Building control culpability

[rjb9999]

We are currently three months through a two storey extension to the rear of our house. During the build a number of minor issues have arisen that have been raised with the builder and generally, whilst we haven't questioned him further we have "bought his story."

Last weekend, after the rain on Sunday morning, we endured a considerable leak into the existing rear of the house after having been told that the roof was water-tight. Clearly we weren't happy and raised this with the builder who subsequently suggested we re-roof the existing property! The upshot is we have commisioned an independent survey who has raised several structural concerns with the build so at the moment all works have stopped pending the builder's formal response to the surveyors report.

My question, in a long ish winded way is that taking a reasonable interpretation of building controls' duties would anyone expect them to be liable in identifying some of these issues - eg incorrect wall ties, incorrect cavity insulation (not necessarily related to footings/ upto DPC level etc) earlier in the build and certainly before we would have paid any more money to carry on with the project?

Also has anyone ever tried to take the council on in similar situations and got anywhere?

Thanks in advance for any replies Robin

[Hugo Nebula]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:28:49 -0000, a particular chimpanzee, " [e-mail]" randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Have you spoken to Building Control? Do you know if a) they have an application; if so b) they have inspected the work; if so c) they share your concerns?

[legin]

Very difficult to comment without seeing the work but I will give some general input. As a builder I am fully aware of the stages at which building control do their visits, generally trenches dug, at blues or d.p.c, floors prior to concrete, Wall plate or joists if 2 storey and then the next will be wall plates, roof timbers on and then generally probably completion. Building inspectors are pretty good at sussing out the builders who aren't up to scratch. It would be difficult for the building control to be on top of every thing and I would have thought that some of the onus has got to be on the builder who you have contracted to build the extension. Regarding wall ties or insulation then how are these wrong? Would a surveyor know the correct types or the thermal values of insulation. A lot of surveyors that I know are good for valuing houses but would not have a clue with some construction methods. Recently a structural engineer rang me to work out the insulation requirements for a loft conversion. Clearly if your main roof is leaking then something has gone wrong. I hope that you are able to resolve the situation. Regards Legin

[Tony Bryer]

I'm not up to date on current procedures, but when I was a BCO the norm on extensions was to inspect at dpc level and then when the roof joists were in place. The BCO is not a clerk of works or inspecting architect and if you wanted that tighter level of supervision you would need to have arranged it yourself and agreed it with the contractor at the outset (who quite possibly would have upped his quote!).

If you identify problems and draw them to the attention of the BCO then I would expect him to follow them up, but IMO you do not have any other claim against him.

[rjb9999]

has made a point of saying that as the BCO has signed off at all stages so far he is "in the clear" as regards his work. We have made enquries to obtain the councils' notes detailing the various visits they have made although they are not prepared to provide me copies (ie only discussed verbally) again not sure if this is normal practice as I imagine they are trying to cover themselves.

Having had a mini-report back from the surveyor as a heads-up before the full report arrives I think we have enough to sack the builder based on a number of key items that are wrong, regardless of BCO input or not. Sacking the builder is an altogether different issue.

Robin

[The Natural Philosopher]

I thik you slightly have the wrong end of te stick. The BCO is there to make reasonable attempts to ensure that work complies with regulations, and his power of action is over you, the owner or developer.

He has no power over the builder.

If the work done by the builder is not to either he specifications of the plans, or to the specifcation of bulding control., you must take action against the builder. You do not employ the BCO as a project manager.

However this is usually an expensive way to achieve very little.

The norm is to have a project manager who understand building regulations and so on, and retain enough of the builders money to ensure that the builders interest lies in redoing any crap work.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Indeed. The builder is seeking convenient excuses. You should tell him the 'cheques are in the post'.

[Tony Bryer]

It can meet Building Regulations and still be totally unacceptable, e.g. the BCO could take no action on mortar-smeared brickwork, uneven floors, scratched glass and a who number of other things. You are the client, not the BCO.

