Building Regulations

[keepie33]

Hi,

I'd appreciate advice from anyone here with a better knowledge of building regulations than me regarding the following situation (I can give more detail if necessary).

A new build was constructed and the family are now living there. However, the building has not been passed by Building Control and is known to breach fire regulations due to the owner's stupidity. I think this means he will have trouble selling the house when the time comes (which I will not lose any sleep over - he was a real nightmare customer for everyone on the job). I am unsure as to what he has done about home insurance although presumably, if he has obtained it, the company in question would not be amused if they knew the situation.

Is it possible he is doing anything illegal here? Without wanting to do anything drastic it would be nice to give this person a bit of a headache...

 

[toptec]

Slightly crazy post.

I think you need to take a step back and explain why you think he has breached any regulations. Your post is very vague.

Specifically, what breaches building regs? Was there planning permission and building control with the council? Council inspections?

More detail if you want advice.

 

[^woody^]

I don't know about Scottish law, but not conforming to the Building Act in England and Wales does carry the penalty of a fine - if proved. Not conforming to any applicable fire precautions (under different legislation) may result in a fine or a custodial sentence.

If you were the builder or have other involvement in doing the work contrary to applicable regulations, then you too could be liable under the above acts and also for negligence in common law.

In fact you may already be guilty of an offence by your knowledge and inaction.

 

[keepie33]

Hello, thanks for the replies. Sorry for the vagueness, I will try and make myself clearer.

Upon the finish of construction, the owner was granted access to live in the premises but the property was not granted a completion certificate by Building Control after their inspection. One reason was probably the fact that wall cladding and insulation were fitted without any gap inbetween. The regulations in Scotland require a gap, but the work was undertaken by an English firm and it appears they did not know this (I assume different regs?). The client was made aware of the problem at an early stage by other workers on-site but refused to have anything altered on grounds of cost. To answer Woody's point, we were not involved in the relevant section of work and, along with others, in fact gave the client warnings about the regulations which he chose to ignore. At any rate there was definitely no completion certificate. This was around three years ago and there's been no change on that front; no remedial work has been carried out.

The potential fire hazard I mentioned occurred at a later date, after the house had been finished, inspected and occupied. It was therefore nothing to do with any of the construction work. The owner, for unknown reasons and apparently without consulting any authority, decided to cut a hatch through the two layers of plasterboard firebreak ceiling above the garage. If a fire happened to break out in the garage now it would be likely to spread to the rest of the house. Perhaps I was a tad harsh calling it "stupidity" but it does seem like a breach of regulations and an unnecessary risk. Is he within his rights to take such a risk? We informed the council upon finding this out but they have taken little or no action thus far. Can any other steps be taken, other than another call to the council?

Thanks again.

 

[breezer]

why are you so concerned about it?

 

[^woody^]

The cutting of the hatch is not a breach of any regulations. But if a fire did occur and it spread through the hatch, then some liability may attach in negligence

Do you know if the hatch is not a fire-resistant type with intumescent seals?

For the cladding, as building control are aware of the issue, then its up to them to take action if they see fit. They may choose to relax the requirement. There are many ways to acheive compliance with building regulations

 

[Richard C]

Sounds as if you one of the aggrieved trades & intent on some form of revenge or retribution! I don’t know what he did to upset you but is vindictiveness really the answer? The world is full of obnoxious & stupid people, if he was given advice & chose not to take it, what’s it got to do with you! I assume you don’t live next door to him so if & he’s not directly affecting your well being, just let him get on with it; he will probably get caught out eventually anyway!

 

[jeds]

If the law is the same as in England then the Local Authority would not be able to issue enforcement proceedings because the works are more than 12 months old.

That does not preclude some other action but, due to potentially high cost and the fact there is no definite outcome, LAs do not normally pursue alternative options unless the building poses an immediate and definite risk or some other serious public nuisance.

 

[keepie33]

I see, I thought regulations would be more concerned with health & safety and fire prevention (rather than apportioning blame should an incident occur). The hatch is not fire resistant.

Building control have taken action to an extent - refusal of a completion certificate - so it does not comply and the rules have not been relaxed. I know it is possible to occupy a building without a completion certificate, but was under the impression that this would normally be temporary (on the basis that the issue would soon be rectified), not a long-term resolution as seems to be the case here. However, you would not call the cladding issue a serious public nusiance and so from Jeds' post it seems the issue is settled unless he decides he wants to sell up.

Re: motivation, this person was a non-paying customer or, more accurately, he waited until work was complete and then offered 50-80% of what he'd been told the work was going to cost as a final settlement - take it or leave it. This was done with several firms/tradesmen and most took it with reluctance - not worth the hassle. We were £5K out of pocket and disputed for a time but eventually gave up. Not nice. I hope I have not come across as vindictive, but his hypocrisy is somewhat bemusing - as a estate agent-solicitor, I wonder whether his customers are aware that they are taking advice from someone whose own house breaches building laws!

Cheers for the replies, think I'll probably have to let this one be.

Keepie

 

[Richard C]

Re: motivation, this person was a non-paying customer or, more accurately, he waited until work was complete and then offered 50-80% of what he'd been told the work was going to cost as a final settlement - take it or leave it. This was done with several firms/tradesmen and most took it with reluctance - not worth the hassle. We were £5K out of pocket and disputed for a time but eventually gave up. Not nice. I hope I have not come across as vindictive, but his hypocrisy is somewhat bemusing - as a estate agent-solicitor, I wonder whether his customers are aware that they are taking advice from someone whose own house breaches building laws!
Keepie

Hmm yes, I can now see why you would be a tad upset &, in honesty, I would be inclined to react similarly! It does sound like he makes a habit of it & his profession probably helps him get away with it, especially if he’s using this to gain peoples trust; perhaps a note to the Estate Agent he works for & to his trade regulatory authority but I doubt this will have any effect either! If you’ve not been able to resolve it thus far, sometimes it’s better to walk away for the sake of your own blood pressure & well being!