Liability when reusing foundations

[johnny2007]

Dig down to expose the fundations so you'll know how deep they go and most importantly what ground you have underneath.
Then you can make a more non guessed decision.
Usually if the conservatory hasn't moved for 20 years, it should be ok, but I would investigate if I were you.

 

[drpepe]

The builder is a bit of a numpty for raising it.

Has this builder ever done a loft conversion, a first story extension, put a beam in retrospectively?

Thats a very good point!

 

[drpepe]

We dug trial holes on each elevation ,they are 750mm deep and 200 to 350mm from the face of the exterior wall.

BC said they would normally be looking at 800 in these conditions for a new build extension, but we’re satisfied with what was there.

How deep are your existing foundation?

Andy

Dig down to expose the fundations so you'll know how deep they go and most importantly what ground you have underneath.
Then you can make a more non guessed decision.
Usually if the conservatory hasn't moved for 20 years, it should be ok, but I would investigate if I were you.

 

[johnny2007]

If local authority asks for 800mm it means that the ground in the area is suitable for such depth.
50mm won't make any difference.
As others said, just make sure you don't have water sucking trees nearby.

 

[blup]

Post Grenfell inquiry BC's are likely to be made liable for certain failures, maybe not the OP's situation, but a tenant in a block of flats who can't do anything about cladding. Some AI's had difficulty getting insurance post Grenfell.

Blup

 

[^woody^]

Post Grenfell inquiry BC's are likely to be made liable for certain failures, maybe not the OP's situation, but a tenant in a block of flats who can't do anything about cladding. Some AI's had difficulty getting insurance post Grenfell.

Blup

Are not liable, nor will they be. Officers are inspectors not designers, there is precedent decision on duty of care.

 

[blup]

Now maybe but will change.

Blup

 

[^woody^]

Now maybe but will change.

Blup

No the changes are in the inspection and approval process specifically for fire safety.

Inspectors will never be liable for design.

 

[Notch7]

I think my contract with the builder will have to absolve them of responsibility in some way, but I am not sure how to approach that

I used to include a disclaimer on contracts when building on existing founds

 

[^woody^]

I used to include a disclaimer on contracts when building on existing founds

What about when fitting windows into existing walls?

Or building extensions onto existing houses?

You can't disclaim liability away with an unenforceable clause

 

[johnny2007]

What about when fitting windows into existing walls?

Or building extensions onto existing houses?

You can't disclaim liability away with an unenforceable clause

I have put a clause in contracts when something similar happened.
I had to rebuild a front mini extension aka porch, that was leaning forward and the owner wanted the same fundations.
They were fine, the brickwork was bad and not linked to the existing walls but I still put the clause.
How do you know what they've done with the concrete?
I have seen cowboys mixing it with polystyrene

 

[Notch7]

What about when fitting windows into existing walls?

Or building extensions onto existing houses?

You can't disclaim liability away with an unenforceable clause

existing walls and existing houses are visible, old foundations are not.

there is no way of knowing what is underneath old foundations, I used to give clients a price for new founds or reuse existing.

its their foundation, their risk.

If you disagree, try getting an insurance company to cover the risk......

 

[^woody^]

A professional is expected to know about suitability of materials and existing structure, and can't disclaim about things deemed within their expertise.

The correct thing would be to assess, or require the client to prove suitability.

You can't say, "I'll chance it, but if it fails it's not my fault". That's an unenforceable clause.

In this specific case of foundations, if the foundation failed in any way the actual cause would be the load placed on them - which was done by the builder and their responsibility. So in any claim it would be a reverse burden and for the builder to prove that their loading of the foundation did not cause the foundation to fail, or that they carried out suitable and sufficient enquiry of the foundation suitability.

 

[blup]

They aren't chancing it, they're excluding liability, so it is the homeowner's risk, pretty straightforward, yes or no. Every double glazing company's terms and conditions exclude liability for structural related failures.

Blup

 

[^woody^]

They aren't chancing it, they're excluding liability, so it is the homeowner's risk, pretty straightforward, yes or no. Every double glazing company's terms and conditions exclude liability for structural related failures.

Blup

The point is, no one can randomly exclude liability for their work. And they should not be under any illusion that just because they try to do so with a disclaimer, does not make it enforceable.

If someone takes on the work, they take on the risks. That's contract law in this situation.