Building control signed off "faulty" work. Anyone got experience of this?

[NeverPromisedYouARoseGarden]

Hi there. Just wondering if anyone has been in a similar situation or have any first-hand experience of this.

I've been in my house for 2.5 years. There is a large single-storey kitchen/living room extension to the rear. The extension was built by the previous owner and is 5 years old. We have copies of the plans and all information regarding the dates that the buildings inspector visited during the building work and the date it was officially signed off.

In the recent heavy rain and wind we have had a big problem with water leaking through the extension roof into the kitchen and living room. We have had a number of builders and roofers round to investigate and every single one has said that the water ingress is caused by the pitch of the roof being far too shallow for the type of tiles used and that it should not have been signed off by building control as it does not comply with building regulations.

We have an insurance assessor coming at the end of January but the roofers are suggesting that they are very unlikely to pay out on any external roof repairs/replacement because they will regard it as faulty workmanship. So we need to get on to the council before the insurance person comes round. I'm dreading it because I have a horrible feeling that they won't be keen to act quickly or to take any responsibility.

Has anyone had dealings with the council over similar or had the same issues with a leaky roof or is generally able to help or advise? I feel a bit doom and gloom at the moment cos it keeps on raining and I'm worried my ceiling is going to fall down! Posting in Legal too. TIA.

I am always a bit about building control. My DP does a lot of domestic work and often needs to get various things signed off by building control. It doesn't surprise me that they have missed this to be honest. DP sometimes fits log burners - building control have to sign this off because he isn't hetas registered (we don't do enough to warrant the cost). So, I write the application, informing building control of what we are fitting, they come out on the day of fitting, stand there for about five minutes, ask a few questions and then leave. Granted it is pretty difficult to inspect but that is my experience generally - they get money for old rope. They can do this because even though they sign off the work, the onus is on the owner/contractor to ensure that the work complies with building regulations. We have to fill in a form with the results of the safety tests carried out, but quite frankly, we could bullshit our heads off (we don't). My bet is that the BI pitched up mid build (as is correct) checked the footings (as is correct), asked a few questions and buggered off. They will then have come and inspected the finished work - probably from he inside, probably pitched up, asked a few questions, buggered off - again because actually the onus is on the homeowner/contractor to ensure the work meets with regulations - This is stated lots of times on their forms and paperworks. Its a pretty good get-out clause, so i don't know how this is going to affect you :( It does sound like this was a glaringly obvious oversight so you could argue that this could have been picked up on but the BI, but i don't know how much mileage you will get from that.

Sorry - sounds lke a crock of shit, i hope you get it sorted out.

Thanks, LEMonce. It's as I feared then. I was hoping that because it is glaringly obvious that we might have some sort of case. A couple of the builders thought it was outrageous that it had been signed off not least because of the hoops they themselves have to jump through on a daily basis to satisfy the requirements of building control. If the insurance covers it then it's a non-issue but they are obviously absolutely inundated with claims at the moment so I imagine they are going to be uber strict about what they pay out. And, actually, having said that it will bump our premiums up for a good few years to come so I know we do have to at least try and pursue the council.

Yes, do persue it - The only thing i can think of is that, even though planning permission may not have been required, building control will have still wanted to see drawings at the outset and if the roof wasn't within the regulations they should have picked this up. They will have wanted to see a structural engineers report too (if this was necessary). I don't know the regs regarding roof pitches and tiles and wonder if they are even covered? If that is the case then I don't see why your insurers wont pay out - to be honest i would go ahead and make the claim and tackle any issues as they arise. So, don't take it up with the council until you get feedback from the insurance company. I would have thought that would have been the fastest route. I'll have a chat to DP later and see what he says.

have found www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/roof/ for you, which states this:

*A new roof will be required to:

resist weather
resist the spread of fire from one property to another
be able to support loads (weights)
provide resistance to heat loss (insulation)
be ventilated to protect from condensation (in most cases)
have adequate drainage

There are generally two types of roof construction used:

Pitch roof - This is where tiles or slates are used and a void is usually created underneath.
Flat roof - This usually consists of felting which has a slight fall to allow rain water to drain off.

To enable compliance with the requirements of the Building Regulations to be demonstrated, full details of the new roof will be needed - including materials and their dimensions and performance properties.

Covering

The materials used to cover the roof should be durable and capable of resisting the elements of the weather. With a pitched roof the type of tile or slate you wish to use will be partly governed by how steep or shallow the slope is. If the roof is close to a boundary, which is often the case, the roof should also have properties to limit the risk from fire spreading across the boundary.*

Another thing i have thought of - what kind of survey did you have done when you bought the property? Was it a full survey? If so, this should have been picked up on

That's a really useful link, LEMonce, thanks. The plans show the roof pitch measurements are just within the required limits (by about 1 per cent) for the type of tiles. But it seems that the finished roof pitch is actually anything between 3-6 per cent below the limit.

