"Reduction in red tape for SEMEs"

[DontAsk]

Some of those rules are antiquated nonsense and some are even dangerous - a typical example would be the ring mains rule, <snip> It is not only dangerous but also completely pointless!

Rubbish! Please do elaborate on your opinion.

What's dangerous, and pointless, is Part P preventing perfectly safe DIY and pushing people who don't want to get a sparky in to use more trailing extension sockets.

 

[UKSBD]

Yes, that's why I didn't say, council building control inspectors.

I don't know about the big firms, but when I was on the building it was outsourced to a 3rd party, we used to have a Zurich building control inspector do the inspections and monitoring.

Here is a typical example

Owners of defective flats enforce new homes warranties against Zurich - Harbour Underwriting

Harbour Underwriting has issued dispute insurance policies for two groups of claimants bringing proceedings against Zurich in relation to new homes developments found to have serious building defects. The first claim recently succeeded in the Court of Appeal, and the second case is ongoing New...

harbourunderwriting.com

"In this case, the claimants are alleging that Zurich “fraudulently” issued documents claiming the development had been completed. The allegation is that Zurich’s surveyors issued cover notes without even inspecting the development."

I would imagine that happened all the time, some bottom of the chain building inspector just signing things off without seeing them, everyone turns a blind eye, think nothing off it, if something goes wrong, everyone else then has the building inspector to pass the buck to.

 

[estwig]

I would imagine that happened all the time, some bottom of the chain building inspector just signing things off without seeing them, everyone turns a blind eye, think nothing off it, if something goes wrong, everyone else then has the building inspector to pass the buck to.

Its normal practice for BCO's to sign things off from pics sent by a builder.

It's not at all unusual for them to sign things off, without seeing anything, if they know the builder and he has good rep, they'll take his word for it.

The basic problem is their fees are far too low, to allow them to do the job properly, so they can't take the time to inspect correctly. Even if they could, it's very easy to hide things from a BCO on site.

 

[IanSuth]

I live about a mile from the Taylor Wimpey estate that caused the creation of the @myhousesucks twitter account.

That small estate had issues as glaring as houses where no insulation at all had been fitted and the oven kept cutting in and out as it was pushing the socket it was plugged into through the plasterboard behind it.

But they had all been signed off

(that twitter account is worth looking down as a "how bad can it really be ?" reality check)

 

[UKSBD]

It's not at all unusual for them to sign things off, without seeing anything, if they know the builder and he has good rep, they'll take his word for it.

That's fine, until something goes wrong, and someone is looking for a scapegoat

The basic problem is their fees are far too low, to allow them to do the job properly, so they can't take the time to inspect correctly.

I would say it is impossible for them to do their job properly, no matter what the fees are.

 

[Newchodge]

That's fine, until something goes wrong, and someone is looking for a scapegoat


I would say it is impossible for them to do their job properly, no matter what the fees are.

The fees should not matter. When it was run by the Local Authority, while there may have been issues, the need to make a profit did not come into it and every build subject to Building Contrl was visited at the appropriate stages of the build.

Why, do you think, is it impossible for them to do their job properly?

 

[estwig]

The fees should not matter. When it was run by the Local Authority, while there may have been issues, the need to make a profit did not come into it and every build subject to Building Contrl was visited at the appropriate stages of the build.

Why, do you think, is it impossible for them to do their job properly?

It still is run by the local authority, although the LABC where privatised back in the time of Margaret Thatcher, they are still Local Authority Building Control. Commercial building control is overseen by and has to be rubber-stamped by the LABC.

It is impossible for them to do their job properly, full compliance with the building regs is expensive, it's very easy to pull the wool over their eyes. Besides they have no teeth, if you're build doesn't comply, nothing they can do but send a letter of non compliance.

 

[Newchodge]

It still is run by the local authority, although the LABC where privatised back in the time of Margaret Thatcher, they are still Local Authority Building Control.

That doesn't make sense. Either LABC were privatised or they are run by the Local Authority?

 

[UKSBD]

Why, do you think, is it impossible for them to do their job properly?

Because they are not on site every minute work is being carried out and because more than one thing happens on a building site at the same time.

How can they sign off the fact a certain insulation is used 100% of the time when 99% of the time that insulation is already covered by a piece of plasterboard or cladding before they see it?

 

[The Byre]

Rubbish! Please do elaborate on your opinion.

The UK is the only country on Planet Earth to allow a ring and some even think that the rules insist on a ring. The danger comes from people thinking that a 30-amp ring means using a 15 or 20-amp cable. You are even allowed to load it with spurs! Two sides to the ring, so the 15-amp cable ring can be loaded with 20 or 30 amps, right?

