Example Expert Witness Report in Respect of a Poorly Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom

The County Court

Dear Sir

11 Crescent, Derby, DE4

• Instruction
• To prepare an independent expert report in respect of refurbishment work to a Kitchen, bathroom and installation of a central heating system at the above.
• I have not acted for either party before.
• Qualifications
• I am Steven John Macgregor Butler, a Member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyor trading as a sole practitioner. I qualified in 1992 and have in excess of twenty years’ experience of preparing reports on property defects.
•  
• Photographs
•  
• A number of photographs of the site are attached as an appendix.
•  
• Documents
•  
• The following documents may be relevant to the matter:
•  
• Quotation for the works signed by The Claimant 24^th September 2018 and accompanying for the installation of a new hating system.
•  
• Initial list of defects sent by The Claimant.
•  
•  
• Matters complained about by The Claimant. My comments in italics.
•  
• The kitchen ceiling is not level. Photograph 1.
•  
• Use of a level confirms that the fitted units are level. As the ceiling is likely to have been replaced with plasterboards of a uniform thickness and skimmed with a few millimetre of plaster it is considered that the floor joists to which the boards are attached are unlikely to be level. This would not be unusual in a house of this age. To level the ceiling whilst fitting the boards would have been relatively easy using some plaster board adhesive to hold the boards of the joists where needed. The slope on the ceiling is slight. It is only noticeable due to the proximity kitchen units
•  
• It is a matter for the court as to whether the contractor was obligated to level the ceiling.
•  
• There is no quadrant trim on the top of the wall tiles resulting in a poor finish. Photograph 2
•  
• There is no mention of quadrants in the quotation. I cannot see why having used them on the sides of the tiles they would not also be used on the top. The top of the tiles have an unsightly finish.
•  
• There are cracks at the joints of the ceilings wall and conduits. Photograph 3
•  
• Agreed. Whist such cracks are common in any building The Claimant raised in her initial list of snags.
•  
• Screw caps are missing from the back of the units. Photograph 4
•  
• Agreed.
•  
• A nail projects through the decorative trim of the fourth wall mounted unit from the north west corner of the kitchen. Photograph 5
•  
• Agreed.
•  
• Paper is jammed in the joint of the fourth wall mounted unit. Photograph 6
•  
• Agreed.
•  
• There is a gap between the base of the fifth wall mounted unit.
•  
• Agreed. Due to poor assembly.
•  
•  The door of the fifth wall mounted unit is damaged at the corner and back. The damage is not in positions that can readily come into contact with hard objects. Photograph 7, 8 and 9
•  
• Agreed but unable to determine the cause for certain. A matter of evidence.
•  
• The decorative plinth of the fifth and sixth wall mounted unit is loose and there is a gap between the plinth and the carcass of the fifth unit. Photograph 10
•  
• Agreed. Due to poor assembly. It is suspected that the carcass is mounted high in relation to the adjacent one and that a gap was needed made to align which resulted in it not being secure. This may explain the problem on the 4^th Wall mounted unit at Point 25.
•  
• The side panels do not fit up to the cornice of units 5,6 and 7 Photographs 11, 12, 13
•  
• Agreed. It is suspected that a large panel has been cut down to size whereas the manufacture would usually supply end panels to fit the specific unit.
•  
• There is a chip on the corner of the 8^th unit (the boiler cupboard). Photograph 14
•  
• Agreed. There are no hard surfaces against which the cupboard can impact but the cause is unclear. Will be matter of evidence.
•  
• The plaster has not been skimmed at the back of the fourth base unit Photograph 15
•  
• Agreed. The Claimant states that this is the case with many other units which cannot be seen. Kitchen may have to be re-plastered if the unit are rearranged in future. The defendent argues that he only quoted to plaster 15 square metres of  the walls and that the skim is omitted in hidden to save money. A matter for the court as to what the parties agreed.
•  
• The cut outs for pipework at the back of the fourth base unit are poorly cut. Photograph 16.
•  
• Agreed.
•  
• The work surface is not properly joined above the fifth base unit. The top edge if the cupboard is damaged. Photograph 17.
•  
• Agreed. The screw used to pull the units together has no anchor in the work surface and is loose. The joint may be vulnerable to opening although there is no evidence of this at present. It would be difficult to damage the top edge of the cupboard after fitting.
•  
• Socket facia for cooker extraction hood has been fitted to an old back box. Photograph 18.
•  
• Agreed. Mr Glowaki disputes that replacing the back box was part of the contract. A matter for the court/ evidence. There is no technical/ safety need to replace the back boxes unless damaged, or for cosmetic affect.
•  
• The socket and switch facias do not match. Photograph 19.
•  
• Agreed. The defendent contracted to fit 10 new sockets and switches. There is no reason why they should not be of the same style as the fittings are not unusual and manufacturers make a wide range of fittings in each style.
