GHA sues over ‘unfit for occupation’ development
THE company which built the Hougue a la Perre development in the Bouet is being sued by the Guernsey Housing Association, which claims that the accommodation was not fit for occupation when it was completed.
Letters have been sent to some people living there warning them of work due to take place to the roof that is expected to take 24 weeks, with further structural repairs slated for the future.
And one resident said that the buildings have been under constant renovation for more than a decade.
The GHA is actioning developers Harbour View Construction Ltd for work conducted on 77 flats and houses in six blocks, A-F, built between 2007 and May, 2009.
A second defendant, Pentagon (Jersey) Wholesale Limited – a company that supplies building materials and home improvement products – is co-defendant with HVC.
HVC, then operating under the trade name of Charles Le Quesne (Guernsey) Limited, undertook the building work and engaged Pentagon along with other contractors.
Court documents filed by Advocate David O’Hanlon, on behalf of the GHA, state that in 2011 the association was made aware of damp issues in block F.
HVC undertook remedial work, but the damp reappeared in 2012.
It is claimed that at that time no work was carried out to investigate the problem nor to begin repairs.
‘GHA has little evidence of any repairs progress with HVC during 2013,’ wrote Advocate O’Hanlon.
A survey was carried out on behalf of the GHA by bhp (Brittain Hadley Partnership) which involved part of the building being opened up to enable the fabric to be examined.
‘The plaintiff had no way of appreciating the extent and/or severity of the damp and/or structural defects arising out of the works prior to the Stage 1 survey produced by bhp in June, 2014.’
Further investigations were carried out which identified a number of defects, among them structural movement to roof structures and eaves and structural movement to the external walls, in particular the gables and eaves, in five of the six blocks; ‘significant dampness’ in block D (the only block to date examined in this detail) and the stairwells and lobbies of the basement car park; and ‘penetrating dampness’ affecting the interior and structure of the buildings, which has been identified so far in flats at blocks D, E and F.
GHA said that it reserved its right in respect of any further defects to be identified.
As a result of these findings, the GHA cites eight failures by HVC in respect of adequately ‘or at all’ designing and/or constructing and/or installing various structures, such as the roof, eaves, wall ties, and making sure the development was damp proof.
The GHA’s final claim is that HVC ‘failed to design and/or carry out and/or complete the works and/or the timber works so that they were fit for purpose, namely fit for residential occupation and/or investment.’
The association is claiming the cost of any remedial work and any uninsured losses that will not be covered by the their insurer.
Figures for these claims will be provided in due course.
The matter was placed on the pleading list by the Ordinary Division of the Royal Court, meaning that the defendants have 28 days in which to file their defences.
