GHA asked for details on shoddy workmanship claim
THE Guernsey Housing Association has been asked to provide more information in its claim against builders for alleged shoddy workmanship on the Hougue a la Perre development.
In October 2007, the not-for-profit organisation signed a contract with Harbour View Construction for the design and development of six blocks of flats and houses on the site of the former bus garage in the Grand Bouet at a cost of £10.5m.
Work began in phases the following June and practical completion on the last of the 77 dwellings was in May 2009. The development also included communal spaces and basement parking for residents.
The GHA says HVC engaged other contractors, among them Pentagon (Jersey) Wholesale Ltd who signed the collateral warranty.
The GHA claims there are significant faults with the construction and is seeking damages plus interest on any award made against HVC or Pentagon plus costs. Both defendants deny any liability.
HVC argues that the GHA’s cause put before the Royal Court is insufficiently particularised to enable it to respond. It says the GHA was aware of issues with dampness at the properties in 2009. It denies there is a valid claim against it, but reserves the right to amend its defences upon receipt of further information.
Pentagon wants the GHA put to strict proof in relation to allegations of causation, loss, and damage, and to which alleged defects and uninsured losses relate to timber work.
The GHA’s cause was put before the Royal Court in November and both defendants submitted their defences on Friday, which was the deadline day to do so.
The GHA argues it had no way of appreciating the severity of the damp and structural issues prior to a survey carried out by the Brittain Hadley Partnership in June 2014. That report, and others commissioned subsequently, found there were structural movements in the roofs and eaves of blocks B to F inclusive.
Significant dampness was identified on the sole plates of the timber frame walls in block D and to the stairwells and the lobbies to the car park. Penetrating dampness to the interior and structure of buildings had so far been identified in flats in blocks D to F.
The plaintiff is seeking the costs of necessary remedial works to make good the defects, to be particularised and served by way of a separate schedule in due course.
It also wants costs of significant losses incurred that will not be covered by its own insurers. These too would be particularised and provided to both defendants in due course.
