N7 Design Studio Ltd.

★★★★★

“Nick was recommended by a family member, a recommendation that did not disappoint. During the design period I was given options on the structure that was to become my rear extension, allowing me to choose what I actually wanted. Nick dealt with the planning permission and building warrant applications swiftly and professionally. I retained Nick throughout the build to completion certificate stage. From beginning to end Nick was available patient and so helpful. My impression of Nick is he is dedicated to customer service and satisfaction, striving at all times to give the best possible service. I recommend Nick wholeheartedly in the knowledge he will give the same outstanding service.”

★★★★★

“This was our first build project and it was important to us that we get the right advice and guidance along the way. There are a number of stages for local planning approvals and building warrants and Nick was really helpful navigating this for us. He was always very professional and did a great job of explaining the process as it moved along. We're really pleased with the final outcome.”

★★★★★

“Following my husband’s review of N7, David Stewart the owner of KS Property Maintenance (the builder) recommended N7 and four others including the joiner and the joiner's girlfriend in the space of 24 hours. Further, HOUZZ is a paid advertising website which from looking at its trustpilot reviews, consumers, including ourselves are unable to share negative experiences. In our opinion the drawings were inaccurate, the ‘inspect and report’ service was not carried out and N7 acted in the interests of the builder not ours, resulting in an expensive mistake. The description of inaccurate drawings can be seen in a different review. Towards the end of construction Nick apologies for not carrying out a site inspection and said this was due to Covid restrictions. Scottish Government Covid restrictions in place at the time permitted inspections as well as construction, the two go hand in hand. Nick claims his inspections have been carried out virtually through photos etc. We have great difficulty believing this so requested copies of the photos, which he has been unwilling or unable to provide. Nick attended a site meeting following our discovery of a reduced footprint and head height. Nick cites that his ‘main focus (of the meeting) was to implement the agreed changes with the Building Control Officer and David Stewart‘. It is disappointing that he did not seek our approval nor inform us of any changes, particularly as he has been paid a fee to do exactly that. The change to insulation was later explained (after payment) as ‘it was proposed by the contractor as a quicker more cost-effective way to insulate the space’. It is little wonder the builder is singing his praises. Nick deemed the meeting as an ‘exceptional circumstance’ to breach whatever Covid restrictions he had in mind due to an ‘impromptu phone call’. Nick already agreed to the meeting 2 days prior to the phone call. We brought this to his attention, but he still persisted with that excuse despite email evidence to the contrary. During our own inspections, we noticed a plastic combustible cladding had been put up rather than the specified non-combustible material. When we raised this issue, Nick’s response was to complain to us that ‘this will all now require to be replaced’, noting the ‘impact on the project’ and ‘potential delay to completion’. There is a shortfall of 18cm of what was an already compromised head height. This issue was repeatedly ignored until a lengthy letter was sent by recorded delivery. Nick explained that the shortfall is acceptable because we have a completion certificate. Nick had no jurisdiction to substitute the approved contract drawings with what he saw fit. Nick submitted an amendment to building warrant without our knowledge nor approval. The drawings contained errors, which would have been obvious from a visual inspection. Further, he has willfully refused to provide us with a copy of a council report relating to the amendment (that we are the applicants of, on our home) as our input was not required. Nick claimed his 3 page construction contract is more detailed than the 40 page RIBA ‘domestic works contract’. We beg to differ. In our opinion the contract presented was not fair and balanced, providing more protection to the builder. It is nothing like other industry standard contracts such as SBCC JCT. There was no requirement for the builder to have insurance. We made changes to the contract which Nick objected to and said we had muddied the waters. Up until the point of issues arising Nick comes across very well. We were therefore happy for him to carry out the tender process. We asked to be copied in on all correspondence. We weren’t. We have subsequently repeated our request for full emails relating to our tender process, which he is unwilling or unable to provide. In our opinion Nick has abused the position of trust he was placed in. He also attempted to intimidate us into not writing anything on social media.”