This website is a client review of building works (a small ground-floor extension as shown in the header above) carried out by Chris Deighton Builders Ltd of March, Cambridgeshire in 2013/14, including details of poor and shoddy worksmanship, waste, deadline breaches, repeated over-charging, failure to take and follow instructions, failure to follow plans and subsequent and ongoing remedial work.

Chris Deighton Builders were originally recommended by local consulting engineers, Morton & Hall and local plumber, James Harradine as the construction brief was more sensitive than usual with a single, 90-year-old lady to remain resident while the works were carried out; and her son, responsible for commissioning the work, living and working in France and only able to visit the site on an occasional basis.

Quotation. The original, inclusive quotation which was submitted on the 28.09.2013, was for £52,560.00 (VAT included). This was widely regarded as 'expensive' for the work entailed.

But within less than a week (02.09.2013), an email was received from Deighton which read, "I have relooked at plans and regs and there is a lot of underpinning to do and shore up next doors building and build up neighbouring wall. This adds £3,800 to the job so price is nearer £44,000 plus VAT."

Once again, the wider reaction was that someone claiming to be a professional builder who had apparently overlooked such basics as 'underpinning and shoring up" when preparing a quotation, beggared belief. Furthermore, these extra works were finally never undertaken - although no adjustment after payment was offered, either.

End cost. By the time Deighton submitted his final invoice on 21.03.2014 the grand total had reached £74,658.00 (£71,658.00 of invoices plus £3000 in cash) - almost £23,000 more than the original quotation - and £15,000 more than a revised 'estimate' given by Deighton mid-works for 'extras'.

PLUS a further £1000 (approx) of cash payments to other plumbers for works which Deighton and his plumber failed to complete. (While remedial plumbing work at the property is ongoing: bring boiler to correct working pressure; replace boiler pump; replace underfloor heating pump, etc, etc.)

Time factor. In addition to the cost, the work, originally estimated to take "two to three months", dragged on for almost five months causing a significant deterioration to the health of the 90-year-old occupant, inconvenience to neighbours and time, travel and opportunity losses to the client.

Resources. One man ('the' builder), a van, a cement mixer, a petrol-engined disc cutter, bricklaying tools, The Sun, thermos flask, pack-up - and as per subsequent invoicing, 'High Hopes'. Accounts.

Standards. Elements of the worksmanship were shabby, bodged and unprofessional. Departures from the plans took place regularly and without discussion, despite a watching brief by local consultant engineers and architects of the extension plans, Morton & Hall.

Deighton's Catalogue of Incompetence

Foreward. What should be remembered at all times when considering Deighton's workmanship and Morton & Hall's monitoring, is that the remit for all works was to facilitate usage by a person who was elderly, infirm and/or disabled, including confinement to a wheelchair. The following is what was actually provided.

1. Garage door.

One of the longest-standing of the extension's legacies was and remains, the garage door. At the beginning of November 2013 a manual, sliding garage door was ordered with a Deighton supplier, Fenland Garage Doors. It was emphasised repeatedly to the salesman (and Deighton) that the door should be of manual operation for ease of use and reliability.

Three months later, when the door was eventually delivered and fitted, it was an electrically and remote-controlled model which both Deighton and his supplier had decided to order instead, without discussion or consultation with the client.

Although the door was reluctantly signed off by the client, this was on the basis that its electrical operation could be over-ridden manually (in the event of a power failure, for example.) But in effect, the door could NOT be over-ridden manually from outside; and from indoors, the mode could only be altered at a height of 6 feet - clearly beyond the scope and capacity of someone who was a short, infirm 90-year-old. (Much less the operation of a small, easy-to-lose remote control which the occupant could barely hold!)

Urgent conversion to manual operation on safety grounds was requested and although the suppliers reluctantly agreed to the conversion, twelve months later, the correct replacement mechanism still hadn't been received from the manufacturer. See: Right of Reply #1 and Right of Reply #2.

2. Garage floor.

For an area which was intended - and explained - to be for leisure and storage use rather than parking a car, the concrete floor slab was of poor quality. The surface was not smooth or regular, the edges hadn't been trimmed nor filled and there were numerous impact marks.

It was assumed, (especially as Deighton had immediately blinded over the concrete with sand to hide its imperfections) that a screed would eventually be applied.

