Roofer replaced roof but no building control

[GettingOnWithItAll]

Please feel free to kick me, but bear in mind I'm not well at the moment and have already kicked myself enough already.

A roofer has just finished replacing the roof (clay tiles, wood slats not felt/breathable membrane) of my 1930s semi and the adjoining one with broadly-similar clay tiles and a breathable membrane instead of the old wood that was rotten in places. As I've not been well I relied on my neighbour to do the relevant research and checks.

I'm paying a price that is on the high side (see my earlier thread). They've worked hard and my checks show good quality work.

When it came to paying the balance I wanted to withhold an amount to be paid once I'd received all the documentation. So this morning I checked what documentation I should expect, which led me to believe that a building regs certificate was in order . Alas when, an hour ago, when he turned up for payment I found out that the owner hadn't involved building control and wasn't authorised to self-certify his work. Cue a heated discussion where he denied any responsibility for involving building control or even advising me before work started that building control might/would be required.

I checked online on the council's planning portal, which directed me to their building control agency, Southern Building Control Partnership, where "Types Of Work that Need Approval/Examples" has "repairing or replacing more than 25% of the surface area of a roof". I rang their helpline but they'd just closed for the weekend.

FWIW the builder's card says they are on Checkatrade and myBuilder and are an approved member of the Confederation Of Roofing Contractors.

The builder didn't mention loft insulation. Years ago I upgraded the loft floor insulation to IIRC 275mm (based on 4" rafters + 175mm loft legs with board on top), just above the minimum 270mm I believe is now required. However, I can't yet face dealing with the dirt displaced when replacing the roof to check this. I dont know what my neighbour has.

I'm going to talk to my neighbours and then, if I can get through, talk to building control when they open again on Monday.

In the mean time, I'd be grateful for any advice you can offer.

Edit: I spoke with my neighbour. They are holding up on paying their bill until a different issue is sorted (moving a sky tv dish).

They said that building approval had not been discussed with them but believed that membership of the Confederation Of Roofing Contractors gave the roofers self certifying authority. However, I cannot find anything relevant on the CoRC's website and on .gov.uk's section on competent tradesmen.

Edit 2:

FWIW, late after the event:

The roofer uses CoRC Approved Member on his business card but I could not find him on their website's membership list, which is a further indication that he might not be able to self certify. The site also covers a 14 day 'cooling off period' and the signing of a waiver if the client still wished to start at shorter notice, neither of which the roofer followed.

I'm kicking myself for not checking at the start as I would not have gone ahead or, at the very least, delayed a decision for a few days when I would almost certainly have not gone ahead, but here we are.

 

[johnny2007]

You're unnecessarily opening a can of worms.
He replaced the tiles with similar ones, nobody from the council will ever care, unless it's a listed property.
Accept the good work and pay the guys.
Besides, it's not builder's responsibility to inform building control, but yours, the landlord.

 

[^woody^]

Besides, it's not builder's responsibility to inform building control, but yours, the landlord.

Any tradespeople has a duty to know and mention to his client any regulations that apply to the work he is being paid to do.

 

[^woody^]

You can get it checked and approved retrospectively.

You should have retained a percentage to cover the cost of the application and any possible remedial work to meet compliance.

However, this part of building regulations is a nonsense application purely related to net zero politics and has no safety implications at all.

 

[Notch7]

Please feel free to kick me, but bear in mind I'm not well at the moment and have already kicked myself enough already.

A roofer has just finished replacing the roof (clay tiles, wood slats not felt/breathable membrane) of my 1930s semi and the adjoining one with broadly-similar clay tiles and a breathable membrane instead of the old wood that was rotten in places. As I've not been well I relied on my neighbour to do the relevant research and checks.

I'm paying a price that is on the high side (see my earlier thread). They've worked hard and my checks show good quality work.

When it came to paying the balance I wanted to withhold an amount to be paid once I'd received all the documentation. So this morning I checked what documentation I should expect, which led me to believe that a building regs certificate was in order . Alas when, an hour ago, when he turned up for payment I found out that the owner hadn't involved building control and wasn't authorised to self-certify his work. Cue a heated discussion where he denied any responsibility for involving building control or even advising me before work started that building control might/would be required.

I checked online on the council's planning portal, which directed me to their building control agency, Southern Building Control Partnership, where "Types Of Work that Need Approval/Examples" has "repairing or replacing more than 25% of the surface area of a roof". I rang their helpline but they'd just closed for the weekend.

FWIW the builder's card says they are on Checkatrade and myBuilder and are an approved member of the Confederation Of Roofing Contractors.

The builder didn't mention loft insulation. Years ago I upgraded the loft floor insulation to IIRC 275mm (based on 4" rafters + 175mm loft legs with board on top), just above the minimum 270mm I believe is now required. However, I can't yet face dealing with the dirt displaced when replacing the roof to check this. I dont know what my neighbour has.

