Building Regs/control advice please – signed off but doesn't meet regs

Home Forum Chat Forum Building Regs/control advice please – signed off but doesn't meet regs

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 45 total)
  • Building Regs/control advice please – signed off but doesn't meet regs
  • Greybeard

    Unfortunately, it’s your reponsibility to comply with the regs. Your only action is against the builder, which seems pointless if he’s a proven fraud, unless he’s in some acreditation scheme like NHBC. If you push the council hard they could ask you to make everything meet the regs. You’re responsible for chosing a competent builder. Sorry.

    I’m exagerating a bit, but a speeding driver couldn’t claim against the police for not stopping him before he crashed. I know you paid for building control, but it’s not a service contract.

    Premier Icon scotroutes

    Unless you were expecting the council to dig up your concrete floor, how would they check such a thing? There’s an element of trust involved all round.


    Building control man would need to actually be on site 24 hours a day and have more tick boxes on his clipboard, so very unlikely you could claim for a bit of plastic pipe.

    But i would be intrested to know what other short cuts he has taken.


    Sounds a shit of a situation. I feel your pain.

    Scotroutes, as a rational man, I completely accept there’s an element of trust involved.

    My issue is that there is no regulation for laminate flooring so if he screwed that up then fair enough but there are regs for water pipes, however, if as Greybeard says, it’s my responsibility to be on site to check he meets regulations I know nothing about what exactly is building controls role??

    Project, the plumber was the weak link, got sacked on site but as I was living away during the build I believed, like all the other work that things would be to standard. Everything else is good and been checked by another builder for gave it the nod.

    Cut a long story short.

    Extension finished last year, overseen by building control from local council start to finish.

    Just had a burst pipe under the concrete slab kitchen floor and it turns out the pipes (plastic) aren’t in conduit as per regs and access/repair will be a pain in the arse.

    Insurance involved but hinting due not meeting regs they may play hard ball.

    Council say they sign off as ‘best they can ascertain’ WTF??? What did I pay for if when s##t isn’t right they pass the buck? Surely if something is regulated then they check that?

    Make matters worse he builders in jail for fraud (not me), have I got any clam against the building control?

    Premier Icon scotroutes

    BenHouldsworth wrote:

    Scotroutes, as a rational man, I completely accept there’s an element of trust involved.
    My issue is that there is no regulation for laminate flooring so if he screwed that up then fair enough but there are regs for water pipes, however, if as Greybeard says, it’s my responsibility to be on site to check he meets regulations I know nothing about what exactly is building controls role??

    Which is why many people employ a Project Manager. The alternative is, as you know, to take the builder to the cleaners.


    You cant claim against building control. Its not legally possible as far as i know.

    It was up to you or whoever you employed to comply with the regs.

    as a matter of interest what part of the Regs says a pipe should be in a duct?

    was it drainage or feed pipe?

    water regs schedule 2.7

    1) No water fitting shall be embedded in any wall or solid floor
    Location of water fitings

    G7.1 Unless they are located in an internal wall which is not a solid wall, a chase or duct which may be readily exposed, or under a suspended floor which may, if necessary, be readily removed and replaced, or to which there is access, water fittings should not be:

    a)located in the cavity of a cavity wall; or,
    b)embedded in any wall or solid floor; or,
    c)installed below a suspended or solid floor

    So I need to chase the builder/plumber etc BUT if that’s the case and all liability lies with the builder then what is the purpose of building control who are seemingly responsible for nothing,

    Building Control can only regulate/control the work it’s empowered to do.
    It’s the same as complaining about the cosmetics of the job, no control by the BCO,it’s down to the people who carried out the work not passing the buck to someone else in my opinion.
    If people want a higher level of control they’d have to pay for it.

    Bollocks! So who enforces water regs then? and can anyone tell me the point of building control?

    I’m frustrated as you can probably tell but what I’m hearing is lots of regulations not actually regulated by anyone

    Foundations, Thermal Insulation, Ventilation, resistance to the passage of moisture, drainage, fire protection, etc.

    Building Control find it frustrating when they see things wrong yet have no power to act, I know, I am one of them.

    Premier Icon footflaps

    I’d say Building Control is a distraction. Your insurer is the problem and they will try anything to get out of paying. However, you did things by the book and had Building Control approve the works, so the fact that something slipped through and needs remedial work is not your fault and exactly why we take out insurance.

    The Insurer could probably get away with not paying if you’d deliberately avoided BC, but as you didn’t, they can’t get out of paying up. They’ll be a bluffing game where they refuse and you then threaten to take the to the ombudsman, who will almost certainly rule in your favour.

    Well if there is anything I can do to empower you let me know; right now I’m off to camp outside Boston open prison and await the builders release.

    On the plus side I finish wok early tomorrow and will be going out on my bike.

    Lightbulb moment!!! If its not covered by building regs then the insurance can’t say that’s an issue 😀 we’re back in the game

    Premier Icon Stoner

    Water regs (Water Supply (water fittings) Regulations 1999) is enforced by the Water Undertaker (usually the local water co) = Reg 10.-(1)

    OFWAT make sure the undertakers enforce the water regs.

    Both the installer and the user (you) are responsible for, and may be liable for offences committed un der the regs. However, reg 7.2 provides for owner or occupiers of premises to be excused from their responsibility on the following conditions…IF:

    the work in question was installed by a contractor approved by the water undertaker (i.e. WRAS qualified) and the contractor cerified that the fitting was in compliance with the regs. Im not sure how that works in real life though.

    British Standard 6700:2006 s 5.8.1 covers accessibility of pipes and fittings i.e. in purpose made chases and “There shall be adequate provision of movement of the pipe relative to the floor by the use of a sleeve properly bonded into the floor”

    BTW 6700 has been superseded by BS EN 806 but hasnt changed much.

