farfisamania

"How many people does 71% represent? Like RPH how many said yes and how many said no" It's all in a very easily accessible report on the website. In Champion Hill and side roads: yes, 80, no 32. It took me about 5 seconds to find that. It seems like a good scheme and unlikely to cause the carmaggedon some are suggesting. If it does cause any problems, the trial will highlight them: this is why people run trials. Unfortunately when dealing with motoring issues people will indulge in any amount of goalpost moving to justify their annoyance at having to drive 30 seconds further.

cattyd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why do people have children if they have to go out > to work? What a ridiculous statement Maternity / paternity leave? The availability of (and indeed requirement for) schooling? > I am > up at 6:30 for a 40 minute walk and we have a dog > walker for lunch time then another walk at 4:30. > Unfortunately, the dog walker we trusted was lying > to us (see previous comment). We now have other > arrangements, which are working well. We work hard > to ensure our dog is a happy, loved dog, as do > most dog owners. It's actually a real concern. There have been surveys showing that around a quarter of owners admit leaving their dogs alone for much of the day - that's just the ones who admit it. Dogs are social animals and have been further bred to enhance certain sociable traits. Leaving them alone for more than a couple of hours is cruel. If we're being really honest a dog walker is no substitute either in the case of a very owner focussed dog.

LondonMix, I already said I'm not affiliated. My particular interest in this story is the same as yours: I'm concerned as to how a building can require demolition after six years of life. Something has clearly gone wrong somewhere.

48 visits don't represent a huge amount of time over the course of constructing a large residential building! Don't get me wrong, I find it appalling that these buildings are now having to be demolished. I do however feel that trying to get 'answers' from building control isn't going to get you that far because a) they can point out that they have no responsibility for quality issues (which most of the problems listed by Wandle seem to be) and b) on compliance issues, approval is still not an absolute guarantee of compliance. I think it would be more productive to ask how the contractor (and their replacement) was procured, how the contract was managed, what snagging was carried out, what are the contents of the report recommending demolition. There was a suggestion y someone here that the structural problems were worsened by poor maintenance. What maintenance regime was in place? How did it take account of the building's characteristics? Why did it take several years to uncover these defects? I don't know if private organsisations like housing associations are covered by FoI - I think it depends on ownership. If the HA in this case isn't covered by FoI then I think it shows some of the problems with HAs as a way of delivering social housing. Housing associations were at the forefront of promoting timber framed construction in the UK in the early 2000s. Up till that point English homebuilders hadn't made that much use of it. Detailed info from the HA would help to show exactly what happened here.

"Agree-- one of my experiences with Southwark building control in 2013 involved the inspector forcing the builder to re-do a run of drainage 4 times before signing it off. That's why I find the idea that they are just there to advice totally preposterous" I think it was you who first introduced the term 'advice'? The situation is, stated simply, much as the head of building control put it: they are "not a clerk of works". The fact they can, for example, inspect a drainage run to ensure the contractor knows what they are doing is neither here nor there. They are there to ensure, as well as possible, compliance. They can't put a surveyor onsite every day. That's why the client on any complex project (i.e. Wandle) needs to have its own quality management processes in place. Exactly what happened in this case is something the client really needs to tell the building's residents. I don't think throwing most of the focus on the approval process, rather than the contract management, will progress things much. Building control approval, ultimately, is not a guarantee and if defects subsequently emerge then they do not have financial liability. Murphy 1991 was fought on that very issue. The speculation on this forum that a local authority might become somehow liable to the owners for defects if the contractor goes under is poorly informed. Compensation for defects is usually based on rent and I am wondering if this is the principle Wandle have adopted here.

With regard to the restrictions on building control responsibility the important case is Murphy v Brentwood 1991. This is why remedies need to be sought from contractors (or perhaps the landlord in this case).

Approval and certification are two different steps in the process. "Approval" generally refers to approval of the plans from a design compliance perspective. At completion of work you get a completion certificate.

The Lincolnshire example is here: http://www.e-lindsey.gov.uk/lbc Note also this from Devon: https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/dbcp/article/11672/Homeowners This makes it clear that they "cannot, and are not, required to check every item" and goes on to detail an overall strategy similar to that I suggested above - such as providing input on plans - they even mention the danger of being treated like a clerk of works. While they will also inspect and have have a role in ensuring compliance they are careful to stress the client's ultimate responsibility. Both of the above are rather small organisations so no doubt they are at pains to stress limited resources. But a London borough would probably have to deal with more and larger projects. In the past I've made sure that building control have checked my sites, but I've also made sure that a fire engineer and surveyor have inspected and approved the work regularly before it's covered up. The contractor also has to provide accreditations for carrying out work of this type. That's a standard QA process. The client should demand no less. There is also the fact that an inspector could be misled. It is uncomfortable to think about this but it could happen. Like you I am also concerned by what has happened, but frankly I'm more worried about lazy, non compliant contractors.

