Fire Safety in New build properties

Tufa

London new build here, completion later this year but we will also have sprinklers. I was surprised, probably this is now compulsory..?

Red-Squirrel_2

AdrianC wrote: »

I can't see any reason whatsoever why the organisation who signed-off on the building regs at the time of build, nearly a decade ago, should pay for the work to be done - whether they should have signed it off or not.

You don't think they should be held responsible at all for signing off something as safe that they shouldn't have done?

AdrianC

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

You don't think they should be held responsible at all for signing off something as safe that they shouldn't have done?

That's a different question to whether the inspector should pay for it to be brought up to standard.


If you take your car for an MOT, it passes, but the tester is then found to have been overly lenient... should the tester pay for your car to be fixed?

Red-Squirrel_2

AdrianC wrote: »

That's a different question to whether the inspector should pay for it to be brought up to standard.


If you take your car for an MOT, it passes, but the tester is then found to have been overly lenient... should the tester pay for your car to be fixed?

I see what you mean, I suppose the question is, is the inspector directly responsible for the financial losses being suffered now.

You could argue that they are, because if the safety deficiencies had been identified at the right time the developer would have had to put them right, and the freeholders would not have been out of pocket as they are now. The delay in discovering the problems has meant the entity that should have paid now can't be made to

AdrianC

And we extend the MOT analogy just a tad...

If the tester was found to have been overly lenient, and the car had then been sold, should the tester pay for it to be fixed...? The garage that sold it has closed.

Red-Squirrel_2

AdrianC wrote: »

And we extend the MOT analogy just a tad...

If the tester was found to have been overly lenient, and the car had then been sold, should the tester pay for it to be fixed...? The garage that sold it has closed.

Sorry but I don't see the point in discussing the analogy when we know the real situation. The MOT idea isn't exactly analogous anyway as the owner of the car is always responsible for repairs whatever the MOT result.

davidmcn

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Sorry but I don't see the point in discussing the analogy when we know the real situation. The MOT idea isn't exactly analogous anyway as the owner of the car is always responsible for repairs whatever the MOT result.

And the owner of a building isn't?

In reality nobody buys a block of flats without carrying out their own due diligence - being signed off by building control merely means that you're not going to be pursued for breach of building regulations, not that the council is guaranteeing anything about the standard of construction.

Doozergirl

davidmcn wrote: »

And the owner of a building isn't?

In reality nobody buys a block of flats without carrying out their own due diligence - being signed off by building control merely means that you're not going to be pursued for breach of building regulations, not that the council is guaranteeing anything about the standard of construction.

Obtaining a certificate of compliance with building regulations should say a lot about the standard of construction, particularly in regard to this article where building regulations and the structural warranty were provided by the same company. Therefore, the building control certificate should provide the guarantee the standard of construction!

Even where warranty providers and BC inspectors are separate, the BC inspector is often relied upon to satisfy the requirements of the warranty company.

AdrianC's suggestion the the freeholder pays is ridiculous. Firstly, it's a fundamental point that the freeholder never incurs costs, so the suggestion fails there.

But mainly, if the new build structure isn't fit for purpose and fails basic checks like fireproofed steels, then the warranty providers should be responsible - given that they are providing an insurance backed guarantee and have relied on building control! If they don't want to provide the service, then they shouldn't provide the warranty.

In older properties then new leaseholders need decent surveys and to be aware that they are responsible for paying for any upgrades.

AdrianC

Doozergirl wrote: »

AdrianC's suggestion the the freeholder pays is ridiculous. Firstly, it's a fundamental point that the freeholder never incurs costs, so the suggestion fails there.

The freeholder certainly DOES incur costs... They would normally then pass them on to the leaseholders, as I suggested in the very next paragraph of that post.


Or the freeholder could choose to regard it as a failure in his own pre-purchase due diligence, and regard it as a cost of purchase, which would not be passable-on.

But mainly, if the new build structure isn't fit for purpose and fails basic checks like fireproofed steels, then the warranty providers should be responsible - given that they are providing an insurance backed guarantee and have relied on building control! If they don't want to provide the service, then they shouldn't provide the warranty.

Indeed - no argument whatsoever there. If it's within the terms of the warranty, then the warranty provider would be legally liable to pay. The article, however, barely mentions the warranty provider, other than to say they're also being sued, but commented that they're "dealing with all warranty holders fairly and in line with the terms and conditions of the warranties"... so there's clearly some debate there, too.

Either way, the warranty is not what the bulk of that article is about.

Red-Squirrel_2

davidmcn wrote: »

And the owner of a building isn't?

In reality nobody buys a block of flats without carrying out their own due diligence - being signed off by building control merely means that you're not going to be pursued for breach of building regulations, not that the council is guaranteeing anything about the standard of construction.

As I said, if the inspector hadn't signed of inappropriately, the developer would have had to make the changes there and then to get the sign off, so no the freeholder wouldn't have been responsible for these particular repairs if things had happened as they should.