Bifolds floor level offset

[Gazman16]

You say the builder did mark the wall as to the finished floor location.
The question is then did the fitters fit to that mark or not?
If yes the builder has cocked up.
If no the fitters have cocked up.

Should have been checked by all party's during and after the fitting really.

Unfortunately the mark is no dought all plastered and rendered over now so hard to say who is a fault. Maybe if the builder remembers where he made his mark a small hole could be made to reveal it and show who is at fault.

This is not the fault of the surveyor as it fits and could easily have been fitted a little lower. Its either the builder or the fitters or the project manager.

 

[masamune]

You say the builder did mark the wall as to the finished floor location.
The question is then did the fitters fit to that mark or not?
If yes the builder has cocked up.
If no the fitters have cocked up.

Should have been checked by all party's during and after the fitting really.

Unfortunately the mark is no dought all plastered and rendered over now so hard to say who is a fault. Maybe if the builder remembers where he made his mark a small hole could be made to reveal it and show who is at fault.

This is not the fault of the surveyor as it fits and could easily have been fitted a little lower. Its either the builder or the fitters or the project manager.

I think we are getting sidetracked with the details in isolation.
I am not blaming individuals here anyway, we are dealing with a company that was contracted to fit the bifolds.

If allowances or assumptions were made from their end they should have been communicated. It was never suggested this was the case, the final floor level is written in the figures.

The surveyor requested the information to make the order and it was provided. The company put the calculations into the contract based on the fixed RSJ present on site, not the datum. The datum has no bearing to my understanding as the contract is signed with reference to the RSJ. It would be relevant only if the builder provided the wrong floor level and this is not the case from the post-mortem measurements.

So strictly speaking the fitting of the doors at the agreed height on contract falls with the glazing company. They requested it in writing and they should have come out to check after the completion of the work. I would not destroy my kitchen to look for a pencil mark now, even if they bet their entire case on it.

 

[Notch7]

What you are saying is that the fitting position was agreed with the bifold companies surveyor. The frame height is correct. But you are ssying it should have been the bifold company that should have instructed the fitters on the position but they didnt.

I dont think you can prove that they have done anything wrong.

What should have happened is an official datum should have been set and your required distance from that down to top of cill confirmed in writing by signing a drawing. Probably photgraphs as well.A tolerance should also have been specified.

If your requirement for a flush cill was of great importance to you, either the builder or you should have discussed and agreed with installers at time of fitting. There was plenty of time after to check it before screeding and rendering.

The best you can expect to achieve is for the fitters to come back and alter, but you will have to sort out render etc.

I cant see the bifold co agreeing to do more. You could take them to court if you have money to burn.....

 

[crank39]

From my understanding the datum was the underneath of the RSJ lintel, sounds as if the doors were fixed too high up, maybe in fact touching the RSJ when in fact they should of been 12mm lower as it's all turned out, but like I've said why couldn't the screed have been made thicker or the tile adhesive to bring the finished floor level up to where you wanted it, did the tiler not know you wanted a flush threshold, why did you let that happen if the flush threshold was so important to you, it's as though you knew but you let it get to the end so you could pin something on the fitters. There were two more trades involved after the doors were fitted that could of got the flush threshold for you

 

[masamune]

What you are saying is that the fitting position was agreed with the bifold companies surveyor. The frame height is correct. But you are ssying it should have been the bifold company that should have instructed the fitters on the position but they didnt.

I dont think you can prove that they have done anything wrong.
.

I think you are getting really confused. The bifold company is not the factory that produced the doors.

They are just an intermediary arranging the supply and installation, the fitter and surveyor work for the bifold company. The entire team supplying, measuring and and fitting the doors IS the company. The factory has nothing to do with the issue.

So this is why it was all put in the contract, there is communicarion on the record about achieving a flush weather track. This the point of putting floor heights down and signing, talking with the surveyor and coordinating communications. You are getting the wrong end of the stick here I'm afraid.

 

[Notch7]

I think you are getting really confused. The bifold company is not the factory that produced the doors.

They are just an intermediary arranging the supply and installation, the fitter and surveyor work for the bifold company. The entire team supplying, measuring and and fitting the doors IS the company. The factory has nothing to do with the issue.

So this is why it was all put in the contract, there is communicarion on the record about achieving a flush weather track. This the point of putting floor heights down and signing, talking with the surveyor and coordinating communications. You are getting the wrong end of the stick here I'm afraid.

I was referring to the bifold company as a general term. Obviously the factory had nothing to do with it.

You may have communication regarding a flush weather track.

But do you have explicit instructions giving:
A) what the datum or reference point is,
B) the offset measurement from the datum point
C) tolerance agreed.

If you dont have those, you are going to struggle to prove the 'bifold company' are wrong. Whats to stop them saying they fitted based on the datum they were given?

I think the pragmatic solution is to get them back to move the frame, and you pay for any making good.

I would say they will refuse to do more. You take them to court but is it worth the risk?

 

[ronniecabers]

My question would be why did the fitters and the builder not communicate? We have fitted bifolds where the threshold was to be level inside and out creating a smooth transition , and upon fitting we made sure that the builder was present to give the correct heights and enable the correct positioning.
I would say you have two issues here , the first trying to prove who is liable for the incorrect alignment, and the second would be why incorrect alignment wasn't spotted prior to the floor being laid. Unless you have written , detailed dimensions ( or even better drawings ) of where those doors were to be fitted you are going to struggle to prove that anybody has done anything wrong.

 

[Gazman16]

It sounds like he had clear plans with a measurement down from the lintel.
Very unlikely the lintel would have been perfectly level though, Usually at least 5mm out over a 3m span in my experience.

Measuring down from a lintel is a terrible way to specify a floor/threshold height. There should have been a clear and permanent mark made on the wall at finished floor height.
If this is the way it was specified I would be blaming who ever came up with that terrible idea.

 

[masamune]

From my understanding the datum was the underneath of the RSJ lintel, sounds as if the doors were fixed too high up, maybe in fact touching the RSJ when in fact they should of been 12mm lower as it's all turned out,

So you agree this is most likely a packing issue?

I posted photos in the link earlier. The frame is not directly touching the RSJ but the packing certainly seems less than 12mm.

but like I've said why couldn't the screed have been made thicker or the tile adhesive to bring the finished floor level up to where you wanted it

I don't understand what you mean. Are you suggesting the the floors should be made out of level or there should be a step where the screed/tiles meet the rest of the existing house floors into the kitchen? To compensate for the wrong track height?

How would that translate with the kitchen fitting company, would they have to trim pelmets and adjust units to fit on an off-level floor or even change the signed off kitchen order/plans. The last unit next to the doors was based on signed off floor height that would now be shorter by raising the floor. The unit would not fit or come out of line with the others [/QUOTE]

did the tiler not know you wanted a flush threshold, why did you let that happen if the flush threshold was so important to you, it's as though you knew but you let it get to the end so you could pin something on the fitters. There were two more trades involved after the doors were fitted that could of got the flush threshold for you

I have not let anything happen, not sure what you are implying here but it is ludicrous. Clearly you are a fitter and take this personally.
First of all, if you have ever carried out a large building job you should know that you have no time to inspect everyone's work. On top of that, you have to manage multiple parties, orders, pay people and also get to work yourself in order to fund the project for months. This is what you hire professionals for, it was their job to oversee this not the customer's.

There was very clear, extensive communication beforehand with all parties, double checks between the builder and the bifold co. They rang me back on the last day before the order was placed, to confirm they discussed everything with the builder and everything agreed the track to be flush. The heights are on contract, no other allowances are written down or mentioned. They should have come out to inspect their own work. If any issues arise from their allowances, they should have been more professional and put things properly into drawings with the contract.

People should just do their job, clients are not expected to be engineers or surveyors.

 

[masamune]

Measuring down from a lintel is a terrible way to specify a floor/threshold height. There should have been a clear and permanent mark made on the wall at finished floor height.
If this is the way it was specified I would be blaming who ever came up with that terrible idea.

That was the surveyor then

 

[masamune]

My question would be why did the fitters and the builder not communicate? We have fitted bifolds where the threshold was to be level inside and out creating a smooth transition , and upon fitting we made sure that the builder was present to give the correct heights and enable the correct positioning.

I am not happy the builder and I agree he should have been present on the fitting day (if he was not). He could have also checked the work before moving on with other work.

But he did give them the heights (twice) so that they can put it in the contract to process the order as they requested. I cannot hold him accountable because the contract is with the glazing company. He is not the one who fitted the doors at the wrong height if you understand where this is coming from.