However, when the screed failed to materialise and the quality of the slab was challenged, Deighton maintained that its finish was "good".

He did not see fit however, to include his interpretation of "good" in his quotation which was of itself, a masterpiece of brevity. It could be assumed therefore that from a client's point of view, Deighton's "good" = layman's "crap".

What was particularly surprising is that hiring a concrete grinder and tidying up the floor would have taken no more than half a day. However, for Deighton, this was too much effort and expense.

3. Garage roof and roof insulation.

For the purposes of supporting a roof covering of light artificial slate, a few laths and a membrane, one could be forgiven for thinking the truss design and construction was 'over the top', utilising more wood than the hull of the HMS Victory and resulting in almost negligible, usable storage space which had been requested

However, Deighton's efforts at then insulating the roof space, were a master class in bodging.

Having refused to apply roof insulation from above the construction because it was the day before his three-week Christmas break, the only remaining solution was to finally try and stuff the uselessly-thin insulation up and between the joists, holding it in place with rapidly peeling strips of tape.

Although there was a skilled and professional carpenter on site, Deighton preferred to bodge the work himself in order (one imagines) to justify further inflated invoicing.

4. Front door.

Whereas the overall fitting of doors and windows to this extension was of a good standard (Fox Windows, March), exceptionally, the front door proved problematic.

For some reason, it was sticking quite badly immediately it was fitted and to such an extent that the bottom seal tore in two.

When the fitter returned to try and rectify the problem, his solution was to cut away the rubber seal completely without replacing it and to adjust the door height. Unfortunately, this caused the lock to stick, instead.

A third visit saw the seal replaced and the door adjusted again but at best, the solution this time was just a compromise, as the door still continued to stick albeit not as badly as before; and the lock mechanism worked albeit not smoothly.

Curiously, the fitter claimed he knew where the high point was - but did nothing about it.

Since this last visit, the sticking has persisted; plus, the door handle to the interior has now snapped off. And the new rear garage door has started to stick as well. However, see Right of Reply and Updates.

5. Hallway and hallway door.

The size of the hallway and the positioning of the hallway door, are departures from the plans. Both Deighton and Morton & Hall took it upon themselves to deviate from the original layout for reasons which remain unclear to this day. And once again, these changes were not mentioned to, nor agreed, with the client.

(Someone did suggest that the size of the shower tray eventually fitted in the adjacent bathroom was not as shown in the plans and consequently, Deighton built the bathroom/hallway party wall to accommodate the comfort zone of the plumber - his 'mate': the selfsame plumber - James Harradine - who had recommended Deighton in the first instance.)

The consequent loss of symmetry to the hallway door speaks for itself.

6. The bathroom.

The bathroom was intended to be as user-friendly for an older, infirm or disabled person as possible. In the event, it was once again a departure from the plans and riddled with poor workmanship.

• The plans showed a corner sink unit to maximise space and accessibility. A standard sink unit was fitted instead. Furthermore, waste in the bowl could only be evacuated by placing one's hand into the dirty water to depress the plug; there was no external mechanism for draining the contents of the bowl. Whereas the choice of a single lever mixer tap was totally inappropriate for someone who was elderly and infirm.
• The toilet base was not fixed to the floor in any way and rocked every time anyone sat on it.
• The shower screen was too narrow, allowing an excessive amount of water to splash out onto the floor.
• The shower mixer manifold was visibly out of horizontal.
  
  And once again, there was no client discussion or approval sought for the choices made by Deighton or his plumber.

7. Skirting.

Throughout the extension where new skirting was fitted, this has shrunk considerably as it dried out on the laminate floor covering the underfloor heating.

The gaps throughout are considered too wide to be filled with mastic as the laminate floor must be allowed to 'float' and the only professional solution would appear to be replacement with composite, rather than damp, wooden skirting as supplied by Deighton.

8. Finishing.

Although most aspects of finishing (plasterwork, painting, etc) were good, niggles remained which, given the cost of this project, were simply unacceptable.

Plastering detail between two, waist-level electrical sockets for example, was unfinished. Fiddly this may have been for the plasterer and it could also be argued that the painters and decorators could have filled this imperfection before painting. But they didn't.

