What are approved inspectors meant to do?

[noseall]

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.

I think it does say something like that somewhere. Are you using council or private?

 

[noseall]

See I simply do not understand this.

You will have received a checklist outlining when and where inspections are due. This is allocated to the homeowner and not the builder. Giving it to the builder is a third party agreement.

 

[be96erj]

I think it does say something like that somewhere. Are you using council or private?

Private.

It says it here on the haringey council website:

What stages of the building works do Building Control need to inspect?
There are up to nine mandatory inspections, however not all nine are relevant to some jobs. Please note that all of the relevant stages of work applicable to the job must be provided, ie:

• Commencement - This is the first statutory notification. We normally visit when the work starts. However, in certain circumstances we may agree not to inspect the site until a further notice is received.
• Excavation for foundations:
  • For conventional foundations the foundation trench should be dug, levelled and cleaned to remove ground water before asking for an inspection.
  • For special foundations, such as a raft foundation or piled foundations, contact us to agree an inspection programme.
• Foundations constructed e.g. concrete poured - Notice must be given when the concrete has been placed. It is advisable to have the corners of the building marked out to show the position of the walls on the foundations. Our Building Control Surveyor will be looking to see that the walls will be positioned correctly on the concrete. Sometimes it is possible to start building the walls before this inspection, but you should discuss this with your Building Control Surveyor.
• Damp proof course laid - You must notify us before any damp proof course is covered up.
• Oversite ready for concreting (with damp proof membrane laid if appropriate):
  • For solid ground bearing floor slabs it is the hardcore, insulation and damp proof membrane that we will inspect before concrete.
  • In the case of suspended timber floors it is the ground below the oversite concrete that we need to inspect before it is covered by the floor.
• Structural members - We must inspect before you cover any structural members, for example floor joists, roof timbers or steel beams etc.
• Drains laid and visible for checking layout and construction:
  • The drains must be inspected before they are covered up so we can check the layout and construction. All drainage work should be inspected. This includes foul drainage and surface/rainwater drainage to the building.
  • We also advise you to test the drains are watertight before you cover them up.
• Drains testing - When the building is complete we will usually ask you to test the drains while we watch to check that they are watertight.
• Completion:
  • You should request an inspection when the building work is fully complete (or for new buildings, before occupation).
  • Provided we have seen all the relevant stages of work, and they comply with the Building Regulations, the relevant certificates have been provided and the relevant fees paid, a Completion Certificate will be issued.

It is common for more than one inspection to be carried out on one visit. Inspections 1 and 2 often coincide, as do 4 and 5 and 7 and 9.

As well as these mandatory inspections, further inspections may also be necessary, as some jobs will require specific inspections such as Fire Protection and the Reinforcement of Concrete Structures. In addition, a Building Surveyor may call unexpectedly at other times to check on the work as it progresses.

Inspections 2-6 will be carried out on the next working day after notice has been given.

 

[noseall]

I've only had experience of private once. I had to insist he come and look at probably three items that ordinarily he would have been happy to have photographic evidence.
You have been trés unlucky to have a lazy builder AND a private BCO.

 

[be96erj]

so in your opinion, the BCO cannot be held accountable? He has no duty of care to me? Not even in civil law?

 

[be96erj]

Also, there is no difference between the work done by LA and a private bco (apparently). So what is shown on the haringey website should be what my private bco should have done

 

[noseall]

I think you will have to pester Woody (legal brain box@ DITnot) on this one, but your hopes are very slim. Your BCO is accountable for the things that he/she has been REQUESTED to do. Zero request = zero accountability.

It's an unfair situation whereby the system relies upon experienced conscientious builders, forthright BCO's and customers that either do their home build home work or suffer through their own ignorance/naivety.

 

[be96erj]

I think you will have to pester Woody (legal brain box@ DITnot) on this one, but your hopes are very slim. Your BCO is accountable for the things that he/she has been REQUESTED to do. Zero request = zero accountability.

It's an unfair situation whereby the system relies upon experienced conscientious builders, forthright BCO's and customers that either do their home build home work or suffer through their own ignorance/naivety.

hmm, ok....