I am not misrepresenting the role of building control (what you linked to above is the enforcement process, not the approvals process). Please re-read the Lincolnshire disclaimer above: "Our service does not provide a guarantee of compliance or a quality control check, even where we have issued a decision notice, inspected work and issued a completion certificate" The fact of the matter is that building control should not be relied on to guarantee compliance. That is the client's responsibility. Yes, a local authority can take measures to enforce compliance, but they do it against the client. The client still has responsibility. My particular bugbear is poor contract management - and contractors who take advantage of it. Perhaps this is part of the reason I am trying to downplay the role of building control. But more importantly is that sending FOI requests to a local authority is unlikely to reveal anything of value. What would be of greater value are the contract documents, the report that advised demolition, etc. Why aren't you asking for those? As I said, we shall see what these 'investigations' come up with.

My interest in this story is as a construction professional with a particular interest in fire safety: if you think I work for Southwark BC you are barking up the wrong tree, and it's quite telling that you make this assumption. You're welcome to ignore my opinion but (as others like J Rixon have commented earlier in the thread) I feel you will find out very little from Southwark Building Control to advance the residents' case and I suspect that any newspaper reporter will have similar issues. Still, we shall see no doubt.

As I said, inspections *may* be carried out by building control surveyors to ensure that compliance is understood. However they cannot inspect all work, it's as simple as that. Most LAs have disclaimers along the lines of the following (Lincolnshire): "Our service does not provide a guarantee of compliance or a quality control check, even where we have issued a decision notice, inspected work and issued a completion certificate. Our involvement does not remove the responsibility of the person undertaking the work and the building owner in meeting the requirements of the regulations." I have also worked with building control officers in the past and I did not rely on them to ensure compliance. They can ask, for example, ask for a section of fire stopping to be revealed but that doesn't in itself ensure the whole area is correctly treated. Ultimately the client needs to ensure that the processes are in place to make this happen. The focus on BC is, frankly, taking away attention from the client here. They will, after all, be in possession of a full report on the defects. I agree that the fire safety issues are a concern but at present the information released by Wandle is insufficient to work out if we are dealing with a design issue (which, yes, BC should really have spotted), a case of the contractor skimping or of not using products according to spec, or of subsequent alterations which have impacted on the compartmentation.

Responsibility for compliance rests with the contractor and client. You appear to be misunderstanding what BC are required to do. While BC may carry out periodic inspections, their principal approach is to ensure that the client, contractor and designer understand compliance. It is unwise for BC surveyors to become drawn into acting as, effectively, a clerk of works. That's the job of, er, a clerk of works. Moreover in this case the majority of the issues listed by Wandle appear to be quality issues. This is not automatically a compliance issue and many will have to be treated as a contractual one between the client and contractor, or any contract administrators they employed.

LABC might be useful people to contact as they would be able to put the record straight regarding what Building Control can and cannot do. Building Control does not act as a contract manager or as a clerk of works. It does not supervise workmanship and quality. Ultimately these are the responsibility of the client, along with whatever staff or consultants they have employed for the purpose. This is worth remembering even if you are considering acting as a 'client' in a small way by having some home improvements done. If, as a client, I expected BC to make sure my builders were doing their job properly I would be negligent. It strikes me that in this unfortunate situation there is a very clear delineation of responsibility. It is extremely misleading, however, to suggest that building control 'sign off' should have acted as a quality and workmanship guarantee.

> Fair point, my mistake. I also believe it was a > council officer and not an elected councillor. Although somewhat ironically, given the above confusion, the ex-employee Southwark took to court is currently a UKIP councillor in Thanet.

sunshine sky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is this allowed???? Up to a point. In general a landlord would be allowed to make an estimate at the start of the year and then adjust afterwards. However, if the value of the job was over ?250 per resident charged, they would be required to carry out separate consultation. As this doesn't always happen then in practice, as not all repairs are planned that far in advance, the repair recharge for that particular job would be capped at ?250 per resident. > Is there any way to > challenge it realistically or does she just have > to pay whatever they demand without having any > opportunity to challenge the works?? If the works haven't started yet she can demand to see surveys, quotes, estimates etc. It's where the works have already begun that you get problems! Its also a good idea to get the name of the person in charge of the actual work ASAP and contact them. In my experience the person dealing with the actual bill will be helpful and possibly sympathetic but they have no say in what gets spent. Better to speak to the works manager and if she is very concerned about the projected cost then it can do no harm to copy a ward councillor in.