Aedis Building Inspectors unreachable

myk33

HockeyUmp wrote: »

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

Thanks for this, I have appointed my LABC and I should have an inspection this week I hope.


I had 2 pad stones dug out each side of the steel goal posts for the vertical posts to sit on which was around 1 cubic meter on each side.


we have pictures of these dug out with a man below his head in the hole and also a ladder where you can clearly see that its 1.5 m deep or more.


AEDIS did not have their own pictures and nor did the notes go into much detail at all regarding the pad stones and the steels that were installed. we do however have lots of pictures of our own of the padstones before they were filled and the steels that were installed.


all is now closed up and I am dreading what is ahead.


do you think most surveyors would be happy to pass based on these pictures assuming they are detailed enough?


I know I am asking a "How long is a piece of string" question however im rather worried about the extra cost, time and stress I will need to endure should the surveyor be a little on the pedantic side.


furthermore wife is pregnant and due in 8 weeks so huge amount of stress and unknown for me ahead.

guitar77

Yay!

Aedis replied. They have no inspection notes whatsoever on our build.
What a ******** an absolute pile of incompetence.
I’ll take pictures of my property being smashed all over the place.

myk33

guitar77 wrote: »

Yay!

Aedis replied. They have no inspection notes whatsoever on our build.
What a ******** an absolute pile of incompetence.
I’ll take pictures of my property being smashed all over the place.

This is what I am saying, I think most if not all of their inspectors work from home using a laptop and store all their data on this and fail to file each site visit notes the same day or day after they are conducted.


do you have pictures of most of the build?

Farked

guitar77 wrote: »

Yay!

Aedis replied. They have no inspection notes whatsoever on our build.
What a ******** an absolute pile of incompetence.
I’ll take pictures of my property being smashed all over the place.

Really sorry to hear this guitar77. From what you said though you have pictures of it being done, sounded like your work is the type that could be verified photographically. Also you need to contact CICAIR as it could be you've got a response from someone who doesn't know.


Myk33 - they would be work laptops so I think the work should be uploaded to a central server rather than sitting on an individual machine.

Whatamuddle

myk33 wrote: »

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.

