Window height too high, indemnity insurance?

[^woody^]

ather than a de minimis

There is no "de minimus" in building regulations. Its a fire safety and means of escape issue, and that is always significant.

What you are asking a BCO to do is to certify something as compliant which is not when measured against the regulations he has to enforce. There is no subjectivity with this.

I'm not sure why you are siding with a builder who has clearly not built to the required standard, not kept to his contractual obligations to his client, is accepting payment for an incorrect job, is telling his client to accept an inferior, non-compliant job and telling his client to accept the risk of all that. I can't understand why you would do that, then the obvious thing is for the OP to get what they paid for and have a compliant building.

 

[Leofric]

Old properties have windows as high as 1300mm on first, second, and even third floor.
What about them???

Probably built before building regulations requirements on cill heights for egress windows.

I think your BC is just trying to find a fault to justify their existence.

or just doing his job

 

[johnny2007]

Doubt it.
In many London councils they don't even carry a tape measure.

 

[Leofric]

Doubt it.
In many London councils they don't even carry a tape measure.

They did on a London site I know of at West India Docks where they condemned a large run of cast stone cladding because the stainless steel washers used on the masonry fixings were 0.5mm too thin Fact.

 

[johnny2007]

WHAAAAT???!!!

 

[Leofric]

Yes, and it was a double blow because they then condemned some panels because they failed the 'initial surface absorption tests' as specified in whatever the relevant British Standard was . This could be a problem with cast stone cladding panels. Compress the facing layer more than usual to pass the tests and it didn't bond properly with the concrete backing. Can't remember the exact sequence of events it was in the 1980's.The point is District Surveyors in London did a bit more than carry a tape measure around with them in those days

 

[noseall]

7cm! less than 3". The builder has obviously followed the brick line. Will you be happy with windows that don't line up for appearance?

70mm or 3" happens to be a course of bricks.

 

[Leofric]

Its a bit like speeding. If a camera catches a driver doing 31mph they could get a ticket and if it happened the driver would be really pizzed off - but he couldnt deny being wrong. (I speak as somebody who has done 3 speed awareness courses.....Grrr).

You are lucky I was done for doing 36mph in Dorset and they aren't part of the national speed awareness course so I had to take 3 points and £100 fine.
As far as the cill height is concerned,

in the case of egress windows it refers to the bottom of the opening part of the window and clearly states 1100mm above finished floor level. Building Control have to draw the line somewhere and I wouldn't blame them for being strict on fire safety matters.
​

The risk of any subsequent consequence IMHO is ridiculously small. The concept of de minimis in UK law is that "As a matter of policy, the law does not encourage parties to bring legal actions for technical breaches of rules or agreements where the impact of the breach is negligible", and I suggest this is a case where the impact is negligible.

The concept of de minimis has to exist in real-world - it allows the arbitrators to assess the facts of a situation against what the intention of a regulation is rather than the pure black and white. In this case there is always going to be a range of subjectivity until a threshold of non compliance is crossed where in a court the judgement is that the intent of the regulation has been broken. Until that legal judgement sets a precedent, the whole thing is just a subjective argument. Where does the practical contravention occur? at 1101mm? or 1110mm? or 1150mm? or 1200mm? or beyond i.e. where is the borderline between de minimis and contravention?

- Easy for you to say that