Wrong!

It only takes one dodgy connection or a connection that has a higher resistive value because it was not screwed down properly and the whole load goes through one side using a 15-amp cable and X-number of joints in it. Resistance = heat and heat leads to fire.

That's how a house not too far away from us burnt down last year!

 

[Newchodge]

Because they are not on site every minute work is being carried out and because more than one thing happens on a building site at the same time.

How can they sign off the fact a certain insulation is used 100% of the time when 99% of the time that insulation is already covered by a piece of plasterboard or cladding before they see it?

They require that it is uncovered so they can inspect. I am sure, when we built an extension in 2003, certain things could go no further until building control had seen it - footings, drains, etc.

 

[estwig]

That doesn't make sense. Either LABC were privatised or they are run by the Local Authority?

Yes I know, they know it too, but that's how it is!

The World of building control is a mad place, very little of it makes any sense.

 

[UKSBD]

I am sure, when we built an extension in 2003, certain things could go no further until building control had seen it - footings, drains, etc.

They may have come along, had a quick glance, got in car and driven off again.

They wouldn't have stopped there whilst the concrete was poured, they wouldn't have stopped there to ensure the correct pea shingle was put on every pipe, they wouldn't have inspected every bend, they wouldn't have inspected the rings on the manholes.

Edit to add, very few would put a level on a drain to ensure it was falling the correct way, let alone had the correct fall

It is impossible for them to inspect everything properly, but they have to sign it off

 

[DontAsk]

LABC (Warks) made my father in laws builder expose a steel that had been plaster boarded over

When I DIY fitted new windows they came and inspected, and signed off, so that I didn't need a FENSA certificate.

So some do the job properly.

 

[DontAsk]

The UK is the only country on Planet Earth to allow a ring

So?

and some even think that the rules insist on a ring.

So? They need to read the rules better. I doubt many professional sparkies think that.

The danger comes from people thinking that a 30-amp ring means using a 15 or 20-amp cable. You are even allowed to load it with spurs!

Spurs must be protected with an FCU. A sour is really little different to plugging in a trailing extension lead, except they're a lot safer.

Two sides to the ring, so the 15-amp cable ring can be loaded with 20 or 30 amps, right?

The current goes both ways round the ring so the current capacity os effectively doubled.

You do not use "15A cable" for a 13A ring. The cable rating depends on the installation, i.e., in free air, buried in insulation, clipped. Typically it will be rated at 27A for directly clipped.

Wrong!

It only takes one dodgy connection or a connection that has a higher resistive value because it was not screwed down properly and the whole load goes through one side using a 15-amp cable and X-number of joints in it. Resistance = heat and heat leads to fire.

It only takes one dodgy connection on a radial for the rest of the radial to have no CPC.

See above, you do not wire a 13A ring in "15 A cable".

That's how a house not too far away from us burnt down last year!

If a broken ring caused the house to burn down then there were undoubtedly other problems, e.g., the wrong cable was used, or the wrong calculations during installation..

Rings and cables both have their pros and cons, but Rings are definitely NOT dangerous.

 

[The Byre]

So?

It only takes one dodgy connection on a radial for the rest of the radial to have no CPC.

Which is how it should be - off!

See above, you do not wire a 13A ring in "15 A cable".

I wrote 30 and not 13.

 

[estwig]

LABC (Warks) made my father in laws builder expose a steel that had been plaster boarded over

When I DIY fitted new windows they came and inspected, and signed off, so that I didn't need a FENSA certificate.

So some do the job properly.

The point being made was, they can't do their job properly, not they don't do their job properly.

For example, they have no way of knowing if all the cavity in a cavity wall construction has insulation, they can only see the bits of insulation around the doors and windows. Same for footings, if the concrete has loads of rubbish dumped in it, they can't possibly know. There are endless examples like this. Their fee does not allow for the time, to carry out through inspections.

 

[UKSBD]

Same for footings, if the concrete has loads of rubbish dumped in it, they can't possibly know.

We never had plums in our footings, honest guv.

 

[IanSuth]

They require that it is uncovered so they can inspect. I am sure, when we built an extension in 2003, certain things could go no further until building control had seen it - footings, drains, etc.