Hi MK33
The main problem here is that there isn't a simple answer that covers every project involving Aedis or any other AI. Every local authroity has a statutory duty to provide a building control service and each local authority has to determine how it should meet that requirement and this is where things will vary. It isn't always the Manager that has the final say in this. The manager has to satisfy Finance (they in turn have to meet very strict financial regulation- often far in excess of private sector accounting); Legal, a service that is having to look after the local authorities interests way beyond building control of course etc. I'm not tryin to put excuses in here, simply trying to demonstrate how the situation can become complex.
There is no national body that governs LABC as noted, that is down to the 'local'authority, however, LABC has a very strong network through its organisation LABC Services to build common policy and practice but nevertheless with over 350 authorities and 3500 combined personel it is inevitable not everything will be the same.
My considerable years in building control (and peripheral to it) gives me the confidence to say that in the majority of situations labc will be pragmatic and sympathetic to the situation. They will not however compromise that statutory responsibility and this is where it can get frosty within the scenarios people are experiencing with reversions. Every project is, and will be different. I know no-onee has suggested the opposite here (apart from odd comment :-)) - I just thought I'd mention it.
So, Finance. LABC is general split into two sections which I refer to as Trading and Non-Trading. Trading is the competetive element i.e. the bit everyone on here is interested in. This has to be done on a self-financing basis - withought an unreasonable surplus of income nor at a loss. This is measure over any 3 year rolling period so allows for good and bad years if you like or, when a large project comes in and starts in say February but a bulk of the work will occur post March (local authority uses the financial year April to March). LABC also has to publish a scheme of charges (AI's don't). Each LABC is responsible for setting it fees and charges to achieve this objective. They could base all of the charges on quotations but given the volume (The LA areas I'm referring to get about 64% of all submissions in the building control market) it would be almost impossible so for most small domestic work plus one or two other categories they set a fee based on an average project and this will include considering a reversion.
The non-trading covers matter like public safety with dangerous buildings and demolition and a bundle of other stuff that is funded totally separately
LABC will not 'over charge', although, I can see how as an individual customer comparing one with another it may not seem that way. Some council's charge higher fees and this can because of a number of factors that I think I'd need more time to explain and plenty of sleep before doing so!
What I believe people are experiencing is how an individual authority is assessing the risk. Rather than being punitive they are simply charging the usual fee. They may well then refund if they can based upon the information they receive. I can appreciate that some will be cynical about this and far beit from me to claim that to be a nonsense, as I said previously nonone on this forum has power over all the labc depts but, there is no advantage to charging a higher than necessary fee. Someone mentioned CiPFA (Chartered Institue for Public Finance and Accounting - I think that's right) which sets out detailed guidance for local authorities to manage building control accounts. LA's treat them as God to a large degree. But in any event legislation governs that labc in simple terms is non profit making; it doesn't pay bonuses and will not offer fat salaries on the strength of business growth they are largely still within local government and the policies they have. Similarly they are governed by elected members that don't general like staff getting anything extra other than the minimum (voters don't like it)!
Accepting Aedis and other AI records. I agree with the comment made elsewhere; they don't need to be signed but, they need to be authentic. Someone else mentioned that 'they could've written the notes themselves' and that is a real risk. The building industry isn't immune to fraud so, sadly it has to be considered. Some LABC know their local Aedis surveyors, not all, but some; it isn't alwys pistols at dawn, we often all get on very well, and this will help in the process but doesn't offer guarantees as how information can be accepted etc. This is where it gets even more complex. From what I understand, records vary significantly in quality from a comprehensive description to something next to useless; in assessing what to accept the labc has to consider the risk to the authority it cannot simply accept what Aedis or other AI might claim - it has a statutory obligation to deal with the situation whilst minimising potential claims for mishaps whether because of what the AI may have done or what their own surveyor fails to pick up. What I can say is that from my experience labc will not be unreasonable in discharging these duties and will want to minimise the impact on both yourselves and them. Legal formal enforcement action has always been a last resort and this was the case long before competition came into building control - it hasn't lessened just because competition came in. The reason being that formal action tends to become adversarial and this just makes everything harder work; labc would much rather work with you to gain compliance and of course, it's very expensive. Having said that and depsite comments I've seen elsewhere, they will not shy away from it; often other legislation such as that adminstered by Trading Standards is more powerful but ultimately achieves the same or better result and as such TS will lead on it and so it isn't easily seen that the building regulation matters have been dealt with.
Someone commented that all building control surveyors are the same whether public or private sector which, is largely true but not entirely. This isn't about individual surveyors, it is about the legal responsibilities of public and priavte sector provision and they do vary quite considerably especially in this context of reversion.
It is known that some AI's managed to get alternative insurance, Aedis is one that didn't - why? Why does anyone get refused insurance? Many reasons I guess...
I've rambled on but, although boring sometimes some background helps understand the position of the various bodies involved.
I'm happy to try and answer specific questions but stress they have to be fairly high level and general because no one can really give a definitive answer to a lot of this stuff at this stage and as I've said, it is for each LA to determine how to satisfy its statutory responsibilities.
Sorry, but I can't be arsed to read through all this stuff again so, I hope it makes sense and helps in some way.

foxstorm

just to agree with what was said. Normally you just dig a test hole down the side of a foundation to illustrate its width and depth. pictures should then be enough for mesh/ground conditions etc


Other things they look at should also not be too onerous. except for insulation if you have no panels to remove

guitar77

No. I have some pics we took along the way for interests sake. . Probably not what LA want. None of steel beam either.
I’m fuming and trying desperately not stroke out.

myk33

Whatamuddle wrote: »

