This is quite an area of debate I feel & I want to get the groups opinion on
Building Notice notification. I`m not talking about Full plans here - as
they tend to be a different kettle of fish - just a simple Building Notice
and Inspection.

In the past I`ve done several of these for works from removing load bearing
walls to replacement windows and boilers. Generally my opinion of the people
they send out to inspect have been favorable. More recently however when I
had a single window replaced and a change to a load bearing wall, the
council bod was clearly disinterested and didn`t even look at the window -
it could of been made out of cardboard for all he cared, and I began to
think what is the point of me wasting my time & money on the council if they
aren`t that bothered..

A builder (reputable) I was speaking to recently mentioned that he (or his
clients) only submitted notices when the works were major, as an example:
MAJOR:
Removing a load bearing wall
Replacing a boiler
Replacing several windows
MINOR
Moving a doorway in a load bearing wall
Replacing a single window.

The minor jobs he commented weren`t even worth notifying since they would
stand little chance of being noticed or found out (assuming they were done
to a satisfactory standard).
What I guess I`m trying to guage is there must be millions of jobs (DIY or
not) that are done yearly where Building Notices have not been made either
because the owner isn`t aware they must submit one or they don`t consider it
important because the work is of a minor nature? There will of course be the
small minority who don`t submit building notices because they know the work
won`t be up to the necessary standard, but for the purposes of this debate
I`m not interested in them (although the council would be!).

Steve (no I don`t work for the council)

What you need to remember is that when you come to sell your house, as you
probably will. the solicitor will ask you to certify that all building works
have been done according to the book. This is because of a court case where
a solicitor was held liable for NOT doing so! So now they are all covering
themselves by getting clients to carry the can. If you don't get work passed
by the BCO then you do it at your peril. So it depends on how lucky you
feel!

Peter Crosland

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
What you need to remember is that when you come to sell your house, as you
probably will. the solicitor will ask you to certify that all building
works
have been done according to the book. This is because of a court case
where
a solicitor was held liable for NOT doing so! So now they are all covering
themselves by getting clients to carry the can. If you don't get work
passed
by the BCO then you do it at your peril. So it depends on how lucky you
feel!

Would this then be a mandatory question they ask regardless of whether the
house has had any building work done or not ?
Regardless of which, I expect there would be plenty of people who would
answer this question 'YES' knowing (or thinking) that the work had been done
to a satisfactory standard (with or without BCO approval).

Steve

"steve" wrote in message ...
"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
What you need to remember is that when you come to sell your house, as
you
probably will. the solicitor will ask you to certify that all building
works
have been done according to the book. This is because of a court case
where
a solicitor was held liable for NOT doing so! So now they are all
covering
themselves by getting clients to carry the can. If you don't get work
passed
by the BCO then you do it at your peril. So it depends on how lucky you
feel!

Would this then be a mandatory question they ask regardless of whether the
house has had any building work done or not ?
Regardless of which, I expect there would be plenty of people who would
answer this question 'YES' knowing (or thinking) that the work had been
done
to a satisfactory standard (with or without BCO approval).

It is a standard question along the lines of "Has any building work requring
Building Regs approval got the necessary paperwork to show approval?". It
is pretty clear question - not one that someone could accidentally make a
mistake (unless it was done prior to them buying the place). Note, even if
they weren't aware it needed approval, or was done prior to them purchasing
the place - then it still needs approval. Often the surveyor doing the
survey may notice the work done and highlight it in the survey which will
then be followed up by the solicitor to make sure its been done properly.

The questions are in the standard booklet of questions passed onto sellers
when selling their property.

B

It is a standard question along the lines of "Has any building work
requring Building Regs approval got the necessary paperwork to show
approval?".

Of course, there is a standard response of "Not Known", except for when
there is paperwork.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
It is a standard question along the lines of "Has any building work
requring Building Regs approval got the necessary paperwork to show
approval?".

Of course, there is a standard response of "Not Known", except for when
there is paperwork.

Yup - but if the purchasers surveyor notices the work was done, regardless
of which owner paid for the work - there is still the need for the relevant
approval letters etc.

If you've lived there 10 years and its obvious (eg. windows stamped with
2003, brand new bricks etc) that work has been done and you've put Not Known
there may be a problem proving you didn't know you did it.

