Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Limitation and concealed unfitness.

Re: Limitation and concealed unfitness.

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:23 pm

diy wrote:How sure are you that the thermal element was a requirement?

Not sure at all, but I am certain that it was part of the job, else it wouldn't have been done at all. It's done with 100mm celotex, which is fine as far as that goes, except for the damn great gaps, which largely defeat the purpose.
How come this wasn't picked up by the building control inspector? Was is signed off?

I'm not aware that the building control inspector came to visit, but if he did, how could he see that the job hadn't been done properly? There's tiles one side and ceiling the other. I've only discovered the problem because I've ragged a hole in the ceiling.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Limitation and concealed unfitness.

Postby diy » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:41 am

BC inspect during the build. Even private BC require photos.

Sounds like the work may not have been processed. The lady can check on her local council site, by searching on her property.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Limitation and concealed unfitness.

Postby diy » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:06 am

Edit: Did this new roof result in the creation of a habitable room? i.e. a loft conversion?

I'm struggling to picture the type of roof. The 100mm of Celotex, should have been sufficient to comply.

I'm asking these questions, because part of your claim is proving fit for purpose. The best definition of this would be the applicable building control regs that the home owner should have applied. I would have thought it would weaken a case, if they didn't or if the work somehow didn't need to comply.

100mm of celetex poorly fitted might have been a substantial upgrade for work that was not required to comply or it might have been substandard for notifiable work.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Limitation and concealed unfitness.

Postby atticus » Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:46 am

Surely the claim is for negligence and/or breach of contract in failing to ensure complete coverage with this insulating material.
atticus - a very stable genius
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20108
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Limitation and concealed unfitness.

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:28 am

diy wrote:Edit: Did this new roof result in the creation of a habitable room? i.e. a loft conversion?

No, just a new roof (tiles, etc). The top floor already uses most of the roof space.

I'm struggling to picture the type of roof. The 100mm of Celotex, should have been sufficient to comply.

I imagine that it would, if fitted properly, but when I last built a house, the requirement was that the gaps were filled with the squirty foam.
I'm asking these questions, because part of your claim is proving fit for purpose. The best definition of this would be the applicable building control regs that the home owner should have applied. I would have thought it would weaken a case, if they didn't or if the work somehow didn't need to comply.

I can see that.
100mm of celetex poorly fitted might have been a substantial upgrade for work that was not required to comply or it might have been substandard for notifiable work.

Either it was part of the contract or it was not, whether it was a statutory requirement within the contract is not really the issue. If it wasn't in the contract, then why have they done it and if it was, then it is as Atti' says:
atticus wrote:Surely the claim is for negligence and/or breach of contract in failing to ensure complete coverage with this insulating material.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Limitation and concealed unfitness.

Postby diy » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:38 pm

You've established that the roofers also did the insulation? With regard to squirty foam - Celotex recommend a dove tail cut to achieve a friction fit, but in any case for a habitable room 100mm is not sufficient even with 600mm centres its not enough. It needed to be at least 130mm but probably 140mm. Are you sure is not an overlapping arrangement or being used in conjunction with wool or perhaps insulated board? In which case the loose insulation is less of an issue.

As you've described it, it would not have been signed off - even in 2010.

Edit, - I haven't accounted for the tiles, so it might just be acceptable. edit again - no its still not acceptable without an additional 35 mm overlap.

Is it possible that the insulation was fitted from the outside due to the plaster board? Therefore the dove tail friction fit would be snug at the vapour barrier side and quite gappy at the plasterboard side.

Either way, I think to prove its defective will need a thermal survey.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Limitation and concealed unfitness.

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:26 pm

diy wrote:You've established that the roofers also did the insulation? With regard to squirty foam - Celotex recommend a dove tail cut to achieve a friction fit, but in any case for a habitable room 100mm is not sufficient even with 600mm centres its not enough.

To be fair, I don't think they could have fitted anything much thicker.
I think I was taught a friction fit, then foam to fill any gaps. Though that may have been what the customer wanted rather than regulations.

Is it possible that the insulation was fitted from the outside due to the plaster board? Therefore the dove tail friction fit would be snug at the vapour barrier side and quite gappy at the plasterboard side.
That is how it was installed, but no: I can see the vapour membrane through the gap in the insulation.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Limitation and concealed unfitness.

Postby diy » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:49 am

There is also supposed to be an air gap between the vapour membrane and the insulation, so If you are saying this roof has rafters not much bigger than 100mm, then it doesn't sound like the air gap has been maintained either. Personally I wouldn't want anyone spray foaming my rafters as It will cause them to rot if ever water gets under the membrane, which it can sometimes do on a very wet/windy day.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Limitation and concealed unfitness.

Postby atticus » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:55 am

Does that affect the limitation period? Or are you after the expert report gig?
atticus - a very stable genius
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20108
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Limitation and concealed unfitness.

Postby diy » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:44 pm

I'm pretty sure you answered that in your first post, if not your second. I'm discussing items that might give a claim under: Sec 32 Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake.

If my understanding of your answer is correct - Mistake and concealment in the above do not refer to concealment by nature of the application (for example its hidden between the tiles and the plaster board) or mistake of insulation best practices (I didn't know I was meant to fill the gaps).

For limitation not to apply, there would need to be some dishonesty or mistake of scope. Therefore its dead, unless the builder also undertook design, specification and building control responsibilities. If he then failed to notify BC, then you might well find it easier to make a claim that he had dishonest intentions. if it was the client who took on this role (perhaps by default or mistake) then I think its harder to prove dishonesty. People get notifiable work done to their homes all the time. Its not the builder's responsibility to check compliance with planning, building control and water authority to see if the work is approved, unless they agree to as part of the contract.

Poorly fitting insulation - is a quality issue. There may of course be warranties expressed or implied. Some companies do offer warranties of up to 10 years.

All I was attempting to do is establish if there was even a problem to start with and why it wasn't detected at the time.. It would appear from the description that the work never complied with Building regulations. For there to be any claim at all we have to understand who contracted to do what and what responsibilities they took on.
My suggestions are not legal advice
User avatar
diy
 
Posts: 2638
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Contract and Consumer Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest