And you know for certainty that houses don't sell because they've had a doorway widened without the paperwork? Of course if there are cracks everywhere...
>- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
New Metal Beam Safe?
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
So are you suggesting that the OP should proceed without building control approval?
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
So surveyor goes into house, sees wall paper, etc. writes report saying everything looks fine. There is no paperwork to say door has been widened and no way to see that it has.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
Absolutely not. Just don't believe all the scare stories about it making insurance invalid or the house unsaleable if all that is wrong with the work is a lack of the correct paperwork.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
That seems clear, but ...
... that clearly implies that you think the OP can get away with it.
It seems that you are suggesting that he does nothing, because he will get away with it, but when you are challenged on that specific point, you deny it, absolutely.
Were you a politician in a former life?
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
Part of the problem is that George doesn't seem to know if the work is satisfactory or not. So it might not be just a matter of paperwork but of fundamental safety - and the only sensible approach to getting that cleared seems to me to be getting the BCO in.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
It depends when the work was done. IME, if it is obviously too old to expect paperwork, a surveyor would judge its soundness from external appearances 'as seen today'; but if it was obviously recent, and of a kind that should have had BCO approval, they'd be asking for paperwork for sure.
Any surveyor can read the little clues that tell the age of building work... and most of us here (including Mr Plowman) could too.
It isn't a matter of making the house literally unsaleable - given time, there are all kinds of workarounds - but a question like that could lose a deal if either party was in a hurry.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
There is no doubt about the failure to disclose a pertinent risk making his insurance invalid. It is less certain whether the insurers will find out. However, if that beam is wrong, they probably will at just the time he needs it.
Colin Bignell
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
It's not perjury. Perjury is telling lies under oath in court. What you're thinking of is fraud. False statements concerning a property sale may be an offence under the Fraud Act, with a potential maximum sentence of ten years! However, answering "not known" to a question isn't fraud...
Regards Richard
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
No - while it's in this exposed state it makes sense to do the paperwork correctly.
My thoughts were to do with where the lack of paperwork is only found out long after the job is finished. Like I'm sure happens often with small builders.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
there is now - they could search the web and find this! [g]
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
xxxxxxx
it would be fraud if i did know, and I do, and they can prove it by googling here! [g]
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
I have sent an innocent email to the council building regs department asking if approval is/was needed...
I have not yet paid the builders...
Is there a professional building code that they should have told me about building regs, knowing that this was my first house project?
I will not mention their name here, because I like them!
They are in the Construction Confederations
Would I be justified in subtracting the cost of the retrospective council building reg inspection from their bill, or at least part of it?
It looks to me that it will be safe for years, but this is an old house, I want it to be safe for centuries, and I fear that compression of the lime mortar will lead to uneven loads rotating the padstone clockwise and cracking of the brickwork over the decades....
formatting link
xxx
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
This appears to suggest that the OP should cover it up quickly and say absolutely nothing.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
EMAIL JUST RECEIVED...
George
Repair and maintenance are generally exempt from building regulations, however the widening of the opening may reduce the structural stability of any existing lintol, or make it necessary to install a new lintol. If the works are structural, then the building regulations would apply.
If you have any doubt, I would be able to carry out a quick check when I am in the area. Please give me a ring to arrange if necessary.
xx Senior Building Control Surveyor xxx Council
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
Give the man a call. Don't delay.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
The builder *must know* that this is structural work that is covered by a requirement for Building Control. The size of the beam alone makes it pretty darn clear.
I think Building Control is your responsibility, not the builders'.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
No.
No, you would have had to pay that anyway. It might be reasonable not to pay for any remedial work they have to do redo to make it conform to building regs. If they have to do something extra, then it will depend if your contract with them is fixed price (which should include making it conform to building regs) or time and materials.
above the RSJ's which needs supporting, other than ceiling joists for which they look well OTT. Does the wall continue above or is there anything else resting on them? If so, I image you might need to underpin the wall under the padstones where it takes extra weight. RSJ will also need protection from fire, so it doesn't bend and collapse on firemen searching for you.
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
You'd think a BCO would know how to spell lintel...
- Vote on answer
- posted
15 years ago
FFS - the OP isn't doing the work. His builder is.