CONSTRUCT MEDIC

12 Return Visits Later and We Are Still Dealing With Problems

After a great deal of consideration, we have decided to share our experience with this contractor publicly. This review reflects our personal experience with work carried out at our home and is based on the events, communications and workmanship we personally witnessed during the project. We initially appointed the contractor to repaint the exterior of our house. During that project, we also requested a quotation to repair our leaking stoep roof and replace the ceiling. We accepted the additional quotation based on the assurances given to us regarding the roofing team's experience, the quality of the work and the supervision that would take place. Unfortunately, our experience did not match those assurances. One of the biggest issues throughout the project was the amount of remedial work required after jobs were supposedly completed. The contractor returned to our property approximately 7 times in connection with the painting work and approximately 6 times in connection with the roof work. We fully understand that minor snags can occur on any construction project. Our concern was that many of the issues were not small finishing items. There were repeated workmanship problems which required further attendance and, in our experience, many of these should have been identified through proper supervision and quality-control inspections before the work was regarded as complete. The original roof work was represented to us as a relatively short project. Instead, the work extended far longer and required repeated attention afterwards. Before the roof work commenced, we were specifically told that the roofing team specialised in roof work and that there would be foremen involved in the project. All evidence can be provided. We were also given assurances regarding waterproofing, supervision and the quality of the finished work via WhatsApp. Despite those assurances, the roof has subsequently leaked again on multiple occasions. The most recent leak has now resulted in visible water damage and water marks on the newly completed ceiling. At the time of writing this review, responsibility for rectifying that damage remains disputed and we have also been informed that the contractor is not prepared to supply the paint required to restore the damaged ceiling. For us, this is particularly disappointing because the purpose of paying for the roof repairs was to resolve the leaking roof. Having the roof leak again after repeated remedial visits and then having consequential water damage to the ceiling has left us extremely dissatisfied with the outcome. Throughout the wider project, we also experienced concerns regarding supervision and site management. There were many occasions where we felt that we as the clients were identifying snags and quality issues that should ordinarily have been identified by the contractor or foreman before work was signed off. Communication was also frustrating at times. We frequently had to follow up regarding progress, outstanding items and return visits. The repeated callbacks and extended duration of the project caused significant inconvenience to our household. Another issue during the roof project involved our air-conditioning unit. The exterior unit had been professionally serviced shortly before the construction work and was functioning correctly afterwards. It was subsequently removed during the roof project and later found to have a failed PCB when it was recommissioned. An air-conditioning specialist advised us that there can be various causes of PCB failure and that it is not always possible to determine the exact cause without conclusive technical evidence. We ultimately submitted the air-conditioning claim through our own insurance and our insurer covered the loss. We therefore consider the air-conditioning matter resolved through our insurer and are not using this review to claim that the contractor was conclusively responsible for that failure. We mention it only because it formed part of the overall experience and added to the amount of time, administration and inconvenience associated with the project. There were also smaller issues involving our belongings and property during the construction period, including damage to personal items and plants on our stoep. Individually these matters may appear minor, but together they contributed to our overall impression that greater care, supervision and attention to detail were needed. What has disappointed us most is not simply that problems occurred. Construction projects can encounter unforeseen issues. Our dissatisfaction comes from the repeated nature of the problems, the number of callbacks required and the fact that, after numerous attempts to rectify the roof, we are still dealing with a leak and water damage to the ceiling. In our opinion, stronger project management, more consistent on-site supervision, better quality control and more thorough final inspections would have prevented many of the issues we experienced. We gave the contractor multiple opportunities to return to our property and correct defects before deciding to post this review. We also communicated our concerns privately and in detail in an effort to resolve matters directly. Unfortunately, given the continued roof leak and the unresolved damage to the ceiling, we believe it is fair to share our experience so that prospective clients can make their own informed decision. Throughout the project, the contractor repeatedly mentioned to us how much additional money he had personally had to spend on the work. While we appreciate that repeated remedial work can result in additional costs for a contractor, we do not believe those costs should be presented as a burden for the client to feel responsible for. We paid the agreed price for the work to be completed properly and to the required standard. In our experience, a significant amount of the additional work and expense arose because his teams had to return repeatedly to rectify snags, defects and workmanship issues. The financial consequences of having to correct work that was not completed satisfactorily the first time are a business matter for the contractor and should not be made the client's responsibility nor thrown into their face all the time. Of his workers did the job properly first time round AND if he was more present, the additional costs could have been avoided This is our personal experience and other clients may have had different experiences. Based on what we experienced, we would most definitely not use this contractor again.