Aedis Building Inspectors unreachable

myk33

guitar77 wrote: »

Whatamuddle.

I’m afraid I’m not so sure they aren’t rubbing there hands with this (some LA anyway)
They said it was full cost - notes or not. I see no reason for them to charge full price if acceptable notes are present.
That’s taking advantage. No question.

Incidentally, I received an email from CICAIR who told me to let them know if Aedis do not send full notes or if they are unsigned as they will query this with AEDIS. A small glimmer of hope for you guys who have had unsigned notes.
Please don’t say I said! Not that it should matter.

This is a blanket response and I am sure that CICAIR have no way of getting access to this data unless someone in the firm has access to the data necessary to hand over. Company gone into liquidation and staff not being paid. If all their key staff who know their !!! from elbow leave and there is no one left in the firm I bet this data is not filed or supplied to another body (like CICAIR) so that they can hand over said data in this eventuality.

Whatamuddle

guitar77 wrote: »

Whatamuddle.

I’m afraid I’m not so sure they aren’t rubbing there hands with this (some LA anyway)
They said it was full cost - notes or not. I see no reason for them to charge full price if acceptable notes are present.
That’s taking advantage. No question.

Incidentally, I received an email from CICAIR who told me to let them know if Aedis do not send full notes or if they are unsigned as they will query this with AEDIS. A small glimmer of hope for you guys who have had unsigned notes.
Please don’t say I said! Not that it should matter.

Well, I can't argue that point! I'd take the same view as you have to be honest but...
I know there is some discussion as to what the legal position for labc in terms of total responsibility is, especially in accepting Aedis records which so far, as I understand, vary in completeness and quality. Obviously this will make labc more cautious - that could be the view your LA is taking?
Despite this thought, where I'm 'connected' the consensus amongst LABC is to be pragmatic and helpful. The $64m questions is - will Aedis records offer sufficient confidence? Just don't know as I haven't seen any...

Whatamuddle

myk33 wrote: »

This is a blanket response and I am sure that CICAIR have no way of getting access to this data unless someone in the firm has access to the data necessary to hand over. Company gone into liquidation and staff not being paid. If all their key staff who know their !!! from elbow leave and there is no one left in the firm I bet this data is not filed or supplied to another body (like CICAIR) so that they can hand over said data in this eventuality.

I believe as part of their CICAIR registration they have to have their records in an electronic retrievable format for this very reason. Doesn't mean to say they've comply of course but, given they are checked/audited or something like by CICAIR from time to time you'd hope this would've be picked up in that process. I'm sure the records will become available but, since the liquidator is in and staff are left dangling - it may take longer that one would hope.
I don't think there is any question as to the competency of the surveyors so the next part is hoping the records match that.

guitar77

Whatamuddle -

Yes I agree with you. I have no idea what teeth or influence they (CICAIR) have regarding us getting correct signed notes.
I also do not understand how they could enforce signing notes if the unpaid inspectors have long gone.
I have no idea what capacity Aedis are now working at and suspect some low grade (no offence) staff are just throwing out notes at speed.
I don’t know -I’m just making noises and passing on the info to you guys. Make of CICAIR’s comments as you will. ‘He who shouts louder’ and all that. Wife’s pregnant and so I’m to keen to finish the nursery to keep her stress levels low. Not even sure if I can throw carpets down yet incase floorboards go up. World is full of far worse problems though so I know perspective is key!

myk33

Whatamuddle wrote: »

I believe as part of their CICAIR registration they have to have their records in an electronic retrievable format for this very reason. Doesn't mean to say they've comply of course but, given they are checked/audited or something like by CICAIR from time to time you'd hope this would've be picked up in that process. I'm sure the records will become available but, since the liquidator is in and staff are left dangling - it may take longer that one would hope.
I don't think there is any question as to the competency of the surveyors so the next part is hoping the records match that.

Whatamuddle, firstly thank you for taking the time to add input and your professional experience to this thread. Its helpful and refreshing knowledge for those currently in this !!!! show with AEDIS.


I do hope this is true however I have to say the notes I got from a contact working in the head office last week were 3 job sheet templates for each of my 3 site inspections. they were unsigned and did not have the corresponding images attached.


I managed to contact 1 of the surveyors on their mobile and asked them to send over the notes they had and it was a word document with the same template as I receive before but with the images attached below the notes and signed.


I fear that a lot of these signed notes are simply on the surveyors laptops (as im sure a large majority of them are not located near the head office and simply work off a laptop and home office) and that they only file the 1st page of the word doc back to the company data share...


I'm sure its not going to be like this for everyone but with 10s of thousands of people in this situation I am sure there will be thousands of people who do not get all of their documents pertaining to their project.

HockeyUmp

If a local authority is asking for premium rates, try asking them how this ties in with CIPFA rules, and what the hourly rate they use to establish these fees are.
If at the end of the job they haven't carried out the number of hours they estimated when creating the fee, you should be entitled to a part refund.

HockeyUmp

guitar77 wrote: »

What a muddle - no apology needed. We are all just trying to inform, discuss and advise.