•  
• A socket adjacent to the lounge door is within a cut out for door frame which is poorly finished. Photograph 20.
•  
• Agreed. Contractor is of the opinion that he was only contracted to fit a facia to the existing back box and that the door frame was in that condition. The Claimant states that the previous fitting was not as wide and cleared the door frame. A matter of evidence. Whist socket and switch plate are of similar dimensions there can be slight variations in size.
•  
•  Skirting board has detached from the wall. Photograph 21.
•  
• Agreed. Cause unclear but difficult to do without considerable force if properly bonded in the first place.
•  
• The operation of the stop tap is obstructed by boxing. Photograph 21.
•  
• Agreed. It is a matter of evidence/ contractual agreement as to whether the boxing has been altered by The defendent or was in that position before. 
•  
• The water meter projects through the boxing in an unsightly manner. Photograph 21.
•  
• Agreed. It is a matter of evidence/ contractual agreement as to whether the boxing has been altered by The defendent or whether the water meter projected before. 
•  
• A section of decorative cladding has not been fitted to the wall. Photograph 22.
•  
• Agreed but The defendent disputes that fitting it was part of the contract.
•  
• There is superficial damage to the lounge and under-stairs cupboard doors. Photographs 23 and 24.
•  
• Agreed. The parties dispute responsibility. A matter of evidence.
•  
• Paint and plaster has been carelessly applied to two window frames and a facia. Photographs 25 and 26.
•  
• Agreed. The parties dispute who is responsible. A matter of evidence.
•  
• There is a gap between the unit base and door and a plastic strip/ seal is missing from the bottom edge. Photograph 27.
•  
• Agreed. The gap is likely to be due to a sloping floor as the units and side panel come in standard sizes. The defendent claims that he advised The Claimant that the floor as not level and that a levelling compound should be applied to the floor before laying the laminate. The Claimant claims that The defendent omitted or did not lay the underlay properly.
•  
• A laminate floor board flexes and may have disconnected from the adjacent one. Photograph 28.
•  
• Agreed. The defendent claims that he advised The Claimant that the floor was not level and that a levelling compound should be applied to the floor before laying the laminate.
•  
• The laminate is chipped. Photographs 29 and 30.
•  
• Agreed but the cause is not clear. A matter of evidence although The Claimant did raise chipped laminate in her list of snags.
•  
• There is a hole in the laminate at the corner of the kitchen. Photograph 31. No underlay is visible. Plaster in the corner is uneven.
•  
• Agreed. However I am not convinced that the omission of a small area of underlay immediately adjacent to the wall is indication that it has been entirely omitted. The laminate would have to be lifted to confirm. It is a matter of evidence as to whether this corner was re-plastered by The defendent.
•  
• The laminate is badly fitted up to the lounge door frame. Photographs 32 and 33.
•  
• Agreed. The parties argue as to whether it was fitted by the claimant or whether it was already in-situ as the lounge floor appears to be of same type of laminate. It is possible that the door had a different threshold strip that was a different material to the laminate in the lounge. A matter of evidence.
•  
• The laminate board that projects into the under-stairs store is not properly supported or fitted up to the frame. Photograph 34.
•  
• Agreed.
•  
• The laminate does not extend to the full depth of the under stairs cupboard. Photograph 34.
•  
• Agreed. The parties dispute whether this was part of the contract.
•  
• Pipes in the under stairs cupboard are poorly secured and twisted. Photograph 35.
•  
• Agreed.
•  
• Part of the ceiling is damaged and crudely filled with foam. Photograph 36.
•  
• Agreed. Contractor disputes that he has done this. May be historic. A matter of evidence.
•  
• The Claimant claims that a brick wall has been removed from the rear of the under stairs cupboard. Photograph 37.
•  
• Not agreed. The rear wall of the cupboard is solid.
•  
• Plaster is uneven between the exterior door and under stairs cupboard door frame. Photograph 38.
•  
• Agreed. Contractor advises that he did not plaster in this area as it was not part of the contract. A matter of evidence/ contract. There was no particular reason for The defendent to plaster in this area.
•  
• Lounge and Hall
•  
• The Claimant claims that the pipes project un-necessarily into the lounge and that she agreed to pay £1100.00 for all heating pipes to be boxed in. Photograph 39.
•  
• Not agreed. It would be hard for to reduce the amount of exposed pipework.
•  
• Skirting board not properly replaced in the lounge. Photograph 40.
•  
• A matter of what the parties contracted for. It is not considered usual for plumber to redecorate where they have had to open up
•  
• Pipes are run on the front of the skirting board in the hall. Photograph 41.
•  
• Agreed. The Claimant claims that she paid £1100.00 for all heating pipes to be boxed in. The defendent disputes the existence of the contract. It seems that the contractor purposely did this rather than being shoddy workmanship as the pipes are run in silver for good decorative effect.
•  
•  
•  
• Cylinder cupboard.
•  
• Mrs Glowacki has added an in-line valve that is hidden below the floor boards. Photograph 42.
•  
• Not agreed. The defendent claims that the valve was in position before he started work. Considered likely as the pipe and valve show no signs of recent installation
•  
• Bathroom
•  
• Poor edging of the tiles adjacent to the bath. Photograph 43.
•  
• Agreed the gap between the edge of the tiles and bath is very variable.
•  
• Part of the bath panels are displaced which impacts on the floor tiles and part is unpainted. Photograph 44.
•  
• Agreed. Contractor argues that it was not in the contract for him to repair the bath panel and paint a part of the bath that is obscured by a hand basin cabinet even though he replaced the basin cabinet.
•  
• The tiles are uneven by the bathroom cabinet. Photograph 45.
•  
• Agreed
•  
• There is a hole in the tile in front of the bathroom cabinet. Photograph 46.
•  
• Two tiles have been damaged when drilling for pipes. Photographs 47 and 48.
•  
• Agreed.
•  
• The plaster in the corner of the bathroom is patched and not decorated. Photographs 49 and 50.
•  
• Agreed. The parties dispute who is responsible. A matter of evidence/ contract. It is not possible to tell how recently the wall which appears to suffered from condensation has been patched.
•  
• There is paint on the window frames. Photographs 51 and 52.
•  
• Agreed. The parties dispute who is responsible.
•  
• Toilet waste pipe and seal not replaced. Photograph 53.
•  
• Agreed. It is not essential to replace the seal and waste pipe when replacing the toilet. A matter as to whether the parties contracted for this.
•  
• Bedrooms
•  
•  
• There are exceptionally long runs of exposed pipe in the front bedroom. Photograph 54.
•  
• The parties dispute whether concealing the pipes under the floor or boxing them in is included in the contract. I cannot see any reason why the pipes have not been run under the floor other than to save perhaps having to saw and remove a number of floor boards. The defendent managed to run the rear bedroom radiator pipes through the floor. Photograph 55. The Claimant complains that the pipes are a burn hazard. Whilst they will get hot the radiator offers a much larger surface for somebody to burn themselves on. The long pipe runs are considered to be vulnerable to damage.
•  
• Boiler overflow
•  
• The boiler overflow is run in the wrong diameter pipe and will be vulnerable to frost which will stop the boiler working. Photograph 56
•  
• Agreed
•  
• Outside waste pipe and grille.
•  
• A ventilation grille has been damaged running the automatic washing machine pipe through it. Photograph 57
•  
• Agreed. The parties dispute responsibility.
•  
• Boiler programmer
•  
• The Claimant claims that the boiler was fitted without a time control switch or room thermostat. Now resolved.
•  
• Unable to confirm. A matter of evidence.
•  
• Boiler safety certificate/ Building Regulations
•  
• The installation of the boiler required either a building regulations application or self-certification of compliance by an approved contractor. The defendent has included a safety certificate and photograph of the boiler gas supply being pressure tested in his evidence.
•  
•  
• Electrical Safety certificate/ Regulations
•  
• The wiring in the kitchen would require either building regulation consent or signing off by a contractor approved to self-certify. The exposed cables shown in Photograph 58 are substandard
•  
• It is agreed that the cables shown in Photograph 58 are substandard. It is a matter of evidence as to whether the work was undertaken by The defendent.
•  
• It is agreed that the works in the kitchen would require building regulation consent or self-certification by an approved contractor. I have not seen any evidence of such documentation.
•  
• Disconnection of Services
•  
• The Claimant claims that she returned home in the October to find that her services had been cut off.
•  
• It is a matter of evidence as to whether the services were cut off i.e disconnected or turned off. The defendent stated that he had to leave the property to collect a child from nursery and that he had turned the services in order to work on them.
•  
• Radiator Sizing
•  
• The Claimant claims that the stairwell, landing and front bedroom radiators are undersized.
•  
• Unfortunately I am unable to locate any calculation tools that accommodate houses with concrete walls.  Although it cannot model the room shapes exactly the on-line https://www.traderadiators.com/ calculator for solid brick walls suggest that the bedroom radiator might by marginally undersized but I have seen research papers suggesting that walls of concrete construction with no fine aggregates as in the case of this property can have sufficiently better resistance to heat passage than solid brick. I suspect that the radiators would be found to be correctly sized on detailed investigation.
•  
• It is not possible to find a model that remotely the stairwell I however have considerable doubts about the radiators being of sufficient size even allowing for the concrete walls.
•  
• Costs
•  
• I have not attempted to cost remedial works as much of the dispute will centre on evidence from the parties and further investigation and contractors do not like these types of jobs which can make desk top costings unreliable.
•  
• Once the court has determined which matters, if any, that The defendent is responsible for quotations should be sought from a number of contractors.
•  