D

If you've lived there 10 years and its obvious (eg. windows stamped
with 2003, brand new bricks etc) that work has been done and you've
put Not Known there may be a problem proving you didn't know you did
it.

The reply is sufficiently ambiguous that they would have to prove not only
that you knew about the work, but that you knew it needed building
regulations approval and that you knew that such approval hadn't been
obtained.

If you just say that you allowed your builder (the professional) to handle
it, or that you didn't really know about what needs building regulation
approval when you did DIY, then it would be very hard to prove anything
against you. (Except the actual failure to obtain building regulations
approval, of course, but this is not likely to be as expensive as lying on
the vendors information form).

Christian.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:38:24 -0000, a particular chimpanzee named
"steve" randomly hit the keyboard and produced:

This is quite an area of debate I feel & I want to get the groups opinion on
Building Notice notification. snip More recently however when I
had a single window replaced and a change to a load bearing wall, the
council bod was clearly disinterested and didn`t even look at the window -
it could of been made out of cardboard for all he cared, and I began to
think what is the point of me wasting my time & money on the council if they
aren`t that bothered..

I'm not sure what you're complaint is here. You can't infer that you
can 'get away' without putting in a Building Regulations application
just because the Surveyor didn't do cartwheels over your replacement
window. It may have been at the end of a busy day, his cat may have
just died, or it may just have been me.

When you say he didn't look at the replacement window, did he not see
it at all? If the window still has the 'K-glass' sticker on and is a
24mm unit, then it's obvious that it complies. After a year & a half
of looking at replacement windows, you sort of get to know what a
compliant window looks like without having to look too closely.

A builder (reputable) I was speaking to recently mentioned that he (or his
clients) only submitted notices when the works were major
The minor jobs he commented weren`t even worth notifying since they would
stand little chance of being noticed or found out (assuming they were done
to a satisfactory standard).

This is very probably true. Most of the time, unauthorised work only
comes to light when a house is being sold and the purchaser's
solicitors are asking for copies of the completion certificates.
Unless it's obvious (such as a loft conversion, or a door with new
brickwork around it), then it may never emerge that a Building
Regulations application was needed but not submitted.
--
Hugo Nebula
"The fact that no-one on the internet wants a piece of this
shows you just how far you've strayed from the pack".

In article ,
"David Hearn" writes:
It is a standard question along the lines of "Has any building work requring
Building Regs approval got the necessary paperwork to show approval?". It
is pretty clear question - not one that someone could accidentally make a
mistake (unless it was done prior to them buying the place).

I asked someone in my office who moved recently what was asked of
them, and the solicitor's question about Building Regs specifically
only asked only about 'structural' work and underground drains IIRC,
and not about anything else which might require Building Regs approval.

--
Andrew Gabriel

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
...

I asked someone in my office who moved recently what was asked of
them, and the solicitor's question about Building Regs specifically
only asked only about 'structural' work and underground drains IIRC,
and not about anything else which might require Building Regs approval.

I think there are a variety of editions of the 'standard' form around in
use - and some solicitors ask great lists of additional questions. Some of
the 'standard' forms around mention 'in the last four years' for building
work, some don't.

I have a copy of a 'seller's property information form (2nd edition)' (I
think produced by the Law Society, as part of it's 'Transaction'
methodology), and that asks if you've done any of the following:

a. Building works (inluding loft conversions and conservatories)
b. Change of use
c. Sub-division
d. Conversion
e. Business Activities
f. Window replacement [spot the afterthought - isn't this part of 'a'?]

In a subsequent section it then asks you to declare if you obtained
planning/building regs permission for any of the above.

The form I'm looking at was filled in about a year ago (incorrectly, of
course) by the seller of the house I'm now in. I'm pretty sure that the one
I filled in for the house I sold around the same time was identical.
My buyers' solicitor also produced a vast list of her own additional
questions (precisly what the Transaction protocol was supposed to avoid),
one of which was a very open-ended query about *any* work which had been
done.

I suspect that in general what you actually get asked is, at a minimum, the
stuff on the standard seller's information form, plus something related to
the diligence of the buyer's solicitor.

As there are people posting on the group at the moment who seem to have
managed to buy houses without even knowing who owns the road access to them,
it would appear that there is a wide range of diligence exhibited by buyers'
solicitors...

