# BUILDER COMPLAINT AND RECTIFICATION LETTER
Date: 8 April 2032
Parties: Maya Patel and Elmstead Renovations Limited
## 1. Purpose and parties
Maya Patel of 18 Rowan Close, Bristol BS7 4QL writes to Elmstead Renovations Limited about the single-storey kitchen extension and bathroom refurbishment at that address. The parties signed a written contract on 14 January 2032 for £48,600 including VAT, with practical completion promised by 18 March 2032. Maya has paid £43,600 in four instalments and has retained the final £5,000 because the work is not complete and several items are defective.
## 2. Facts, scope and terms
The attached defect schedule identifies twelve kitchen floor tiles that are cracked or uneven, a roof junction over the extension that leaks during rain, a bathroom extractor that vents into the loft rather than outside, and MDF skirting installed where the signed specification required primed oak. The rear door threshold is also 28 millimetres above the adjoining patio and creates a trip risk. Elmstead left exposed electrical cabling beside the pantry on 2 April and has not supplied completion certificates for the electrical and gas work.
## 3. Process and responsibilities
Maya relies on Elmstead's contractual obligations and, to the extent applicable, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 section 49 requirement to perform a service with reasonable care and skill and section 50 information that was taken into account. She is not alleging deliberate dishonesty. An independent building surveyor, Hugh Mercer of Mercer Building Review, inspected on 31 March 2032 and estimated reasonable rectification at £4,250, excluding any concealed damage found after opening the roof junction.
## 4. Evidence, records and safeguards
Maya requires Elmstead to replace the twelve damaged tiles with matching tiles, repair and water-test the roof junction, route the extractor through the external wall, replace the MDF skirting with primed oak, lower or safely redesign the threshold, make the cabling safe, and provide the missing certificates. Elmstead must give a written method and a proposed start date by 29 April 2032, and complete agreed remedial work within 21 days after that start date unless a longer period is justified in writing.
## 5. Review, escalation and outcome
Maya will make the retained £5,000 available for a satisfactory completion inspection, but does not waive any right to claim the reasonable cost of rectification or other proved loss. The surveyor's £360 inspection fee and the £4,250 estimate are recorded evidence; no final claim for the estimate is made until the actual scope and cost are known. Elmstead must preserve its photographs, subcontractor invoices, inspection records and communications about this project.
## 6. Reservations and practical protections
If Elmstead neither responds by 29 April nor proposes a credible remedy, Maya may obtain two competitive quotations, instruct another contractor for urgent safety work, and seek recovery of reasonably incurred costs after giving Elmstead a reasonable opportunity to inspect. She will consider mediation or an appropriate trade dispute scheme if available, but this letter is not an agreement to limit court proceedings. Any immediate safety risk will be reported to the relevant competent person without waiting for the deadline.
## 7. England and Wales law and completion
This completed fictional letter is dated 8 April 2032 and is governed by England and Wales law. It is a complaint and request for contractual performance, not a termination notice or an admission that Elmstead's breach is accepted. Maya asks for acknowledgement within five working days, sends the letter by recorded delivery and email, and keeps the contract, payment confirmations, photographs dated 19 March to 2 April, survey report and delivery evidence.