I would say you have two issues here , the first trying to prove who is liable for the incorrect alignment, and the second would be why incorrect alignment wasn't spotted prior to the floor being laid. Unless you have written , detailed dimensions ( or even better drawings ) of where those doors were to be fitted you are going to struggle to prove that anybody has done anything wrong.

But I am not trying to prove it, it is in the contract. The weather track is 90mm and this is written in the contract. Both heights, the weather track top to RSJ and outside cill to the RSJ are specifying the same floor height once subtracting the track. Plus the contract stipulates that the builder must allow 90mm down on the outside block, from the FINISHED floor level. That means a flush track and I cannot imagine this to be any clearer.

The builder would simply argue that he fully complied with the contract. The floor height to the RSJ is correct within 3mm.

 

[crank39]

I was suggesting increasing the screed or adhesive thickness over the whole floor to compensate for the doors being fiited ever so slightly too high, i was in no way suggesting only doing the area around the doors, throwing the floor out of level, that would be silly, however I wasn't to know your floor plan layout and not aware of the floor level across the whole ground floor nor the fact you'd already had measured and ordered a kitchen before you even had a floor laid, IMO too many variables in play and if one is wrong then it can have a domino effect elsewhere on the project, so the easiest solution it seems now is to have the doors lowered.

Oh yes I am a fitter or was, but no I don't take it personally, I asses jobs like this and write reports for insurance companies as a job now, I find having been a fitter gives me a different perspective on things when inspecting and report writing

 

[masamune]

I was suggesting increasing the screed or adhesive thickness over the whole floor to compensate for the doors being fiited ever so slightly too high, i was in no way suggesting only doing the area around the doors, throwing the floor out of level, that would be silly, however I wasn't to know your floor plan layout and not aware of the floor level across the whole ground floor nor the fact you'd already had measured and ordered a kitchen before you even had a floor laid, IMO too many variables in play and if one is wrong then it can have a domino effect elsewhere on the project, so the easiest solution it seems now is to have the doors lowered.

No worries, I was just a little surprised. I understand it is difficult to have a full picture from only a handful of details.

I could not have done things differently with the kitchen, it was not an off the shelf but made to order. Floors had to be complete as fitting and delivery were on pre-scheduled dates signed of months before with all the parties.

Oh yes I am a fitter or was, but no I don't take it personally, I asses jobs like this and write reports for insurance companies as a job now, I find having been a fitter gives me a different perspective on things when inspecting and report writing

I appreciate the feedback.

Would be curious to find out how things will work with the insurance backed guarantee, when the underwriter learns they came back to modify the doors after the original fitting...

 

[crank39]

Whilst still trading there isn't an issue, getting them back to rectify is the trick and can be an ordeal in itself, it's when they cease trading the IBG kicks in and that's when if things come to be mentioned like existing problems that were evident from day one of fitting then these can cause problems especially if your policy only covers workmanship i.e. fitting for 12 months.

I found if an installer has a trail of destruction behind him and can't cope with the remedial work then it's easier to cease trading under the current name, write off all you liabilities and let the insurer pick up the pieces and set up again under a slightly different name with your remedial list/slate wiped clean. Trouble is insurance companies join up the dots and start being cautious about what they'll cover based on previous claims for the same fitter

Your plan of action now is to get the doors refitted lower down, I would imagine removing the fixing screws would allow the frame to slide down without any damage to outside render or internal plaster

 

[masamune]

I am even more concerned now.

Since the trim exposes the lintel on the garden side I pulled it out and re-checked the doors outside. The plans show a height for entire frame/doors together at 2145mm (see my link with pics).

I measured this twice, the height of entire frame (cill to top) comes at 2139mm. This is around 5-6mm less, is that possible?
Are there tolerances to consider when the system is fitted within the frame?

I also measured the packers at the top of the lintel and gap is exactly 9mm. This brings the top of the weather track at
2139mm+9mm, subtracting the track at 90mm = 2058mm from the lintel. This confirms 100% my interior measurements.

But, if the system was designed at 2145mm, adding 12mm packing suggested by them on top, the weather track edge would have been at 2067mm from the lintel. Much closer to the specified 2071mm on contract. Unless the steel tape has a 5mm error it looks like an issue with both the frame height and the packers...