UPVc backdoor lintel issue

[engmpoll]

Hi,

We had windows and doors fitted by a FENSA approved installer back in January 2006. We have recently had an extension built which required the removal and relocation of the backdoor, all straight forward you would think. However when the door was removed it was immediately obvious there was no lintel over the opening left by removing the door. I would of assumed that it was the responsibility of the installer/inspector prior to fitting the new door in 2006 to check that a lintel was present and it was safe to fit the new door?

Anyone got any thoughts on this?

Thanks in advance

 

[wms]

this is the problem with fensa they police their own work. with only about 1% check rate on members or thats what it used to be. I would assume that the brick work is either soldiers above the door/snap headers or just stretcher course supported originally by the frame. this should have been addressed at the survey stage and you would normally be advised a lintel was req to support the brickwork usually only the outer course is needing support. and a cost element to do such would normally be offered.
reps sell windows so do not always know where a lintel is required ,but saying that,they should soon learn, its not rocket science.

we do all our installations through local building control so 100% of our jobs are inspected. a little more expensive than normal but at least my clients know the job is to building control standard. also if a fensa registered company needs to fit a lintel it is my belief that building control has to be notified any way, as this is structual work and comes under building control.
The idea of fensa was to cut out the need for building control on standard installations after window replacement became notifiable.(another back door tax) so in my opinion the company involved did not give you an installation that was up to building standards.

 

[engmpoll]

wms,

Thanks for the speedy and comprehensive response. You are correct in your assumption that the course was originally supported by the frame externally and there is a large concrete lintel on the inner leaf. The process we went through when purchasing the windows, 1st visit from salesman, 2nd visit from surveyor and 3rd installation. Is there anyone who I can speak too who would confirm the 'not up to building standards' arguement e.g. the council?, prior to me approaching the company who the windows were bought from. I'd like to get all my facts in place before approaching them so as to stop them trying on there usual stalling techniques.

Thanks

 

[wms]

My advise would be contact your local building control ask them if they could inspect. it would be more beneficial if the rectification work has not been carried out so they can see fully what was what.

 

[mikric]

My advise would be contact your local building control ask them if they could inspect. it would be more beneficial if the rectification work has not been carried out so they can see fully what was what.

You would be very lucky if building control will get involved with a Fensa instalation, they will more than likely point you in the trading standards direction or back to Fensa .

 

[^woody^]

I can't see the problem

The work was done in 2006, you had no problem with the installation, and now the door is being moved anyway.

 

[wms]

I can't see the problem

The work was done in 2006, you had no problem with the installation, and now the door is being moved anyway.

but is the rest of the installation correct. ?

 

[^woody^]

I dunno, but the post is about the door.

While we are at it, what about the fascias, the block paved drive and the plastering to the front room

The point is, the wall stayed up. So the question is, despite no lintel being fitted what loss has the OP suffered. I'd argue non at all.

If there is a problem with the rest of the installation, then the OP will have to take that up with the company. But no lintels does not automatically mean that the OP will have a valid claim

 

[wms]

Totally agree with you woody,
we used to fit windows years ago with no lintels only packing on the mullions. the main point I was getting at was the fact that this is happening regular through the self certification scheme ie fensa. I am not saying its unsafe and the client is entitled to compensation only that its not to standard. and due too the small amount of inspections thats why it is still happening.

in 2001 when all changed the gen rule of thumb by our LBCA, if it was not distressed on the soldiers etc,and if you reinforced the frame they would accept it. as the years have gone by they insist on supporting every thing.thats not got a lintel. with the exception of curved heads.

 

[engmpoll]

woody,

indeed the back door has been removed and repositioned but an internal door is intended to go in its place. I don't have an issue with the rest of the installation, I just wanted a concensus on whether the way the door was installed was correctly in the first place?

 

[^woody^]

I'd say that the installation performed adequately.

You are now making changes which necessitate a lintel to be installed, but this has nothing to do with the installation company.

You may have had a valid argument in 2006, but not now, IMO