Building control culpability

[The Natural Philosopher]

All bluff and bullshit. HE knows its crap. He's just trying it on.

[rjb9999]

Interestingly, having gone through my notes again I notice that one of the site visits recorded by the BCO was sight of the lintels which were subsequently OK'd. One of the items highlighted in my survey is that one lintel is incorrectly sized for the larger than expected cavity. Taking on board eveyone's comments re the duty owed by the BCO would a specifc item like this, recorded as being checked and OK'd if subsequently found to be incorrect be actionable?

I shall be draft> [e-mail] wrote:

[Bob Mannix]

If the "sight" of the lintel would not have shown that it was undersized for the cavity, I doubt whether any responsibility would rest with the BCO. Their job is not to build things properly (that's the builder's responsibility as your service provider). The BCO's job is to ensure that the qppropriate building regulations are being adhered to (ie there is a lintel there). It may be a grey area though.

"Mentioning" the FoI act will have no effect at all! If you make a specific request for a document or set of documents (such as any site reports) that fall under the remit of the FoI act they would not be able to refuse you but that applies whether you mention the act or not. (It's a bit like "signing the official secrets act", you are bound by it whether you have signed it or not and ignorance is no defence).

I fear you will have to sue the builder or forget it! IANAL but I believe taking out a small claims court action (for the costs of any remedial action, I guess, in your case) against someone is often quite effective. My brother used it to great effect to retrieve some unpaid rent from someone.

[rjb9999]

The grey area is what am trying to bottom out! At this stage it won't harm to try and obtain copies of the notes from the site inspections so will see where I get although I appreciate we are unlikely to get anywhere.

As a separate issue we may decide to pursue the builder on a small claims basis however I suspect he is more likley to go bust than pay- up.

[dg]

We really need more detail from this surveyors report.

A typical cavity lintel will take a wider cavity than it is designed for so say a 50mm cavity lintel will take a 75mm cavity.

So be careful in how you read the report and get the actual problem qualified, as the surveyors may just be exagerating and describing a problem which does not exist.

dg

[dg]

How can you comment on the builder, when you have only one side of the story and very few details of a report?

Jumping to conclusions only adds to the notion that all builders are cowboys, when infact they are not.

There is significant information missing from the OPs description of this situation, and from what has been posted here, I can't see any definitive facts to substantiate your comments as to the builders competancy.

dg

[Tony Bryer]

Not sure of the current procedures, but in my BCO days I was given a subpoena to appear as a witness on a couple of occasions and therefore had no option but to appear and answer questions about my site inspections.

[rjb9999]

Two of the main headlines cut and pasted from from the initial feedback (ie not the full report):

QUOTE

Overall dimensions.

The extension measures 4420x3950 externally, shorter and wider than dimensions stated on drawing. It is not square: internal dimensions in the first floor are: side-to-side, 3240 at front, 3290 at rear; front- to-rear, 4100 at left and 4150 at right.

External walls

There is no obvious connection between the inner skin of the right- hand wall and the original brickwork. The join is not properly toothed- and-bonded but is not straight enough to fit a wall extension profile (none seen) and there are no obvious wall ties. Sighting through this joint to the outer leaf shows wall extension profile to part-height only. Wall cavity is 130mm (100mm specified) at first floor window reveal and wall thickness in ground floor reveal is consistent with similar cavity width. Lintols are sized for 75mm cavity so do not fully bear on the blockwork (and vice-versa). Wall ties are not vertical twist type as specified, and are not correct for a wide cavity. They appear to be Ancon HRT4, 225mm long, which are only suitable for cavities up to 100mm wide. The same manufacturer produces a similar-looking model ST2 of thicker wire and longer; 275mm ties should have been used. The additional wall ties specified at the reveals of openings have not been provided.

UNQUOTE

[dg]

A few things ....

There are several other ways of connecting the new wall to the existing. Has the surveyor checked for other methods? He does not say so

Has the surveyor noted the lintel manufacturer and checked their suitability for wide cavities? Has he checked for other re-inforcement in the wall bed joints to compensate?

Same with the ties - has he checked for manufacturer details? Incidently, vertical twist (aka butterfly) ties are no longer approved

- so they should not have been used/specified anyway - has the surveyor mentioned this?

With regards to squareness, whilst it is 50mm out, this can be adjusted with the plasterboarding - its not a significant structural issue.

In short, if I was doing the survey, I would qualify what I am saying and discuss ALL the possibilities with regards to those items mentioned, and then ONLY concluded with facts AFTER all the other possibilites have been discounted.

The quoted text makes the work sound bad, without actually telling you if it is or not.

A poor report IMO.

dg

[rjb9999]

Your comments are not unreasonable but their are lots of more minor items not worth expanding upon here that we have encountered that cumulatively suggest that the builder hasn't done the best job for the amount of money being charged.

Your points are noted however.