Aedis Building Inspectors unreachable

guitar77 wrote: »

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!

I think it is a difficult call because this is an unprecedented situation and I do really hope that MHCLG come in to assist rather than slope shoulder as they usually do and tell us all to get on with it, especially LABC because, in truth this becomes largely LABC's role but, at this level of activity it could become crazy - Reversion was never envisaged to have to deal with scale; one AI going down maybe but there are two already (GSA apparently have folded) and others could well fold. Rumour has it that GA (the biggest insurer here) has hiked up premiums big time

Yes, you can obtain an indeminity insurance but, this is generally only suitable in years to come. The reason is that labc can take legal action, currently 2 years from the discovery of a contravention of the regulations, after that time it is highly likely labc would take action but the chnace of successful prosecution is low but, not impossible however, because it is low, indeminity is possible to get. After the effort you have gone to, to seek due process it would be shame to then rely on just insurance and from what I've heard (only heard!!) they often aren't worth the paper they are written on.

I hope labc will be pragmatic; it will vary I'm sure but also because every project will be different and the level of AI input to date will vary both due to the stage of the work reached, the project itself and quality of the inspection done to this point. I'm no longer directly involved but, in my current capacity I have advised pragmatism and those I'm more involved with, certainly want to be so. LABC Services the national body for LABC has also asked local authorities to seek to assist as far as possible; there is no wish for labc to take advantage of this situationa dn they really shouldn't BUT, I can't say hand on heart that some individuals won't play silly, we know such things happen in both sectors of the service provision as it does between competitors in any industry. Unforunately you cannot chose which labc you use becaused it is a statutory function.

For buildersarchitects going forward they can consider partnering with a chosen labc - contact one you want to work with and they can explain how it works; this way if you build in different areas you can remain working closely with the labc you have built up truct with. However, in terms of reversion I think it has to be your local one.

As I understand it Aedis are in voluntary liquidation, so their hands might be tied to some extent in getting information out quickly; I don't really know how that works but there is a requirement that ultimately the information mujst be made available but, whether that is to the client, another AI/LABC or CICAIR I don't know but, the requirement is to enable continuation of the project and sign off

In your case you and/or labc, really need Aedis records with the hope they are of sufficent quality for risk to be acceptable without requiring you to open up works. If the records are poor it could be an awkward situation. There is no doubt that the surveyors are as competent as any other but ultimately it means nothing if the records are poor. Simply, the more that is complete of the project, the greater the risk.. Projects in the early construction stages, the process shouldn't be too arduous and maybe, rather than worry about Aedis records it may be worth just exposing work done for inspection but, only 'you' can make that call.

If you are borrowing money to pay for the work the lender might require final sign off - suggest this is dicussed with the lender, neither labc nor a new AI can artifically speed up a process and this could be difficulty for some people but sadly probably unavoidable. Couple this with the significant increased workload this will present for labc - the timescale could add to the burden.

My earlier comments reflected labc experience to date with affected clients ranting (swearing and the like) at labc and that was just at an enquiry stage! Many have assumed labc has power over AI's - they have none whatsoever (nor should they!) expecting labc to step in and 'sort the AI out' - they can't of course.

When you approach labc they will have no knowledge of your project other than the original Initial Notice submitted to them which contains minimal information - no details, drawings or anything else. It is very likely therefore that you will experience frustration in having to start again in some respects.

It has been noted elswhere that Aeidis has said on their site that they feel some labc's will allow a project in progress to go to another AI - Kind of an unfair statement because I don't think labc has a choice in the matter and so could set clients in the wrong direction and when labc doesn't allow it anamosity will creep in I'm sure..

A bit of ramble but whilst there is one 'simple process' each project will present it's own challenges. I can only recommend that folk affected keep their cool and work with labc and be patient throughout - I know, sounds easy eh?

For those of us who were at final sign off stage - my LABC has said that we could go to another AI or them, but they need to take on the ones that are nowhere near complete. Has anyone else had the same advice? It may be that this is an example of pragmatism at the moment?

I've just been sent an excel spreadsheet with nothing signed. I was told showing LABC where the email came from would be proof..........
I am hearing Aedis going into liquidation so I think there are a lot of people, like CICAIR, that need to start providing info. Has anyone spoken with their MP?