Removal of loading bearing wall

FreeBear

A wall may not appear to be structural at first glance, particularly if it is a timber stud wall. But it could be providing lateral stability to an adjoining wall. On upper floors, it is even possible that a stud wall could be holding up the floor.

Even if a wall isn't structural, it could be providing an important fire break that protects an escape route in the event of the unthinkable happening.

Walls should never be removed without getting an expert opinion first - And no, a builder is not an expert or qualified to give such an opinion.

silvercar

user1977 said:

daivid said:

Aliss08 said:

..The owner has stated that she has no information re the wall being removed but doesn’t believe building regulations were needed…

If the wall wasn’t structural then no BR were needed

That's not necessarily the case.

Agreed. We are in the process of removing a non structural wall and need RSJs in a different position, along with BC. Far more painful than we had anticipated. 

Noneforit999

If there was no evidence of any issues and I could visibly see what looked like a boxed in RSJ, I would probably take the risk myself but on the basis a builder has spotted some evidence of movement and the current owner did not getting building control sign off, this would change the risk for me and I would proceed on the basis I needed a structural engineer to check out the RSJ and have some money set aside for remedial work should it be required.

Chances are, something done in 2011 is going to have been done properly but if they didn't bother with building control, did they bother with a structural engineer to ensure the RSJ was adequately sized?

A load bearing central wall is not just about the floor above, it may be supporting a masonry wall above too. Older houses had central load bearing walls so removing the lounge/diner one meant you had the floor joists above, plus a masonry wall, plus the joists in the loft sitting on it.

We inherited our house and my wife's grandad was a builder so he removed the same wall between the lounge/diner as you are referring too but there was no building regs. As I say, we inherited the house so there was no purchase process etc, having a survey done for a house you already own seems redundant unless you feel there are existing issues already. Its been like it for 20 years or so and there is no evidence of cracking or issues and I am not getting it checked out on the assumption her grandad would not have removed a wall and supported it properly for a property he lived in himself. 

Section62

Noneforit999 said:

Chances are, something done in 2011 is going to have been done properly...

The year work was done in has no effect on the probability of whether the work was done properly or not.

People have been bodging work from the day they started building houses rather than living in caves, and will go on bodging work for evermore regardless of regulations and enforcement.

This stems from people thinking they know more about structures than they do, and the persistent myths about structural stability such as the old chestnut of "If it hasn't fallen down yet...".

If there is no evidence of independent oversight (e.g. BR certification) my default position would be to assume the worst until proven otherwise.

stuart45

When this kind of work is carried out, it's not just about the correct steel size. The masonry above needs to be pinned up from the steel properly, the piers and their foundations that the bearing ends sit on also need considering.
There have been issues with terraced houses racking, due to everyone in the block whipping out the spine walls.

Aliss08

Thanks to everyone who has commented.  I have today, via the estate agent, received a receipt for the works completed by the builder who removed the wall. It was non loading bearing and therefore no building regulations required.  Why the vendor originally said she had no information I don’t know!  I may still ask a structural engineer to visit just for peace of mind.  

 

FreeBear

Aliss08 said:

Thanks to everyone who has commented.  I have today, via the estate agent, received a receipt for the works completed by the builder who removed the wall. It was non loading bearing and therefore no building regulations required.  Why the vendor originally said she had no information I don’t know!  I may still ask a structural engineer to visit just for peace of mind. 

Whilst a wall may not be load bearing, it can still provide lateral support for the adjoining wall(s). It would be prudent to get an expert opinion from a qualified structural engineer.

user1977

Aliss08 said:

It was non loading bearing and therefore no building regulations required

As already discussed above, that doesn’t necessarily follow (and building regs deal with more than just structural integrity).

Aliss08

The report from the structural engineer has stated that the wall was in fact a load bearing wall and that his calculation indicates that the assumed beam size would not be suitable for the presumed loadings. However, he would advise that the ceiling in the kitchen is opened up to confirm joist spans and confirm the size of the beam installed.  

Section62

Aliss08 said:

The report from the structural engineer has stated that the wall was in fact a load bearing wall and that his calculation indicates that the assumed beam size would not be suitable for the presumed loadings. However, he would advise that the ceiling in the kitchen is opened up to confirm joist spans and confirm the size of the beam installed.  

Thanks for updating the thread.

Although it remains possible the beam is adequately sized, this does demonstrate the importance of getting a structural engineer to advise, rather than relying on the assurances of the vendor (and/or their builder).

As stuart45 pointed out it is also about how the beam was installed and how it is supported (bearings), which can now only be determined by opening up and inspection.

Hopefully the vendor will see sense and allow this to happen asap.