Are BCO's responsible for their advice?

[Gasbag]

If a BCO gives advise on the depth of foundations and I follow their advise, is the BCO then responsible if the concrete cracks resulting in them refusing to give a completion certificate because there is a crack above and below the side door of a detached 42m2 garage.
This was as a result of a hawthorn tree in a neighbours garden.

 

[mikric]

What was their advice and how far away was the hawthorn ?

 

[Static]

Really depends on what they said.. also did you get it in writting?

 

[Gasbag]

The original drawings were mini-piling as the garage was just under a metre away from the boundary and the hawthorn.
The builders who came to give me quotes all said that mini-piling was excessive for the job so I asked the BCO to come and have a look, soley to see if they agreed with the builders.
I had dug a test hole near the site so he could see it was medium moisture clay and he came and studied the tree. He then said he agreed it was excessive and 1m x 600mm trench was fine. He said he would change the office plans.
When the trench had been dug and it had it's first inspection, another BCO (the boss) said it was fine but the trench should have polystrene in the side to deter any roots. The build then went ok until 2 weeks after it was finished and before it got a completion certificate. The BCO is not denying he made a mistake but their insurers say that I should not have took his advise.

 

[Static]

A hawthorn (high demand tree) 1m away from a footing in med shrink clay should have 2.8m deep footings.. which is why the mini piling option would have been advised..

 

[jeds]

Why would you think of claiming from the BCO rather than the builder? The builder gave you the advice. Presumably you were happy that they were suitably qualified and had the necessary liablity insurance etc.

Also, the scheme sounds like it was originally professionally designed - the tree and piling etc. What was their view on the amendment?

The ombudsman might find the BCO partially liable but I would say 15 to 20% at the most - which is not going to get the garage re-built. You really need to need to go to your professional advisor for the bulk of the cost. That would be the designer if they sanctioned the amendment or otherwise your builder. And then when you have the result of that claim as evidence you might have a claim on the BCO to top up the cost.

 

[Gasbag]

It's all been a bit of a disaster. We did not actually employ the builder until after we had been given the advice by the BCO. The builder followed the instructions given by the BCO. The builder was 65 just after he finished the garage and retired. Although he insisted he was insured before we employed him he now says not. The person who drew the plans was an aquaintence but abroad and could not be contacted. We have claimed against the council who admit they made a mistake but their insurers say we should not have taken the BCOs advise. They say that NHBC standards are recommendations only. Our structural engineer says that to try and underpin almost all the building would not be cost effective and too difficult due to being so close to the boundary. He says demolition and start again.
I thought a large part of the BCOs role is to advise the customer. After all, you have to pay a fee for their services. If we have to go to court it could take ages and it has already been almost a year. So if a BCO gives advise in good faith and it is taken, are they responsible?

 

[jeds]

The BCO accepting your proposal is not the same as employing him to design a foundation. Building control specifically exclude design from their service and there's a very good reason for that - because they are not qualified to give it and they do not carry appropriate insurance in case things go wrong.

I'm not saying they don't have some liability. Getting involved in the first place was naive and possibly negligent and you may well have a claim against them. But I would be very surprised if that amounts to more than the 15-20% I quoted earlier.

I would say the ombudsman is your best bet. A court case will be lengthy and expensive and there's no guarantee you'll get anything substantial from it. The ombudsman is comparatively straightforward although you do have less influence over their decision.

 

[Gasbag]

Thanks very much for your reply.
As you can imagine, I am having many sleepless nights over this. The LA will not talk to me as the file is with their insurers. Their insurers will not discuss it as I am not their client. As both the BCO and the structual engineer agree the garage could be used, why can't they sign it off and I will live with the half inch gap above and below the side door. (Still using the old concrete garage which is infront of the new one)
Do you have the contact details of the ombudsman please?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The BCO accepting your proposal is not the same as employing him to design a foundation. Building control specifically exclude design from their service and there's a very good reason for that - because they are not qualified to give it and they do not carry appropriate insurance in case things go wrong.

I'm not saying they don't have some liability. Getting involved in the first place was naive and possibly negligent and you may well have a claim against them. But I would be very surprised if that amounts to more than the 15-20% I quoted earlier.

I would say the ombudsman is your best bet. A court case will be lengthy and expensive and there's no guarantee you'll get anything substantial from it. The ombudsman is comparatively straightforward although you do have less influence over their decision.

Jeds has hit the nail on the head with his assessment of the situation.

Ombudsman: http://www.lgo.org.uk/publications/fact-sheets/complaints-about-building-control/

 

[Gasbag]

Thanks very much all your help.
Looks like this is going to be the course of action. Fingers crossed.
Thanks again