Building Control part "a" sign off question.

srm1

Hi,
There is some considerable history to this, 6 years in fact.
Both of the BC surveyors involved have now left the Council.
Sadly without updating the case notes. Neighbours works are defective & do not comply with building regulations. This matter has been in court for the past for 3 1/2 years.

Now the new BC surveyor has stated the defective works have been signed off and that they can do nothing?

My question: does the part "a" signoff come on a form or just a letter of conformity? I have requested a copy of signoff and now BC are ignoring me.

Thanks for any ideas or suggestions.

Furts

My stance is that once case gets into Court highly paid professionals are involved. It is inappropriate to be asking well meaning, but anonymous Forum users to contribute to the litigation.

I am not a lawyer, nor an expert on Buildings Regulations. My understanding is that there will be a record of the Inspections and this will be available. This availability will be to the person who applied for and paid for the Application. In effect this will be the property owner even if the Application was handled by an agent such as an Architect. You do not have a right to see this.

My understanding is that Planning is in the public domain and Buildings Regulations are not. However old Buildings Regulations are archived and one can request these. In my experience you will then find that any contentious file is probably not available. This suggests to me that the archived records that I have seen over the years have been on a goodwill, or informal basis. I do not know the legal position on their availability for viewing, but I suspect that they are meant to be confidential.

srm1

Thanks Furts for a prompt reply.
My problem is the gaping hole in BC's case notes with no updating since 2013 despite a BC site visit in 2014 with the expert witness structual engineer. Loads of photos taken and the route of demolition reconstuction agreed between them.
Now that the original surveyors have gone, this new BC guy has no interest in this matter or the truth.
And before you ask, this has cost me fortunes in legal fees.

Furts

If you follow my reply, with my hints, you will gather that the council may loose, or withhold records, or simply not record what has happened.

You will have been pursuing this for years. A typical scenario is:

You submit a formal written request for information to the Council

This request gets passed to the Legal Department of the Council.

The Legal Department pass this request to their solicitors somewhere in the UK.

The solicitors pass the request to the Council's Loss Adjusters somewhere in the UK.

The Loss Adjusters reply to your initial request by with holding information or refusing to co-operate.

End result is that you get nowhere.

Equally I suspect there is little that any Forum members can do to assist. The moral is to not go to war with a Council for you will find that they are not on your side. Their position is to avoid any costs that could be borne by the Council Tax payers

srm1

Or there is a second option.
At the previous full document disclosure, ordered by the court, the works had not been signed off.
At the next direction hearing, request a further document disclosure takes place to determine what the local Council are playing at - yes I pay Council tax also.

Furts

Of course, you have a huge advantage over me because I do not the details of your case. Which goes back to my comment earlier - I am simply a well meaning Forum member who does not have access to the facts!

However, remember the underlying principles here. You are a Council Tax payer who is in a minority of one. A Council exists to minimise expenditure incurred by Council Tax payers as a group and will side with the majority.

In effect you are asking the majority of Council tax payers to meet your costs and make some form of award stipulated by the Court. If you asked each of the Council Tax payers if they are happy to do this the answer would be an overwhelming "No, why should I". It is these people that the Council are siding with.

srm1

None of this should be necessary if BC had acted correctly.

My original and only question was: what does a part "a" approval look like.

I do however appreciate your involvement in this matter.

srm1

Perhaps the other Council tax payers would be more concerned if they had a crack running through the party wall, had to have stress guages fitted only to show further movement is taking place - all caused by neighbours defective & non compliant building work.

Furts

srm1 wrote: »

None of this should be necessary if BC had acted correctly.

My original and only question was: what does a part "a" approval look like.

I do however appreciate your involvement in this matter.

You need to establish what your legal team and your Council are deeming to be "part a sign off" My intuition is that this is a red herring and an irrelevance. I will not go into the legalities or technicalities for it appears that you are over receptive to suggestions.

And if you see such a sign off what is it meant to signify? Add to this that the relevance applied to the applicant and...so it goes on

You also need to be clear on whether a Building Notice or a Full Plans Application was made for there is a world of difference in procedures.

srm1

At the end of the day, BC are incorrect and will have to return to site to monitor the demolition & reconstruction works required to make the structure safe and comply with building regulations. The requirements are already laid down in a second party wall award.
I personally wouldn't trust Building Control to control thier own bowel movements at present.

srm1

Furts wrote: »

And if you see such a sign off what is it meant to signify? Add to this that the relevance applied to the applicant and...so it goes on

You also need to be clear on whether a Building Notice or a Full Plans Application was made for there is a world of difference in procedures.

You will actually find part A listed at:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF_AD_A_2013.pdf

I fail to see if the works are conducted under a permitted development or full planing application - the structual requirements are equally as important & also relevent.
Please kindly refer to this before offering further advice.