Aedis Building Inspectors unreachable

theGrinch

Thanks for the update.

Farked

myk33 wrote: »

just to give an update with regards to my inspection which happened today from my LABC.


In short they appear to be happy with everything but have asked that we send all pictures to prove as much as possible so that they can make a decision from their office. the feeling is that nothing will need to be uncovered at this time.


It worked my favour that the surveyor has worked with and signed off some of my builders jobs in the past which gives them confidence and "trade history" if you like.


one issue was that on my landing pad in the loft it should be 600mm deep but in fact it is around 400ish and the head height is a little under as the door is soaping before the middle of the door. AEDIS inspector signed this off and was happy.


LA have said that while they appreciate why it was done like that and the fact that they cant see how an alternative could have been made in this position that they most likely will have to write a clause in the certificate which states that the landing pad and head height to the loft is not complaint. In essence this will only affect me for when we sell the house and will be brought up during conveyancing however before it would even get to this stage the potential buyer would have already viewed the house and if they had a problem with it likely would choose not to proceed with the purchase there and then.


I might add that the door has ample head room (im 5 ft 10) and I have never walked in or out of the room even thinking about moving my body or minding my head. furthermore I have no intention on selling so its a none issue for me.


I will update with how we get on in the coming days/weeks ahead - no 2 jobs will be the same so I cant say that everyone will have an easy ride - im still not 100% sure where I stand with regards to footings and steel beams but looks more positive than I thought before they arrived and I hope that my images and the notes suffice for a non-invasive signoff.


I would suggest to prepare for the worst then you can only be happy if it turns out better.

That's good news myk33. Were you literally at final sign off i.e. all electrics certified etc? Actually, I think my question is whether this was a final sign off inspection by the LABC your reverted to or was it a !!!!!! have we taken on from Aedis inspection that we can then make a decision on a final sign off inspection?

Whatamuddle

MYK33
Great news I'm so pleased a sensible approach is being taken by LABC especially taking into consideration what the surveyors knows of the builder etc. My feeling was that this would be the case but you just never know.
There was a lot of suspicion (and accusation) about how LABC would handle all this but true to my expectation so far, they've come good... so far!.
I agree regarding a future sale - I don't think it would stop a sale at all unless the buyer is less mobile perhaps...
Hope it continues well for you

C.G.

I have had one hole inspected from my build = that has now cost me the full amount I paid , as they wanted monies by by BACS & upfront before they'd inspect. SO 840 GBP lost & now I hear AEDIS owes some workers 6 weeks pay - so getting my monies back looks unlikely. Two directors / inspectors at the local office resigned 3 days before AEDIS went out of business. As for getting anything regarding the one hole that was inspected - that too looks like we can kiss the wind for it! I feel disgusted with the whole thing. I now have to pay another firm - they too want paying upfront - how safe do I feel about that !! Not at all - but they say no work will begin until I pay all over again the full back !Local councils should pick up some responsibility as they put the work out and have very few internal inspectors now - this is what happens with privatisation ! 840 pound is a lot for me as I'm a pensioner & cannot afford to waste money. AEDIS I heard were taking monies knowing they could not do the jobs - absolutely disgusting & we will never see :mad: money of the certificates for work they did - in my case only one hole regarding foundations - Something should be done about companies who do this & then just set up and start again - it's immoral !

HockeyUmp

C.G. wrote: »

I have had one hole inspected from my build = that has now cost me the full amount I paid , as they wanted monies by by BACS & upfront before they'd inspect. SO 840 GBP lost & now I hear AEDIS owes some workers 6 weeks pay - so getting my monies back looks unlikely. Two directors / inspectors at the local office resigned 3 days before AEDIS went out of business. As for getting anything regarding the one hole that was inspected - that too looks like we can kiss the wind for it! I feel disgusted with the whole thing. I now have to pay another firm - they too want paying upfront - how safe do I feel about that !! Not at all - but they say no work will begin until I pay all over again the full back !Local councils should pick up some responsibility as they put the work out and have very few internal inspectors now - this is what happens with privatisation ! 840 pound is a lot for me as I'm a pensioner & cannot afford to waste money. AEDIS I heard were taking monies knowing they could not do the jobs - absolutely disgusting & we will never see :mad: money of the certificates for work they did - in my case only one hole regarding foundations - Something should be done about companies who do this & then just set up and start again - it's immoral !

Why do you believe the Local Authority should pick up the pieces? For one reason or another YOU made the choice to use a private building control company for your works, you effectively negated any Local Authorities involvement.

I have a lot of sympathy for anyone caught up with this mess, but as someone that has worked for both the public sector, before a stint in private, and then returning to public sector I know where my choice of Building Control provider would lie.

Yes, there are good and bad in both sectors, and your allegation about the staff and directors jumping ship is in line with what i personally think of this particular company's morals. But, this is NOT the LABC's fault, and not the tax payers fault, so I cannot see why already stretched Local Authorities should bear the cost of projects where the owners opted to use a private building control body, and not support their local authority by engaging with them in the process.

C.G.

