Building control gone mad?
- Thread starter Lorenzl
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
Building Regulation compliance is ultimately the responsibility of the building owner however Local Authorities have the powers to prosecute anyone who is a party in the failure to adhere to them. This means that if a builder just cracks on and does work that doesn't comply then they are open to prosecution as would be an architect who stands by and lets it happen. It's a criminal offence to not comply.
An architect will have professional indemnity insurance. This doesn't cover fines (it's illegal to arrange insurance that covers criminal fines) but does cover the costs of remedying the wrong under any civil action brought for negligence which would include the cost of putting right for a client work that was completed incorrectly and outside of the regulations. It is sensible to require an architect to have an adequate level of PI cover before agreeing to use them but the existence of PI cover has no bearing on who is responsible for ensuring Building Regulation compliance.
In simple terms a building owner who has a contract which covers that they are paying an architect to ensure compliance is very unlikely to be prosecuted for the breach. The building owner has taken reasonable steps and passed the responsibility to a suitably qualified professional person who will be prosecuted. The building owner is however open to being prosecuted if they don't then don't ensure the building work is brought up to the required standard.
Building Regulations are far from perfect and who is accountable for what is sometimes not as clear as it should be - sadly and tragically Grenfell is a case in point.
An architect will have professional indemnity insurance. This doesn't cover fines (it's illegal to arrange insurance that covers criminal fines) but does cover the costs of remedying the wrong under any civil action brought for negligence which would include the cost of putting right for a client work that was completed incorrectly and outside of the regulations. It is sensible to require an architect to have an adequate level of PI cover before agreeing to use them but the existence of PI cover has no bearing on who is responsible for ensuring Building Regulation compliance.
In simple terms a building owner who has a contract which covers that they are paying an architect to ensure compliance is very unlikely to be prosecuted for the breach. The building owner has taken reasonable steps and passed the responsibility to a suitably qualified professional person who will be prosecuted. The building owner is however open to being prosecuted if they don't then don't ensure the building work is brought up to the required standard.
Building Regulations are far from perfect and who is accountable for what is sometimes not as clear as it should be - sadly and tragically Grenfell is a case in point.
shed9
establiSHED member
That would explain my average day to be fair........I'm not however in the habit of telling people what their state of mind is because I assumed my past experience or qualifications trumped that of others
In this case I am very limited to what I can do, solid floors and walls, I have fitted the best underlay I can find complete with foil under a good wool carpet, I was skeptical but my tenant says it has helped both with comfort and fuel used ( I'm lucky to have a decent tenant at the moment because the law says carpet lasts 5 years regardless of cost so if as has happened to me a tenant burns a large hole in a two year old carpet they are only liable for 60% of the cost you payed not the replacement cost ) as you suggest I have fitted roman blinds with thermal lining as they fit closer than curtains, I cannot reduce drafts any further without encouraging damp. No chance at all with fitting better windows they are specifically mentioned in the listing, got to ask why, it's an OK building, I like the flat but nothing I'd call special in terms of architecture. Some very strange things get listed.
Please explain that to the council, their ignorance of the law can be mind numbing. - must stop ranting this is not the subject of this thread
Jonm
Established Member
Looks like I omitted the words. It can cause problems with the sale and the buyer asking for the seller to provide an insurance against their being any future problems. And the seller paying for it.
Last edited:
I know two people whom live in grade two listed houses and both were refused an application to fit 12mm 'Heritage' double glazed panels into timber windows. They will only allow secondary glazing which ironically is uPVC. The rules are applied to varying degrees of harshness dependent on where you live and who you are dealing with.
Jonm
Established Member
I have built two houses for myself and a lot of work on my previous house which was a listed building. Other works including a complete renovation of a house, a major extension and lots of other bits and pieces. I did the building control applications and dealt with the building inspector on all of them. Cannot recall a problem with building control. NHBC were a bit more problematical at times.
If you come to sell, having building regs approval for all works done to the property removes potential problems with the sale. It is something solicitors now look for and I know of two instances where the seller has had to take out an insurance policy to cover works which does not have building control approval. One was for a conservatory and the other was the conversion of an outhouse to a bathroom. Both looked well built to me but the issue comes up when the sale is nearing completion. Another case was inserting an opening in a structural wall which had a certificate of non compliance against it, buyer got a £5000 reduction for that, and it turned out to be soundly built.
With the Listed building I mentioned, my wife used to complain about me getting BC approval. Comments like “why are you getting them involved, all it does is cost money” etc. When we sold and received the requests from the buyers solicitors for BC approval, listed building consent, electrical certificates etc, it was all to hand. She did admit it was a good job I had got everything in place.
If you are doing works to a property, BC Approval is the cheapest way to demonstrate that the works have been done correctly. Failure to do so can result in any subsequent sale either falling through or requiring extensive insurance policies.
If you come to sell, having building regs approval for all works done to the property removes potential problems with the sale. It is something solicitors now look for and I know of two instances where the seller has had to take out an insurance policy to cover works which does not have building control approval. One was for a conservatory and the other was the conversion of an outhouse to a bathroom. Both looked well built to me but the issue comes up when the sale is nearing completion. Another case was inserting an opening in a structural wall which had a certificate of non compliance against it, buyer got a £5000 reduction for that, and it turned out to be soundly built.
With the Listed building I mentioned, my wife used to complain about me getting BC approval. Comments like “why are you getting them involved, all it does is cost money” etc. When we sold and received the requests from the buyers solicitors for BC approval, listed building consent, electrical certificates etc, it was all to hand. She did admit it was a good job I had got everything in place.
