Builder using cheaper materials than on specs

[blue22]

I hope someone can help me. We're having major building work done and it's coming to an end after 7 months. Our builder has been ok, but I think he gave us a low contract price and has been trying to bump it up with extras.
We had very detailed architects specifications and they stated that our roof should be done in 'Welsh Heather Grey Slate'. It's come to our attention that he has actually used spanish slate which is a lot cheaper (he didn't tell us this - my DH found out by talking to the roofer).
What are our rights here? We've signed a contract agreeing to abide by the specifications and drawings done by the architect, so I'm pretty sure I'm legally entitled to something -but WHAT? Obviously I don't want him to re-roof the whole thing as that would take ages (I've just discovered I'm pregnant with DC2) but am I entiteld to some compensation? Thanks so much for any help.

you are entitled to have it all taken off and replaced by what was contractually agreed, at his cost, if necessary by another contractor.

You might however consider negotiating a discounted price to compensate you for not getting what you agreed. This should be not less than the actual cost of the materials, otherwise he will have made a profit out of swindling you, and you will have had no compensation.

i wonder what other swindles he has pulled that you haven't noticed? Maybe you should get a part-qualified architect with experience of supervision, or an experienced builder, to have a look round? If it turns out nasty, you would be entitled to emply a structural engineer or architect to inspect the work, at his expense. Bear this in mind if he turns truculent.

Just to check, you have got a written contract, and you do have his genuine company name and real-life address?

I would recommend getting a quantity surveyor (preferably an RICS qualified one) to double check your contract and what has been installed on site.
Did you sign a 'lump sum' contract - i.e. did you agree on a total price (and maybe paid in installments) or are you paying 'cost plus' ie the actual cost of the materials and labour plus an agreed percentage for contractor profit / risk?

Whatever, he has basically made an unauthorised variation to the contract if you are correct in that the specification clearly stated one type of slate and he has used another. You can either make him change it at his expense or you need to agree with him the 'extra-over' cost that the specified slate would have cost and you could agree to deduct this from his final account. I'm not sure if you had a detailed bill of quantities or some other breakdown of the build up to his price - that may give you a clue to cost. If you didn't get a detailed breakdown of the costs, it's too late but if you ever do this again I would thoroughly recommend it as it makes agreeing any variations (extras or deductions) much more transparent as the rates are there and they can't just make up a ridiculous figure that's difficult to substantiate.

Just double check - do the specifications and the drawings both done by the architect tally up? So they both say the same thing re the slate? If not, check the contract to see what takes precedence - the drawings or the spec. It is not uncommon that they don't tally up.

Thanks for your replies.
Yes - we have a written, signed and witnessed contract - it's a JCT minor works contract. And in the contract, it clearly states that the work is to be done in accordance with the drawings and specs. The drawings don't state the make of slate - but the specs clearly do.

I hate confrontation but I feel really angry that he's done this, and my research on the internet as shown that spanish slates can be vastly inferior to welsh ones. I think I'll try and work out a fair compensation.

Thanks again for your help.

Speak to him and ask him what tile he priced the roof at. He may have only priced and charged for the cheaper tile - it's possible he priced the quote from the drawings and not the spec, or switched between the two and missed the specified type of slate.

If you say the contract price was cheaper it could be because he only priced for a cheaper tile.

He did price for the cheaper tile - when I found out about it, I asked him why he'd used spanish when the specs said welsh.
He said that he'd priced for spanish. I didn't say anything - I've just gone away and done some research.
But I don't see why him pricing for spanish is my fault - there's nothing on any of his quotes to say that his pricing is for a different type of slate - and if he priced according to different (cheaper) materials - why is that my problem?
He had all the drawings and specs for 6 weeks before submitting his quote, so it has to be his responsibility surely? Otherwise what's the point in having specs if builders can just price according to different ones?

People do make mistakes.

You have been quoted for cheaper tiles, you paid for cheaper tiles and you got cheaper tiles. It's not as if he is using cheaper materials, billing you for more expensive ones then pocketing the difference. It's still a pita that you haven't got what you expected, but didn't you wonder why the roofing part of the quote was less than you would have expected it to be, or less than other quotes received? You mentioned he had a low price, maybe that explains why it was cheaper?

The slate will still outlive you and I, so maybe you need to put it down to experience?

The quote wasn't the cheapest - we got 5, and 2 came in at way more - and then there was 1 that was cheaper. We just liked the builder, and felt he'd do a good job.
I have subsequently thought that maybe he priced low, as he seems very keen to find extras at every possible opportunity.
I take your point - but we accepted the quote on the basis that it was quoting for the specs which was detailed. Therefore maybe it's the builder who should put it down to experience?

Whether he priced for Spanish tiles or not is, under the JCT, Irrelevant In this case. Unless you agreed to this ( a variation to the contract) then he must do as per the spec and drawings and this means you are entirely within your rights to get him to remove the existing tiles and replace with those ion the spec at his own cost. Well done for using the JCT. I worked on the contract side of construction for several years and am qualified to tell you he has no leg to stand on. This is a typical mistake / try on by a contractor. Honestly though I suspect he is trying it on and priced for the welsh but decided to make a saving (for himself) later on. If you come to an agreement with him that he owes you the extra over cost of the welsh tiles ( if you can't be bothered with the works being re- done) he is getting off lightly because that saves him the labour and cost of removing the existing and replacing. please don't back down on this one, you are in an incredibly strong position here, there is now way he can get around it. Have you discussed this with your Architect?

Iliketomoveit, I disagree with you entirely. Actually she has paid for the welsh because that is what is in the contract. There are always extras that come up in a construction project but if you feel he's trying it on with the extras get your architect, or better pay a few hundred quid to get a quantity surveyor to go through his claims / extras. Your builder may be relying on you not knowing what would normally be an extra or included.

"Please supply one solid gold crown"

"That will be one million pounds. Here you are"

"Here's your million pounds. Oi, this is gold plate!"

"Yes, that's what I priced for."

I guess I am just standing up for the tradesperson and seeing it from their pov. The majority of tradespeople are not dishonest and out to get what they can, they just want to make a living, and people do make honest mistakes.

For example, would you want to potentially put a company out of business and be left with an unfinished job because of an honest mistake? It's not always about being lawfully in the right.