Below, the fitted sink unit shows further unfinished workmanship, with the painting stopping short of a full finish up to and around the underfloor heating matrix. Which, incidentally, is a further example of plumbing without any consideration for a standard cupboard layout to follow, and shows the hole which had to be cut out in the side of the unit to accommodate the excessively offset installation.

9. The Great Cement Ridge Mystery.

During the course of the underfloor heating being screeded over, (a finish which was once again, visibly uneven) Deighton asked for a cement ridge to be applied to part of the adjoining room floor. For whatever reason.

To this day no rational explanation for this 'work' has been received. However, the ridge was sufficiently pronounced to be felt through both underlay and a thick carpet, all of which had to be subsequently uplifted for the ridge to be removed before being re-fitted again.

Departures from plans

Two building surveyors and a legal specialist were consulted after completion of the building works, as the most serious and potentially costly of the consequences of the work were the regular departures from approved plans without client consultation and approval.

One of the surveyor's reports makes the following observations:

"However, there have clearly been departures from the plans prepared by Morton Hall Consulting Ltd, the reason(s) for most, if not all, of which are not clear. 1 understand they were made without prior discussion or your (client) agreement.

In particular:

i) All drawings show the new garage abutting the gable of the neighbour's barn, with 200mm x 100mm x 8mm RHS steel posts incorporated within the new brickwork, up to eaves level of the extension, to support the barn gable.

As built, the garage stands wholly independent of the neighbour's barn, with a clear gap of approximately 200mm between the two structures. There is no evidence to suggest any steelwork has been incorporated to support the barn gable. (Editorial note. This gap also shows the building debris left behind by Deighton which he eventually 'disguised' with a covering of sand - but only after he had received a letter from the client's solicitor to clear this waste.)

I understand it was your (client) intention, at some time in the future, to introduce a connecting door between the garage and barn, which will clearly be more difficult to achieve now that the two structures are totally independent of each other.

ii) All drawings show the rear and splayed side wall of the extension being carried up to form a low parapet finished with a red engineering brick coping over a tile creasing, and enclosing a fully lead lined valley gutter. The valley gutter thus formed is shown as being drained via an internal downpipe into the eaves gutter at the front of the extension.

I suspect this rather complicated, difficult to maintain and potentially troublesome arrangement was designed to prevent encroachment onto the adjoining owner's land, as the rear wall formed the boundary between the two properties.

As built the extension is formed with a traditional eaves and gutter arrangement at both front and rear.

It is my understanding that a strip of land was purchased from the adjoining owner to facilitate the introduction of an additional door and windows in the rear elevation, which also enabled the change to a traditional overhanging eaves detail. (Editorial note: The strip of land in question was bought from the neighbour for £10,000, not so much to facilitate changes in construction detail but to avoid potential litigation after additional windows were inset into the facing wall without consultation with, or the approval of the neighbour, and after neither Deighton nor Morton & Hall, seemed to consider it necessary to even mention this potential problem. Consequently, one could add that £10,000 (plus solicitor's and administration fees) to the overall cost of the build, bringing it finally, towards £85,000.)

iii) Some room dimensions differ from those shown on the approved drawings.

The garage (on the latest drawing nurnbered H3418/02G) is shown as being 5.565m long by 4.115m wide. Site measurement shows it to be approximately 5.685m long by 3.88m wide, marginally longer but some 235mm narrower, as a result of the structure being built away from the gable wall of the neighbour's barn.

The bedroom is shown as being 3.975m long by 3.35m wide where narrowest at the front. As built the room is approximately 4.095m long by 3.28m wide at the front increasing to 3.915m at the rear. Again marginally longer by slightly narrower than as proposed.

The shower room is shown as being 2.8m wide by 1.565m deep, whereas it measures approximately 2.74m by 1.485m, slightly smaller in both dimensions.

The hallway is shown as being 1.1m wide whereas it measures approximately 1.23m.

One or two door positions are also marginally different to those shown on the drawings, as are the door swings, both those from the hall to the shower room and to the bedroom being different to what is shown

iv) The layout of the sanitary ware in the shower room is not as shown on the approved drawings.

The drawings shows an 800mm square shower tray, and the accompanying notes describe the shower as being set on a 100mm raised plinth. Adjacent to the shower is shown a close coupled wc suite and there is a corner basin.