Hi MK33
The main problem here is that there isn't a simple answer that covers every project involving Aedis or any other AI. Every local authroity has a statutory duty to provide a building control service and each local authority has to determine how it should meet that requirement and this is where things will vary. It isn't always the Manager that has the final say in this. The manager has to satisfy Finance (they in turn have to meet very strict financial regulation- often far in excess of private sector accounting); Legal, a service that is having to look after the local authorities interests way beyond building control of course etc. I'm not tryin to put excuses in here, simply trying to demonstrate how the situation can become complex.
There is no national body that governs LABC as noted, that is down to the 'local'authority, however, LABC has a very strong network through its organisation LABC Services to build common policy and practice but nevertheless with over 350 authorities and 3500 combined personel it is inevitable not everything will be the same.
My considerable years in building control (and peripheral to it) gives me the confidence to say that in the majority of situations labc will be pragmatic and sympathetic to the situation. They will not however compromise that statutory responsibility and this is where it can get frosty within the scenarios people are experiencing with reversions. Every project is, and will be different. I know no-onee has suggested the opposite here (apart from odd comment :-)) - I just thought I'd mention it.
So, Finance. LABC is general split into two sections which I refer to as Trading and Non-Trading. Trading is the competetive element i.e. the bit everyone on here is interested in. This has to be done on a self-financing basis - withought an unreasonable surplus of income nor at a loss. This is measure over any 3 year rolling period so allows for good and bad years if you like or, when a large project comes in and starts in say February but a bulk of the work will occur post March (local authority uses the financial year April to March). LABC also has to publish a scheme of charges (AI's don't). Each LABC is responsible for setting it fees and charges to achieve this objective. They could base all of the charges on quotations but given the volume (The LA areas I'm referring to get about 64% of all submissions in the building control market) it would be almost impossible so for most small domestic work plus one or two other categories they set a fee based on an average project and this will include considering a reversion.
The non-trading covers matter like public safety with dangerous buildings and demolition and a bundle of other stuff that is funded totally separately
LABC will not 'over charge', although, I can see how as an individual customer comparing one with another it may not seem that way. Some council's charge higher fees and this can because of a number of factors that I think I'd need more time to explain and plenty of sleep before doing so!
What I believe people are experiencing is how an individual authority is assessing the risk. Rather than being punitive they are simply charging the usual fee. They may well then refund if they can based upon the information they receive. I can appreciate that some will be cynical about this and far beit from me to claim that to be a nonsense, as I said previously nonone on this forum has power over all the labc depts but, there is no advantage to charging a higher than necessary fee. Someone mentioned CiPFA (Chartered Institue for Public Finance and Accounting - I think that's right) which sets out detailed guidance for local authorities to manage building control accounts. LA's treat them as God to a large degree. But in any event legislation governs that labc in simple terms is non profit making; it doesn't pay bonuses and will not offer fat salaries on the strength of business growth they are largely still within local government and the policies they have. Similarly they are governed by elected members that don't general like staff getting anything extra other than the minimum (voters don't like it)!
Accepting Aedis and other AI records. I agree with the comment made elsewhere; they don't need to be signed but, they need to be authentic. Someone else mentioned that 'they could've written the notes themselves' and that is a real risk. The building industry isn't immune to fraud so, sadly it has to be considered. Some LABC know their local Aedis surveyors, not all, but some; it isn't alwys pistols at dawn, we often all get on very well, and this will help in the process but doesn't offer guarantees as how information can be accepted etc. This is where it gets even more complex. From what I understand, records vary significantly in quality from a comprehensive description to something next to useless; in assessing what to accept the labc has to consider the risk to the authority it cannot simply accept what Aedis or other AI might claim - it has a statutory obligation to deal with the situation whilst minimising potential claims for mishaps whether because of what the AI may have done or what their own surveyor fails to pick up. What I can say is that from my experience labc will not be unreasonable in discharging these duties and will want to minimise the impact on both yourselves and them. Legal formal enforcement action has always been a last resort and this was the case long before competition came into building control - it hasn't lessened just because competition came in. The reason being that formal action tends to become adversarial and this just makes everything harder work; labc would much rather work with you to gain compliance and of course, it's very expensive. Having said that and depsite comments I've seen elsewhere, they will not shy away from it; often other legislation such as that adminstered by Trading Standards is more powerful but ultimately achieves the same or better result and as such TS will lead on it and so it isn't easily seen that the building regulation matters have been dealt with.
Someone commented that all building control surveyors are the same whether public or private sector which, is largely true but not entirely. This isn't about individual surveyors, it is about the legal responsibilities of public and priavte sector provision and they do vary quite considerably especially in this context of reversion.
It is known that some AI's managed to get alternative insurance, Aedis is one that didn't - why? Why does anyone get refused insurance? Many reasons I guess...
I've rambled on but, although boring sometimes some background helps understand the position of the various bodies involved.
I'm happy to try and answer specific questions but stress they have to be fairly high level and general because no one can really give a definitive answer to a lot of this stuff at this stage and as I've said, it is for each LA to determine how to satisfy its statutory responsibilities.
Sorry, but I can't be arsed to read through all this stuff again so, I hope it makes sense and helps in some way.

Thanks for this, I have my inspection tomorrow - with any luck it will be you who shows up and my door :rotfl:


ill update tomorrow with what happens


all the best

Whatamuddle

myk33 wrote: »

Thanks for this, I have my inspection tomorrow - with any luck it will be you who shows up and my door :rotfl:


ill update tomorrow with what happens


all the best

Definitely won't be me mate no matter where you are but, very best of luck!

teneighty

juliemacnam wrote: »

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

Link to article mentioned above
https://www.labc.co.uk/news/approved-inspector-insurance-what-you-need-know

I've been following this thread with interest, it is good to see some industry professionals including it would appear some BCO's and AI's offering help.