As to whether writing 'not known' across the 'yes/no' tick-boxes would cause
a sale to collapse, I couldn't say. I'd certainly wonder what was going on
when I saw it, though.

Will

In article , says...
A builder (reputable) I was speaking to recently mentioned that he (or his
clients) only submitted notices when the works were major, as an example:
MAJOR:
Removing a load bearing wall
Replacing a boiler
Replacing several windows
MINOR
Moving a doorway in a load bearing wall
Replacing a single window.

The minor jobs he commented weren`t even worth notifying since they would
stand little chance of being noticed or found out (assuming they were done
to a satisfactory standard).
What I guess I`m trying to guage is there must be millions of jobs (DIY or
not) that are done yearly where Building Notices have not been made either
because the owner isn`t aware they must submit one or they don`t consider it
important because the work is of a minor nature?

How do you find out what does need a notice and what doesn't? I changed
my boiler in Oct 2001, should I have obtained such a notice?

I think most people know that structural work requires Builing Control
approval and the recent changes to replacement window rules have been
publicised (though as many replacement window companies self certify
this may not have had a great impact).

Thanks,

Peter

As to whether writing 'not known' across the 'yes/no' tick-boxes
would cause a sale to collapse, I couldn't say. I'd certainly
wonder what was going on when I saw it, though.

The form I filled in when selling, and the two forms I received when buying
all had "Not Known" liberally splattered all over them. No-one seemed to
care.

Christian.

I changed my boiler in Oct 2001, should I have
obtained such a notice?

I think only since April 2004. (And the same for window replacement). I may
be wrong.

Christian.

steve wrote:

In the past I`ve done several of these for works from removing load bearing
walls to replacement windows and boilers. Generally my opinion of the people
they send out to inspect have been favorable. More recently however when I
had a single window replaced and a change to a load bearing wall, the
council bod was clearly disinterested and didn`t even look at the window -

He *should* be disinterested (meaning unbiased), I think you meant
uninterested. (OK, the USAians use disinterested to mean uninterested
but it really doesn't usually mean that over here).

--
Chris Green )

Peter Watson wrote:

I think most people know that structural work requires Builing Control
approval and the recent changes to replacement window rules have been
publicised (though as many replacement window companies self certify
this may not have had a great impact).

I still doubt whether the vast bulk of the population know that
building regs. approval is required if they replace a window.

--
Chris Green )

I think only since April 2004.

Of course, I meant April 2002.

Christian.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:22:45 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

The form I filled in when selling, and the two forms I received when buying
all had "Not Known" liberally splattered all over them. No-one seemed to
care.

I concur - from a sellers perspective.

My late fathers house was being sold last year and as administrator
for the estate I had to sign the form. Our solicitor sent me the form
already mostly filled in - the solicitor had answered pretty well all
the questions with words to the effect "the person signing this form
doesn't know the answer".

I last lived at the house over 25 years ago so there was no way I
would know about current issues beyond what my late father might have
revealed - and he didn't know either

Whilst I'm generally supportive of the idea of disclosure when
buying/selling I feel this form is a complete waste of time - red tape
beurocratic nonsense for the sheer hell of it. The old "caveat emptor"
(or let the buyer beware) was fine.

PoP

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
As to whether writing 'not known' across the 'yes/no' tick-boxes
would cause a sale to collapse, I couldn't say. I'd certainly
wonder what was going on when I saw it, though.

The form I filled in when selling, and the two forms I received when
buying
all had "Not Known" liberally splattered all over them. No-one seemed to
care.

as with everything, I think it comes down to market conditions.

Could be used as pressure on the seller in a depressed market, but in the
current market it's unlikely to get you anywhere except losing the house to
another bidder who is willing to accept those answers.



--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...

The form I filled in when selling, and the two forms I received when
buying
all had "Not Known" liberally splattered all over them. No-one seemed to
care.

Certainly the one I have here offers 'not known' as a possible answer for
lots of things. But not for the 'have you done any building' ones.

Will

Certainly the one I have here offers 'not known' as a possible
answer for lots of things. But not for the 'have you done any
building' ones.

I seem to recall it being a blank box to describe any building work. In any
case, if there isn't a suitable box, it is possible to write what you like
there instead of ticking anything. It's not like it is computer processed.

Christian.

"Will Dean" wrote in message
.. .
"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...

The form I filled in when selling, and the two forms I received when
buying
all had "Not Known" liberally splattered all over them. No-one seemed to
care.

