I said that IMO the OP could not do anything but the trivial parts of this loft conversion
Here we go again. Changing the facts to suit what you want them to be. You did
NOT write that. What you wrote was something different and could not by any normal understanding of the English language mean what you claim.
If you don't already know then you do not have a hope in hell of doing any DIY apart from trivial stuff like decorating.
Looks pretty much like I did say that he could not do anything but the trivial parts of this loft conversion.
- and I'm not alone in that belief, or in stating it - AND THAT INCLUDES YOU, MR HYPOCRITE SIMONH2.
Actually, yes you are alone in that. You point out ANY post in this thread, apart from yours, where anyone has suggested that the OP is incapable of doing anything other than "trivial stuff like decorating".
OK.
But to the OP. If you
were thinking of doing this yourself, then
I'd suggest that it's definitely not an ideal project to learn DIY skills on.
It's non trivial and there a lot of regs to meet - apart from the practical consideration of not having the house fall down.
Please bear in mind that the OP doesn't even know what Building Regulations there are, and here you are saying that he can't even learn DIY skills by doing this, because it is
non-trivial.
That said, it certainly IS doable as a DIY project, but you need to be a fairly experienced DIYer. I would agree with advice often given by BAS, that it's not something you can manage to do by asking random questions on a forum and hoping you've guessed at the right questions to get the information you need rather than the information you think you need.
Please bear in mind that the OP doesn't even know what Building Regulations there are, and here you are saying that he can't find out what he needs to know by just asking questions here. I said if he doesn't already know, he doesn't have a hope of being able to do anything non-trivial. And to forestall more pretence from you:
So it involves structural work, working at height, potentially working on a party wall (that has it's own set of rules/regs), fire safety, plumbing, electrics, insulation, roofing. That's quite a long list of things to be proficient at - and I've probably missed some.
You'll potentially need planning (earlier posts have covered that), and you'll need building regs approval - the building inspector will want more than the back of a fag packet before he'll sign off on your structural works.
So is that you saying he
can do the non-trivial structural design, or not? Please bear in mind that we are talking about now, or in the near future, not at some distant point when he's learned what he needs to be competent.
]On the electrics, you'll probably not satisfy him without employing a qualified electrician.
So you don't think he'll be able to do the non-trivial electrical work.
]And if you try doing it without building regs approval, therein lies a shedload of hurt
Indeed. And so far you've done nothing but elaborate,
to somebody who doesn't even know what Building Regulations there are, how non-trivial this project is, and how much there is to be proficient at.
Given that, how credible do you think it would be for you to claim that you do actually think he could get Building Regulations approval for the conversion with him doing the non-trivial parts?
So that's one poster who doesn't think he can do the non-trivial stuff.
Here's another:
To add to what Jeds says, it's fair to say that you won't be doing all of the work yourself.
There's nothing to stop you coming up with an architectural design and drawing plans. Full building regs drawings should be left to someone with experience of the regs (surveyor or architect).
So RonnyRaygun says he can't do that bit. Is that bit trivial, or non-trivial?
Structural design should be done by a competent person (preferably a structural engineer, or perhaps an architect or surveyor).
So RonnyRaygun says he can't do that bit. Is that bit trivial, or non-trivial?
You will need an electrician to wire in any additional lights/sockets,
So RonnyRaygun says he can't do that bit. Is that bit trivial, or non-trivial?
and you might want to consider using a plumber if you want an en-suite or additional radiators.
So RonnyRaygun says he might not be able to do that bit. Is that bit trivial, or non-trivial?
If you are extending the space by creating a dormer then that's something else that would be beyond most DIYers.
So RonnyRaygun says he can't do that bit. Is that bit trivial, or non-trivial?
As Jeds says, you will need a staircase manufacturer or good joiner to knock up a staircase for you.
So RonnyRaygun (and Jeds) says he can't do that bit. Is that bit trivial, or non-trivial?
Most of the rest is not beyond the realms of DIY,
What's left which is not trivial?
I think everyone else has approached it from the angle that most of the work is probably outside of his current abilities
So do you think that everyone else takes the view, that to a greater or lesser extent, he probably can't do the non-trivial work? (With where all these others draw the boundary between trivial and non-trivial possibly differing, of course.)
- but we (I haven't at least) ruled out that if he improves his skills and knowledge then he would be capable of doing at least some of it.
And nor have I, have I.
I get called an idiot (I note that nobody else who expressed the same view got called that).
Well no-one else expressed the same opinion - at least unless you redefine the meaning of parts of the English language.
Are you still going to try and claim, with hope of credibility, that nobody else has expressed the opinion that he can't do the non-trivial stuff?
No, what you wrote was :
"If you don't already know then you do not have a hope in hell of doing any DIY apart from trivial stuff like decorating." It's there on page one of the thread.
Note that you say "If you don't already know …". A clear inference from that is that if the person didn't know before asking the question, then they can't gain the knowledge in future.
No - that is not a clear inference, it is an utterly bonkers invention of a febrile mind.
Did I say "
If you don't already know then you will never have a hope in hell of doing any DIY apart from trivial stuff like decorating."?
No, I did not.
Do you think he
can do it? Not "do you think he will be able to do it in the future if he sets to learning all that he needs to know?", but do you think he
can do it, i.e. in the present tense, right now, or in the very near future?
I said early on that I took his statement "
i have a property and looking to add some additional room and was thinking i could convert my loft into an extra bedroom" to indicate a pretty immediate need. Now - I might have been wrong about that, but if so, would I have been obviously wrong? Would I have been unreasonable?
Would I have been so obviously wrong and unreasonable as to warrant being called an idiot? Be honest.
And would being wrong have made me smug, and sanctimonious, and pious? Be honest.
The first bit I don't disagree with.
No, but it is only I you seem prepared to criticise, not the person who said that the structural engineering knowledge the OP needed was of the scribbles-on-the-back-of-a-fag-packet level.
However, what no-one else did was fire off with a blunderbuss and basically tell the OP to sod off because if you don't already know it then you never will.
But I didn't say that. That's an utterly bonkers invention.
And that IS the tone of your first response even if you (alone) cannot see it.
I can't see it because I'm not inventing things I didn't write and then deciding I don't like what I just invented.
Well you could try getting some basic grasp of interpersonal communications skills.
Maybe you could try reading the words I write, and abandoning the bonkers inventions.
You could try setting out what you want to say in a non-offensive manner. But no, despite having these things pointed out to you repeatedly, you continue to ignore them and be offensive and abrupt - to the point that it does make you look smug and pious.
You know - I don't think you actually have a clue what those words mean, do you.
People may not have liked the terseness of my initial reply, but it seems that for some people that makes me sanctimonious, pious and smug. More utterly bonkers inventions of febrile minds.
We speak (write) as we find. The way you fire off the terse and offensive posts does make you look smug and pious.
You know - I don't think you actually have a clue what those words mean, do you.
Yet you are happy to adjust facts to suit what are now showing up as false statements
You can prove that, can you? Without relying on any non-evidential, bonkers inventions?
and call everyone else such things.
Where?
