What are approved inspectors meant to do?

[be96erj]

Sorry for the silly question, but I've noticed that my approved inspector is actually doing very little in terms of testing/ verifying the work done by my builders. He seems to rely more on photos that they give him. Is this normal? For example in every report he states he wants a photo of the foundations. Surely this is not something that can be verified from a fking photo?! He does turn up on site, but he never seems to be there for the important parts like laying the concrete to the foundations or installing the steel beams.

Also my builder has covered up a structural beam up and the inspector states that he simply needs a photo of the beam to verify its in place. Can this be right. Again, surely he needs to physically look at it to ensure it is the right size, shape, material etc?

Bear in mind my build is a major project. Converting a 3 bed house into a 6 bed, 3 bathroom house. So I expect inspection need to be done right.

Are there any tests that an inspector MUST undertake during the life of a build?

Any advice would be gratefully recieved from professionals.

 

[Ian H]

I don't know but I'd be pleased if I got the same guy.

 

[motorbiking]

They aren't project managers or quality control, they conduct visual inspections at different stages of the build to ensure that at least some of your build is compliant with the required standards. In my experience you have to be all over your builder to make sure things are done right. They can easily get away with a lot, if you rely on building control inspections.

 

[garyo]

My experience of local authority inspections is that they last around 60 seconds. A typical domestic extension seems to have four at most (foundations, over site, finished structure with roof on, final sign off)

 

[noseall]

Photos? he must be a private inspector. They love photos. It means the customer gets less for his money whilst the inspector can focus on more lucrative work.
All inspectors keep visits as short as they need be though. They are not there to babysit the builder or ensure quality control.

 

[be96erj]

Photos? he must be a private inspector. They love photos. It means the customer gets less for his money whilst the inspector can focus on more lucrative work.
All inspectors keep visits as short as they need be though. They are not there to babysit the builder or ensure quality control.

I understand they are not yet to ensure quality control, but surely they need to physically view or test the foundations and the steel beams.

Looking at this website for Haringey council it states that they need to attend to conduct tests. Obviously this must be the same for the approved inspectors?

http://www.haringey.gov.uk/planning...building-control/building-control-inspections

 

[noseall]

Looking at this website for Haringey council it states that they need to attend to conduct tests.

Eh? No idea what you are talking about.

They have enough to do without standing over tradesmen whilst they pour the concrete. What exactly are you after? Do you want a metallurgist on site to check the integrity of the steel? Dendochronologist for the wood? Archaeologists?

 

[be96erj]

Eh? No idea what you are talking about.

They have enough to do without standing over tradesmen whilst they pour the concrete. What exactly are you after? Do you want a metallurgist on site to check the integrity of the steel? Dendochronologist for the wood? Archaeologists?

I just want a house that if going to last and be given a service from the inspector that I've paid a fair wedge for. Why is that do hard to understand?

Why do people seem to be happy for an inspector to "turn a blind eye" if they want the job done properly or if they are a professional builder who doesn't want to cut corners!

 

[noseall]

I just want a house that if going to last and be given a service from the inspector that I've paid a fair wedge for. Why is that do hard to understand?

Why do people seem to be happy for an inspector to "turn a blind eye" if they want the job done properly or if they are a professional builder who doesn't want to cut corners!

Somewhere between scientific analysis and turning a blind eye, falls the role of your BCO. He looks in the foundation trench - then the builder fills it once the BCO has gone. If however the BCO suspects the trench bottom is suspicious or if there are a proliferation of roots etc, then he will say so. Many will be familiar with the ground conditions in your area so the visit may be a brisk one.

Get the idea? Private inspectors in my opinion are slackers and require either a nudge from the builder or the client. You need a builder or an agent on site that you can trust.

 

[be96erj]

Somewhere between scientific analysis and turning a blind eye, falls the role of your BCO. He looks in the foundation trench - then the builder fills it once the BCO has gone. If however the BCO suspects the trench bottom is suspicious or if there are a proliferation of roots etc, then he will say so. Many will be familiar with the ground conditions in your area so the visit may be a brisk one.

Get the idea? Private inspectors in my opinion are slackers and require either a nudge from the builder or the client. You need a builder or an agent on site that you can trust.

thanks for that.

My predicament is this. My builder says he installed a steel beam in the roof, between when the BCO last attending and when he attended almost 6 weeks later (going over the 28 days max between inspections, but that another issue). So when the BCO turns up, the beam has been boarded over. The BCO states that the builder is to send him a photo of the beam and allows him to carry on (without stating that if the beam is not there, then LA could take legal action). The work continues and some months later the builder produces a photo, which turns out to be for another build! The BCO now states that the whole area for where the beam is, needs to be redone (which is a fking massive and costly job). My argument is that he should have said to the builder that he needs to actually see the beam, rather than see a photo. That way the build would not have carried on and cost me so much more money.

I know people will say it is with the builder, but as you guessed it, the builder has gone bust, so I am now seeking to chase the BCO for his lazy work.

Any thoughts?

 

[noseall]

I know people will say it is with the builder, but as you guessed it, the builder has gone bust, so I am now seeking to chase the BCO for his lazy work.

Any thoughts?

Deffo the builder. For very important items such as steel beams, I insist the BCO visits the site. I would not cover the beam until he has visited. BCO's are not mind readers either. You can not sue someone for being lazy nor can you prove that he insisted on photographs only.

Did you not have any conversations with your builder or with the BCO, or both?

 

[noseall]

As for this 28 day thing - nonsense. BCO's do not go around arbitrarily visiting building sites that are 29 days old since their last visit. Utter blarney that one.

 

[noseall]

Just to add; Who was in charge of inspections? It is ultimately the homeowners responsibility to ensure their build complies.

 

[be96erj]

Deffo the builder. For very important items such as steel beams, I insist the BCO visits the site. I would not cover the beam until he has visited. BCO's are not mind readers either. You can not sue someone for being lazy nor can you prove that he insisted on photographs only.

Did you not have any conversations with your builder or with the BCO, or both?

I guess I did not fully understand the significance of the issue (having that beam in place) as I am non technical. I was relying mostly on the professionalism of the builder and bco

Of course the builder is at fault. However, I feel the bco owed me a duty of care as well. He should have stated in his reports that he would not be able to issue a certificate without seeing the beam, or that he neededs to physically see the beam or something to that effect. The problem is he assumed the builder was telling the truth. Hence he let him carry on and asked for a photo of the beam. Surely the correct thing to do would have been to say(or documented in one of his visit reports) that the builder is not to cover up any structural work until it has been inspected. Doing this (as what other BCOs do- haringey council) would have avoided this costly mistake.

 

[be96erj]

Just to add; Who was in charge of inspections? It is ultimately the homeowners responsibility to ensure their build complies.

See I simply do not understand this. You say it is the homeowners job to comply. But surely the BCO needs to say something. Something like "I need to see beam x, make sure it is not covered, because if it is, then I cannot issue a certificate." To assume the builder did do his job properly and install the beam and then to simply ask for a photo of the work, is his fault is it not? What else am I paying him for?