Although a corner basin is shown, a standard wall mounted pedestal basin has been fitted. As a result the basin encroaches upon the space dedicated to the wc and adversely impacts upon the use of the wc by a wheelchair dependant occupier. The basin also restricts the space available for the fitting of grab rails and the like."

Delays

Just to remind ourselves, Deighton estimated the extension duration at between two and three months. Professional opinion estimated the build should have taken no more than six to eight weeks.

In the event, Deighton took four and a half months and even this was under protest, as neighbours became increasingly unhappy with his nuisance parking while nothing much actually seemed to be happening and effectively, more time was spent on delays than actually making progress.

What should be borne in mind is that although 'Chris Deighton Builders Ltd' suggests a firm, it is in fact, a mere bricklayer (without even a labourer on this occasion) and all other work was performed by sub-contractors - even down to the simplest of concrete shuttering and small areas of screeding.

Delay 1. Demolition and site clearance was a week late starting and took almost another week longer than originally forecast.

Delay 2. Foundations were delayed by two to three weeks when consulting engineers Morton & Hall belatedly decided to introduce additional supporting steelwork, even though the load from the new wall was inferior to that of the original wall which had not shown signs of stress or movement for over a hundred years; and the existence of identical steel reinforcement in parallel to the steelwork proposed, already present in a neighbour's extension, just one metre away.

Although the steel was a stock item, Deighton's 'mates' who were responsible for the groundwork were unavailable for a further two weeks, which meant that within the first month alone, there was already a month's delay.

Delay 3. Consequently, by the time Deighton had managed to erect the walls and the roof trusses had been secured, Christmas was looming and without a finished roof, doors or windows, the 90-year-old occupant's plans for a family reunion, were ruined. At that age, possibly her last chance of a family reunion.

However, for Deighton and his 'mates', the Christmas/New Year holiday break took, to all intents and purposes, three weeks. Even into the fourth week, no significant progress was made other than slating over the roof membrane.

Delay 4. Merging the new extension with a single room of the 'old' house - five weeks. A job which took a long weekend or 'short' week in the client's adjacent properties, ran for five weeks on this occasion, mainly for two reasons.

Another one of Deighton's 'mates' - the electrician this time - had to go to another job for over two weeks, leaving his work half-finished - and the build delayed - until he returned.

And Deighton himself took two weeks to make an opening in a brick wall for a window sized approximately 4' x 3'; then, there was a further two week delay when the window which had been ordered arrived but was the wrong size and had to be sent back. And finally, another two weeks for the replacement window to arrive and be installed.

Earlier, Deighton had thrown away (or given away to another one of his 'mates') a second-hand window of the same size, in perfect condition, which he had removed from another wall in the same room.

The consequential impact on the health and state of mind of the 90-year-old occupant as a result of these delays, the dust, the noise, inadequate draught-proofing and basic creature comforts, was considerable and unexpected hospitalisation occurred on two occasions shortly after the build was finally terminated.

Delay 5. Supply and fitting of the garage door. Four months for this delay, which was nothing more than an off-the-shelf item in Europe where the door was manufactured (Hormann) and supplied and fitted by Fenland Garage Doors.

Conclusion

Under normal circumstances, it would have been a relatively simple matter for Deighton to have been relieved of this project once problems and delays became apparent; to have found other tradesmen to have completed the work; and even to have taken matters to litigation if necessary.

However, there were two critical elements to this build which Deighton manipulated to his advantage.

Firstly, the well-being of the frail, 90-year-old occupant and the need to try and complete the works with a minimum of further delays and disruption which obviously, finding different tradesmen and engaging in a dispute would only have aggravated.

And secondly, the regular absences of the son who lived in France, who was unable to monitor progress, or the lack of it, on a permanent basis.

Consequently, the most critical element of this project as delays and costs continued to mount, was to get Deighton off the site with as much of the work completed as possible and without exacerbating a worsening situation.

This included a termination without any form of guarantee, written, verbal or implied.

Subsequent professional opinion - two chartered surveyors and a solicitor who added a further £2000 to overall costs - was unanimous. Although all parties agreed there were 'issues', the lack of specific written instructions from the client, allied to no formal complaints being made until AFTER the construction work was 'finished', were seen as key obstacles to obtaining a client-favourable judicial decision.

