newly constructed homes .
We recently inspected a home which was constructed in 1895,how is this supposed to comply to current regulations? Australian standard 4349.1 which governs building inspections on established properties state that it is not required to meet current regulations .
If the insurance companies are setting their own agendas on certain areas of a property that they require to comply based on previous losses they have incurred then where do we,the consumer stand legally?
Can they just keep gathering data on the most common faults that occur and result in them making a loss and continually change the rules to protect their money?
Finally,can they have a property inspected after damage has been incurred and then refuse to pay out because of non compliance issues despite originally insuring the property when no inspection has been undertaken.
This is a very worrying precedence they are setting here with far reaching implications!
Terry,are they legally able to do this?

 

As far as I know, Ins companies can put into their PDS whatever they want..
They can be brutal in their decision to deny claims.. for example they can deny if damage has been contributed by a non-compliant building element (non-compliant at the time of construction). A "reasonable person" may not be aware of the defect and most likely missed in a pre-purchase building inspection. I've also seen claims denied which was damage contributed by a compliant structure, but there was a minor building defect in the workmanship. Obviously missed in a pre-purchase inspection and completely unaware to the Insured.

But there has been cases when the denial has been overturned because the Ins companies come across as heartless with their get out clauses.. e.g. a few paid out after the Ipswich floods when there was lot of upset people.

Yes, and they do. It's not economical for the Ins companies to inspect every structure and ensure compliance. Their decision is all based on what is in their PDS, which is what the Insured agrees to.. assuming they've read the PDS

 

It didn't come to their attention.
I rang, and said - hey, can I have a quote for this house please.
And it went on...
"When was it built"

"If its pre-1984, we will only insure if your roof is compliant with current codes....

Several weeks later I rang to clarify

"You need a new roof, or the adequate number of screws"

Many other companies stopped at my address. I don't know why, it's not in a flood zone

 

Bran,who conducted the inspection which passed the roof as compliant and what qualified them to be accepted by the insurance company?
Also,where the hell is it stated that a pre-1984 house has to comply with current codes?
vbplease makes some valid points,however I feel that if an insurance company are taking your money they should be conversant with what they have insured.This is unethical and inconsistent practise to say the least.
As previously stated,probably 99% of Australian homes are not compliant with BCA requirements so does this mean that the insurance companies can deny claims if profits are not as high as the fat cat bosses want?
Does this also relate to cars or maybe some poor soul being electrocuted by a product that did not comply with a standard that had just recently been introduced?
Where does it all start and end if there are no clear guidelines?