On 26 Aug,
Tim S <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Despite the problems I'm having with the Bungalow and despite it's pitiful
> (lack of) foundations, it's doing better than a few 11 year old houses down
> our road here in Pembury...
>
> Just heard that several houses are having to have the entire ground floor
> slab rectified due to subsidence. The main foundations are fine, but
> someone didn't prep the slab base properly. Apparantly these houses were
> built by a few gangs in parallel and it seems that one gang buggered up
> their lot, but the rest are fine.
>
> Luckily for the owners the cost is being fully covered including
> redecorating, but it's still messy and inconvenient for them.
>
> Wonder where the Building Inspector was that day?

More like NHBC, who aren't worth a light!


--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply

(E-Mail Removed) coughed up some electrons that declared:

> On 26 Aug,
> Tim S <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Despite the problems I'm having with the Bungalow and despite it's
>> pitiful (lack of) foundations, it's doing better than a few 11 year old
>> houses down our road here in Pembury...
>>
>> Just heard that several houses are having to have the entire ground floor
>> slab rectified due to subsidence. The main foundations are fine, but
>> someone didn't prep the slab base properly. Apparantly these houses were
>> built by a few gangs in parallel and it seems that one gang buggered up
>> their lot, but the rest are fine.
>>
>> Luckily for the owners the cost is being fully covered including
>> redecorating, but it's still messy and inconvenient for them.
>>
>> Wonder where the Building Inspector was that day?
>
> More like NHBC, who aren't worth a light!
>
>

Isn't it amazing - they bog BCO's down with window and door related bollox
whilst no-one gives a monkeys about the fundamentals...

Wasn't even a Barrats house (though, with a few exceptions, they all seem as
bad as each other).

Tim S wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) coughed up some electrons that declared:
>
>> On 26 Aug,
>> Tim S <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Despite the problems I'm having with the Bungalow and despite it's
>>> pitiful (lack of) foundations, it's doing better than a few 11 year old
>>> houses down our road here in Pembury...
>>>
>>> Just heard that several houses are having to have the entire ground floor
>>> slab rectified due to subsidence. The main foundations are fine, but
>>> someone didn't prep the slab base properly. Apparantly these houses were
>>> built by a few gangs in parallel and it seems that one gang buggered up
>>> their lot, but the rest are fine.
>>>
>>> Luckily for the owners the cost is being fully covered including
>>> redecorating, but it's still messy and inconvenient for them.
>>>
>>> Wonder where the Building Inspector was that day?
>> More like NHBC, who aren't worth a light!
>>
>>
>
> Isn't it amazing - they bog BCO's down with window and door related bollox
> whilst no-one gives a monkeys about the fundamentals...
>
> Wasn't even a Barrats house (though, with a few exceptions, they all seem as
> bad as each other).

I imagine BCOs are limited to confirming that a particular stage of the
job has been completed, but not that it's been done properly. They can't
e.g. test the concrete, although I believe they do on major jobs.
A mate of mine used to do just that for a living, and said it was a
brave man who would raise issues when a fleet of trucks were lined up
ready to pour. Easier to go to the pub.

"Stuart Noble" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Altlm.72549$(E-Mail Removed) m...

> I imagine BCOs are limited to confirming that a particular stage of the
> job has been completed, but not that it's been done properly. They can't
> e.g. test the concrete, although I believe they do on major jobs.
> A mate of mine used to do just that for a living, and said it was a brave
> man who would raise issues when a fleet of trucks were lined up ready to
> pour. Easier to go to the pub.

He should have got a job more suited to him then (shop assistant?).
I would imagine the builder would rather throw away a few truck loads of
concrete than have to dig it all out and start again when it fails.
That is assuming nobody is killed because it fails in a really bad way.
I hope he didn't work on bridges or dams.

dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "Stuart Noble" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Altlm.72549$(E-Mail Removed) m...
>
>> I imagine BCOs are limited to confirming that a particular stage of
>> the job has been completed, but not that it's been done properly. They
>> can't e.g. test the concrete, although I believe they do on major jobs.
>> A mate of mine used to do just that for a living, and said it was a
>> brave man who would raise issues when a fleet of trucks were lined up
>> ready to pour. Easier to go to the pub.
>
> He should have got a job more suited to him then (shop assistant?).
> I would imagine the builder would rather throw away a few truck loads of
> concrete than have to dig it all out and start again when it fails.
> That is assuming nobody is killed because it fails in a really bad way.
> I hope he didn't work on bridges or dams.

I said it was easier to go to the pub, that's all. Get off your high horse.

