Building Control.

[nearlythere]

Was watching Ripped Off (I think it was) and there was an article on about BC making a faux pas about foundations fir a new extension. The founds were put in in accordance with its written advice and the extension suffered severe subsidance. An  independant report revealed that they had accessed the type of ground incorrectly and specified the wrong depth of founds. The client took it to court but lost. The judge said BC were not responsible for giving incorrect advice. It was the clients responsibility to get it right. Why have it then?

[Dinnertime Dave]

The exam answer is - to ensure the health,safety and welfare of people in and around the building.

If you want opinion - I agree very little point because they mostly come down to meeting the functional requirement. I would suggest that if the foundations cause the building to fall down then the functional requirement haven't been met.

My experience with one good builder who was using an AI went like this, he phoned to tell the AI that the footings were ready to expect, he replied that he should just send him a photograph. The builder said to him that he could send a photograph of any footings, the AI said yes you could, but that would be up to him wouldn't it.

[nearlythere]

The exam answer is - to ensure the health,safety and welfare of people in and around the building.

Think they failed on that count DD. Would a crumbling house not be a safety issue?

[wee brian]

Building Control are not there to advise, they are there to audit, just like the fire service. Compliance is the responsibility of the person doing the work.

Being too helpful can sometimes get you into trouble.

A crumbling house isnt likely to injure anybody as this is a slow progressive thing that is self evident before it becomes truly dangerous. this is typical of a foundation failure.

A mistake that causes a sudden and un-expected structural failure is much more likely to hurt somebody.

If you think fire safety is a black art - try foundation design.......

[nearlythere]

Building Control are not there to advise, they are there to audit, just like the fire service. Compliance is the responsibility of the person doing the work.

Being too helpful can sometimes get you into trouble.

A crumbling house isnt likely to injure anybody as this is a slow progressive thing that is self evident before it becomes truly dangerous. this is typical of a foundation failure.

A mistake that causes a sudden and un-expected structural failure is much more likely to hurt somebody.

If you think fire safety is a black art - try foundation design.......

If it is there to advise and audit WB should there not be an expectation it does it properly. If I advised the occupier of a six storey building in an assessment that it did not need a fire alarm system I could well be prosecuted and jailed.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Being too helpful can sometimes get you into trouble.

 

[col10]

The precedent is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v_Brentwood_District_Council

[nearlythere]

Amazing or what? Makes you wonder why BC exists at all. 

[col10]

The reason why the building control body were involved was for the BCB to verify that the work complied with the Building Regulations.  Parliament has said that B Regs can be made for the purposes of health, safety, energy conservation and welfare and convenience.  So, unless some one has suffered a loss to their health, safety etc. eg has there been a personal injury? then there is no case. In Murphy there was even a fractured gas pipe, due to subsidence. Murphy received a fair amount of publicity, at the time,   because it was the first time they had overturned a previous law lords decision.   "Ripped off" , the name suggests is  about consumer protection.

[colin todd]

I like BCOs (but not AIs, other than by special exception). Its not just foundations that are slow and self-evidently truly dangerous.  Check out some of the guys doing enforcement of the FSO.

[wee brian]

Building Control are not there to advise, they are there to audit, just like the fire service. Compliance is the responsibility of the person doing the work.

Being too helpful can sometimes get you into trouble.

A crumbling house isnt likely to injure anybody as this is a slow progressive thing that is self evident before it becomes truly dangerous. this is typical of a foundation failure.

A mistake that causes a sudden and un-expected structural failure is much more likely to hurt somebody.

If you think fire safety is a black art - try foundation design.......

If it is there to advise and audit WB should there not be an expectation it does it properly. If I advised the occupier of a six storey building in an assessment that it did not need a fire alarm system I could well be prosecuted and jailed.

it is not there to advise - please read my post again.