When the 5 bed detached house was given planning permission and built opposite me no planning inspector had visited for over 10 year, the map had the plot the wrong dimensions (which is the only way the planned property fitted), they demolished the old garage on site on a saturday morning and just set fire to the tar roof in situ as they knew the council wouldnt respond until Monday, the builders employed were so inexperienced in the UK i caught them measuring my front door to decide how big a gap to leave for theirs, the built the entire ground floor from starting to dig the footings to above head height in under a week (then left it a month as they couldn't get something) then finished it in another fortnight. From demolishing the old garage (the day after the planning went through on the nod despite having been called in as someone forgot to tick a box) to being put out to let was 1 month and 1 day.

We know the current tenants and they are forever having issues with drains etc as they have no fall on the horizontal foul drain, they have spoken to the council who can find no record of any notes by a building inspector just the name of the person who signed it off the copmpletionn certificate (who left shortly after, just like the planning person who had inspected it 10 years prior for outline permission then left)

But then it is all now outsourced to this lot (who appear to still be doing virtual inspections)

How to book and when we need to inspect

www.bcsolutions.org.uk

 

[Bob Morgan]

As I have a friend who is a surveyor who specialises in this field and has been telling me where the Grenfell builders and owners went wrong, I happen to have a fair idea of where things went wrong and continue to go wrong.

The answer (according to my surveyor friend) is a culture of sticking plaster.

The laws around buildings are a myriad array of sticking plaster measures, some even contradicting others! Every time something happens, say an electrical fire - some Herbert drafts a new regulation or a must-have certificate that does nothing to redraft or even alter the existing laws. The result is the legal equivalent of a dying patient covered in small bits of sticking plaster. Silly footling rules for everything, but no overall concept.

Putting cheap PU boards with wooden frames covered in aluminium on the outside of a building is a sticking plaster measure. It was cheap and quick and even looked sort of nice. The right way is to renovate the building on the inside and insulate every flat on the inside and provide proper fire escape exits and other measures. That would entail moving every tenant out and finding them all alternative accommodation. "Ah, F-it! Just stick some cheap cladding on the outside and that's that box ticked!"

More sticking plaster!

Story -

I managed to tear a ligament in my shoulder over the weekend whilst playing with my Great Dane. With great trepidation, I went to our local GP practice on Monday as the pain was getting worse. There, a remarkably pretty young female GP sent me straight to the local hospital.

(A few years ago, that hospital came in for huge criticism for having bad management and management practices and was forced into a root-and-branch reorganisation. The whole place was totally difunctional and chaotic. The old guard were shown the door!)

Half an hour after talking to that GP, I rocked up at A&E and they knew that I was coming. They ushered me into orthopedics and I was x-rayed and the consultant examined me and a nurse put my arm in a sling and just half an hour after coming in, I was sent home - all fixed up.

Yes - even the NHS can be made to work! But it took a root-and-branch reorganisation to achieve this!

And that is what is required with building regulations. Throw the entire chaotic blizzard of silly rules and pointless certificates out of the window and put in understandable regulations that do not contradict one another.

Some of those rules are antiquated nonsense and some are even dangerous - a typical example would be the ring mains rule, which was introduced to save copper during the war years. It is not only dangerous but also completely pointless!

In terms of ‘Disasters’ I put Grenfell in the same category as Concorde! Most aeroplane crashes are caused by a series of events. In the case of Concorde, Runway Debris was the ‘Primary Cause’ however, there were other contributory factors that led to the ‘Crash’ itself – A substantial delay, additional passengers, their luggage, a change in wind direction (uncorrected), the maintenance of the front wheel assembly, and the decision of the pilot to shut down the port engine, during rotation.

Investigations and Inquiries have concluded that ‘Fault’ lies with the maintenance of the aircraft that used the runway BEFORE Concorde, and deposited the debris.

Grenfell used materials that many considered ‘New’ – However, they were NOT new at all. The Composite Cladding Material and the Insulation had been in use for 20 Years or more. Yet in the case of Grenfell and many other ‘Retroclad Buildings’ it was more about the ‘HOW’ the materials were used together.

Long before Grenfell, there had been other fires, where similar construction techniques had been used – Particularly in the Middle East. The ‘Fire Characteristics’ were INDENTICAL. In the case of the Middle East buildings there was a lack of ‘Fire-Stopping’ and Compartmentation – In my opinion, the same occurred with Grenfell. Without such containment measures a ‘Chimney Effect’ occurs. Fire and Smoke travel upwards in the Void Space between the Exterior Cladding and Insulation/Structure, and the fire travels rapidly - Fuelled by the 'Eddy Effect' on High Rise Buildings.

The Building Regulations already deal with Fire-Stopping and Compartmentation (and have done so for several decades). However, I would suggest that either it was NOT INSTALLED, OR it was INADEQUATE!