I was informed that our LA has n't enough Inspectors for building works which are minor like mine and therefore I had to have AEDIS. My LA has now given me another named company to do the inspection - but obviously I have to pay upfront again. If I could have engaged a LA Inspector I would have preferred that - but in my county & area this isn't possible.

HockeyUmp

myk33 wrote: »

just to give an update with regards to my inspection which happened today from my LABC.


In short they appear to be happy with everything but have asked that we send all pictures to prove as much as possible so that they can make a decision from their office. the feeling is that nothing will need to be uncovered at this time.


It worked my favour that the surveyor has worked with and signed off some of my builders jobs in the past which gives them confidence and "trade history" if you like.


one issue was that on my landing pad in the loft it should be 600mm deep but in fact it is around 400ish and the head height is a little under as the door is soaping before the middle of the door. AEDIS inspector signed this off and was happy.


LA have said that while they appreciate why it was done like that and the fact that they cant see how an alternative could have been made in this position that they most likely will have to write a clause in the certificate which states that the landing pad and head height to the loft is not complaint. In essence this will only affect me for when we sell the house and will be brought up during conveyancing however before it would even get to this stage the potential buyer would have already viewed the house and if they had a problem with it likely would choose not to proceed with the purchase there and then.


I might add that the door has ample head room (im 5 ft 10) and I have never walked in or out of the room even thinking about moving my body or minding my head. furthermore I have no intention on selling so its a none issue for me.


I will update with how we get on in the coming days/weeks ahead - no 2 jobs will be the same so I cant say that everyone will have an easy ride - im still not 100% sure where I stand with regards to footings and steel beams but looks more positive than I thought before they arrived and I hope that my images and the notes suffice for a non-invasive signoff.


I would suggest to prepare for the worst then you can only be happy if it turns out better.

Firstly, glad it went well, and looks like the LA are trying to help you..

The landing of a stair (top and bottom) should be at least the width of the stair and a minimum of 400mm clear of any obstructions. So the only way a 600mm landing would be required was if your stair was 600mm wide. This is to allow you to have a safe place to stand while you settle and open any doors.
The head height above the stair should be a minimum of 2metres from the pitch iof the stair (which can be reduced where the ceiling slopes in a loft conversion) and has been subject to determinations in the past. Generally anything over 1.9 can be deemed fit for loft conversions. There is no minimum head height to doors in the Building Regulations for domestic properties!

I personally am not a fan of of clauses of full plans completion certificates, let alone Regularisation or Reversion Certificate, although I know many of my colleagues who do add them. Basically, the final certificate says that as far as we could reasonably ascertain the works comply with all parts of the Building Regulations, so any clause would make a mockery of the certificate. I would be more minded to issue a relaxation, which would demonstrate that the potential non-compliance issues had been considered and "deemed to satisfy"

HockeyUmp

C.G. wrote: »

I was informed that our LA has n't enough Inspectors for building works which are minor like mine and therefore I had to have AEDIS. My LA has now given me another named company to do the inspection - but obviously I have to pay upfront again. If I could have engaged a LA Inspector I would have preferred that - but in my county & area this isn't possible.

In my opinion that is appalling, and I would be taking it up with LABC, MHCLG, Local Councillors and then eventually the Local Government Ombudsmen.

A Local Authority has a statutory duty to provide the Building Control function, and certainly has no option but to consider Regularisation and Reversion applications. I would name and shame the Local Authority - plus then I can take it up with the powers to be.

myk33

HockeyUmp wrote: »

Firstly, glad it went well, and looks like the LA are trying to help you..

The landing of a stair (top and bottom) should be at least the width of the stair and a minimum of 400mm clear of any obstructions. So the only way a 600mm landing would be required was if your stair was 600mm wide. This is to allow you to have a safe place to stand while you settle and open any doors.
The head height above the stair should be a minimum of 2metres from the pitch iof the stair (which can be reduced where the ceiling slopes in a loft conversion) and has been subject to determinations in the past. Generally anything over 1.9 can be deemed fit for loft conversions. There is no minimum head height to doors in the Building Regulations for domestic properties!

I personally am not a fan of of clauses of full plans completion certificates, let alone Regularisation or Reversion Certificate, although I know many of my colleagues who do add them. Basically, the final certificate says that as far as we could reasonably ascertain the works comply with all parts of the Building Regulations, so any clause would make a mockery of the certificate. I would be more minded to issue a relaxation, which would demonstrate that the potential non-compliance issues had been considered and "deemed to satisfy"

Thanks for this, I will try to press for the arrangement you have suggested.


in other news (to all), not to say we don't know much of this already but worth a read: https://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/news/12000-projects-at-risk-as-insurance-crisis-pushes-building-control-firm-to-brink-of-collapse--62246

Mackam

Hello All

Like you I have had the AEDIS insurance hit me which is gutting as the build was almost finished.

I did get signed site notes after I went to CICAR and they wrote to them as originally I could only get unsigned notes. So hopefully LA will not want to uncover anything lucky for me I took a lot of photographs as well so might be covered.

If you havent got site notes or they are not signed I would go to CICAR and get them to help before its too late.