Aedis Building Inspectors unreachable

Whatamuddle

MTheInspector wrote: »

Dear what a muddle,

You don’t know me but I am constantly trying to get both parties to work together, I have worked on both sides for in excess of 30 years. You said



Yet it was you that brought accusations and heresay to the discussion when you Said the “LABC have been aware of private companies shortcomings for many years”, then to accuse me of “slagging each other off” really? Are we just supposed to ignore the persistent accusations without comment.

Let me be clear, there are very very good LABC staff and AI staff, there are also very bad in both camps but you actually started the slagging passing unsubstantiated LABC machine story lines off as being the truth.

We have had LABC staff approaching our customers telling them to steer clear of us becaus Aedis couldn’t get insurance!

AIs have not been in the press condemning public sector, they have not been telling tall stories in the Houses of Parliament and they have not sought to gain political grounds in the face of an absolute tragedy so do not even begin to lecture me about slagging off.

In the interest of my job I can’t reveal who I work for but I stated at the outset that I work for an AI because I am proud to do so.

You will never hear me or one of our staff telling stories about LABC, we only do our job, and if customers or others start to call any competitor, whether LABC or AI, every one of our team wil reply that they couldn’t comment on that and will proceed to offer the technical help that the customers require, yet every labc department appears to have story about an AI that lets builders off with stuff, curious that? Or is it propaganda.?

As ex LABC I know exactly where and who that comes from and I think it probably time for the truth.

Which L.A. do you work for?

Hi, let's clear one thing up first - you are misquoting me - where did I say "“LABC have been aware of private companies shortcomings for many years”? I think you'll find that was someone else. Similarily where have I made unsubstantiated comments?

I have stuck to facts in my comments here about helping those clients of Aedis find a solution. I have pointed out that they can appoint another AI but they must go through correct procedure to ensure minimal problems for their project; I misread someone elses post in that regard but since apologised for that.
I have tried to clarify correct terminology simply to smooth conversations
I haven't slagged of AI's!!
I have then commented about the impact on LABC as the default position which unlike AI's cannot refuse a submission made to it - this will impact on their ability to respond as quickly as some would like.
I have commented on the financial position and as such why LABC would need to charge because despite what you say the service has to be self funding, 1) it is the law and 2) local authorities make sure of it, within the cash strapped situations where matters of Adult social care and the like take priority. The local authorities only pay for the activities outside of comopetitive activity e.g. enforcement, dangersous structures etc and that is an absolute minimum with continuous calls to reduce those costs.
As for insurance, yes we have insurance cover - and?
I never mentioned Grenfell but since you did, seemingly to score a point and, I responded to say factually that there are many similar buildings of non compliance controlled by both AI's and LABC (I didn't just say AI's!)
AI's have put pen to paper about LABC - you may not have seen it but I have. I don't excuse LABC that have also done so.
Yes, I have worked for LABC but like you cannot reveal details. In that time we would get calls from clients of AI's insisting that we come out and 'sort the AI'. We always explained that that is not our business and if they have a problem they should contact CICAIR - this situation if far from rare but, I haven't mentioned that in my comments either. Yes, that rattled us because LABC end up getting the wrath of the client and suddenly it all becomes LABC fault but, I'm not aware of the slagging by individuals you refer to but, neither am I denying it hasn't happened. Similarily I'm aware of the opposite position which you suggest doesn't happen.
So, whilst I understand you sentiments, there are always two sides to a story and you seem to have mistaken me for another commenter.
I'm sure we could go on and on of 'he said she said stuff' - but I repeat, I haven't done the things you accuse me off in your comments. Either way I don't think this is the right post for where this discussion has got to but I'd be interested in talking to you more, however that can be engineered.

JT19

Go private they said (builders/architects) it’ll be easier they said (builders/architects)

theGrinch

There is much misquoting flying around here and it is not helpful.

I certainly havent criticised any LABC in any of my posts or have them in my sight line as an enemy.

I have said that LABC will deemed the amount of work they need to undertake and advise accordingly. At no point, have I said something for nothing and I havent read the same.

In regard to carrying on, I was at final inspection stage.

In my experience (and this is my 5th project in 20 years), many of the AI have worked at LABC so I don't seem it as much quality difference but often there is a significant price difference. I did use the LABC for my first two, but AI for the latter 3.

I started this thread for Aedis customers to constructively work through some issues.

Whatamuddle

theGrinch wrote: »

There is much misquoting flying around here and it is not helpful.

I certainly havent criticised any LABC in any of my posts or have them in my sight line as an enemy.

I have said that LABC will deemed the amount of work they need to undertake and advise accordingly. At no point, have I said something for nothing and I havent read the same.

In regard to carrying on, I was at final inspection stage.

In my experience (and this is my 5th project in 20 years), many of the AI have worked at LABC so I don't seem it as much quality difference but often there is a significant price difference. I did use the LABC for my first two, but AI for the latter 3.

I started this thread for Aedis customers to constructively work through some issues.

There is a fair old flap going on and a desperation to get the best information out to AI clients affected. I think most comments are made with the best intentions; there is a lot of worry and concern about.

Reversion to the local authority is a legal process and to that end is quite straight forward. The tricky bit will be determining what can be accepted in terms of the AI's activity to that point and that could be partly be influenced by the insurers involved; I suspect the same will be if another AI is able to intervene.
Hopefully Aedis' records will be released; I believe it is a legal requirement for that. The quality of these are bound to a factor in the approach to follow projects on to a successful conclusion.

For LABC (and maybe for any AI's that are able to pick up projects), it won't just be your project or confined to Aedis clients and this presents the unprecedented scale of the problem which is making folk jumpy.
LABC themselves have no inside knowledge as the situation is none of their business, nor should it be. It has been Aedis staff contacting LABC depts that provided the snippets of info to date on Aedis and this info has been used to try and be ahead of the curve and so aid a, smooth as possible, solution.
New information is popping up from time to time and if anything useful does crop up I'll gladly let folk know.

Farked

So this thread was for people affected by Aedis and not why this has occurred nor who is to blame etc. We are where we are, and those of us affected are on this forum and just trying to help each other out with any information we have on what is going on.



Has anyone managed to make progress with getting hold of notes or updates? Has anyone reverted to their council and been told anything about the adequacy of those notes?

Iangreenlantern

Aedis are totally unreachable. Contacted my Local authority for a reversion and they quoted me double the cost they initially quoted me for the project before I went to Aedis. I have suggested they are either being punitive or exploiting the situation. They say they are trying to be helpful. The liability for the massive knock on costs for this must be down to Aedis. How are local authorities going to cope? Why are we prevented from getting quotes from other private companies for reversions. This is a situation that requires government intervention.

Farked

According to Aedis website:
"3) For projects where works have commenced, and inspection(s) have been carried out: These projects will usually fall under the remit of Local Authority. However, some Local Authorities may allow Aedis to transfer these projects to another third-party/Approved Inspector."

I guess some LABCs might allow another AI - has anyone asked theirs? Not even sure another AI would want to take it on as they would be high risk because they haven't done the inspections. Maybe that's why your quotation has been higher this time?

Farked

Plus of course we can't get through to Aedis to ask them to provide the notes to another AI!

JT19

Only way is to revert back to LABC (it really is no different than a regularisation) and start from scratch. It just seems strange there was another large AI in the same position ie; same insurance company, who did manage to renew?

guitar77

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!