Aedis Building Inspectors unreachable
Options
Comments
-
. I tried to avoid the council for the simple reason my friends/architect told me that no hole was deep enough, no steel strong enough....so go private inspector.
That's really interesting. It can be read two ways; the local authority over zealous or the private sector being a bit slack and will sign off anything...?? Perhaps the 'architect' didn't like being told they've got something wrong...again...?0 -
Oh and my council called it "reversion" not "regularisation". I don't know if they are different things but reversion just means we are reverting to the LABC and nothing more. I note some councils actually have a reversion application form, my council is just the standard one.
Are you both going ahead with filling out the council form then?
Yes, Reversion is the correct term within the legislation. Regularisation is something different0 -
Right now I would just like my notes and will have to accept paying the LABC. However, much as it may not be the LABCs responsibility for this debacle, it is the government's. They want housing built but LAs don't have the resources to cover this and why the private building control sector exists. I like many others found Aedis by going to the planning portal website (a government website) where Aedis still shows as the "featured inspector". This is in part due to the government needing to authorise the insurers providing indemnity and they did nothing to ensure another player was on the market when there was only the one insurer left who wouldn't underwrite Aedis. Government owes all of us compensation for this.0
-
Ultimately this all falls back on the applicant, it’d be interesting to know who’s suggestion it was to go with private building inspectors over LABC in certain cases? Probably the architect or builder for a ‘lighter touch’ maybe (probably). Now its the applicant who is left to pick up the pieces. This chain of events is very unfortunate however very interesting in terms of privatising a regulatory role ever to begin with0
-
LABC have been aware of private company shortcomings for years.
In a light touch regulated world it usually ends up with problems.
I am aware of a recently completed apartment block, signed off by developer's preferred BC inspection company which has already been condemned and no one has moved in yet.
Suspicion is they have all been sold to investors, developer has made their money, very likely to go into liquidation, Local Authority left with the headache of a condemned building empty and not providing much needed apartments.0 -
Whatamuddle wrote: »It is called a reversion - regularisation is something different. It is a process to cover your project in the event of your AI no longer being able to continue As I understand it you can cancel your Initial Notice submitted through Aedis either, submit another IN using a different AI - if you can find one willing to take on the risk of another AI's work or, revert back to the local authority - Reversion. Fortunately local authorities are reliably there to pick up the pieces for you but, you need to work with them to achieve this. The private sector system has caused this problem not local authorities. You will need to give the local authority service time to deal with this; it was not of their making and they need to gear up for the situation.
If you complete building works without any appropriate legal inspection then don't moan when you have to open up works etc to gain sign off or avoid prosecution. Being bullish is all very well but could cause more hassle... just a thought...
My local authority referred to it as regularisation and they said that only they can deal with such circumstances. There is no new AI.
I have heard other LAs call it reversion. That might be adding to the confusion.
I didnt understand the last bit of what you wrote about moaning and opening up works. I am at final inspection as per the thread and had everything signed off until now. I am working to get my notes as per request of LA."enough is a feast"...old Buddist proverb0 -
I work at a senior level for an AI, while I don’t know the precise reasons for Aedis demise I do know that insurers are getting very concerned about the risk profile and the type of contracts being imposed by large contractors.
The REAL issue stems from Grenfell, how many similar cladding claims are sitting out there?
It is worth noting that Grenfell was approved by the Local Authority, not an AI.
The reason people use AIs is Competence and efficiency. AIs have massive hoops to jump through to prove they are competent and can lose their licence if they breach the code of conduct, labc have no such requirements and don’t even have or need insurance. If I sign off non compliant work my employer will sack me, no messing.
If your builder or Architect is using an AI because they get an easy ride then dump them ASAP , you may not realise this but it is up to YOU to comply with Building Regs, not your inspector so your builder or Architect is leaving this at your door.
I have sympathy for Aedis and their great staff, this wasn’t actually their doing, it is a combination of events and labc are not blameless in this.
The best advice is, if you are using another AI, just get on with your build and do everything in you power to make sure you get an inspection report and do whatever is needed to get a final certificate, soooooo many people leave a few final items unfinished at the end of a project and don’t get a final certificate, They too will need a reversion and that. Is their own fault.0 -
LABC have been aware of private company shortcomings for years.
In a light touch regulated world it usually ends up with problems.
I am aware of a recently completed apartment block, signed off by developer's preferred BC inspection company which has already been condemned and no one has moved in yet.
Suspicion is they have all been sold to investors, developer has made their money, very likely to go into liquidation, Local Authority left with the headache of a condemned building empty and not providing much needed apartments.
You need proof of that before castigating an entire industry, of course LABC will say they are aware of AIs shortcomings,
LABC signed off Grenfell and Lakanal but they probably didn’t mention that. We revert projects Which don’t comply and would lose our licence and livelihoods if we didn’t.
LABC say they disagree with private sector BUT LABC is actually a multi million pound private company funded behind the scenes by an insurance company, LABC is a well oiled PR machine, do not be manipulated without getting actual facts.0 -
No doubt AEDIS will start up again under a different name as an Approved Inspector with the big wigs un affected.
Privatising the industry has watered down standards. ‘Inspectors’ are too focused on not upsetting the apple cart, jeopardising future work and personal bonuses/ company cars by being borderline negligent in some cases.
Like I said builders and architects are going private for a lighter touch, in lots of cases the applicant isn’t even aware. Give me a conscientious inspector from LABC over a ‘just take a piccy we’re a bit busy today’ salesman0 -
Not strictly true. LA's had plenty of resources until the conservative government decided they wanted to introduce competition into building control - I think you'll find it stemmed from a disgruntled MP not getting what they wanted at the time. It was uintroduced in 1985 with the Building Act 1984. Along with that came the requirement for the local authority to continue to provide the statutory function i.e. It HAS to provide the service, but also it must do so on a self financing basis and, it cannot refuse a submission of a project so, it becomes the default solution. The financial requirements together with reduced central government funding has meant cutting staff to the bone. Then with AI's coming in (most were ex LA staff) they just recruited LA staff thus simply spreading the existing resource more thinly. Before this LA's had sufficient resource, expertise an capability to provide a full service.Right now I would just like my notes and will have to accept paying the LABC. However, much as it may not be the LABCs responsibility for this debacle, it is the government's. They want housing built but LAs don't have the resources to cover this and why the private building control sector exists. I like many others found Aedis by going to the planning portal website (a government website) where Aedis still shows as the "featured inspector". This is in part due to the government needing to authorise the insurers providing indemnity and they did nothing to ensure another player was on the market when there was only the one insurer left who wouldn't underwrite Aedis. Government owes all of us compensation for this.
So the local authority service with its self financing status MUST provide the service whether ot not it is successful in competing for work in the usual way IT DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY FUNDING FROM THE GOVERNMENT NOR LOCAL TAX PAYER FOR THIS! This means it MUST win work to gain income to be able to sustain a resource to deal with all this nonsense in the private sector! The system was flawed from day one but no respective government has deemed it necessary to tackle it. Then along comes Grenfell, a disaster perhaos waiting to happen and , the system goes into meltdown - only the local authority service is keeping its head to try and help find a solution.
Good innit?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards