http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-10109942.html


Part quote:

"Mr Goldswain, 40, and Miss Hale, 39, were extending the property in
Finchley in November 2012, a year after buying it. But the builders
failed to support the structure correctly and two months into the work
it began to crack.

Disaster struck on November 24 when the gaps began to widen following a
storm. Miss Hale said: €œThe day it all happened was like something out
of a disaster movie. It was like an earthquake had hit. You could see
the cracks widening by the second and the house splitting apart.€�

The couple had seen half-centimetre cracks in the brickwork and called
their builders, AIMS Plumbing & Heating Limited, who came round to
inspect. She said the builder had €œlooked a bit worried€� and put up some
scaffolding between their property and the adjoining house. Shortly
afterwards their upstairs neighbour told them cracks were widening in
the walls."


I feel sorry for them - I do.

But I wonder how anyone could get into this position. The obvious
mistakes seem to include:

1) Using a firm called "blah Plumbing and Heating" to do a seriously
difficult structural modification.

2) Not makign sure there was liability and indemnity insurance in place
and that it was current.

3) Was building control involved?

4) Because the BCO would likely have asked for a structural engineers
report and calculations.

5) I'm going to assume the family's home insurance was voided because of
irregularities with 1-4 - but if they'd phoned them in advance, the
insurers would probably have made them check clerical safeguards were in
place (like 2,3 and 4).


I don't trust random builders to do a doorway right without being
watched like a hawk (personal experience). Certainly if I undertook work
like this, I'd have the structural engineer engaged to manage the
structural elements of the work and to inspect them himself.

On 16/03/2015 11:54, Tim Watts wrote:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-10109942.html



Part quote:

"Mr Goldswain, 40, and Miss Hale, 39, were extending the property in
Finchley in November 2012, a year after buying it. But the builders
failed to support the structure correctly and two months into the work
it began to crack.

Disaster struck on November 24 when the gaps began to widen following a
storm. Miss Hale said: €œThe day it all happened was like something out
of a disaster movie. It was like an earthquake had hit. You could see
the cracks widening by the second and the house splitting apart.€�

The couple had seen half-centimetre cracks in the brickwork and called
their builders, AIMS Plumbing & Heating Limited, who came round to
inspect. She said the builder had €œlooked a bit worried€� and put up some
scaffolding between their property and the adjoining house. Shortly
afterwards their upstairs neighbour told them cracks were widening in
the walls."


I feel sorry for them - I do.


But Mr Goldswain, an internet marketing manager, and Miss Hale, an
investment banker, fear they will never see the money because the
building firm is believed to be insolvent.

How sorry?

On 16/03/15 11:59, newshound wrote:

But Mr Goldswain, an internet marketing manager, and Miss Hale, an
investment banker, fear they will never see the money because the
building firm is believed to be insolvent.

How sorry?


Sorry on a human level that they are basically stuffed. But amazed that
they managed to get into such a position.

In article ,
Tim Watts writes:
On 16/03/15 11:59, newshound wrote:

But Mr Goldswain, an internet marketing manager, and Miss Hale, an
investment banker, fear they will never see the money because the
building firm is believed to be insolvent.

How sorry?


Sorry on a human level that they are basically stuffed. But amazed that
they managed to get into such a position.

I'm wondering what the position of the family living on the top floor is.
There's been much discussion of these basement extensions, due to the
long on-going construction and risk to neighbours. It does seem reasonable
that you should at least own the whole house before pulling out the rug
from under it.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 16/03/15 12:19, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts writes:
On 16/03/15 11:59, newshound wrote:

But Mr Goldswain, an internet marketing manager, and Miss Hale, an
investment banker, fear they will never see the money because the
building firm is believed to be insolvent.

How sorry?


Sorry on a human level that they are basically stuffed. But amazed that
they managed to get into such a position.

I'm wondering what the position of the family living on the top floor is.
There's been much discussion of these basement extensions, due to the
long on-going construction and risk to neighbours. It does seem reasonable
that you should at least own the whole house before pulling out the rug
from under it.


I would have to assume the landlord's consent was given - ottherwise the
lower family are in even bigger trouble.

