Advice needed please - brick face removed

[sevenleaf]

In a nutshell:

During renovation work (by a 'heritage/listed/conservation friendly' building company), modern paint has been sympathetically removed from a Grade II listed, timber framed cottage wall using Kling Strip and a pressure washer. So far, so good.

However, underneath the paint were patches of limewash still adhered to the brickwork.

Without permission from the homeowner, the contractors removed these areas with a mechanical power tool, and thus also the surface of the brick (leaving visible power tool markings).

The project maager claims the removal of the fire glazing is not an issue as they will be coating the bricks with something breathable before painting the wall (with a suitable conservation grade product) to keep any potential trouble at bay.

My belief is that it was wrong to use mechanical means of paint removal, the bricks are irreversably damaged and there is an elevated level of risk of future complications as a result (years/decades), by which time the building company will not want to know (if they are even still trading).

Any experience with this topic would be gratefully received.

 

[MikeG]

I think some photos might help.

As this sounds like it is developing into a formal dispute between builder and owner, I'm not going to comment.

 

[88v8]

It's always chancy, letting someone else loose on one's house.

Was there a detailed written specification of works, and a signed contract? I guess not, it's not the way most people do things.

If the bricks were sound and had cleaned up well, one might not have wished to paint them at all, depending on the building and the customs of the area. And perhaps the wishes of the CO if it is listed.
Was it your intention to paint them, had that been discussed?

In any event, it sounds as if the unpainted option has been shut down.

If they are now to be painted, the mechanical damage will presumably still be visible. And as you say, the glazed face has been lost which is not desirable.
And what is this 'something breathable' they propose to use?

One might consider requiring that the offending bricks be removed and turned around. However, this is invasive and potentially does more damage, and if the wall is to be painted anyway then cutting into it would seem a disproportionate exercise and would give rise to more problems such as matching the existing pointing.

As Mike says, pictures would be helpful, but I suspect you are where you are. The contractor must make the damage invisible, by means approved by you in advance, and then there will be a reduction in the amount you had agreed to pay them.
I doubt that going to court would achieve anything better. Sometimes, one is where one is.

In future, you may wish to set out a detailed specification of works in advance, or employ someone who can do so. Plus a signed contract.
Then ensure you are present while they are working.

All blooming annoying.

Ivor

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I must say, I see absolutely no point - and a great many potential problems - in "coating the bricks with something breathable before painting the wall (with a suitable conservation grade product)"

If the paint is appropriate (limewash, for example), then an additional "breathable coating" would be superfluous. And proprietary "breathable coatings" so often are not.

"My belief is that it was wrong to use mechanical means of paint removal, the bricks are irreversably damaged and there is an elevated level of risk of future complications as a result (years/decades), by which time the building company will not want to know (if they are even still trading)."

I tend to share that view. Assuming (hope against hope) you did have a written contract with a specification of works, you need that firm off site and proper builder in to replace the damaged bricks at their expense.