    Coincidentally Ive just got in from taking my Cold Water exam (95%, passed with distinction 😀 ) this evening which is based on the water regs. Im taking my water regs exam in a few weeks hopefully. Ive just taken all that stuff above from the water regs training pack on my lap for revision for my hot water exam tomorrow night …

    Premier Icon Stoner

    Lightbulb moment!!! If its not covered by building regs then the insurance can’t say that’s an issue we’re back in the game

    As I understand it Part G of the building regs assume compliance with the water regs. Failure to comply with the latter, means failure to comply with the former.

    Assumes compliance???

    I need legal advice as ultimately I assume a registered builder who did majority of work to standard is by the book, building control assume the builder works to regs, they all assume that by laying good foundations they must be good at meeting water regs and when it goes tits up the burden is on me.

    I’ll let you know how I get on but I’m up for a fight on this so I’ll be taking it to all of them

    Premier Icon Stoner

    have fun and keep us posted. It will be interesting to see how it plays out…


    Just to add to the above……its not a Building Control issue. I cant see any requirement under Part G.

    Premier Icon totalshell

    bit cart before the horse at the moment ben.. your making a load of assumptions if you ve not actually visually positively located the source of the leak..


    How much is it actually going to cost to repair? What’s it supplying?

    Total shell, we (me and a plumber) have audibly located the leak to an area around 50 cm into the pad from the wall of the main property.

    Knowing where the feeds were in the old kitchen we’ve removed plasterboard and visually identified the hot and cold feeds going straight into the pad without any conduit.

    What we haven’t done yet is lift the flooring in the kitchen to assess the damage/precisely locate the leak, the insurers are sending a contractor on Friday to do that.

    The insurance will cover upto £5000 ‘locate and access’ (dig up, dry out, reinstate) but not the repair itself AND that’s where the issue lies.

    If the pipe was in conduit we could slide it out and replace it, what we can’t do is put a joint in an unsheathed pipe (regs) so effectively we will be digging up a floor up and unable to repair in the easiest manner.

    Had an independent builder round last night who said £600 to reroute the hot and cold feeds to meet reg (inc access points).

    What I have to hope is like FootFlaps says that I met all my obligations and the insurers are nice.

    Premier Icon Stoner

    did the installing plumber notify the water undertaker of the work to be done and then issue a certificate to them?

    If so, then that absolves you of any liability under the water regs.

    Premier Icon wwaswas

    the cost of the repair is literally how much it’ll cost a plumber to replace the damaged section of pipe.

    One of my co-workers has been through hell with this exact problem and an insurance company.

    !960’s house, copper pipe laid directly into a concrete screed. 7 separate leaks across the entire floor area of a bungalow.

    Cost to locate, make good and replace carpets = £5000

    Cost of actual plumbing work = £300

    Mind you the insurance company are only offering £1500 out of the £5000 they should be covering because, despite repeatedly telling him to go ahead and get the work done and they’d pay, they’re a bunch of weasels.

    So, get the insurance surveyor in early and keep them involved and understand what they cover and what they don’t at each stage would be my advice.

    That I don’t know Stoner; we certainly got certificates for the gas/electrics. Was he legally obliged to notify them if he was only extending existing feeds from the old kitchen to a new one.

    Given the standard of his work I think it’s unlikely he did this.

    Premier Icon Stoner

    Only very minor extensions (<3m) of pipework with no additional backflow concerns are exempt from notification I think.

    exemptino for minor work:

    Regardless of notification, compliance is still required.

    Just had the tape measure out and it’s greater than 3m so I guess I need to track the plumber down

    Premier Icon wwaswas

    both those links seem to refer to non-domestic Stoner?


    If you can see where the pipes enter the slab and you ‘know’ the leak is in the slab, why do you need to break it out? Just get the plumber to reroute without damaging what’s there? Might make the repair bill a lot less and reduce the OP’s blood pressure…..

    Boblo, I’m assuming the slab needs to be dried so the floor will need to come up.

    I 100% agree the best course of action is re routing but the insurance won’t pay for that only digging up the floor and my as my contract was with the jailed builder and not the sub contracted plumber I’ve got no one to chase.

    I’m hoping the insurance may pay for the ‘access’ to reroute but not the new piping itself.


    Shirley the slab can be dried with F off big dehumids/heaters once the leak is stopped? Up there^, the view was replumbing costs would be a few hundred quid. Yes get it back, but not enough to stop the world turning if you don’t?

    Premier Icon Stoner

    ww – quite right re the latter, but the regs apply to all premises.

    Here’s what Building Control have said.

    “Thank you for your email.

    It concerns me that you now have a leak in your hot water system.

    Under Building Regulations we are legally required to complete statutory inspections, unfortunately the work you are referring to is not included as one of these inspections.

    As we are not on site every day, we are unable to inspect every aspect of the work, and rely on the builders and tradesmen completing work to a satisfactory standard. I have checked our site records, and although we completed numerous inspections on site, we have no record of viewing the internal water pipes, which is not uncommon.

    I suggest you contact your builder with regards to your concerns, and repairing the leak.

    Obviously, if you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.”

    Premier Icon mugsys_m8

    lots of thoughts/ issues here..

    But one that might help is this: If you have identified that the pipe form the kitchen goes into the pad is not in a duct, then building control could probably be reasonably expected to…..


    Seems to be a lot of worrying about the so called slab! You really don’t need to worry about drying out the slab! Could you not reroute the pipes above floor level some how?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 45 total)

The topic ‘Building Regs/control advice please – signed off but doesn't meet regs’ is closed to new replies.

Comments are closed, but trackbacks are open.

Skip to top