In addition, despite repeated and non-approved departures from the plans - which are of themselves a client's 'written instructions' - Deighton's workmanship was largely considered, nonetheless, to be of an industry acceptable standard.

From a client's point of view, on the other hand, especially one who has paid out virtually £90,000 for a project which wasn't even worth half that, Deighton isn't fit for purpose. And if his standards are 'industry acceptable' then that industry isn't fit for purpose, either.

Which would explain why even the construction sectors' trade bodies have long since given up trying to police and accredit their patch, leaving just the media to present an industry-unique series of reality television programmes dedicated to the country's national epidemic of crooks and cowboys posing as 'builders' and related 'services'.

FINALLY, within six months of the extension being 'completed', the elderly occupant could no longer cope with the slovenly and inappropriate workmanship which included the step between her bedroom and the garage falling apart and causing an accident; saddened by the fact that she could not safely use the garage area for her gardening or simply sitting under cover watching the neighbours come and go because the garage door wouldn't work as she had hoped; and left endlessly dangling for solutions to these and other problems, the decision was taken for her to quit the property altogether - after having lived there more or less, for over fifty years.

Appendix

Email threads indicating the time scales of Fenland Garage Doors responding 'immediately' to problems with their installation. And two years later, problems remain.

18.07.2014: From client to Chris Deighton. Unfortunately, whether as a result of something you may have done while putting in the step or not, the garage door repeatedly stalled when I tried to close it a little while ago.

I couldn't find any obstruction so I put it into manual and reset it and eventually, it closed. However, to ensure there are no repeats of the problem, especially with my mother trying to use the door, I have pulled the plug on the motor and the door is now completely out of service.

However, the episode confirms my aversion to an electric system and its total unsuitability as an installation for use by someone who is as infirm as my mother.

I would be grateful therefore if the installers were ready to convert the door to manual-only operation when I get back in 3-4 weeks' time and not just talk about it.

_______________________________

06.08.2014: From client to Chris Deighton. Could you just confirm that your garage door supplier is ready to convert the door to manual operation, please?

The police/emergency services are keyholders to the garage door as a second means of entry to the property but due to the door's problems, that option is currently unavailable to them.

If your door suppliers are unable to make the necessary modification, then I have had preliminary discussions with an alternative supplier who assures me they will be able to manufacture and fit a suitable replacement door at short notice.

________________________________

20.08.2014: From Chris Deighton to client. Sorry being a while coming back to you, Paul (MD of Fenland Garage Doors) is very elusive to get hold of.

If you are still in England, he can pop in this Friday morning (22nd august) to explain how this new lock will work.

He says it's will cost about £110 + vat, you can pay him and deal with him direct .

Please can you let me know ASAP if the visit Friday is possible as I need to let Paul know ASAP.

Again, sorry for any delay.

Regards

Chris

____________________________________

29.08.2014: Finally, Fenland Garage Doors' 'immediate' response to the problems of their installation fitted on 17th of February 2014. Six-and-a-half months later.

Dear Gentlemen
Its taken all week to finally get from Hormann the information (see thread below) relating to the conversion of this door to manual. Frankly I'm shocked at the costs of the various bits and although I'm happy to take the automation back and do the conversion F.O.C, I can't see there being any refund for converting to manual because as spare parts, its working out more costly.
Also note Hormann have quoted 3-4 weeks on the parts. I'm sorry about this but Hormann are a global distributor and I have not way to sway this any sooner otherwise I would do so.
I hope this is acceptable.
Paul (Arnold, MD, Fenland Garage Doors)

Updates

06.06.2016: From Fox Windows, March.

Not sure if you aware but I visited your property on Friday 3rd June 2016. I supplied a new handle which I fitted to the front door and then refitted the existing handle to the garage door. I adjusted the garage door so it now does not stick or rub on the threshold. I also made an adjustment to the front door which has helped to ease the locking of it.

Your tenant was happy with the work done and I hope you will find the same.

I have attached an invoice for the replacement handle and fitting of for your kind attention.

Regards Paul Fox

Mr Fox's modest invoice for a replacement door handle, has been paid with thanks.

___________________________________________________

06.2021: As predicted by the surveyor's report (above, 'Departures From Plans') , the valley gutter failed within 7 years of the building works being completed, necessitating an expenditure of over £3000.00 for replacement and making good. Some images below of the damage.