Statement of Truth

This report is prepared in accordance with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Expert Witness Practice Statement.

I Steven JM Butler DECLARE THAT:

1. I understand that my duty in providing written reports and giving evidence is to help the Court, and that this duty overrides any obligation to the party by whom I am engaged or the person who has paid or is liable to pay me. I confirm that I have complied and will continue to comply with my duty.

2. I confirm that I have not entered into any arrangement where the amount or payment of my fees is in any way dependent on the outcome of the case.

3. I know of no conflict of interest of any kind, other than any which I have disclosed in my report.

4. I do not consider that any interest which I have disclosed affects my suitability as an expert witness on any issues on which I have given evidence.

5. I will advise the party by whom I am instructed if, between the date of my report and the trial, there is any change in circumstances which affects my answers to points 3 and 4 above.

6. I have shown the sources of all information I have used.

7. I have exercised reasonable care and skill in order to be accurate and complete in preparing this report.

8. I have endeavoured to include in my report those matters, of which I have knowledge or of which I have been made aware, that might adversely affect the validity of my opinion. I have clearly stated any qualifications to my opinion.

9. I have not, without forming an independent view, included or excluded anything which has been suggested to me by others, including my instructing lawyers.

10. I will notify those instructing me immediately and confirm in writing if, for any reason, my existing report requires any correction or qualification.

11. I understand that –

a. my report will form the evidence to be given under oath or affirmation;

b. questions may be put to me in writing for the purposes of clarifying my report and that my answers shall be treated as part of my report and covered by my statement of truth;

c. the Court may at any stage direct a discussion to take place between experts for the purpose of identifying and discussing the expert issues in the proceedings, where possible reaching an agreed opinion on those issues and identifying what action, if any, may be taken to resolve any of the outstanding issues between the parties;

d. the Court may direct that following a discussion between the experts that a statement should be prepared showing those issues which are agreed, and those issues which are not agreed, together with a summary of the reasons for disagreeing;

e. I may be required to attend Court to be cross-examined on my report; and

f. I am likely to be the subject of public adverse criticism by the judge if the Court concludes that I have not taken reasonable care in trying to meet the standards set out above.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH I confirm that I have made clear which facts and matters referred to in this report are within my own knowledge and which are not. Those that are within my own knowledge I confirm to be true. The opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinions on the matters to which they refer.

Signature                                                                                                       Date

SJM Butler                                                                      24^th December 2019