Building control/architect error

maisie_cat

Apologies if this is the wrong forum, I couldn't find a more appropriate one.
We had an extension built under a building control full plans approval, and the work followed the plans.
After a final inspection is has become clear that the architect missed something from the plans, and now building control will not sign off the work.
The missed item was an old beam/steel that was supported by 2 walls and is now supported by another steel at one end where the wall was removed. The new steel only holds up the old steel as there are no walls above.
I have offered to pay for an engineer but they have not taken me up on it.
Has anybody had any similar experience? Is there any legislation covering this?

thanks

System

surely if a steel has been installed to support the old beam then it's been accounted for?
you won't get any change out of building control for this - they don't have any liability.
Was the beam on show before the works were done and did you have an engineer design the steel for the building regs drawings?

EachPenny

maisie_cat wrote: »

The missed item was an old beam/steel that was supported by 2 walls and is now supported by another steel at one end where the wall was removed. The new steel only holds up the old steel as there are no walls above.

Firstly, what does the old beam/steel do if it isn't supporting a wall above? Is it supporting part of the roof, or is it being used as a 'prop' to give lateral stability to one (or both) walls at its ends?

If the function of the beam/steel is not understood then it is impossible to say whether the new work is adequate, and therefore the refusal to sign off is completely understandable.

maisie_cat wrote: »

After a final inspection is has become clear that the architect missed something from the plans, and now building control will not sign off the work.

Was this old beam/steel visible before the work started? Did you or the architect arrange for inspections of things which were hidden to check how the structure worked in advance of the project starting on site?

The architect is unlikely to be sucessfully held to account for missing something which wasn't visible and was unexpected. Unless you specifically asked them to investigate the possibility of 'unknowns' as part of their brief.

If the old beam/steel wasn't visible before work started, then the correct thing to have done was when the builder uncovered something which wasn't as shown on the plans, work should have stopped and the architect (or a structural engineer) should have been consulted.

If the architect wasn't notified of this discovery then I don't think you can hold them liable for any subsequent issues.

So what happend when the old beam was discovered? Who designed the new steel beam? What are the specific reasons for refusal to sign off? Does the BC inspector think the work is unsafe, or is it just that they haven't seen the design calculations for the new beam?

maisie_cat

I didn't say that I wanted to hold the architect to account, I think he's dead anyway. What I do want is a way to get my certification or find out what I need to do to make it right. I don't think the building work is wrong, it's just the paper trail. But there must be a regulation somewhere that guides me on what to do.
I know from experience that having certification does not mean it's correct and safe and not having it does not mean that it's automatically wrong.
The old steel has a partition wall above and the new steel has nothing above. I don't think it was for lateral stability because it is not original to the house, having been added in the 1970's.
The architect didn't include the old steel in his calculations for the new steel although it was already uncovered & visible when he visited. The builder noticed it wasn't on the drawings and arranged for the architect to recalculate, a larger steel was made and fitted. We have a copy of the calculations and new drawing but building control claim not to have had originally, no idea where the originals went! They do have copies of that paperwork now.
The building inspector does not believe the work is unsafe, I just think he does not know what to do

Doozergirl

You'll need a structural calculation to prove that it is. That's all that will satisfy them.

If you don't have access to the original designer, then a new structural engineer is needed. It can hopefully be sorted by the end of the week.

maisie_cat

I wish I dealt with the BC department in your area, they do appear to work faster than ours. The inspector was going to speak to an department engineer to check calculations in July, the final inspection was in May.
So far he has not done so, the calculations are written in a way that I expect an engineer would understand and I've already offered to pay for the calculations to be checked or the work unwrapped/inspected.
To be honest I know that the work is fine, but my husband suffers from anxiety and it's making him ill so i want to sort it.

EachPenny

maisie_cat wrote: »

The old steel has a partition wall above and the new steel has nothing above.

So the old beam/steel does have something above to support, as well as it's own weight. A 'partition wall' might not impose as much load on the beam as a wall supporting somthing else above, but it does have some weight. (if the partition wall was very light then you might expect to find timber rather than steel supporting it).

maisie_cat wrote: »

I don't think it was for lateral stability because it is not original to the house, having been added in the 1970's.

The date it was added is irrelevant. It could be the structure was suffering from some form of subsidence or movement in the 1970's and part of the remediation work was to add internal lateral support. This is why it is important to understand the function of structural members... and perhaps the building inspector is looking through the property's file to see if there is any history he needs to know about.

maisie_cat wrote: »

The architect didn't include the old steel in his calculations for the new steel although it was already uncovered & visible when he visited.... The building inspector does not believe the work is unsafe, I just think he does not know what to do

If you think the building inspector is incompetent then you should report this to his manager. But it is unlikely to be the case.

It might be that the building inspector is wondering what else the architect might have missed and thinking what else needs to be checked. Although it shouldn't take as long as it seems to have done.

maisie_cat wrote: »

To be honest I know that the work is fine...

If this is on the basis you trust a (possibly dead) architect (who now obviously cannot be asked) not to have made any other mistakes, then I would agree with Doozergirl and say you really need to get a structural engineer to confirm that all is ok.

Have you asked the building inspector what the hold up is?

maisie_cat

I never said that the old steel had nothing above it, the new steel has nothing above it, it is only holding up the old steel at one end.
I do not think the building inspector is incompetent, I think he does not know what to do about the situation.
The reason I think it is okay is because I trust the builder, he is a known quantity locally and trusted by building control according to the inspector.
The BC hold up is because he was not involved in the other inspections it was somebody else and he is not familiar, he is busy and he is hoping to catch an engineer to ask him about the new steel.
I will ask the building inspector if he will accept a structural engineers report and sign off, I guess I'll just have to suck up the cost.

EachPenny

maisie_cat wrote: »

I never said that the old steel had nothing above it, the new steel has nothing above it, it is only holding up the old steel at one end.

Ok, that makes it clearer as this:-

maisie_cat wrote: »

The new steel only holds up the old steel as there are no walls above.

...suggested there was nothing above the old steel (either) and the new steel only had to support the self-weight of the old one (which had no obvious purpose).

If the old steel is supporting a partition wall, is it also supporting one or more floors, or is there no connection between the old steel and the floor at that level?

And how has the builder connected the old steel onto the new one? Is it a bolted or welded joint, or is the old beam just resting on top of the new one?