D2 pipework

[Masood]

Having real difficulty with the builder developer. They are saying as it's outside the two year minor defect guarantee they won't cover it and that I should have found out before still I'll keep plugging away at them. Thanks for your help.

First, this is not a minor defect, it's in contravention of Building Regs, which have legal force. Secondly, as already stated, as a lay parson you can't be expected to spot the flawed installation, especially as it was boxed in.

 

[SimonG]

Also sounds as though BC are trying to pass the book as well. Expecting builders to police themselves is a bit of 'oh crap we didn't notice that'.

Good example, mate of mine went to service an oil boiler, it had recently been moved as part of an extension. He gave the cust an invoice and noted on it that no external remote acting fire valve had been fitted. Took a load of grief off of the woman about trying to get extra work etc, building control had passed all the extension. He left saying please yourself, I've noted it, if your house burns down good luck with the insurance claim. That week a building control officer phoned him and asked him to go back and fit the fire valve and send the bill to the bc.


So yes the developer has screwed up, but so has bc. But it's the developer who's going to have to pay for it.

 

[simjohnson]

Hi this was the last I had from the developer, just thought I would share it.
Mr Johnson,

I had instructed Gina not to reply to your earlier e-mail as we have made our position clear and are not willing to engage in any further dialogue with you about the matter

For the last time this is a non-essential minor defect brought to our attention well outside the minor defect period and unfortunately, although you do not like it, if you want the ‘blow-off’ pipe upsizing (although this is entirely unnecessary) you will now need to stand the cost of it yourself. There is no breach of contract as you suggest as the property was signed off for Building Regulation compliance and backed up with a 2 year Minor Defect Policy (& 10 year Major Structural) at the time of purchase to insure against any such irregularities. The fact that you have ‘missed the boat’ so to speak because presumably you did not get the boiler serviced in the first two years (?) (when presumably the defect would have been identified?) and then bring it to our attention or simply identify it in that time period when we would have returned to your property to put right does not represent a breach of contract

I would repeat my advice earlier that if you are intent on getting the ‘blow-off’ pipe upsized then you would be best spending your money employing a plumber rather than wasting it on legal action that will be ineffective.

For the record, we are not a member of a trade association

Regards

Tim Thomson
Technical/Construction Director

Britannia Developments Ltd
Lawns House
Lawns Lane
Farnley
Leeds
West Yorkshire
LS12 5ET

 

[SimonG]

I'm afraid Timmy's shot himself in the foot.
He's obviously not that technical if he's writing letters with regard d2 pipework and not knowing the regs.
It's not a minor defect, there are potentially serious consequences. Print out a copy of the G3 regs and send them a letter stating clearly that their installation breaches these regulations and you want the issue rectifying within xx days. Failing that you will pursue a course of action to remedy these issues and Britannia will be liable for all costs involved. cc the local building control.

 

[Howsie]

How funny! I hate arrogant developers with a passion.

Let's all phone up Timmy and tell him he's completely wrong.

 

[peteheat]

Hi,

I agree with all previous posts, it appears the developer has no true understanding of what the pipe is for, he also ignores the fact that the safety valve on pressurised cylinders are supposed to be tested at least once a year not just to ensure the pipe is clear but to ensure the safety valve is working properly.

I doubt you or any of your neighbours would appreciate getting a shower when going to your car because some plumber was not only following the regulations but doing what makes sense in testing the valve, that is why all such pipes are supposed to piped to a safe point of discharge.

The developers letter appears to be very confident maybe he is getting advice from the plumber who installed the system/

One thing we can all be sure of is that if the example given by billybob150811 was put to the test somebody would be paying a substantial amount in compensation and legal costs.

If what billybob150811 posted happened today who would be liable?

Believe it or not simjohnson person in charge of the property is now aware that there is a clear danger to others coming from their property, it could be argued that as he / she was aware of the potential danger and / or possible loss through damage to their own apartment failed to have the hazard rectified and by continuing to use a dangerous appliance has assumed full responsibility for the consequences.

I believe any good Solicitor would advise you to have the problem rectified and then take the necessary action to get the developer to reimburse your costs (and of course the Solicitors).

There a lot of apartments built where the builder / developer is no longer in business, that does not mean any bad or dangerous work should not be rectified, for example if it was a gas leak the property owner either pays to get it fixed or the gas supply is terminated.

