Is it illigal to make a building safe?

[i_am_fubar]

Can anyone give advice on this scinario?

You have a leaking flat roof, used as a deck, and you KNOW that it is under rated, not only as a deck, but as just a flat roof...

You have just enough money to re-build it to current regs (including upgrading joists, replacing deck and insulating)...

You can't afford the £100's of extra to get building control involved...

Is it therefore the case, that you are legally bound to leave the structure dangerous. Rather than flaunt building control and make it safe?

Fubar.

 

[Jackrae]

So all you want to do is "repair" a leaking roof by "taking off the covering and refelting" during which you might find it sagging so then fit stronger "replacement" joists. What's the problem.

 

[i_am_fubar]

I'm not at all thinking of doing that

But that would still count as a >25% repair and make it illegible for building control surely?

I'm not so much asking for ways around situations such as these. Just wondering where it stands from a legal / BC stand point.

(plus, 'replace' implies keeping the same number, the centers would need to go from 600 to 400 centers)

Fubar.

 

[^woody^]

Your obligation as the building owner, is not to make the building safe, but to protect people (and other property) from harm from a potentially unsafe building.

In addition, if a building requires work, which is controlled work under building regulations, then the law states that you must make an application for approval.

I can't imagine for one moment that anyone would have just enough money for the work, and none for the b/regs fee. There are options to get the money.

If you can't afford do the work, then the option is always there to cordon off the area and not use the room, to guard against injury, while you save some money for the repair and the fee

 

[i_am_fubar]

Cordoning off is an option in many cases, but in this example, as the roof is leaking and under rated. Surely if you cordon it off (essentially ignore it), it risks causing additional damage to the structure (and thus people) as it continues to decay?

So, hypothetically, what would happen if work WAS done without notifying BC and it was reported? Would a BCO come over and insist you pay them in order to inspect your work, and if you're too poor to pay, arrest/sue you?

I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that a home owner has the right to make their building safe (even if it doesn't fully comply with the ever changing regulations) without having to pay someone to watch over their shoulder?

Yes, if it's a public or rented building or if your selling, then it should be checked. And I make no excuses for idiots who throw up additions and repairs that are unsafe. But then, being able to take risks (purely to ones self) is a human right.

Fubar.

 

[^woody^]

Your obligation is to obey the law.

Roof joists being underrated, does not make the roof unsafe, and does not mean the roof needs replacement

If the roof is leaking, a temporary repair is possible, else it can be covered with a tarpaulin.

Non of your arguments would justify not complying with the law, as there are other options.

Not complying with the b/regs is not an arrestable offence

 

[HERTS P&D]

It seems someone is trying it on.

If it leaks and you can't afford to fix- then chuck a tarp over it.

Andy

 

[i_am_fubar]

Fair enough.

So, having a roof with joists that are undersized, and thus not compliant to regs, does not make it unsafe. Surely that makes a degree of a mockery of building regulations as they were (from my understanding) designed to decribe the safe construction of a building?

From what your saying, it would seem that there is nothing legally wrong with having non-compliant work in your house. There is nothing wrong with working on non-complaint work, assuming you only stick to minor changes (such as re-felting a leaky roof, adding a socket to a ring main... etc). But the moment you try and make it good and don't notify BC, it becomes illigal?

With regards to costs.
Cost to re-build roof - £1200
Building Notice Charge - £600

Adding another 50% onto the price of a build can easily be the difference between beign able to afford it and not.

A tarp is often unable to fix all leaks.

I'm not trying anything on. I'm simply trying to understand at what point does DIY cross the legal boundry, to what extent, and what logic surrounds it.

 

[tony1851]

So, having a roof with joists that are undersized, and thus not compliant to regs, does not make it unsafe.

Undersized joist will not necessariy cause the roof to collapse. The joists will just bend a bit more than is considered acceptable now. That's not a safety issue.

 

[^woody^]

When building or other regulations change, that does not mean that work done to previous standards is unsafe or needs to be upgraded to the new standard.

The measure of unsafe is by fact and degree.

I can't see how you get a roof replacement to £600 BN fee. I've just done five for £120 each

A tarpaulin will stop all leaks if correctly fitted. It does the same job as roofing felt

 

[i_am_fubar]

Hmmm, that makes sense. So building regs are a 'code of best practice' that has been designed to make new building works as safe as they can be (within reason). The goal being to prevent dangerous structures being built. To achieve this however, it has to be enforced, or it's useless.

The knock on effect, is that enforcement essentially removes the common sense approach to many methods of building, while presenting a series of black and white rules (much like many legislations these days)

The roof is like a sieve. Bitumen adhered tiles were ripped up leaving huge holes through the felt. As well as having hand rails around it, it also has ineffective flashing. I could put the tarp up as a tent, but it would be most unsightly for the neighbours.

Woody, do you happen to be a BI? Believe it or not, I want to do this all above board. I want to call BC to discuss it, but I'm worried there will be knock on effects, and once I've raised it, it'll be like opening a can of worms. Would you be ok to accept a MP with a couple of questions? Rather not put some details on open forum.

Cheers,
Fubar.

 

[^woody^]

If the roof needs doing, and you really can't afford a building regs application, then just go and do it.

The chances of the council coming knocking at your door are less than them not finding out

Although councils are being more and more proactive in discovering re-roofing work, the action they take may be limited to a "request" for an application, and enforcement for re-roofing job would be extreme.

Councils may well be open to negotiation on fees if you really are hard up, and there are private inspectors who can quote for the inspection

 

[i_am_fubar]

Is the increasing interest in roofs from a insulation stand point more than anything else? That's the one bit I'm keenest to get right, and yet have the least definite plan on what to do

Will give them a call (without saying who or where) and see what they can do. Someone also said get a couple of roofers round to chat about it.

Cheers,
Fubar.

 

[^woody^]

Yes. Its since the b/regs changes to require an application when re-roofing

 

[cjard]

Is the increasing interest in roofs from a insulation stand point more than anything else?

I had BC round for reasons of "Resistance to ... moisture" (part C) when I was hammering a cowboy builder in court following a sh*tty re-reoofing job, so it's not necessarily one aspect that brings BC interest