Certainly the one I have here offers 'not known' as a possible answer for
lots of things. But not for the 'have you done any building' ones.

Yup - "Have YOU done any building work?" ... "Not known."...

D

wrote in message
...

I still doubt whether the vast bulk of the population know that
building regs. approval is required if they replace a window.

Quite. And of those that do, I suspect that there are a good number who
don't care. That's going to be an increasing problem as the building regs
seek interfere more and more inside people's houses.

I don't imagine I'm alone in the idea that building regs are fine when
building an extension or making some major structural alteration, but are
completely ridiculous for replacing a hot water cylinder or a window. For
a start, the costs are utterly disproportionate for small jobs.

The whole system is going to be brought into disrepute, and everybody will
end-up refusing to answer that sort of question during a house transaction.
Then they'll be no way to distiguish between a dangerously erected roof and
a window with insufficiantly ethically pure glass in it.

Infuriating.

Will

Will Dean wrote

I don't imagine I'm alone in the idea that building regs are fine when
building an extension or making some major structural alteration, but are
completely ridiculous for replacing a hot water cylinder or a window. For
a start, the costs are utterly disproportionate for small jobs.

No you're not alone Will. The idea, it seems to me, is to maintain minimum
standards for new HW cylinders and windows etc through the self-certification
procedure open to CORGI and FENSA registered contractors. That way the impact
on the number of Building Regs applications submitted to the LA is minimised.
But I've already come across two new window installations by FENSA contractors
which seriously infringe the regs, and FENSA seemed totally disinterested in
doing anything about it - indeed, they didn't seem to understand the Regulations
themselves! I was forced to bring in the LA, and they asked me to report the
problems to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I think unless the
procedure is tightened up, the FENSA certificate at least will soon become scrap
paper.

We should have some sympathy for Local Authorities - I suspect they don't
appreciate these new regulations either. They're under enough pressure as it is
now they face private competition (thank you Maggie). All the big juicy
projects go to tender for Building Control and LA's often lose out, leaving them
with all the non-paying dross jobs the private sector don't want. Now they have
to raise enough in fees to pay their way, there's only one thing they can do.

Peter

"Peter Taylor" wrote in message
...

We should have some sympathy for Local Authorities - I suspect they don't
appreciate these new regulations either. They're under enough pressure as
it is
now they face private competition (thank you Maggie). All the big juicy
projects go to tender for Building Control and LA's often lose out,
leaving them
with all the non-paying dross jobs the private sector don't want. Now
they have
to raise enough in fees to pay their way, there's only one thing they can
do.

Is it really the case that building control departments have to be
self-funding in their own right?
Not that I think it's a particularly severe burden, as they've got a
statutory right to demand the money, and the level of the fees has no
particular impact in terms of negative publicity for anybody. Sounds like
an easy way to make a living, really.

TBH, I would think that the increasing trivialisation of the building regs
would be a boon to them - it must be an awful lot cheaper to inspect a hot
water tank installation (no wellys required, check that it has a part L
sticker on it and leave) than a lot of other things which are already in the
same fee band. And of course, soaking DIYers is a lot safer than putting
it on the council tax.

Will

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:16:25 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:

If you've lived there 10 years and its obvious (eg. windows stamped
with 2003, brand new bricks etc) that work has been done and you've
put Not Known there may be a problem proving you didn't know you did
it.

The reply is sufficiently ambiguous that they would have to prove not only
that you knew about the work, but that you knew it needed building
regulations approval and that you knew that such approval hadn't been
obtained.

If you just say that you allowed your builder (the professional) to handle
it, or that you didn't really know about what needs building regulation
approval when you did DIY, then it would be very hard to prove anything
against you. (Except the actual failure to obtain building regulations
approval, of course, but this is not likely to be as expensive as lying on
the vendors information form).

Christian.



Exactly.

These forms contain all sorts of stupid questions.

We are just in the process of selling my late mother in law's house
and for the most part we know that major works were not done.
However, there are some questions where we genuinely don't know and
have answered as such.

AFAICS it's then up to the buyer to decide whether they find that
acceptable or want to check further. As long as truthful statements
are made, I see no issue.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Will
Dean wrote:
Is it really the case that building control departments have
to be self-funding in their own right?
Not that I think it's a particularly severe burden, as they've
got a statutory right to demand the money, and the level of
the fees has no particular impact in terms of negative
publicity for anybody. Sounds like an easy way to make a
living, really.