We did have a survey, though not a full structural survey, and the shallow pitch was mentioned. The report was quite vague about whether it was actually too shallow, the inference was more along the lines of "it would be better if it was steeper" and, as a result of the vagueness, we did speak to the surveyor in person about it but he felt it wouldn't really be a serious problem except in very extreme weather conditions. Hmmm.

The plans showed the roof pitch to be ok for the type of tiles used, in reality the roof pitch has not been built to plan. A couple of degrees difference between what is built and the plan is very difficult to detect. If building inspectors had to check and verify that every detail on site met the plan the fees would be a lot more expensive than they are.

I take your point hombre - so who is at fault and where does that leave the OP? (i genuinely don't know)

I think the builder is responsible but because the property has been sold I'm not sure they can be pursued. Especially as the issue was highlighted in the survey.

Thanks, HombreLoco. I guess I'm being rather naive in assuming that if the work does not match the plans that it wouldn't be signed off.
To me logic would suggest that if something on the plans was within only one per cent of meeting regulations that it should be particularly carefully checked on completion. I appreciate that not every detail can be checked but the roof is pretty vast. And apparently it's quite clear to the naked eye (well, the naked eye of a person who understands roofs and pitches) that the pitch is far too shallow.

I've been trying to research it and have read that the builder may be responsible although I still feel that such an apparently glaring oversight should have been picked up by the inspector and that they should have at least partial responsibility. I have to admit that the reaction of the builders and roofers is enforcing this view. Have had yet another one round today and again the first words out of his mouth, 'How on earth did that get past building regs?' And they then talk about how nit-picky and fussy the inspectors are about every little thing.

Anyway, I'm going to phone them tomorrow and see what they say!

I'm presuming it was done under a full plans application, rather than a building notice?

In my direct experience, builders will happily dis other people's work long and loud, when I fact if they were given plans and cash they will happily do the same. Most likely someone did the plans following instructions from owner,gave advice about flaws and warned it would need careful accurate construction,owners struggled to find builders, found one who said it would be fine, impossible for bc to tell the difference.builder and homeowner decided that as bc signed off all is well. I think you had your chance to query on survey. Unless it is storm damage insurers won't pay. What is the remedy? Retiling? Membrane? In the meantime can you get a tarp up to prevent more water?

The thing is that you say there is only a small difference between what is built and the plans but also that it's glaringly obvious.

It may be that the roof is shallower than normal but the tiles specified are also tiles that don't require a pitch as steep as typical.

Yes, Hombreloco, full plans application. I realise I've been talking about percentages when I mean degrees. It does look like a small difference in terms of actual numbers on paper but to the naked eye it is more obvious. I don't have the paperwork in front of me but I think the plans have the roof pitch at 15 degrees when the minimum is 14 degrees for the type of tiles used. The builders are mostly saying it looks about 11 degrees. Two have gone away and done their sums and say it actually measures 9.5 degrees. Would it not be standard practise for the buildings inspector to measure the roof pitch before signing it off, particularly considering it was so close to the minimum on the plans?

Greenfolder - the homeowner did a lot of the work himself plus works in an industry with good access to builders, electricians etc etc. So while I know he didn't struggle to find people to do the work I also know that a lot of them were mates... That said the builders we've had to check out the roof have been quite impressed with the general build quality of the extension which has made them even more surprised that the roof wasn't completed to the same standard. The remedy recommend by all is a GRP fibreglass roof. We are getting a tarp on at the end of the week. Have resisted it up till now as the winds have been so severe we were concerned it might blow away.

I don't want to be unhelpful but have you every undertaken work on a property? As your expectations seem rather unrealistic.

When you undertake such things you rely on the architect, builder and planning /building control to all work together, in reality it doesn't always work, sometimes the building control come to site and say something isn't as the drawings, other times they pop in and are gone in a few moments.

I have done several extensions/ lofts etc and we are currently in the middle of a barn conversion, I wouldn't know if a roof was built too shallow, you expect your builder to build to the plans but sometimes they don't !

Obviously the person who had the work done though he was getting what was on the plan and thought everything was ok.

I can't imagine you will get the building control department to admit any liability. Do you know if they used the council or a private company for building control? You may be able to find out more from a private company.

I'm afraid you are in a tricky place as I can't imagine who would take responsibility or be willing to pay to fix it.