Although it is odd that even the government, in their document Building Control Performance Standards state:

Remote inspection techniques such as the use of photographs, video or other remote media should not be relied upon as a complete alternative method of ascertaining the compliance of work on site.

 

[noseall]

Remote inspection techniques such as the use of photographs, video or other remote media should not be relied upon as a complete alternative method of ascertaining the compliance of work on site.

Exactly as I have said. Pity you did not do this much research prior to the build.

 

[be96erj]

Exactly as I have said. Pity you did not do this much research prior to the build.

Also pity that so called "professionals" cant act professionally, rather than passing the buck onto the homeowner. They happily take the money, but when things so wrong, it is always someone else's fault. No wonder the building industry is in disrepute.

 

[noseall]

No wonder the building industry is in disrepute.

Eh?

You got your fingers burnt - bad luck. However, I agree that a lot of builders working in the private/domestic arena are lacking, but so are a lot of homeowners.

You know, it's funny that people only start typing and researching if it saves them money. Did you know that it falls to a car owner to ensure his car is taxed, insured and MOT'd?

 

[be96erj]

Eh?

You got your fingers burnt - bad luck. However, I agree that a lot of builders working in the private/domestic arena are lacking, but so are a lot of homeowners.

You know, it's funny that people only start typing and researching if it saves them money. Did you know that it falls to a car owner to ensure his car is taxed, insured and MOT'd?

Of course, but we are talking about different things.

Why can't you accept that professionals have a responsibility/duty to their clients? Why is it any different for approved inspectors?

 

[noseall]

Why can't you accept that professionals have a responsibility/duty to their clients? Why is it any different for approved inspectors?

I can accept it.
However, in this instance negligence begins with the customer. A BCO can't be held accountable unless there has been a prior request from the customer. He can't be blamed for something he has not been instructed to do.

 

[tony1851]

Building Inspectors, whether private or LABC, are only allowed to enforce the Building Regulations insofar as they affect health and safety (except for a few minor exceptions).
If a beam is not the "right" size, or is missing, it does not mean that the structure is substandard and might fail. Legally, it simply means that your builder may have done it a different way and not necessarily in accordance with the plans.
The problem in complaining about inspectors is that most Building Regulations are now cast as 'performance standards', rather than by prescriptive rules. It is therefore often very difficult to prove that something does not comply with the regs.
You have been unlucky with your builder, and probably only slightly unlucky with your inspector; there are good and poor inspectors on both sides of the divide.
Put it down to experience; personally, I wouldn't waste time trying legal redress.

 

[be96erj]

Building Inspectors, whether private or LABC, are only allowed to enforce the Building Regulations insofar as they affect health and safety (except for a few minor exceptions).
If a beam is not the "right" size, or is missing, it does not mean that the structure is substandard and might fail. Legally, it simply means that your builder may have done it a different way and not necessarily in accordance with the plans.
The problem in complaining about inspectors is that most Building Regulations are now cast as 'performance standards', rather than by prescriptive rules. It is therefore often very difficult to prove that something does not comply with the regs.
You have been unlucky with your builder, and probably only slightly unlucky with your inspector; there are good and poor inspectors on both sides of the divide.
Put it down to experience; personally, I wouldn't waste time trying legal redress.

Thanks for the above. May I ask you for your opinion on the following:

1. The bco states that a beam is to be installed as it was not in place on a particular visit. He makes no mention to the builder that he needs to be called when the beam is in place AND that the beam cannot be covered before he inspects it.
2. The builder states that he has installed the beam and that area up.
3. bco turns up and is unable to access the area where the beam was supposed to be. Bco asks builder to simply provide him a photo of the beam and states nothing to me or the builder of the consequences of not having the beam in place.
4. The builder carries on for another few months, without providing a photo.
5. I sack my builder and my new builder finds that this beam was never installed in the first place.
6. As a consequence, my roof has developed structural problems and may need to be completely redone!

So surely the bco has to take some responsibility here. He should have said to the builder "I need you to call me when the beam is in place so that I can inspect it." He should have managed his process properly but he failed to do this. As a result, I am out of pocket.

Now I accept 50% of the fault is the builder's, but I can't help feel that the bco took little interest in my work and simply thought he could make a few quid turning up to my build. I feel he has to take some responsibility for his actions (or lack of them).

Any thoughts?