teuchter
je suis teuchter
Yes, depending on the particular circumstances it can be an option sometimes.
Advice needed regarding incorrectly installed insulation and building regs
- Thread starter danski
- Start date
I would just point it out to someone on a higher pay grade, making it their issue to deal with.
Or a clerk of works (if there is one).
danski
"vibey"
Can this be done retrospectively?
Building control are supposed to be involved in new domestic builds in the UK afaik.
danski
"vibey"
Yeah. My place is old and I meant can building control be involved after the works are completed?
If it’s shoddy work surely you’d go to trading standards?
danski
"vibey"
Ah, yeah, true
WouldBe
Dislicksick
I'm looking at doing an extension on my 200 year old house and will need to get building control involved.
Ah, yeah, true
This may or may not be of use:
How to complain if you're unhappy with building work - Which?
Are you unhappy with the standard of the building work you've received? Our step-by-step guide explains your rights and helps you resolve a trader dispute.
I'm looking at doing an extension on my 200 year old house and will need to get building control involved.
An extension is a new domestic build. And that’s a good thing, you’re less likely to get shoddy work with the council sniffing about.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
If the works should have been subject to building control, and they were done without it, then yes. Worst case scenario they are called out and serve a notice for it to be taken down.
I think potentially non compliance can result in criminal prosecution but in practice they'll look for a way to agree that the work is rectified before anything like that happens.
danski
"vibey"
And that’s all on the builder as they should’ve notified building control?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I think if you look at the basic legislation, ultimately it's down to the building owner to make sure the building regs have been followed. But of course normally a building owner will employ various people to take on the responsibility for this.
For a domestic house owner, I think it's reasonable to assume that any builder offering themselves to do work should make sure they are sorting building regs stuff, or otherwise let the homeowner know that they need to do it themselves or employ someone appropriate.
There might well be bits of consumer law that explicitly put that responsibility on building contractors.
(For health and safety stuff, the expectations are very different for a domestic homeowner and commercial building operator for example, recognising that there are different expectations of knowledge/competency)
The exact legal situation gets a bit beyond my knowledge though. There are probably others who can give a better answer from a legal point of view.
This article states that building control should be notified for cavity insulation.
Building Regulations: when do you need to notify building control about home improvements?
<p>By law, all new building constructions and many alterations to existing buildings must conform to building regulations. We look at when you need to notify building control about your home improvements.</p>
WouldBe
Dislicksick
As I understand it there are 2 routes that can be taken.
1. The builder can self certify it and notify the council / building control.
2. Building control have to come out and approve the work.
If it's notifyable work and the builder self certified it and it's wrong I don't think building control would be too pleased.
Yeah, I agree. As technically it is their responsibility to notify BC. But it could also aid any claim they pursue. If the firm don’t go under, true.
You could play dumb and say you assumed the contractor notified BC. I imagine they’ll take a dimmer view of the contractor tbh especially if their installation isn’t up to standard.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Yes, some types of work are self certifiable.
For things that aren't, then there are two routes -
- They notify the council that they are going to do some work, and then the council BC dept may ask for additional info and make site inspections as it sees fit. For work that's not unusual and where the builder is confident they know the requirements, this approach is fine.
- You go the "plans approval" route where you draw up and specify the work in some detail before starting, and send this info to the council. They will then tell you if the proposed designs do or don't comply, and let you make the necessary changes if they don't. They will still come and do some inspections once the work actually starts, but as long as the work is done according to the agreed drawings/spec, there shouldn't be any surprises, with the inspector showing up and saying everything's going to have to be pulled down.
(There's a variation on the plans approval route where you do it via a private building regs company instead of the council, but the process is basically the same)
teuchter
je suis teuchter
If you have reasonable suspicion the work doesn't comply with regulations, then I'd say deciding not to do anything also isn't without risk.
Because, if at a later date, something like a fire happens, that puts people at risk, then especially if there is any evidence that you chose to ignore things, then I assume you could become liable in some way.
Aside from the legal stuff, building regs are mostly there for a good reason, so it's not really good form to let something that you know might be dangerous to persist. Not all of the building regs are about safety critical things but a lot of them are, not limited to fire stuff.
Work not being up to standard can also cause problems down the line if Danski wants to sell the property and surveys reveal the issues. So there isn’t really a choice here.
Athos
Well-Known Member
True. I'm not saying there's no risk in not notifying, but that it wouldn't necessarily be my first choice to get this resolved.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Yes. Although there's loads of stuff that can be wrong and not revealed by a survey.
Surely, it's pretty standard to pay something up front.
I've had a loft conversion and a kitchen extension and in both cases paid 25% up front, second payment half way through and the remainder on completion. Not a problem, two different companies, maybe just lucky, but I personally wouldn't expect them to complete the entire job without seeing something upfront.
I think that's normally the case to get boots on site. But you are essentially paying for a product that doesn't exist at that point.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I think 25% is risky and too much, when it's 25% of a large amount.
However, in a seller's market, as it is just now, it might be that you simply can't find anyone willing to do any work without upfront payment. In that case sure, you might choose to take a measured risk.
I'm not suggesting anyone should complete an entire job before getting paid. That's why I mention staged payments. They can be every month or every week or even every day. The point being that they are proportionate to the work actually completed.
Outside of the domestic market, upfront deposits are not generally expected. Most of the standard forms of contract don't have provision for them at all. On the contrary most standard contracts operate on the principle of retentions, which means you value the work complete at any stage and then subtract a 5 or 10% from it, which is held by the employer, and only paid right at the end when everything is complete.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
This was all discussed on another thread recently, by the way.
www.urban75.net
Are there any double glazing companies that don't give you the hard sell?
I spoke to Anglian Windows 20 years ago and it was a deeply unpleasant experience. Had another firm around last week, and it was really annoying. No I'm not going to make a decision there and then.. Had anyone found a decent company that offers quotes without suggesting that your mad if you...
www.urban75.net