No, because Approved Inspectors can set their own fees and turn
away unprofitable work. A LA has to accept every application sent
to it. When I was a BCO a disproportionate amount of time went
into dealing with small works where the BCO might be the only
person involved who really knew about building, whilst the bigger
jobs (which obviously had a whole team of professionals) needed
much less. Also (though I may be wrong) LA's have to publish
their scale of fees and (officially) stick to it, whilst AI's can
discount for jobs they want (big uncomplicated sheds for
instance)

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm

Am interested to know how far back would one have been expected to
obtain Building Notices?

We've lived in an old Victorian house for 20+ years and in the first
5years installed a boiler, had rsj's put in where structural walls
needed removing, windows installed and have even had the roof
reinforced. All major works were designed/supervised by a qualified
Structural Engineer - but the Council were never involved; never heard
of these things before now. Is this likely to affect us being able to
sell the house - which we hope to do next year?

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
. net...
I think only since April 2004.

Of course, I meant April 2002.

Christian.

I think, if a CORGI fitter does a boiler change then no building notice,
as he self certifies the installation. They take his word for. he doesn't
need to contact them either.

In reality this is rather silly. Changing a boiler is in no way going to
alter the structure of a building, as long as maker instructions were
followed in flue siting.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 21:42:54 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
.net...
I think only since April 2004.

Of course, I meant April 2002.

Christian.

I think, if a CORGI fitter does a boiler change then no building notice,
as he self certifies the installation. They take his word for. he doesn't
need to contact them either.

In reality this is rather silly. Changing a boiler is in no way going to
alter the structure of a building, as long as maker instructions were
followed in flue siting.


This is all connected with part L1 (energy saving) and part J (fuel
burning appliances, in respect of safety).

jag+=2; is your informant here.






..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Will Dean wrote

Is it really the case that building control departments have to be
self-funding in their own right?

Absolutely. Not sure about every council, but I was told this by the head of
Building Control at my local DC 2 weeks ago.

Not that I think it's a particularly severe burden, as they've got a
statutory right to demand the money, and the level of the fees has no
particular impact in terms of negative publicity for anybody. Sounds like
an easy way to make a living, really.

Tony has answered this point better than I could

TBH, I would think that the increasing trivialisation of the building regs
would be a boon to them - it must be an awful lot cheaper to inspect a hot
water tank installation (no wellys required, check that it has a part L
sticker on it and leave) than a lot of other things which are already in the
same fee band.

Possibly, but I bet the small fees for such minor work don't cover the whole
cost of things like admin and archiving etc. I reckon there'll be thousands of
new cylinders installed without formal permission - have you tried buying a
cylinder that doesn't comply with part L?

And of course, soaking DIYers is a lot safer than putting
it on the council tax.

It would not be possible, let alone fair, to charge council tax payers in
general for the cost of administering the Bldg Regs. It is a legal obligation,
not a choice, to charge fees to applicants (The Building (Local Authority
Charges) Regulations 1998). Secondly, with other major cost increases and
possible rate capping to face, LA's have great pressure on council tax increases
and very strict budgets to follow.

As I said, I think we should feel some sympathy towards LA Building Control
departments at present. There are many impracticalities with the current system
and often too much pressure for under-staffed departments to cope with, which
I'm sure the eggheads at ODPM didn't foresee, and I wouldn't mind betting we'll
see them giving the system another major shake-up before too long. In my view
this should include making CORGI and FENSA etc legally responsible for making
good any defective or non-compliant work wrongly certified by their members.

Aiden wrote

Am interested to know how far back would one have been expected to
obtain Building Notices?

We've lived in an old Victorian house for 20+ years and in the first
5years installed a boiler, had rsj's put in where structural walls
needed removing, windows installed and have even had the roof
reinforced. All major works were designed/supervised by a qualified
Structural Engineer - but the Council were never involved; never heard
of these things before now. Is this likely to affect us being able to
sell the house - which we hope to do next year?

Aiden - I'll have a go at answering this although someone more knowledgeable,
Tony or Hugo for instance, might know better.