From a construction aspect, Fire-Stopping is a ‘Pain in the Arse!’ – It usually requires further Specialist Trades, and is time consuming. Thus, extending The Main Re-Cladding Operation, and affecting ‘Attendances’ such as Scaffolding and Temporary Works, etc. Although seemingly insignificant to the layman, Fire-Stopping could have doubled the duration of the Cladding Operation, and would have impinged ‘Cumulatively’ on other aspects of the Construction Programme.

Such operations also rely upon a close level of Supervision and Inspection – I very much doubt whether the Main Contractor and the Building Inspector clambered over the external façade as work was being carried out? Indeed, the ‘Smart and Clever’ organisation of Contractors, Sub-Contractors, Consultants, Sub-Consultants, Suppliers and Manufacturers, led inevitably to many ‘Gaps’ being excused by “Not my job, Guv!”

Many would question WHY a Photographic Archive was not created? Quite possibly, this would have been a further ‘Gap in Responsibilities’ or not requested at all. However, it is worthwhile noting that PHOTOGRAPHING ALL WORK associated with the placing of ‘Thermal Insulation’ is now a requirement of the latest amendment to the Building Regulations! – Pangs of Guilt?

 

[The Byre]

I find it astonishing that a photographic record of the works at Grenfell was not kept. How the hell can anyone tell what was done and where things are without a photographic record?

I keep records of such mundane things as room renovations so that I know in ten years' time where the heating pipes and electrical wires run and if things go wrong, where to look first. Yet here we are with a major building renovation that does not have any such record - how can that be?

 

[IanSuth]

I find it astonishing that a photographic record of the works at Grenfell was not kept. How the hell can anyone tell what was done and where things are without a photographic record?

I keep records of such mundane things as room renovations so that I know in ten years' time where the heating pipes and electrical wires run and if things go wrong, where to look first. Yet here we are with a major building renovation that does not have any such record - how can that be?

For the reason Bob said.

If not explicitly one person/trades job then everyone assumes somebody else is doing it and therefore nobody does it on a massive job with multiple companies all trying to make their own bit of profit and get done asap

 

[The Byre]

If not explicitly one person/trades job then everyone assumes somebody else is doing it and therefore nobody does it on a massive job with multiple companies all trying to make their own bit of profit and get done asap

So now we know where the fault lies - with the person or body managing the project - or rather the body that is supposed to be managing the project. And I assume that would be the local authority that owned the building.

I know architects like to supervise building work, but they are not really suitably qualified for that task. That would be my structural engineer & surveyor friend. Of course, such people cost money (£20k to £200k for a Grenfell-style renovation, depending on the project and what is expected of them) but appointing the right person would have meant that none of this would have happened.

 

[IanSuth]

So now we know where the fault lies - with the person or body managing the project - or rather the body that is supposed to be managing the project. And I assume that would be the local authority that owned the building.

The building was owned by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea but was managed by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation which was an arms length body that managed nearly 10k properties on behalf of the council ( i think K&C are the only council in the country where 1 body manages all the properties).

So who owned the responsibility the council or the arms length council body managing the building and it's renovations ?

Immediately you can see the complexity of "whose fault is it ?" when it comes to actual legal responsibility.

I am sure at the end of the enquiry the general conclusion will be something like " a catalogue of individual failings compounded by poor communication lines and clarity of responsibility" and a few people quite down the pecking order or who have retired will be singled out but no one will actually face criminal sanction and if fined a few companies/contractors will go into liquidation leaving maybe some insurers to pick up some of the tab.

 

[UKSBD]

I know architects like to supervise building work, but they are not really suitably qualified for that task. That would be my structural engineer & surveyor friend.

Your structural engineer friend may provide the calculations for a steel, may provide the drawings, may provide the technical information that is filed away to cover himself.

Very much doubt he will be onsite to ensure it is painted correctly, using the correct pad stones, the wall has been built with the correct density blocks, it has the correct bearing, then afterwards be on site to ensure no holes are drilled in it, the correct fireboard is used on it, the fireboard is doubled up, etc., etc.

The thing is though, he has done his bit by providing the paperwork that covers him.

 

[The Byre]

No, he specialises in Grenfell-style renovations and remedial work on such buildings. I and a couple of others did discuss Grenfell and where it went wrong and, yes, it was a management problem according to him - though he has not consulted on that case, but had done similar buildings around that area and in most UK cities.

 

[DontAsk]

Your structural engineer friend may provide the calculations for a steel, may provide the drawings, may provide the technical information that is filed away to cover himself.