It really is that simple, the O.P. is now aware of possible danger to others or loss to themselves (by flooding) they have a duty of care to others and their own insurers to correct the pipework A.S.A.P. establishing who is at fault is a job for later.

 

[Masood]

It really is that simple, the O.P. is now aware of possible danger to others or loss to themselves (by flooding) they have a duty of care to others and their own insurers to correct the pipework A.S.A.P. establishing who is at fault is a job for later.

Spot on. Now that you are aware of the issue, simjohnson, you need to have it rectified, or, should the worst happen and someone is scalded by discharge, you will share the burden of responsibility.

I wouldn't allow the developer to fob you off, though, as the defective installation is neither minor nor trivial, it is in direct contravention of Building Regs which carry the full force of the law.

The fact that Local Authority Building Control signed the work off is irrelevant. They do not as a matter of routine check the work of people on Competent Persons Schemes. That is the purpose of these schemes, to allow people who have proved their competence through things like Gas Safe registration, or having an Unvented (G3) qualification, to certify their own work. The installer either had the qualification and failed to comply with Regs, in which case he's liable, or he didn't inform LABC that the installer wasn't G3 certified and thus needed signoff. Either way, the developer is liable.

There is some merit in what he says, though - unvented cylinders should be seviced annually, as should boilers. Had this been done, the fault may have been spotted sooner. In any case, it doesn't absolve him of responsibility. As has been mentioned earlier, the description "latent defects" covers this sort of scenario, where faulty installations are hidden and only become apparent later when they give rise to problems.

I'd suggest asking the Local Authority Building Control to come and inspect the work. Despite it being signed off, they will take action for non-compliance. The HSE may also be interested in this type of installation due the potential for serious injury.

However, legal action will be expensive, drawn-out and stressful. You pays yer money and takes yer choices. Good luck!

 

[simjohnson]

Hi
Thanks for all your posts very helpfull in all cases and gives me a bit more confidence in going to small claims court. Am abroad at the moment and as soon as I return will have the work carried out. Hadn't had the boiler serviced in the first years as we have only used it about 10 weeks each year and shut it down each time we leave. Thanks again what I really need to do is get our management company doing more as I think the developers plumbed all 30 flats the same. I can see 15mm pipes exiting the outer walls of other apartments around the Mill. Will keep you updated. Would there be any problem with sharing your advise and opinions with the Mill management company.
Simon

 

[Barry98]

Hi
Thanks for all your posts very helpfull in all cases and gives me a bit more confidence in going to small claims court. Am abroad at the moment and as soon as I return will have the work carried out. Hadn't had the boiler serviced in the first years as we have only used it about 10 weeks each year and shut it down each time we leave. Thanks again what I really need to do is get our management company doing more as I think the developers plumbed all 30 flats the same. I can see 15mm pipes exiting the outer walls of other apartments around the Mill. Will keep you updated. Would there be any problem with sharing your advise and opinions with the Mill management company.
Simon

Thanks for keeping us posted Simon , good luck

 

[SimonG]

Share away Simon. Seen similar last year, non conforming d2 pipework in a series of flats. Did a report for cust to give to management company, never heard a peep after that.

 

[AWheating]

I have to say that Tim Thomson is an idiot. How did he get a job as a "technical/construction director"??

He comes across as a incompetent person at best, who does not care about his company installing dangerous items and calls them " a non essential minor defect".
I would not call 95degree water running or spraying over a persons face or body a minor problem.

its very obvious that this donkey puts money infront of peoples safety.

Have you looked into wether its possible to riddor the installer directly via the hse? you would have thought building control would action something to force the matter. Who if anybody can take action to prohibit the installer from any further dangerous work??

 

[Masood]

Have you looked into wether its possible to riddor the installer directly via the hse? you would have thought building control would action something to force the matter. Who if anybody can take action to prohibit the installer from any further dangerous work??

That's the route I'd be looking to go down if I were the OP, rather than small claims court. Takes the hassle and stress away from him and uses the legal clout of the Local Authority and HSE against the developer rather than one person's finite energy and cash resources. Also, if the LA put pressure on the developer, they will probably cave in as they know that any future planning applications may be much more stringently scrutinised...

 

[AWheating]

if every tennant signs a letter to the building control and the hse for riddor then it may get them off there arse maybe?