Strict adherence to building regs

The building regs say that a waste/soil/toilet stack pipe has to be at least 900mm above an opening window within a few metres.
If the stack pipe was 10mm short of this then would that be seen as being with some marigin of error accepted by the regs?
Or would the regs mean that it must be corrected and made up to the full 900mm?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:55:55 +0000, pamela wrote:

Stick a coupling on it - sorted.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/11/15 13:55, pamela wrote:

I doubt anyone is every going to actually take a tape measure to it. If it "looks" right, I doubt the question will ever come up.
Besides, 10mm is irrelevant in this scenario.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/11/15 13:55, pamela wrote:

Two things: If the window is right up against the stack? I'd expect a building inspector to care a bit more if so than if it's almost outside the boundary.
Is the building inspector likely to be looking for reasons to refuse a completion certificate? (Try to avoid getting into this situation; rumour has it it that offering tea and biscuits before you get to this point is worthwhile.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, 17 November 2015 14:16:38 UTC, Martin Bonner wrote:

Depends. If the inspector gets the impression the building is generally ok and that any minor niggles will be dealt with then he's unlikely to be too exacting.
If he's not happy with the building and wants to refuse a certificate then he'll have to find a reason for doing so.
Certainly nothing wrong with tea and biscuits -- after all if he's sitting eating biscuits he's not looking at your vent pipes :-)
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 14:10 17 Nov 2015, Tim Watts wrote:

The stack pipe was far too short originally (780mm plus grille) and the builders were extremely reluctantly extended it. The new one now comes to just short of the full 900mm.
The builders are now very awkwardly sticking to the smallest details of the plan in the written agreement about additional work with much flexibility at all. So I wonder if I could, in turn, insist the stack be made up to the full 900mm. Might save a call out charge for the disputed works.
What's that about no one taking a tape measure to it? :-) http://imgur.com/g7KLWrM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/11/15 14:33, pamela wrote:

Quite frankly I don't think anyone could every measure it *that* accurately. 1cm is definitely an error margin over 90cm - you are talking about a 1% error. Tell the BCO it's 900 and leave it at that. Visibly it's going to look "about right".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, 17 November 2015 16:14:51 UTC+1, Tim Watts wrote:

I think the builder could legitimately argue that is 960mm. The width of the bit of plastic around the window is irrelevant, it's the height above the opening that matters.
I might warn the builder (possibly in writing), that you will hold him responsible for any failure of the building inspector to issue a completion certificate and for any charges that may become payable if the building inspector has to make a repeat visit.
OTOH, you risk the builder just sticking a coupling on the top which will look dreadful.
I also think another poster is right - try very hard not to get into a dispute with the builder. If you have changed your mind about what you want, you are going to have to pay for it :-(

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15:33 17 Nov 2015, Martin Bonner wrote:

The coupling idea, which I saw Mr Pounder write about earlier, might be a quick and dirty solution but not necessarily to my advantage. :-(

I had been kind of thinking that the building regs do not say "at least 900mm OR THEREABOUTS". They say 900mm minimum. If the regs wanted it to be 890mm or more then they would have said 890mm instead of 900mm. However this is probably purely speculative.
In addition, my detailed millimetre-specific measurements failed to take into account that the PVC window opening is a few millimitres below the top of the opening part of the window.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Watts scribbled

Someone is going out of their way to piss off the contractor. I can see payback on the horizon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22:57 17 Nov 2015, Phil L wrote:

I too can imagine that it happens a lot. Luckily for me your subsequent speculation is incorrect but thank you anyway for the friendly warning.
However Jonno was partly right about our contractor being less than happy but hopefully that is now circumvented as I mention in my other posts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Umm.. There must be a balance between ensuring the builder complies with the regulations and the design spec. without leading to conflict. External supervision may be worth the money but two jobs I know of it appeared wasted leaving the clients dissatisfied. 10% snagging hold over with expert checking?
--
Tim Lamb

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 15:00 17 Nov 2015, Phil L wrote:

You're right that I am indeed being pedantic. I had been kind of thinking that the building regs do not say:
"at least 900mm OR THEREABOUTS" or "at least 900mm TO THE BEST OF YOUR ENDEAVOURS" or "at least 900mm ALLOWING FOR SOME ERROR"
Instead they say "at least 900mm.
If the regs wanted it to be at least 890mm then they would have said 890mm instead of 900mm. However this is all now speculative and your point about not entering into an outright dispute is well taken.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/11/15 15:56, pamela wrote:

You're worrying too much.
The regs say >= 900mm. They do not quote an error tolerance.
Error tolerances are normal and the BCO would have to be looking for an excuse to not allow a +/-1% error - which is a *good* error in the real world.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16:08 17 Nov 2015, Tim Watts wrote:

I agree that error tolerance are normal but also normal would be to build the tolerance into the figure used in the specification. So if the requirement was actually a minimum of 1000mm give or take 10% then the requirement becomes a minimum of 900mm simply stated.
If you went to your bank to draw ?900 but they ... well, you know where this is going and I don't need to finish it!
However other factors (like couplings, disputes with builders, etc) have now overtaken the value of outright measurements in my case.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/11/15 17:18, pamela wrote:

Yes, but accounting (within a single currency) is an exact error free process.
Virtually nothing involving real world measurements ever is.
But if you want to be pedantic, don't mind me...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/11/2015 19:18, Tim Watts wrote:

Well, if the builders had made it a metre we wouldn't be having this discussion. They chose to make it marginal...
Andy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/11/2015 14:33, pamela wrote:

I read that as 890mm to the top of the opening window. The aperture will be at least 10mm below that so the regs should therefore be met.
Is that the best you have been able to stick on the builders?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23:29 17 Nov 2015, Fredxxx wrote:

Yes, I came to realise that after starting this thread.

The other issues that have arisen are so obviously egregious that I don't have much need to ask here about them. here for views.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But you still asked:-)
--
Adam


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.