Now, the only logical assumption I can make is:

1) the lower family are the landlords and the upper family are leaseholders;

2) They have a jointly owned freehold;

3) The lower family are the landlords and own the whole property and the
upper are just renting.


1 and 2 would be extremely bad for the lower family but with 2 the upper
family presumably must have also given consent for the works and bear
some responsibility?

I think if I were the lower family I'd be starting a donation on
"giveusaquid.com" or whatever it's called and seeing if 1/4 million
people are willing to throw a quid each their way...

On 16/03/2015 12:37, Tim Watts wrote:
On 16/03/15 12:19, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts writes:
On 16/03/15 11:59, newshound wrote:

But Mr Goldswain, an internet marketing manager, and Miss Hale, an
investment banker, fear they will never see the money because the
building firm is believed to be insolvent.

How sorry?


Sorry on a human level that they are basically stuffed. But amazed that
they managed to get into such a position.

I'm wondering what the position of the family living on the top floor is.
There's been much discussion of these basement extensions, due to the
long on-going construction and risk to neighbours. It does seem
reasonable
that you should at least own the whole house before pulling out the rug
from under it.


I would have to assume the landlord's consent was given - ottherwise the
lower family are in even bigger trouble.

Now, the only logical assumption I can make is:

1) the lower family are the landlords and the upper family are
leaseholders;

2) They have a jointly owned freehold;

3) The lower family are the landlords and own the whole property and the
upper are just renting.


1 and 2 would be extremely bad for the lower family but with 2 the upper
family presumably must have also given consent for the works and bear
some responsibility?

I think if I were the lower family I'd be starting a donation on
"giveusaquid.com" or whatever it's called and seeing if 1/4 million
people are willing to throw a quid each their way...


There's a lot more information about this case he
http://www.bonddickinson.com/insight...or-or-engineer
These are the solicitors who acted for the structural engineers.

There's no mention of AIMS having insurance. We thought of having
abasement extension done in Finchley. One of our main concerns was that
the builders had adequate insurance. In the end we did not build into
the basement, because it simply was not worth the worry.

On 16/03/2015 12:08, Tim Watts wrote:
On 16/03/15 11:59, newshound wrote:

But Mr Goldswain, an internet marketing manager, and Miss Hale, an
investment banker, fear they will never see the money because the
building firm is believed to be insolvent.

How sorry?


Sorry on a human level that they are basically stuffed. But amazed that
they managed to get into such a position.

Me too. I was questioning whether they were competent to have terms like
"management" and "investment" in their job titles!

Tim Watts wrote:

But I wonder how anyone could get into this position.

It may just reflect their belief in a comfort blanket of consumer
protection legislation and regulation of businesses. Many in generation
X seem never to have heard of "buyer beware" let alone think they might
still have some responsibility for their decisions.

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 16/03/15 11:54, Tim Watts wrote:


"Mr Goldswain, 40, and Miss Hale, 39, were extending the property in
Finchley in November 2012, a year after buying it. But the builders
failed to support the structure correctly and two months into the work
it began to crack.

Disaster struck on November 24 when the gaps began to widen following a
storm. Miss Hale said: €œThe day it all happened was like something out
of a disaster movie. It was like an earthquake had hit. You could see
the cracks widening by the second and the house splitting apart.€�


snip

http://tinyurl.com/mlfhetw

I've only heard by word of mouth, but apparently the guy wanted to
extend the basement backwards towards the rear of the building and out
into the yard. He left the entire rear wall unsupported despite having
been told by the Council that there wasn't the necessary structural plan
and being told to stop. Neither he nor the freeholder have insurance and
both will probably be made bankrupt. As I say, this is just what I've
been told, but obviously something went seriously wrong!

On 16/03/15 12:28, Andy Cap wrote:



http://tinyurl.com/mlfhetw

Different property (just mentioned for clarity) - but similar problem it
seems...

I've only heard by word of mouth, but apparently the guy wanted to
extend the basement backwards towards the rear of the building and out
into the yard. He left the entire rear wall unsupported despite having
been told by the Council that there wasn't the necessary structural plan
and being told to stop. Neither he nor the freeholder have insurance and
both will probably be made bankrupt. As I say, this is just what I've
been told, but obviously something went seriously wrong!