[matthew.larkin]

I think we are drifting away from the actual question though:-

- if a builder hasn't built in accordance with Building Control regulations, and the BCO has been out and inspected it and *not identified those errors* can the incompetent BCO / council be sued?

Matt

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, but the builder can.

The point being it is not the BCO's responsibility to act on behalf of the owner/developer: He acts on behalf of greater society. You have no contract - implied or otherwise - with the BCO.

With no contract, there is no case.

You DO have a contract with the builder, implied or otherwise.

The builders contention that the BCO has approved it is in fact an irrelevant statement. As has been pointed out, painting the house blue when the contract calls for pink, is not a BCO type issue, but it is a breach of contract by the builder.

The final fact is that to kep costs down, most p[eople don't go witha formal contract in any deatil: Therefore to save money you are a;ready limiting your legal recourses. If you want full legal protection, use and architect, a project manager and a reputable and large building firm, and then you will have people with insurance and worth to sue.

And it will cost you double.

Your choice.

The standard is to delay payments to the builder and hold a large chunk back until remedial work is done.

I would estimate 99% of self managed projects end in some form of dispute, and are indeed never actually finished by the contractor.

Live with it, and keep your own contingency back: if the builder is crap, fire him before you pay and let him sue you, and get someone else in. The courts are not interested.

[Weatherlawyer]

No, except that you can sue anyone if you are bloody minded. BCO's are trained to look for certain aspects not moderate the exact specs. the architect desires. He is there to make sure that as far as his opinion goes the building fits in with local laws.

Leaking roofs and the qualities of materials used are not his concern - especially as he has no access to the material to examine it or read the supplier's specs. That is down to the builkder and the owner and the architect if one is involved.

I think the OP was lucky that the council was willing to discuss matters with him. No-one in their position wants to be drawn intro a fruitless legal action. Personally I'd have made him get a warrant before I'd even discuss it with him.

Council or building control officers are usually drawn from tradesmen - usually with very good all around working knowledge but not prescient or omniscience.

Furthermore the builder has not had a chance to give his position in this debate

He might well have been ordered to do something or expected the owner to have done something.

It might be that the leak, for example, is from the join in the building over which the builder has warned the owner of a pitfall and has had no choice himself but to continue.

[Tony Bryer]

For a period there was, but generally not now. See:

[Hugo Nebula]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 23:08:59 -0700, a particular chimpanzee, " [e-mail]" randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

Firstly, Building Regulations (and therefore the remit of Building Control) only cover the health, safety and welfare aspects of the work. It's true that in recent years, the definition of 'welfare' has expanded to cover the welfare of the planet by controlling CO2 emissions. They do NOT cover material and financial losses.

It would be instructive to know exactly what your concerns are. IIRC, you said it related to cavity insulation. What exactly is the problem with this insulation? Is it just not as specified, but still achieving the performance required? Why are the wall ties incorrect? At what stage did the BCO see these parts of the work? It's not uncommon to not inspect the cavity wall construction, especially on a single storey extension. You (or anyone acting on your behalf) are not required to notify Building Control between DPC/DPM and completion or occupation. Even then, the Local Authority is not obliged to inspect. Most BCOs, though, will suggest to the builder that they call them to inspect the roof or other major structural elements.

A BCOs notes are not for external consumption. I don't know why, but it's a historic thing, and I'm certain virtually every LA will be reluctant to produce their notes without a great deal of pressure.

[dg]

Firstly, your independant surveyor is only expressing his opinion. Another surveyor may have a different opinion.

These incorrect items may just be different to the specification, therefore not a structural issue - ie you specified Dulux paint and the builder used Crown.

In this instance the issue is a contractural one and depends on the performance of the item and if its value is diminished due to lower performance.

Some surveyors love to put bold statements in reports to justify their fees or promote their own importance. So you have to determine the context of the statements and qualify what is actually wrong with the items.

