Builders Contract Questions

[^woody^]

Building inspectors perform a checking function not a design or instruction function.

Essentially the idea is that your builders either work to the approved plans, or if there are no plans your builders carry out works that meet the requirements of the Building Regulations, and the inspector checks that they do. If you have employed competent builders then this is implied.

Now, an inspector may offer opinion or advice, but whether you accept that is up to you (not up to your builders) - you are not obligated to accept opinion or suggestion. Your only obligation is to conform to the Building Regulations. If you believe you can do so in any other way you can do that.

I suspect you have clueless builders there who are not working to your benefit but to their own advantage. Do you have approved plans? A designer?

Never, ever ask a building inspector what to do. Rather (and in a nice way) tell him what you are going to do. Whoever is doing the telling should know what to do, otherwise they should not be even involved.

Consider instructing a competent professional person such as a Structural Engineer or a Building Surveyor to tell everyone what to do with joists, wall and lintels. There will be a cost to this, but hopefully such a person can tell the inspector and your builders that the items are OK, or can devise a cost effective way of dealing with any issues. And that may well save you a lot of money that the inspector and builders would otherwise cost you.

 

[Nathan110]

Woody,

Of course there are plans. I hired an architect to do the design drawings, a structural engineer for the beams and a building control designer for the construction drawings.

The builders merely pointed out those elements and sent me extortionate quotes for their replacement. After a lot of back and fro they agreed to leave them be if "building control officer" says its OK.

I brought the BCO and had a chat with him. He inspected and I explained the situation. As he left he spoke to me privately and said "the bad news is they are right and need replacing" "can't sign it off unless it's done".

My problem is his rationale for the ceiling joists doesn't make sense as he tried to convince me they are load bearing when they are not. I have since forwarded an email from the structural engineer saying they are NOT after installing the new joists above in the loft conversion. I don't know what to do to convince him about the lintels

I hope that makes more sense...

 

[^woody^]

Why do the lintels need replacing? That is the question.
More specifically, what problems are the lintels creating? Know that and you know how to address the problem - which may be in another way other than replacement

FWIW, no inspector can argue with a Structural Engineer, inspectors are just not qualified to.

 

[noseall]

FWIW, no inspector can argue with a Structural Engineer, inspectors are just not qualified to.

Not strictly true but largely accurate. SE's are not beyond the BC checking process though.

 

[Nathan110]

Why do the lintels need replacing? That is the question.
More specifically, what problems are the lintels creating? Know that and you know how to address the problem - which may be in another way other than replacement

FWIW, no inspector can argue with a Structural Engineer, inspectors are just not qualified to.

And herein lies the problem I have. Other than it looking tired and old (100 years old) concrete with some small cracks in places from removed the multifinish etc, is it conceivable that I hire anyone who would be confident to come and say they're strong enough and you don't need to replace?

 

[sxturbo]

FWIW, no inspector can argue with a Structural Engineer, inspectors are just not qualified to.

You say that, my brother is having a loft conversion done on his bungalow, the se designed the padstones and the size of beam required, it was all passed etc in the plans.

Then once it was installed the building inspector said he wanted a thicker beam and a different padstone design.

After much argument he relented on replacing the steel beam but they still had to amend the padstone (he wanted a much larger one installed).

He refused to sign off until this was done.

 

[cdbe]

I really don't know what to say. If they really want to charge you £12,000 for these 3 items then they are trying to rip you off, and no doubt once the checkbook is open will continue to do so.

How are your DIY skills? None of those jobs are technically difficult and if you can find a helper each could be done in a weekend - you will get plenty of advice on here.

* I've just realised, are these the guys who ordered all the steels too short? I think you're doomed, they must be desperate to claw something back on this job.

I'd handle this very carefully and pragmatically as I expect only whatever reputation they have is stopping them walking off the job.

 

[^woody^]

You say that, my brother is having a loft conversion done on his bungalow, the se designed the padstones and the size of beam required, it was all passed etc in the plans.

Then once it was installed the building inspector said he wanted a thicker beam and a different padstone design.

After much argument he relented on replacing the steel beam but they still had to amend the padstone (he wanted a much larger one installed).

He refused to sign off until this was done.

If a structural engineer's design is verified by calculation, an inspector can't dispute it - unless the inspector is qualified to check structural calculations and can prove them to be wrong.

This thing with "wanting a bigger padstone" or beam is frankly nonsense. If a padstone or beam is designed and suitable for the wall and the load on it, no inspector can say "I want a bigger one [for some random reason]"

 

[sxturbo]

If a structural engineer's design is verified by calculation, an inspector can't dispute it - unless the inspector is qualified to check structural calculations and can prove them to be wrong.

This thing with "wanting a bigger padstone" or beam is frankly nonsense. If a padstone or beam is designed and suitable for the wall and the load on it, no inspector can say "I want a bigger one [for some random reason]"

just checked with brother, he said originally the beam was designed to just sit on the existing brickwork of the external wall, the steel beam has very little point load on it as it runs across the apex of the roof. the inspector did not like the fact a padstone was not used and that it was not part of the original plans. The SE sent calculations advising that there was no requirement for a padstone, the inspector agreed but said he would still rather see a padstone installed as belt and braces approach, and will not sign off until it had been installed.

 

[^woody^]

still rather see a padstone installed as belt and braces approach, and will not sign off until it had been installed.

Which is wrong of the inspector - that's just a case of him wanting to impose his authority, when he actually had none to impose - and typically the inspector is not qualified to make these types of requests - especially when faced with evidential calculations.

Compliance is achieved by evidence not by supposition. But yes, it can be expedient to just humour the inspector and do what he wants if its quick and cheap to do.

However, the point is that no-one should be under the illusion that they must do what the inspector says, when in fact the only onus is to comply with the building regulations.

 

[Nathan110]

Thanks Woody,

Thankfully got a good outcome and BCO agreed that only stud wall is necessary.

I've since gone back to construction company and asked for final price for labour.

Thoughts on this? Fair or excessive