Building control

Leo Demidov

Story.

Two new commercial type buildings, me and one building control officer. He turns up two months after occupation of first building and during the rushed handover of second one on the same site.

I work for the client and was reluctant to interact with the bc officer as i anticipated problems and didnt want to be the bearer of bad news. After talking to everyone onsite he comes back to me and says "they all said you're in charge, how are ye settling in. How long is the other building occupied? Sure i suppose everything is okay at this stage"

End of.

I know for a fact that there are major concerns regarding insulation, thermal bridging and distinct lack of ventilation. My employer is less than concerned with these issues but my issue is with the wreckless attitude of the bc officer. Having addressed some of these isues with my employer and the builder, i expected bc to pick up on things, but the 8/10 minutes spent on site seemed little more than a formality.

He never entered the first building, the larger of the two, not really good enough in my opinion.

Is this the norm?

Mellor

He showed up on site.
He asked you, as the person in charge, was everything ok?
You, presumably, failed to mention several problems. He took you at your word.

I agree that it was a little reckless from him. But your not exactly a beacon of light yourself. Not good enough in my opinion.;)

Anytime I've been in a situation like this. I'll be as honest as possible, or at least reasonable honest . It one thing to sugar coat areas, which is excusable, but failure to mention can become serious, especially if you are the one putting your John Hancock on a opinion of compliance.

As for his attitude being the norm, afraid not. The norm is no BC at all.
Him even showing up is above and beyond the expected duty.

sinnerboy

Mellor wrote: »

Him even showing up is above and beyond the expected duty.

Indeed -

OP - you do have a photo for historical verification of this rare occurance ?

Poor Uncle Tom

Mellor wrote: »

He showed up on site.
He asked you, as the person in charge, was everything ok?
You, presumably, failed to mention several problems. He took you at your word.

I agree that it was a little reckless from him. But your not exactly a beacon of light yourself. Not good enough in my opinion.;).

+1

Does the BC officer have x-ray vision to pick up on non-compliance of covered works in completed buildings?

It seems you didn't exactly point him in the right direction.

If you have serious concerns, are you going to sign off these works knowing that they are happening on your watch?

Leo Demidov

Thanks for your replies.

I never said that i was in charge, i said that everyone else fobbed him off on me. I should point out that i am employed by the client as part of the day to day operation of the premises and had no involvement with the construction process. My presence there was by pure coincidence.

The issues i highlighted here were not hidden from the building control officer, the lack of any ventillation should be quite obvious. With painted internal blockwork, he should/could have seen the double row of cavity closers and the resultant mildew.

Fair enough, a ladder would have been needed to view the poor job of attic insulation, which possibly reflects poorly on insulation and construction details throughout.

As i did say in my original post, i have brought these issues and more to the attention of my employer and that is where my duty of care, if any, rests. I arranged for a thermal imaging survey to identify and highlight thermal bridging and leaks around windows and vents in the roof.

The topic for discussion here was building control, and fair enough, by the sounds of things, a visit is a rare honour. My feeling is that if someone goes to the bother of visiting a site, why not make it count and have a proper look around.

Poor Uncle Tom

Thank you for clearing that up. Whoever is charged with certifing these works may/could find themselves in hot water if the problems are not inentified and rectified before certification.

Leo Demidov

Thanks for the replies lads, sorry if the original post wasnt as clear as could have been.

YouWantWhat

Story out of interest (sorry I can't fully remember all the specifics):

An architect that I used to work for designed and got planning permission for either a house or an extension to a house for a client and friend of his. Once planning was obtained the client discontinued the services of the architect and took the project on board herself, getting prices and employing the builder. The job progressed. A dispute arose between the client and the builder. In the meanwhile the architect was driving past the site one day and noticed that the project was progressing and saw the client who invited him in for a look around. The issue of the dispute was mentioned but the architect took no view as he was no longer employed on the project, and left, still on good terms with the client/friend.
Time passes and the dispute was not resolved, the client decides to sue the builder and bring him to court. The client won her case, but guess what? both the builder and the architect were sued and had to split the costs between them. The judge took the view the the architect is a professional, and althought he only visited the site out of invitation and interest, the fact that he was on site gave him an onus of responsibility as a professional, to inform/notify either the client and/or builder of the correct technical way of dealing with the issue which was causing the dispute.

Moral of the story : If you are a professional on site - assume full responsibility. If you are not employed - stay the hell away.