Stuart Noble wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Stuart Noble" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:Altlm.72549$(E-Mail Removed) m...
>>
>>> I imagine BCOs are limited to confirming that a particular stage of
>>> the job has been completed, but not that it's been done properly.
>>> They can't e.g. test the concrete, although I believe they do on
>>> major jobs.
>>> A mate of mine used to do just that for a living, and said it was a
>>> brave man who would raise issues when a fleet of trucks were lined up
>>> ready to pour. Easier to go to the pub.
>>
>> He should have got a job more suited to him then (shop assistant?).
>> I would imagine the builder would rather throw away a few truck loads
>> of concrete than have to dig it all out and start again when it fails.
>> That is assuming nobody is killed because it fails in a really bad way.
>> I hope he didn't work on bridges or dams.
>
> I said it was easier to go to the pub, that's all. Get off your high horse.

Could someone show me a job where it is not easier to go to the pub? Got
any application forms?

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:37:20 GMT, Stuart Noble wrote:

>> Isn't it amazing - they bog BCO's down with window and door related bollox
>> whilst no-one gives a monkeys about the fundamentals...
>>
>> Wasn't even a Barrats house (though, with a few exceptions, they all seem as
>> bad as each other).
>
> I imagine BCOs are limited to confirming that a particular stage of the
> job has been completed, but not that it's been done properly. They can't
> e.g. test the concrete, although I believe they do on major jobs.
> A mate of mine used to do just that for a living, and said it was a
> brave man who would raise issues when a fleet of trucks were lined up
> ready to pour. Easier to go to the pub.

Mate of mine allowed an estate to get to eaves level then told the builder
to correct the ceiling heights. The builder had used the old ploy of low
doorways so that there was the correct number of courses above - mate is 6'
4" tall and had noticed but decided that an expensive lesson was required.

This was about 25 years ago - could be different now.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

"John Rumm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) o.uk...
> PeterC wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:37:20 GMT, Stuart Noble wrote:
>>
>>>> Isn't it amazing - they bog BCO's down with window and door related
>>>> bollox
>>>> whilst no-one gives a monkeys about the fundamentals...
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't even a Barrats house (though, with a few exceptions, they all
>>>> seem as
>>>> bad as each other).
>>> I imagine BCOs are limited to confirming that a particular stage of the
>>> job has been completed, but not that it's been done properly. They can't
>>> e.g. test the concrete, although I believe they do on major jobs.
>>> A mate of mine used to do just that for a living, and said it was a
>>> brave man who would raise issues when a fleet of trucks were lined up
>>> ready to pour. Easier to go to the pub.
>>
>> Mate of mine allowed an estate to get to eaves level then told the
>> builder
>> to correct the ceiling heights. The builder had used the old ploy of low
>> doorways so that there was the correct number of courses above - mate is
>> 6'
>> 4" tall and had noticed but decided that an expensive lesson was
>> required.
>>
>> This was about 25 years ago - could be different now.
>
> I think the only place a required ceiling height is mentioned in the
> current BR is for over stairs....

7.5 feet in living areas.
Ie not in halls, kitchens, etc.

"John Rumm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) o.uk...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "John Rumm" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) o.uk...
>>> PeterC wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:37:20 GMT, Stuart Noble wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it amazing - they bog BCO's down with window and door related
>>>>>> bollox
>>>>>> whilst no-one gives a monkeys about the fundamentals...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wasn't even a Barrats house (though, with a few exceptions, they all
>>>>>> seem as
>>>>>> bad as each other).
>>>>> I imagine BCOs are limited to confirming that a particular stage of
>>>>> the job has been completed, but not that it's been done properly. They
>>>>> can't e.g. test the concrete, although I believe they do on major
>>>>> jobs.
>>>>> A mate of mine used to do just that for a living, and said it was a
>>>>> brave man who would raise issues when a fleet of trucks were lined up
>>>>> ready to pour. Easier to go to the pub.
>>>>
>>>> Mate of mine allowed an estate to get to eaves level then told the
>>>> builder
>>>> to correct the ceiling heights. The builder had used the old ploy of
>>>> low
>>>> doorways so that there was the correct number of courses above - mate
>>>> is 6'
>>>> 4" tall and had noticed but decided that an expensive lesson was
>>>> required.
>>>>
>>>> This was about 25 years ago - could be different now.
>>>
>>> I think the only place a required ceiling height is mentioned in the
>>> current BR is for over stairs....
>>
>> 7.5 feet in living areas.
>> Ie not in halls, kitchens, etc.
>
> Have you got a reference for that?

Having looked about I think things may have changed since I last looked.
It was true in the 80's but may not be now.

On 28 Aug,
Tony Bryer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:02:10 +0100 John Rumm wrote :
> > > 7.5 feet in living areas.
> > > Ie not in halls, kitchens, etc.
> >
> > Have you got a reference for that?
>
> It's very possibly in the NHBC standards (not on the web) which all new
> home builders registered with NHBC have to follow. They have a whole
> load of other non-BR requirements such as minimum number of power
> sockets, requiring roof timbers to be treated etc etc.
>
But do they stick to them? IME they don't.

--
B Thumbs
Change lycos to yahoo to reply