Bricks vs breeze blocks and plaster

Annie1960

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

No you miss my point, maybe bricks were more expensive, but you accepted the job at the price quoted, it doesn't need a website to explain that.



The blocks, both types will support the same load with ease and add better thermal ins, you have a better specked job than you asked for for the same price, sorry if you don't get that

I accepted the job at the price quoted, and the quote said the builder would 'follow the drawings exactly'. It is a really simple matter to look at prices per square metre for the bricks I have to use (which are laid down by local authority), and breeze blocks which are cheaper, less than half the price in fact. Maybe it is a 'better spec' but the materials used are cheaper, not what I agreed to pay for. We have trading legislation to cover this type of situation.

I would fully accept your point if the quote had said the builder would use concrete breeze blocks rather than bricks for the inner leaf.

Thank you for your second point, I will take this up with architect.

I think I now have all the information I need in order to discuss this with the relevant people, so many thanks to everyone for all your information and opinions.

Annie1960

Furts wrote: »

I am slightly bewildered about the query - not a criticism but instead my brain not understanding the issue.

What you have is a fully filled cavity. The product is a cavity batt (at least that is what I refer to them as). If you Google 100mm thick Crown, or Dritherm, or Rockwool Cavity Batt something should crop up. I will guess the size - perhaps 1200 long by 450 high as a guide for your searching.

Now my puzzle. Cavity walls are not built with an inner leaf of brick - never have been (within reason and with some exceptions.) But this never goes back to when cavity walls were introduced way back circa 1930 or before - so is not a new concept.

Yes your facebricks will need to match.

Turning to your inner leaf - in recent years it has become more important not to use bricks on the inner leaf. The reason is poor insulation, plus heat and noise transfer. The main one is insulation and think this one through. Bricks are fired clay and vary in shape, length and texture. They have holes through them, or are indented . The rough surfaces do not allow a nicely made Celotex insultion sheet to sit snug against them. Now I accept you may not know about Celotex or similar, but it is the principle and fundamental that counts here.

Inner skins are built of blocks for speed, for cost saving and to receive neat fitting insulation.

Thanks very much for your points. I think I now have enough information to take this forward with the relevant parties.

robatwork

Nothing useful to add but great to see the mention of Newton in a forum. He always got a bit of a raw deal when it came to SI units.

Also good to see what seems like a genuine expert in Furts offering advice to the great unwashed DIYers (me and the OP and probably 90% in here). Keep up the good work....

Furts

Annie1960 wrote: »

Thanks very much for your points. I think I now have enough information to take this forward with the relevant parties.

Perhaps I am too late to add anything else. But it appears the consensus is the builder is not competent. One then should ask is the designer competent? I say this because two skins of bricks is not a sign of competence. Hence, what other error, or bad judgement, may be on the drawings?

You could end up in a dispute where two incompetent parties act together to pull the wool over your eyes - mutual preservation for them. Or they may know their errors and not co-operate.

Trading Standards involvement is a concern too. If you have Buildings Regulations with your council, do you really expect a completely fair hearing from their colleagues in Tradings Standards?

Of course this assumes you have the Regulations in place. So what has been the stance of Building Control?

Equally what are your cost implications? An easy route is to dismiss the builder and engage someone competent. Your scheme has not progressed far, so now is a good time.

Annie1960

Thanks, Furts.

It is difficult in a forum like this to go into all the details.


The architect is supporting me. Building control compiled a list of problems that need to be addressed. Builder did not agree and walked off the job. Builder told me he had worked as a general builder for many years - turns out this was not true. He's a plasterer (a good one) but has only been a builder for 18 months.

Furts

Annie1960 wrote: »

Thanks, Furts.

It is difficult in a forum like this to go into all the details.


The architect is supporting me. Building control compiled a list of problems that need to be addressed. Builder did not agree and walked off the job. Builder told me he had worked as a general builder for many years - turns out this was not true. He's a plasterer (a good one) but has only been a builder for 18 months.

Hopefully the observations from this Forum will tally with what you already have been told by the Architect and Building Control.

My intuition is the plasterer has jumped on the band wagon. There has been an upturn in domestic work and lots want a bite of it. But the trained, competent labour supply never increased to match - it is still many of the old faces. Hence any new faces, and new contractors/builders, need treating with caution.

Walking off the job may be to your advantage and you can get somebody competent. Only you know if you have been taken for a sum of money. Next time round I hope everything turns out OK. But the tenders you receive may be a bitter pill to swallow.

JustAnotherSaver

phil24_7 wrote: »

They look like standard 7nm concrete blocks.

I saw the image myself & personally thought it was quite difficult to tell which type of block it was, nevermind the actual nm figure, whether it be 3.5, 7, 10, whatever, whether it is a standard block, a lightweight block. I personally don't think it was an ultralight.
Just saying it was hard to tell

Smiley_Dan

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I actually think you are wrong, no internal blockwork is ever air tight, indeed no wall is totally moisture "empty".
Walls have to breath, both ways in and out.

Put absolute vapour barrier in there and condensation takes over. The cavity, even if insulated acts as a vapour chimmney

Errrm... vapour permeability is different to air permeability. Read up on http://www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/plaster-and-render/ .

Dot and dab plasterboard on bare walls is not acceptable, unless there's another air barrier outbound.

Furts

Smiley_Dan wrote: »

Errrm...

Dot and dab plasterboard on bare walls is not acceptable, unless there's another air barrier outbound.

Dot and dab plasterboard is not acceptable, full stop! But being pragmatic this has moved into a grey area, with conflicting interests, suggestions of cover ups and so it goes on... The bottom line is countless houses have mould build up, spreading from behind the dot and dab plasterboard.

cyclonebri1

Smiley_Dan wrote: »

Errrm... vapour permeability is different to air permeability. Read up on http://www.greenspec.co.uk/building-design/plaster-and-render/ .

Dot and dab plasterboard on bare walls is not acceptable, unless there's another air barrier outbound.

Who mentioned plastering, ok, you did??

Consider osmosis if you will, I did.