Can you say why these items are "incorrect" and what structural issues do they cause?

Secondly, google for " Murphy v Brentwood " for details on BCO liability.

Thirdly, the BCO's duties are limited, and he is not expected nor required to check every single part of the work.

If you have approved drawings then your builder should build to these. The BCO has effectively agreed how the building should be built, and you and your builder have a duty to work to the approved plans.

dg

[Andrew Mawson]

reasonable

expect them

incorrect wall

certainly

copies (ie

practice as

builder

regulations,

project

IANAL but as I understand it there was a test case against Merton (or maybe Wimbledon) council by a householder whose extension was inspected by the BCO, but failed due to inadequate foundations. The council ended up forking out a huge sum to get things put right, and since that test case all councils have gone overboard on requirements for depth of foundations. So there are circumstances when the council can be held liable.

AWEM

[dg]

Anns v. Merton LBC (1978) was to do with a block of maisonettes, where the House of Lords decided that the council owed a duty of care

This has since been rejected as precedent in Murphy v Brentwood DC (1990)

dg

[rjb9999]

Thanks to all for the continued opinion being put forward...

As I suspected and is borne out by the responses, the BCO's remit is wide enough to avoid specific litigation issues other than in the event of a gross and obvious misjudgement. We certainly weren't hanging our hats on bringing the BCO into the dispute.

Where we stand is that the builder is in breach our contract in a number of respects including:

a) breaking through our existing roof in full knowledge of our setup, not making good, causing a leak/damage to the existing property

b) blockwork is materially inadequately sized according to the plans and out of square. As a consequence the wall ties are inadequately sized and there are potential issues with the lintols.

Aside from this there are a number of more minor issues of less significance that could come under the category of poor practice.

Once we have the formal report we will be sacking the builder and considering our options regarding pursuing the matter further (taking up with the FMB, trading standards and possibly through the small claims court). A more detailed inspection of the builders report and accounts suggests he doesn't have much money in the company anyway - so whether we will bother to pursue him directly is another matter.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Chances are the builder will simply vanish.

You won't get a penny back in money or remedial work.

Try your insurance company for SOME of the issues.

It sounds like you have been well shafted. And sadly, nothing will fix this apart from throwing good money after bad: your approach should be to spend the least needed to fix the issues. Sadly legal recourse is usually an even bigger waste of money.

Sack the builder NOW and pay him NOTHING other than what you have already paid. You won't hear from him again.

[rjb9999]

Yes realistically we are not expecting the builder to hang around once we start reeling the list off however, what amazes me is that having generally raised some of these issues with him he seems to take the attitude of "it's been signed off up until now, I've been doing this for umpteen years and never had someone call in an independent surveyor so it must be right"!

[Weatherlawyer]

to remedy before or during the fact.

was just going on what he knew from previous experience of the builder. The builder would also know that the BCO could come back after the pour - after the interior walls had been built. Afte rthe

2nd fix was finished even and condemn the slab.

It is up toi your builder to get it right it is up to the BCO to make sure he meetsa minimum standards.

I don't remember any time limits involved nor any cut off dates. If the BCO finds a fault in the construction even after the building was finished he will insist it is rectified.

Even if hew doesn't find a fault and the building gets sold on and sold on again, if it fails to meet standards, the council can force the home owner to get it fixed. The council can condemn any building.

I am only guessing of course. In actuality lots of compromises are reached all the time. Including a busy inspector relying on a man he trusts to do a good enough job.

He will know that there will be occasional problems and that is what he is asking about. The builder knows that he can't always get the best men for the job and that even the best will cut corners these days so he appreciates the trust no matter what else others overhearing them think about the situation.

The plain fact is that a BCO might have a large round with some builders on it he can't trust for 5 minutes. He has to do what he can with those he can work with little oversight of.

Both know he can get very funny with anyone he wants if he gets wind of one problem. That's something all builders have to bear in mind. If he finds one problem he will look for more.