I'm going to talk to my neighbours and then, if I can get through, talk to building control when they open again on Monday.

In the mean time, I'd be grateful for any advice you can offer.

replacing more than 25% of a roof falls under the "alteration to a thermal element" part of the building regulations

this was introduced as a way to get old houses to have upgrades to their energy efficiency, by forcing householders to upgrade the insulation when the carry out work on the walls, floor, roof.

In you case the roof is a a tiled roof which covers an uninsulated loft area -so no insulation of the actual roof is necessary -but they would require you to have insulation at loft floor level to be up to current regulations

If you had heavier tiles then you would need building regulations because that would be a change to a structural element



If you are worried about having the certification then you could do a retrospective application.

If you do nothing, nobody will know until you sell the house in the future. Im not sure what would happen if you then tell them the roof was replaced on a date that was prior to the regulations being introduced.........

 

[GettingOnWithItAll]

He replaced the tiles with similar ones, nobody from the council will ever care, unless it's a listed property.
Accept the good work and pay the guys.
Besides, it's not builder's responsibility to inform building control, but yours, the landlord.

Thank you. To clarify on your 3 points:
1. I think the same. However, there are other issues such as not having the right documentation may cause problems whenever we come to sell, which may well be in 2-3 years' time.
2. I have paid the guys for the good work. I am just waiting to pay the small amount left for uncompleted work i.e. the associated documentation of which building reg compliance is just a part.
3. As I understand it, both can apply. However, that is besides the point, which is that arguably the builder has the responsibility to raise the issue with his client before starting work; this is particularly appropriate here as I would not have agreed to have the work done as I did had I known that building control would need to be involved.

 

[GettingOnWithItAll]

Update:

I spoke with my neighbour. They are holding up on paying their bill until a different issue is sorted (moving a sky tv dish).

They said that building approval had not been discussed with them but believed that membership of the Confederation Of Roofing Contractors gave the roofers self certifying authority. However, I cannot find anything relevant on the CoRC's website and on .gov.uk's section on competent tradesmen.

 

[GettingOnWithItAll]

Update 2:

FWIW, late after the event:

The roofer uses CoRC Approved Member on his business card but I could not find him on their website's membership list, which is a further indication that he might not be able to self certify. The site also covers a 14 day 'cooling off period' and the signing of a waiver if the client still wished to start at shorter notice, neither of which the roofer followed.

I'm kicking myself for not checking at the start as I would not have gone ahead or, at the very least, delayed a decision for a few days when I would almost certainly have not gone ahead, but here we are.

 

[Koolpc]

Never did this myself when i had a complete roof re felted, battens and slates....sold the house with no questions asked. Good job done too....

If you happy with the work just pay the man for goodness sake!!

 

[johnny2007]

Any tradespeople has a duty to know and mention to his client any regulations that apply to the work he is being paid to do.

As far as I know there's no obligation for the tradesman to do this.

3. As I understand it, both can apply. However, that is besides the point, which is that arguably the builder has the responsibility to raise the issue with his client before starting work

Both can apply, but the responsibility remains the landlord's.
There's no regulation imposing any of this on the builder.
It's immoral for the builder not to tell the customer but not against any regulations.

 

[stuart45]

The law since 1984 means that both the builder and the owner are responsible for Building regs. The builder carrying out the work can be prosecuted up 2 years after the completion of works. For the home owner an enforcement notice can be sent up to 12 months, unless they go to the High Court, which has an unlimited time scale.
The time limits for planning and Building regs were changed last year to 10 years. Things were changed after Grenfell.

 

[stuart45]

replacing more than 25% of a roof falls under the "alteration to a thermal element" part of the building regulations

The 25% is the total building envelope. For a roof under 50% can be replaced without regs.

 

[^woody^]

As far as I know there's no obligation for the tradesman to do this.

There is, and there is case law on this exact thing.

The customer is not an expert, so is paying someone who is. The roofer is not expected to know the complete building regulations in detail, but as a minimum he is expected to know what regulations exist for the work he is doing, and to make the customer aware so that the customer is then informed.

Same thing applies to choice of materials which are inappropriate.

The customer may choice to ignore the information and instruct the roofer to proceed, in which case the customer then takes on the responsibility and the roofer's duty is discharged.

 

[StephenStephen]

The 25% is the total building envelope. For a roof under 50% can be replaced without regs.

Just curious - if it's a cold loft, with the insulation on the floor, is the roof a thermal element?

 

[^woody^]

The 25% is the total building envelope. For a roof under 50% can be replaced without regs.

25% of the individual thermal element, not the whole envelope or building.

So 25% of each individual roof.