There is no legal obligation to comply with new regulations or changes brought
in after the work has been completed. National Building Regulations were first
introduced in 1966. They certainly included structural stability, and the
requirements for this aspect have not changed since then, or only very little.
But the regs for unvented HW & CH systems I think applied from 1992 and the regs
for replacement windows and boilers were introduced in April last year. If you
had this work done prior to these dates you can truthfully say on the
solicitor's enquiry form that Building Regs did not apply. Reinforcing your
roof structure does not require Building Regs approval unless it was done as
part of a larger project.

So, of the items you mention, probably only the removal of structural walls
should have had permission at the time. Strictly speaking you should submit a
Regulating Building Notice (with a slightly increased fee) and allow the BCO to
come and inspect the work and your drawings and calcs. You may need to expose
small areas for inspection if necessary. If all is well, and it sounds like it,
then you should receive a formal Approval Notice, and this will put you in the
clear when you come to sell.

Peter

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:21:24 -0000, a particular chimpanzee named
"Will Dean" randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

Is it really the case that building control departments have to be
self-funding in their own right?

The Building Regulations fees have to at least cover the cost of
carrying out that work. There are other functions of Building Control
which are not fee-earning and are covered by the Council's general
budget (dangerous structures, for instance). In recent years, with
the building boom, most BC sections are net contributors to the
Council's budget.

Not that I think it's a particularly severe burden, as they've got a
statutory right to demand the money, and the level of the fees has no
particular impact in terms of negative publicity for anybody. Sounds like
an easy way to make a living, really.

The Local Authority's Building Control section has to compete with
Approved Inspectors for most commercial and new housing, so the level
of fees have to remain competitive.

In terms of the amount of inspections, there can be as much work in a
cowboy builder's kitchen extension as there is in a multi-million
pound warehouse run by a professional building company with site
agents, site engineers, project teams, etc.

TBH, I would think that the increasing trivialisation of the building regs
would be a boon to them - it must be an awful lot cheaper to inspect a hot
water tank installation (no wellys required, check that it has a part L
sticker on it and leave) than a lot of other things which are already in the
same fee band. And of course, soaking DIYers is a lot safer than putting
it on the council tax.

BC don't generally inspect HW tanks unless as part of other work.
Replacement gas central heating is covered by the self-certification
for CORGI installers.

With replacement windows as an example, it costs a certain amount in
admin time to register an application, the surveyor has to visit the
site to check that the installation is correct (or not), and more
often than not, to get into a half-hour discussion with the d-i-y-er
about why such an application was necessary in the first place (which
can vary from "cos it's the law" to a treatise on the Kyoto treaty,
the unfair burden for reducing CO2 emissions on house builders, and
whether or not the government is in league with Pilkingtons and the
manufacturers of Celotex). And all for a fee of around £50.

Speak to any BCO, and the thing they would fear and hate the most
would to reduce their job to a mere collector of certificates. Most
want to be out on site, wellies and all (although ask me that again in
the middle of a drain trench on a sleety February Monday morning and
you may get a different answer).
--
Hugo Nebula
"The fact that no-one on the internet wants a piece of this
shows you just how far you've strayed from the pack".

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:50:12 +0000, Peter Taylor wrote:

Will Dean wrote


As I said, I think we should feel some sympathy towards LA Building Control
departments at present. There are many impracticalities with the current system
and often too much pressure for under-staffed departments to cope with, which
I'm sure the eggheads at ODPM didn't foresee, and I wouldn't mind betting we'll
see them giving the system another major shake-up before too long. In my view
this should include making CORGI and FENSA etc legally responsible for making
good any defective or non-compliant work wrongly certified by their
members.

They'd have to get the fitters to fill in the forms first!
The vast majority of replacment boilers I see don't have the log book
filled in. However I'm probably seeing a skewed situation since I would
probably only get called in to sort out a problem thus I see the worse end
of the installations, with faults and no paperwork.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

"Hugo Nebula" wrote in message
...

BC don't generally inspect HW tanks unless as part of other work.


Hugo,

I am puzzled by this statement. I thought that as a DIYer if I replace a
hot water cylinder, I am required to submit a building notice, to ensure it
is certified to meet Part L of the building regulations. Your comment
suggests such a stand alone replacement (where say the original has started
to leak) will not be inspected by building control.

James


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.550 / Virus Database: 342 - Release Date: 09/12/2003

"James" wrote in message ...

"Hugo Nebula" wrote in message
...