Jeesus. You have to be really dense when the BCO tells you to stop
digging and you keep going...

Tim Watts wrote:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-10109942.html


Part quote:

"Mr Goldswain, 40, and Miss Hale, 39, were extending the property in
Finchley in November 2012, a year after buying it. But the builders
failed to support the structure correctly and two months into the work
it began to crack.

Disaster struck on November 24 when the gaps began to widen following a
storm. Miss Hale said: €œThe day it all happened was like something out
of a disaster movie. It was like an earthquake had hit. You could see
the cracks widening by the second and the house splitting apart.€�

The couple had seen half-centimetre cracks in the brickwork and called
their builders, AIMS Plumbing & Heating Limited, who came round to
inspect. She said the builder had €œlooked a bit worried€� and put up some
scaffolding between their property and the adjoining house. Shortly
afterwards their upstairs neighbour told them cracks were widening in
the walls."


I feel sorry for them - I do.

But I wonder how anyone could get into this position. The obvious
mistakes seem to include:

1) Using a firm called "blah Plumbing and Heating" to do a seriously
difficult structural modification.

2) Not makign sure there was liability and indemnity insurance in place
and that it was current.

3) Was building control involved?

4) Because the BCO would likely have asked for a structural engineers
report and calculations.

5) I'm going to assume the family's home insurance was voided because of
irregularities with 1-4 - but if they'd phoned them in advance, the
insurers would probably have made them check clerical safeguards were in
place (like 2,3 and 4).

6) Being in London where the ground floor of an undistinguished semi
cost £345K (four years ago: probably rather more today) and people are
desperate for more space.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Tim Watts wrote:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-10109942.html

With a huge mortgage and nothing to show for it but a plot of land, I
think I'd be starting a new life with a new name, somewhere a long way away.

Bill

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-10109942.html


Part quote:

"Mr Goldswain, 40, and Miss Hale, 39, were extending the property in
Finchley in November 2012, a year after buying it. But the builders failed
to support the structure correctly and two months into the work it began
to crack.

Disaster struck on November 24 when the gaps began to widen following a
storm. Miss Hale said: "The day it all happened was like something out of
a disaster movie. It was like an earthquake had hit. You could see the
cracks widening by the second and the house splitting apart."

The couple had seen half-centimetre cracks in the brickwork and called
their builders, AIMS Plumbing & Heating Limited, who came round to
inspect. She said the builder had "looked a bit worried" and put up some
scaffolding between their property and the adjoining house. Shortly
afterwards their upstairs neighbour told them cracks were widening in the
walls."


I feel sorry for them - I do.

But I wonder how anyone could get into this position. The obvious mistakes
seem to include:

1) Using a firm called "blah Plumbing and Heating" to do a seriously
difficult structural modification.

2) Not makign sure there was liability and indemnity insurance in place
and that it was current.

3) Was building control involved?

4) Because the BCO would likely have asked for a structural engineers
report and calculations.

5) I'm going to assume the family's home insurance was voided because of
irregularities with 1-4 - but if they'd phoned them in advance, the
insurers would probably have made them check clerical safeguards were in
place (like 2,3 and 4).


I don't trust random builders to do a doorway right without being watched
like a hawk (personal experience). Certainly if I undertook work like
this, I'd have the structural engineer engaged to manage the structural
elements of the work and to inspect them himself.

I feel sorry for the neighbours.

"harryagain" wrote in message ...

Harry, be a good chap and set yer clock to the right time.

TIA

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I don't trust random builders to do a doorway right without being
watched like a hawk (personal experience). Certainly if I undertook work
like this, I'd have the structural engineer engaged to manage the
structural elements of the work and to inspect them himself.

Lots and lots of basement conversions round here. Despite the very high
cost, cheaper than moving to a bigger house. Most recent one was across
the road, and cost well over 100k. Is nice, though - they went down more
than was needed to give high ceilings.

It's interesting that it's been the same firm doing them all. Can't be the
cheapest either judging by the posh trucks they have. So word of mouth
works here.

--
*White with a hint of M42*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I don't trust random builders to do a doorway right without being
watched like a hawk (personal experience). Certainly if I undertook work
like this, I'd have the structural engineer engaged to manage the
structural elements of the work and to inspect them himself.