If you are doing works to a property, BC Approval is the cheapest way to demonstrate that the works have been done correctly. Failure to do so can result in any subsequent sale either falling through or requiring extensive insurance policies.
Jonm
Established Member
In the cases I referred to above, that is exactly what happened (this is about insurance indemnity for works without building regs approval)
During the late, unlamented Celtic Tiger economy, building regs were lowered to make it easier and cheaper to build. Architects and installers could 'self-certify' the works were in compliance.
As a result the public purse is on the hook to correct defects in sereral hundred thousand homes built during the period. Defects are so widespread and serious, and malpractise so endemic, that there is no effective way to penalise or even levy the original builders.
The estates around ours all have pyrite and are being remedied by the govt. Then there's the structural defects like poorly fitted windows, shoddy roofs, etc. Etc which the homeowners are on the hook for.
For this reason, when i bought our house in 2018, I made sure to look for pre-2000 build.
Everyone hates building control, until there's no building control.
As a result the public purse is on the hook to correct defects in sereral hundred thousand homes built during the period. Defects are so widespread and serious, and malpractise so endemic, that there is no effective way to penalise or even levy the original builders.
The estates around ours all have pyrite and are being remedied by the govt. Then there's the structural defects like poorly fitted windows, shoddy roofs, etc. Etc which the homeowners are on the hook for.
For this reason, when i bought our house in 2018, I made sure to look for pre-2000 build.
Everyone hates building control, until there's no building control.
stidy
Member
Obviously you can ask building control at your local council. Boiler does not need building control; certificate signed off by corgi installer is what you need there. You might need to check with planning re. the IR panels, depending on your house and local authority. You can also use a private building control company who will give you license to do whatever the fxxk you want, In my experience ( 5 million quids worth ) local authorities can get pedantic on small projects.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
I had a garage built with a pit. Steel reinforced hollow block walls were insisted upon, and duly inspected. The female BCO made my (very conscientious, experienced) builders jump through hoops throughout the build. They had dealt with her many times before without issue.
Some while after they got the job of building a wall of much the same construction (60 meters long) underground on an industrial estate to support the edge of a new pavement which was being built because the old one had collapsed because driven over (out of necessity) by laden HGVs. Steel reinforcement wasn't insisted on despite its raison d'etre. The same BCO saw them once - she said "you know what you're doing, just get on with it".
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
Sorry but it's incorrect that just because you use a private building control company you can do whatever you want. If you breach the Building Regulations it's a criminal offence. Having paid someone to sign off that you complied when you didn't turned may mean that they share the blame.
Grenfell is an (admittedly extreme) example of where it went wrong. Complying with Building Regulations shouldn't be optional.
IMO the cladding change to the Grenfell tower is a very good example of a change in specification that should have been picked up by BC as an unsuitable material, the whole thing exacerbated by the fact that the fire officer that used to be employed by the Brigade and was an active member of BC was made redundant in all the regional force's in the interests of cost cutting.
Yes I realise this thread dates back to August 2022 but I’ve just come across this reply - so anyone who is competent can install gas appliances fittings and pipework - no gas safe registration reqd ( corgi changed to gas safe in edit. 1st April 2009 . I’m competent but no longer gas safe registered ( my choice ) but according to this post I can install gas related appliances and pipework???????
Anyone reading this post as I am could assume it’s ok and legal as they feel (competent ) to install their own boiler or gas cooker or gas pipework. Competency is the completion of the accs accreditation which then confirms you are a member of an approved class of people. The cost of which is around £1500 the last time I did it ..
https://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/media/1449/who-can-legally-work-on-a-gas-appliance-factsheet.pdf
Attachments
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Much the same as electrics. It's a curious (and wrong use) of the word "competent".
How do you prove competency, you may have worked in a discipline for a number of years or taken and been given certificates from the made up organisations that have appeared since the use of the word competent in jargon written by the same organisations with competency registrations lists, none of this proves competency, just that you are a drone driven by the media to follow the heard, Lets look at the "IET Wiring Regulations" they have no legal standing as they are not legislated, have not been through the legal government process or issued by the "Secretary of State" they are a British Standard only which is a guidance document, if it can be demonstrated that you carried out your work to a higher standard then that covers the need and qualification of competent, never been tested in court, but would make a very interesting case study.
It is illegal in the UK for a non approved / registered person to work on or modify any gas pipework or appliance, competancy is shown by being on the gas safe register.
It is a "Statutory Instrument : The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998
Last edited:
If that is the right thing, then 3(1) says there is a requirement for competency on the part of anyone doing any work on a gas installation, 3(2) says employers and self-employed people controlling such works shall ensure that the people doing the work are competent, and 3(3) says to ensure that is the case all employees and self-employed have to be members of an HSE approved scheme (ie Gas Safe).
None of that says that a competent person cannot carry out work which is not for reward despite not being Gas Safe registered. Unless there is reward involved, it looks like the basic 3(1) requirement of competence is all that applies. So the claim it is illegal for any work to be carried out unless by a Gas Safe engineer is not true under that SI at least.
Different question as to how sensible it would be to claim competence but that's going to be fact-specific.
None of that says that a competent person cannot carry out work which is not for reward despite not being Gas Safe registered. Unless there is reward involved, it looks like the basic 3(1) requirement of competence is all that applies. So the claim it is illegal for any work to be carried out unless by a Gas Safe engineer is not true under that SI at least.
Different question as to how sensible it would be to claim competence but that's going to be fact-specific.