I spoke to my dp he doubts the insurance company will question too deeply. You should just pit in your claim and ask for quotes for the work that needs done. Not opinions from other builders who as someone upthread says do relish slating thier competition

I suspect you will have to bear the brunt of this one. Insurance are unlikely to cover it (I wouldn't mention it just in case they will).
You don't seem to have recourse against the builder which would be the standard route. The other standard route for complaint would be if an architect or surveyor project managed & signed off on the build - they should check general workmanship. But again this doesn't seem to help your situation.

Building regs are generally very good but things will slip through - buildings are extremely complex (which is why we check them) , drawings are easier to check but building sign off on site is really only spot checks as otherwise the BI would cost a lot more & would need to watch every day of the build. Roof pitches would rarely be checked, time is usually spent checking safety/health aspects (foundations/drains/CO etc) rather than whether or not the builder has got the correct pitch for the tiles specified which although is bad workmanship isn't as much a health/safety issue.

If it really is only 9.5 degrees then you are going to struggle to find a tiled or slated solution as most require at least 15degrees, a few go down to 10 degrees but only with special detailing.
You will need to start looking at membrane / flatroof solutions or increasing the pitch.

Hi, It'scoldouthere. No, I've never undertaken this kind of work on a property so I have no idea how the whole building control/regulation works in practice. I'm not sure whether my expectations are unrealistic but I do think I'm misunderstanding what it means when a buildings inspector "signs off" a building project.

I thought it meant that they would come along to look at the finished project, confirm that it matches the plans and check the workmanship to the best of their ability. I would assume that they would have a certain level of expertise to do those things. I also assume that they get paid for this service. Am I right about that or completely wrong? I honestly don't mind being told if I am wrong! I just want to understand the process.

A friend of mine (different area so different council) had an extension built and the buildings inspector was incredibly fussy from start to finish. He even refused to sign it off at the end because the window frames were something like 4mm wider than on the plans. It was a really tiny amount but they had to have the whole lot taken out and replaced before he would sign it off. We all thought it was crazy but I just assumed that kind of pedantry thoroughness was standard practice.

It's the builders/roofers who say that it shouldn't have been signed off because it doesn't comply with building regulations. They've all said it. So my natural instinct is to question the people/person who did the signing off. I don't expect to get very far but I'm trying to get as much advice as I can before I approach them - forewarned is forearmed - and I really appreciate everyone's input on here!

FYI - roof pitch is not directly covered by the BRegs. Roofs are covered with regards to loading, insulation and spread of fire.

One way to keep the appearance of tiles would be to membrane / waterproof the roof and the tile over the top. However this would need to be designed correctly so that you didn't get other problems.

Oh, crossposted.

Thanks, wonkylegs. Useful to know that pitch isn't something that would be checked as standard. And very helpful to hear what the signing off process generally entails. We are going to have a fibreglass flat roof. Increasing the pitch isn't an option because of the position of the first-floor windows. We have been told that there is one type of tile
which might work but it's just not worth the risk.

LEMonce - thanks to you and your DP! We will put in our insurance claim and keep our fingers crossed. We've been very lucky in finding builders who have come highly recommended from friends and family but there is still a fair bit of tooth sucking and head shaking and slating the competition!

My previous experience was with the council building control department and as wonky legs said they were really only interested in seeing foundations, drains, steels, roof structure and then means of escape, ventilation. We did not have drawings for every single detail as the jobs were reasonably small (25k 45k) but that was in London and they were very time pressured.

This time around we are using a private company, as the job is much bigger, they get sent all of the detailed drawings from the architect and sign them off, then come and do checks on site, but we are relying on the builders following the drawings. We have had to change some details on the steels as the building control picked up that they were not as the drawings, but he is only on site for a short time. I have never seen him and we've been working on site for 7 weeks and he's been 3 times.

I would imagine if he saw something really wrong he would make us change it, but he has no say on things like the window frame details (apart from ventilation so things like trickle vents). Not sure why your friend had such a problem?

Did she have a listed building or was she in a conservation area?

Anyway I would imagine if you contacted them now they might say it doesn't comply with building regs and make you change it!!

I know this is an old thread now but we are going through a similar situation. Even worse non of our roof was actually insulated except a bit rolled up at the edge to suggest it had insulation.

can I ask how you got on with your council and insurance?
Thanks

Hi @areyoujokingme Sorry to hear you're going through this. Although for us it was a long time ago, we still vividly remember eating our Christmas dinner that year surrounding by buckets catching water through the holey roof! To answer your question, the insurance co. did pay out without any issues. By the time they got round to assessing it the roofer had covered the entire thing with a tarp to prevent further water damage, so they couldn't really see much anyway. I made a couple of calls to the council but didn't get very far although I would have pursued it further if the insurance hadn't paid out. We had the roof replaced with a fibreglass flat roof which has been great. HTH and good luck!