Lots and lots of basement conversions round here. Despite the very high
cost, cheaper than moving to a bigger house. Most recent one was across
the road, and cost well over 100k. Is nice, though - they went down more
than was needed to give high ceilings.

Some of the ones in South Kensington go down 3 floors, and the lowest
floor often has a swimming pool sunk below the floor level. Cost a
lot more than 100k though, but they add millions to to value of the
house.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:59:08 +0000, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I don't trust random builders to do a doorway right without being
watched like a hawk (personal experience). Certainly if I undertook
work like this, I'd have the structural engineer engaged to manage the
structural elements of the work and to inspect them himself.

Lots and lots of basement conversions round here. Despite the very high
cost, cheaper than moving to a bigger house. Most recent one was across
the road, and cost well over 100k. Is nice, though - they went down
more than was needed to give high ceilings.

Some of the ones in South Kensington go down 3 floors, and the lowest
floor often has a swimming pool sunk below the floor level. Cost a lot
more than 100k though, but they add millions to to value of the house.

Not to mention the buried diggers (allegedly).

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £30a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:59:08 +0000 (UTC), (Andrew
Gabriel) wrote:

Some of the ones in South Kensington go down 3 floors, and the lowest
floor often has a swimming pool sunk below the floor level. Cost a
lot more than 100k though, but they add millions to to value of the
house.

At what point does it stop being a basement extension and becomes mineral
extraction?

--

On Monday, 16 March 2015 23:24:39 UTC, The Other Mike wrote:
At what point does it stop being a basement extension and becomes mineral
extraction?

I think you'd have to worry about concreting into the Victoria Line first :-)

Owain

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
Lots and lots of basement conversions round here. Despite the very
high cost, cheaper than moving to a bigger house. Most recent one was
across the road, and cost well over 100k. Is nice, though - they went
down more than was needed to give high ceilings.

Some of the ones in South Kensington go down 3 floors, and the lowest
floor often has a swimming pool sunk below the floor level. Cost a
lot more than 100k though, but they add millions to to value of the
house.

There tends to be a limit as to how much value you can add to a house in
any particular area. This isn't South Ken, and spending too much would be
silly. Although house prices are already silly. ;-)

--
*Jokes about German sausage are the wurst.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Although house prices are already silly. ;-)


That's what you get as a result of printing money instead of allowing
the market to correct by banks failing.

On 17/03/2015 16:22, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Although house prices are already silly. ;-)


That's what you get as a result of printing money instead of
allowing the market to correct by banks failing.

No, it's a result of ever increasing demand for housing.

"Capitol" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Although house prices are already silly. ;-)


That's what you get as a result of printing money instead of allowing the
market to correct by banks failing.

The US didn't get that result.

In article , Andrew Gabriel
scribeth thus
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" writes:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
I don't trust random builders to do a doorway right without being
watched like a hawk (personal experience). Certainly if I undertook work
like this, I'd have the structural engineer engaged to manage the
structural elements of the work and to inspect them himself.

Lots and lots of basement conversions round here. Despite the very high
cost, cheaper than moving to a bigger house. Most recent one was across
the road, and cost well over 100k. Is nice, though - they went down more
than was needed to give high ceilings.



Some of the ones in South Kensington go down 3 floors, and the lowest
floor often has a swimming pool sunk below the floor level. Cost a
lot more than 100k though, but they add millions to to value of the
house.


Ere!, do some 'ave their own tube stations dawnn there ;?....
--
Tony Sayer

all that sounds sensible to me. I do wonder if anyone should have seen
alarm bells at the inception. some buildings are n just not meant to have
basements in any case. so what now?
who is sueing who?
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-10109942.html


Part quote:

"Mr Goldswain, 40, and Miss Hale, 39, were extending the property in
Finchley in November 2012, a year after buying it. But the builders failed
to support the structure correctly and two months into the work it began
to crack.

Disaster struck on November 24 when the gaps began to widen following a
storm. Miss Hale said: ?oThe day it all happened was like something out
of a disaster movie. It was like an earthquake had hit. You could see the
cracks widening by the second and the house splitting apart.?�

The couple had seen half-centimetre cracks in the brickwork and called
their builders, AIMS Plumbing & Heating Limited, who came round to
inspect. She said the builder had ?olooked a bit worried?� and put up
some scaffolding between their property and the adjoining house. Shortly
afterwards their upstairs neighbour told them cracks were widening in the
walls."


