Enforcement of building regulations

nikinak

If a builder does not expose the foundation of a supporting pier within an extension when requested is this a serious breach of building regulations?

If the buildings regulation officer does not enforce the exposure or stop the build has he failed to take enforcement action against a significant breach of the Building Regulations?

System

does the project have a building warrant or a structural engineers design/spec to go with it?
the buildings standards officer can only request things like this, if he is not able to be satisfied then he can't sign off the job as complete, so work can carry on but will only be signed off when the appropriate checks have taken place

nikinak

It does have architects calculations and plans. It has a 5yr guarantee from the builder (although after this not sure I want this builder near my house again). It didn't need planning permisson due to its size, just build regulations. After speaking to the buildings regulation officer, It seems that all checks were signed off along the build, apart from this one for the foundations of the pier. The inspector said he asked the builder to expose the foundations to assess the ground, as the pier was on a strip foundation but may need to be on a pad stone foundation. The Pier is L-shape with 3 breeze block sized bricks (but the dense kind) down one side of the L and 2 along the other side.

The extension was finished in 2009. We were told by the builder that we would get the completion cert in the post (this was back in 2009), we then didn't get it and forgot about it. We've only just realised now we're getting affairs in order and chased up the certificate. Thus it came to light that builder didn't follow the inspectors request and did not expose the foundations. The build was allowed to continue without having this pier's foundations being checked, so obviously this cannot be signed off, till it has been rectified.

System

architects are not qualified to sign off structural calculations for an existing structure, this should have been done by a qualified engineer. the building standards officer has done his job correctly, it is up to you or the builder to prove that foundations have been built to the approved drawings, there is a time limit to the permissions etc too so i would check that as the last thing you want to do is have to apply for a new building warrant!
technically it's you that's at fault if you have been living in a building that doesn't have a completion cert, i would think that might void your buildings insurance too, you have to get the buildign standards department to tell you exactly what they want to be able to sign it off, which will definitely involve exposing the founds, could also mean you have to get an engineer to confirm it is fit for purpose as building standards won't want any liability at all landing with them

Doozergirl

Is there any chance of you containing this to one thread? Every post is related to the same thing, you might get better answers if you stick to the same thread and just expand on the story and build the picture rather than starting apparently unrelated threads. I can't keep up and I can't refer back to what you've already said either.

nikinak

We've got a structural engineer he's looked at the calculations that the architect has done and thinks the loading does not seem unduly high. The inspector has now said we can dig test holes in the garden close to the foundations.

It appears that building regulations officers prefer to talk to the builders, infact when whilst this had been going on I've asked to be copied in to his corrospondence with the engineer and still not been.
The inspector is actually being very nice now and helpful , but he wants to talk to the engineer directly not be dealing with us.

We just weren't able to ensure the builders were doing their job properly as the inspector didn't communicating with us directly. We haven't recieved any written corropsondence from the council throughout the build - is this the norm?

I feel this would be like me as a medic, writing to a GP and telling him that his patient needs an operation, but not telling the patient herself. The GP doesn't organise this surgery for his patient, and the patient is totally oblivious that he needs surgery so doesn't try and sort out her operation either, patient remains ill, possibly dies. - I would be struck off! It seems the same standards don't apply in that building regulations profession

nikinak

Issues with building regulations

Basically the building controls officer is telling us to gain our completion certificate for a single storey extension that was completed in November 2009, we need to dig up our kitchen floor expose the foundations of a pier in the centre of the kitchen, If the foundation prove unacceptable we then have to have the peer under pinned. we have some issues with this to say the least!

In the emails dated 8/06/2011 The inspector states that during the inspection 21/10/09 the visiting inspector noticed a newly formed pier was very poor. This was not a actually a newly formed pier it was actually the remaining brick work from the corner of the house.

The Inspector stated verbally in a phone call to me on the 8/06/2011 that he had advised on the visit on 21/10/09 that the pier needed to be rebuilt on dense concrete.

However, my husband was present on this visit (21/10/09) and the inspector made no mention of foundations whatsoever, just that the size of the pier needed to be increased based on calculations from the architect, to increase its load bearing over the existing foundations. Both my husband and the builder are adamant that this was the advice given on this day.

The builder told us that the inspector was happy with the size of the pier on ther visit two days later (23/10/09). He is also states that the inspector did not ask to see the foundations on this visit. (although we've just had to accept that the builder is maybe not being totally honest)

Firstly we cannot understand why if the foundations were an issue, was this not raised in the inspection (21/10/09) prior to the pier being extended? (This was the inspection that my husband was present at) Surely this is the logical order – foundations then build on top of them. There is absolutely no way that we would have let building continue without the foundations being checked if it had been mentioned on this or any visit. Husband and I are both professional intelligent people, We have never planned to stay in the house for long and know it would be an issue when it came to selling. It does not make sense that we would have ignored such pertinent, important advice.

Secondly, If the builder is not being truthful and the inspector had told the builders that the foundations needed to be assessed at the visit on the 23/10/09, (as we are certain it wasn’t discussed on the visit on the 21/10/09) Why when the builders didn’t give the inspector the opportunity to assess the foundation were we not informed? Surely this is a contravention of building regulations with failure by the builders to give the required notice at specified stages of the work to allow for inspection? At this point the building project was no longer meeting the regulations that inspector was imposing, and legal proceedings to change or stop the work could have been enforced. At the very least we as the home owners, and the people who were paying for regulations should have been informed. Thus preventing us being in the position of having to dig up our kitchen floor to expose the foundation and loose the sale on the house.

nikinak

Does anyone know what this is? Apparently we need to dig two.

ab7167

Trial hole perhaps? Usually done to see what's underneath something?

ab7167

Have you been told what the trial holes are to look at? I would dig them for 2 reasons - either against the face of an existing building to expose existing footings, or occasionally to find formation level for a new build prior to construction starting.

nikinak

Ah trial - not trowel holes! Mobile phone conversation on the handsfree today. Yes trial holes, that makes sense, building inspector is hopeful that the trial holes will show the ground is good enough and therefore the pier on its strip foundation will not need underpinning.