BC don't generally inspect HW tanks unless as part of other work.


Hugo,

I am puzzled by this statement. I thought that as a DIYer if I replace a
hot water cylinder, I am required to submit a building notice, to ensure it
is certified to meet Part L of the building regulations. Your comment
suggests such a stand alone replacement (where say the original has started
to leak) will not be inspected by building control.

my BCO more or less said this to me. He was of the opinion that the
requirement for 'control' of replacement vented tanks was a big PITA.

tim



James


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.550 / Virus Database: 342 - Release Date: 09/12/2003

Ed Sirett wrote

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 22:50:12 +0000, Peter Taylor wrote:
As I said, I think we should feel some sympathy towards LA Building Control
departments at present. There are many impracticalities with the current
system
and often too much pressure for under-staffed departments to cope with,
which
I'm sure the eggheads at ODPM didn't foresee, and I wouldn't mind betting
we'll
see them giving the system another major shake-up before too long. In my
view
this should include making CORGI and FENSA etc legally responsible for
making
good any defective or non-compliant work wrongly certified by their
members.

They'd have to get the fitters to fill in the forms first!
The vast majority of replacment boilers I see don't have the log book
filled in. However I'm probably seeing a skewed situation since I would
probably only get called in to sort out a problem thus I see the worse end
of the installations, with faults and no paperwork.

This makes a mockery of the complete system doesn't it! If I get a
CORGI-registered firm to put in a new boiler for me and don't get any
documentation, am I in the clear legally as far as the Building Regs go? How am
I supposed to prove it to buyers and their solicitors, or to LA enforcement
officers come to that?

Peter

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:55:52 -0000, a particular chimpanzee named
"James" randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

I am puzzled by this statement. I thought that as a DIYer if I replace a
hot water cylinder, I am required to submit a building notice, to ensure it
is certified to meet Part L of the building regulations. Your comment
suggests such a stand alone replacement (where say the original has started
to leak) will not be inspected by building control.

Sorry, yes you're right. Shows you how often we get applications for
replacement HW cylinders.
--
Hugo Nebula
"The fact that no-one on the internet wants a piece of this
shows you just how far you've strayed from the pack".

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 08:58:40 +0000, Hugo Nebula
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:55:52 -0000, a particular chimpanzee named
"James" randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

I am puzzled by this statement. I thought that as a DIYer if I replace a
hot water cylinder, I am required to submit a building notice, to ensure it
is certified to meet Part L of the building regulations. Your comment
suggests such a stand alone replacement (where say the original has started
to leak) will not be inspected by building control.

Sorry, yes you're right. Shows you how often we get applications for
replacement HW cylinders.

I suppose what would there be to inspect?


- Is there a building safety aspect to this part of L1 (unlike
unvented cylinders? No.

- Has the punter bought a cylinder to British Standard mentioned in
the L1 Approved Document? Almost certainly.

- Has pipe insulation been fitted to the first metre or so of hot
water pipe coming from the cylinder? Somebody's going to inspect for
that?


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote

- Has pipe insulation been fitted to the first metre or so of hot
water pipe coming from the cylinder? Somebody's going to inspect for
that?

Is this intended to save energy? The airing cupboard is now effectively
outlawed, so either the tumble drier has to be used for longer to dry things out
thoroughly (which makes it difficult to iron them so the iron has to be used for
longer as well), or ironing is hung on radiators to air, making the CH system
work harder and causing condensation. And all the time this is happening the CH
system is trying to make up for the ambient heat not being contributed by the
HW.

Fortunately, at present the Regs don't prohibit removing the insulation once the
installation has been certified/approved. How much energy does it take take to
manufacture, store, transport, fix, remove, transport again and dispose of the
insulation at the tip?

Peter

"Hugo Nebula" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:55:52 -0000, a particular chimpanzee named
"James" randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

I am puzzled by this statement. I thought that as a DIYer if I replace
a
hot water cylinder, I am required to submit a building notice, to ensure
it
is certified to meet Part L of the building regulations. Your comment
suggests such a stand alone replacement (where say the original has
started
to leak) will not be inspected by building control.

Sorry, yes you're right. Shows you how often we get applications for
replacement HW cylinders.

As all cylinders sold have to conform to Part L this appear total balls.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.552 / Virus Database: 344 - Release Date: 15/12/2003