I feel sorry for them - I do.

But I wonder how anyone could get into this position. The obvious mistakes
seem to include:

1) Using a firm called "blah Plumbing and Heating" to do a seriously
difficult structural modification.

2) Not makign sure there was liability and indemnity insurance in place
and that it was current.

3) Was building control involved?

4) Because the BCO would likely have asked for a structural engineers
report and calculations.

5) I'm going to assume the family's home insurance was voided because of
irregularities with 1-4 - but if they'd phoned them in advance, the
insurers would probably have made them check clerical safeguards were in
place (like 2,3 and 4).


I don't trust random builders to do a doorway right without being watched
like a hawk (personal experience). Certainly if I undertook work like
this, I'd have the structural engineer engaged to manage the structural
elements of the work and to inspect them himself.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-10109942.html


Part quote:

"Mr Goldswain, 40, and Miss Hale, 39, were extending the property in
Finchley in November 2012, a year after buying it. But the builders failed
to support the structure correctly and two months into the work it began
to crack.

Disaster struck on November 24 when the gaps began to widen following a
storm. Miss Hale said: "The day it all happened was like something out of
a disaster movie. It was like an earthquake had hit. You could see the
cracks widening by the second and the house splitting apart."

The couple had seen half-centimetre cracks in the brickwork and called
their builders, AIMS Plumbing & Heating Limited, who came round to
inspect. She said the builder had "looked a bit worried" and put up some
scaffolding between their property and the adjoining house. Shortly
afterwards their upstairs neighbour told them cracks were widening in the
walls."


I feel sorry for them - I do.

But I wonder how anyone could get into this position. The obvious mistakes
seem to include:

1) Using a firm called "blah Plumbing and Heating" to do a seriously
difficult structural modification.

Translation - they were the cheapest quote


2) Not makign sure there was liability and indemnity insurance in place
and that it was current.

This is why it was the cheapest quote


3) Was building control involved?

No because that was extra and mr and mrs goldman were looking for a cheap
job


4) Because the BCO would likely have asked for a structural engineers
report and calculations.


£££


5) I'm going to assume the family's home insurance was voided because of
irregularities with 1-4 - but if they'd phoned them in advance, the
insurers would probably have made them check clerical safeguards were in
place (like 2,3 and 4).


I don't trust random builders to do a doorway right without being watched
like a hawk (personal experience). Certainly if I undertook work like
this, I'd have the structural engineer engaged to manage the structural
elements of the work and to inspect them himself.


And it would cost you three times the price that the goldmans paid, people
expect to pay thirty quid for an extension and then whinge when it sinks

On 17/03/15 20:16, Phil L wrote:

And it would cost you three times the price that the goldmans paid, people
expect to pay thirty quid for an extension and then whinge when it sinks

It's quite timely actually - bloke at work is having an extension done
(not basement, but still structural) - BCO and engineers involved.

I suggested he should a) Inform his insurers; b) Get proof of insurance
from builder AND verify it is current with the insurers. He seemed
grateful as the job's not got to anything critical yet.

In article ,
"Phil L" writes:

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...-10109942.html

3) Was building control involved?

No because that was extra and mr and mrs goldman were looking for a cheap
job

I haven't seen anything implying BCO was not correctly engaged.

4) Because the BCO would likely have asked for a structural engineers
report and calculations.

Structural Engineers were engaged and did the design.
However, it was left to the builder to do the design for the
temporary structural support during the work, and the builder
apparently didn't support the building when starting underpinning
piling, and that's when it collapsed.

The owners sued both the structural engineers and the builders.
The structural engineers were cleared - they had not been engaged
to design the temporary structural support during underpinning.
There was a slight criticism of them as the builders also engaged
the structural engineers to check the first pile. The engineers
then realised the builder wasn't competent and had to tell them
to redo it, but didn't warn the owners. It was deemed they were
not strictly required to do so because they were being engaged by
the builder, not the owner at that point.

The builder was found fully liable, but has no assets.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]