Very much doubt he will be onsite to ensure it is painted correctly, using the correct pad stones, the wall has been built with the correct density blocks, it has the correct bearing,

The BCO did that in our case, earlier this year.

 

[Bob Morgan]

The building was owned by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea but was managed by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation which was an arms length body that managed nearly 10k properties on behalf of the council ( i think K&C are the only council in the country where 1 body manages all the properties).

So who owned the responsibility the council or the arms length council body managing the building and it's renovations ?

Immediately you can see the complexity of "whose fault is it ?" when it comes to actual legal responsibility.

I am sure at the end of the enquiry the general conclusion will be something like " a catalogue of individual failings compounded by poor communication lines and clarity of responsibility" and a few people quite down the pecking order or who have retired will be singled out but no one will actually face criminal sanction and if fined a few companies/contractors will go into liquidation leaving maybe some insurers to pick up some of the tab.

Incidentally The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation is a Limited Company (Incorporated 20 April 1995 Reg: 03046135). From cursory research, there has been no dispensation from Companies House to exclude the word ‘Limited’ from its title – Although it has been registered as ‘Limited!’

However and due to the word ‘Royal’ being in the Company Name, it would have required explicit approval. I have not had the time to research this further due to the volume of documentation submitted since 1995. Back in the days of a CH Manual Search in Person, the documents would have been brought out on a ‘Sack Truck!’

Recent 'Accounts' show quite a sizeable 'Reserve' yet very little in terms of Annual Turnover. Upon first examination it does not reflect a Property Management Entity, having the scale it describes.

 

[Bob Morgan]

No, he specialises in Grenfell-style renovations and remedial work on such buildings. I and a couple of others did discuss Grenfell and where it went wrong and, yes, it was a management problem according to him - though he has not consulted on that case, but had done similar buildings around that area and in most UK cities.

Quite possibly your Structural Engineer has a 'Juicier' Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) Policy than the Architect! In many such Remodelling Schemes, the 'Architect' is employed merely as a 'Design Contractor' and commissioned only to provide a rather 'Limited Concept Design.' In all such instances I would be duty-bound to notify my PII Insurer. Thereafter, an Exchange of Letters with the Commissioning Client limits the extent of any future liability. It can also result in a project being 'Declined' at a very early stage - Especially when the PI Insurer responds with "You're on your own, son!"

In the case of Grenfell, architects ‘Studio E’ commenced a Voluntary Liquidation (£140,000) during May 2020. Although Studio E and other Consultants were criticised for a “Total Neglect of Safety” this was merely ‘Grandstanding’ on the part of the Professional Media! – No one had investigated what everyone had been engaged to do! – What was their ‘Scope of Work?’ Once again, we find the defence of “Not my Job, Guv” being used, even during the earliest stages – A ‘Culture’ which permeated all aspects of the project!

Particularly with Grenfell, the building had a SINGLE Shaft Means of Escape. Although this does not conform with current legislation, it is not to say that the building was intrinsically 'Unsafe.' With Shaft Pressurisation, Fire/Smoke Protection and Dedicated Places of Refuge, a ‘Safe Exit’ could have been effected. However, even a ‘Concept Architect’ should have notified his Commissioning Client. The decision of the Commissioning Client to ‘Proceed’ would have again required further PII Notification.

What hindered a ‘Safe Means of Escape,’ was the adoption of a Phased Escape Exit Strategy – Something reserved for much larger, more sophisticated and diverse buildings. From what has been reported, ‘Tenants’ were unaware about ‘What to do!’ In addition, Smoke & Heat Detection, Staircase Pressurisation, Enunciators and ALARMs are all ‘Mechanical Systems,’ needing regular testing and maintenance – Such systems are also interdependent. I can take you into many Multi-Storey Buildings where the Fire Alarm Panel (Ground Floor Entrance) is either warning FAULT or has been turned-off!

With Grenfell, we then had the ‘Sprinkler Experts’ making judgment. However, ‘Sprinklers’ DO NOT save lives – They save property! SMOKE is the KILLER and Sprinklers would have done little – Fire has to reach the Activation Bulb on the Sprinkler Head before it is activated! – Smoke would have got there long before!

Indeed, I have inspected such installations only to find that the Sprinkler Pumps have NEVER been tested since installation and/or Diesel for the Primary Pumps has been STOLEN! When Fire Pump Testing takes place (Normally Weekly), YOU ARE AWARE OF IT – It creates a lot of noise and vibration! If you have never heard it, you need to be worried!