Our Architect wrote to our LA (we were not aware he contacted them - he must have been advising lots of people Aedis were good to deal with, so maybe feels he should help) telling them that the fee they wanted to charge was too much as we only needed a final sign off. They will ‘get back to him’.
He suggested that we don’t panic, we will get notes at some point so we can hopefully just ‘finish off inspection’. Just to remind everyone we have a completed first floor side dormer - two doubles bedrooms and a bathroom . (and virtually decorated too!) . Just so you know scale of our build.
He also said that regs aren’t required by law and in 20-30 yrs when we sell, show proof of what’s occurred with Aedis and pay for an indemnity insurance.
The ‘total building control’ guy we spoke to also said the same funnily enough.
So there appears to be a bit of ‘meh
- who cares it won’t matter too much in the long term future’ sort of attitude going on. Not sure what to make of this.

Of course we want a building regs sign off so our plan is too hang tight and wait for our notes, then discuss with LA to finish off when they have proof.
Our current property now has a 3x2m kitchen extension that has no building regs (the owner who was a builder did it himself) and it didn’t really put us off buying. Been standing fine for the last 15-20 yes.

Just wondering what you guys think of going this route (if NO notes can be retrieved).
Cheers all!

Indemnity Insurance usually carries a clause that it is only valid if the Local Authority are not aware of the works. As there is a register of Initial Notices held by the Local Authority, which in turn will know Aedis is in liquidation, then any Indemnity Insurance would be invalid.

juliemacnam

Hello there

I work for LABC and here's an article we've posted giving advice to building owners on what they should do if their Approved Inspector no longer has the insurance cover needed to trade (there are four companies without insurance at the moment):

I can't post a link so look for approved inspector insurance on the labc.co.uk website.

It mentions this in the article, but if you need to make a complaint, do go to Cicair.

Julie,
LABC

HockeyUmp

Doozergirl wrote: »

guitar77's work is not illegal, it's fully compliant with the regulations. There's simply no need to scare a lay person by shouting at them. Nothing bad will ever happen to the OP on this front because there is nothing wrong with the work and they have followed due process, this far. If, in the unlikely case that the LA suddenly decided to take enforcement action, they'd open up the work and find it compliant. (Fact is, in 15 years on this board no one has ever come here with the problem if having enforcement action taken against them - it doesn't exactly promote good practice, but it's a whole different issue that doesn't apply to guitar)

guitar, hopefully there will be a way to right this properly in the coming weeks and months. If no notes are forthcoming then the 'meh' attitude is an option that can't really be denied.

What you must keep in mind through this is that you and your home are safe. We're just talking about the paperwork that proves it. The real proof is in the actual pudding.

The worst case scenario, if you choose the 'meh' option, is that you have to go through the full process in the future that would otherwise have to go through now. I don't even believe that would happen. Being pragmatic about it, some buyers will certainly baulk at a lack of sign-off, but most won't. Indemnity policies seem to be as common as bread and butter over on the housing board.

I certainly wouldn't recommend it as a preferred route, but if you present the proof of what has happened and offer the indemnity policy up front, then I think solicitors would accept it willingly. Clearly the survey won't raise an issue over safety of your build, as it's compliant.

I'm sincerely hoping that the notes appear and things can be resolved with LABC easily. A partially reduced inspection fee might be appropriate if there's only one left, but those drawings/notes etc will still need to be reviewed and that's not free. So maybe the full process with them is the easier option if you're only going to save £100 or so.

Life when you come to sell would be a little less stressful if you deal with it now. But it's stressful now too! There's no genuine hurry, so I'd wait and see.

It is a criminal offence to carry on with works that is controlled under the Building Regulations 2010 (as amended) without a valid application being in force. It is also a criminal offence not to notifying the relevant bodies at relevant stages. It is also the case that the Initial Notice can cease to be in force 8 weeks after occupation of the area affected by the works.

I have also come across many conveyance solicitors who are getting twitchy about Indemnity Insurance certificates, but admittedly most still seem to accept them.

My firm beliefs is that any LA should charge for the time it takes them to resolve these matters, based on an hourly rate which is calculated under CIPFA guidelines. If the LA is trying to be punitive. request details of both their hourly rate, and the actual time spent of the job. Times both together, and request any balance is refunded.

HockeyUmp

myk33 wrote: »

can you advise how they exposed your foundations? was the wall fully built on it?

If the foundations need exposing, a simple trial hole down one side will usually suffice. This should be large enough to see the bottom of the foundations.
Hopefully using your LABC surveyor, they will have local knowledge of the ground conditions.
I am not sure where any local authorities are getting that site notes need to be signed, tbh I have received some good and bad examples of site notes from Aedis, and have treated them accordingly. Many of the Aedis notes I have reviewed are accompanied with photos or the elements they inspected.
I accepted the site notes that seemed comprehensive "Inspected the footings at 11.10am on a clear day. Foundations excavated 1100 deep, and 600mm wide into a orangey stoney clay." however I challenged the job where it said "Foundations commenced into clay". Luckily the owner had kept a very good series of photos that sequenced all the works, and satisfied me of compliance. I would always recommend home owner serialise their job with extensive photos