Move it, or brace it where it is?

[Keithj]

Sorry - missed the metal brace suggestion. That would have worked, but would have delayed work for some time while it was made. The oak braces took one day to make. With the outside lights fixed to them, they will be fairly well camouflaged. They barely show from inside the room, which is what SWMBO minds about.

 

[biffvernon]

The builder tells me I am now totally satisfied with the work,

Ha! That's the sort of builder we all need.

 

[AMc]

the firm has gone from "outstanding" to "avoid" in a couple of months.

I'm not sure that's unusual - my builder is a good friend of mine but there were definitely points when I hated his team more than I loved them. Particularly as the build drew to an end, the money ran out and some of the compromises I'd agreed to in the earlier days began to come back to haunt me. You may change your mind again before and after you're done. Try and keep a positive outlook on what's going on and stick to your guns about how you want your house to be finished.
Good luck!

 

[Penners]

The braces are up and my local advisers are happy. The builder tells me I am now totally satisfied with the work, which is news to me. He's also sacked the man who was doing the limework and is going to bring in another one. We're not at all happy about that: the firm has gone from "outstanding" to "avoid" in a couple of months.

I tried to be tactful in my comment above, describing the braces as "not exactly discrete". But now that I know you're unhappy with them, I can be a bit more forthright.

Frankly, I think they're a disgrace. They're great, lumpen things that make the building look crude, clunky and made up on the spot. Everyone seems to be trying to convince you that you're happy with the result - or should be - but you're clearly not. And you're the one paying the bills!

I would be taking the strongest possible issue with the architect, who clearly got his engineering wrong. You're stuck with the structure now, because I'm damned sure you won't want it pulled down and rebuilt! But I reckon the architect should be, at the very least, rethinking his fees.

 

[Lime]

I would be taking the strongest possible issue with the architect, who clearly got his engineering wrong.

I think so too.
Take further advice on the competence of the design and the safety.
I'd be speaking to a solicitor with expectation of a rebuild.

 

[LadyArowana]

I expect I'm in the minority, but I really don't mind them at all! Yes, they look like a big bit of something that was put up to solve a problem, but a lot of things that were done to buildings long ago were for exactly those reasons, a nice simple fix. If it had been done 150 years ago then it would just be part of the history of the place. Don't tell the architect I said that though, ask him for a good discount :lol:

 

[Penners]

a lot of things that were done to buildings long ago were for exactly those reasons, a nice simple fix.

A simple (and unattractive, IMO) fix for a problem created by the architect!

 

[Lime]

a lot of things that were done to buildings long ago were for exactly those reasons, a nice simple fix.

A simple (and unattractive, IMO) fix for a problem created by the architect!

How sure can we be that the pieces of wood are a "fix"?
I'd question the design of suspending a heavy roof on a few upright wood beams and absolutely nothing else.
It's straight out of legoland design.
What is to stop it keeling right over?

 

[chuckey]

I'm with Mel, the name of this sort of distortion is "racking". Imagine a row of racks or library shelves, pushing the top of an end of an end one will cause a progressive collapse, as each one pushes the next one over. I don't know the name of the other problem your building has suffered from, basically the horizontal square frame over the top of the uprights has gone all diagonal like a rhombus. This should have had internal braces across the corners, so as long as the house wall does not move the frame would remain square.
Frank

 

[Keithj]

Yes, chuckey, that describes it exactly.

The window frames are in, and the glass arrives on Monday.

I don't want to go through the faff of trying to pin the blame or sue anyone. I've already had building regs, the architect, and the builder pointing fingers in all directions at each other. Each agrees it is/was a problem, and each agrees that it's not his fault. There are lots of "ifs" and "if onlys" that won't improve the overall happiness of mankind. I'm the only person not implicated in one or another possible error, so of course I'm the one being asked to pay for the fix. If the cost were large, I might have a different view, but for around £120 (the oak) I'll eat it. The builder did try to stiff me for a fair bit more (labour, handling charges etc) but I think he's got the point on that one.

What I do not want to do is to make the window frames and glass "structural". That way is asking for trouble in years to come. First the windows become difficult to open and close, then they won't open and close, then the frames start to break up, then at some point the glass cracks... This way, as long as the braces stay in place and look healthy, I know the frame of the building hasn't moved.

There are braces in several places elsewhere in the structure of the house. In all cases they look to be Tudor, and they are part of the character of the place. Some of them reveal that the building has distorted a fair bit since it was built. But all the windows open and close with no bother, because they aren't "structural".

Yes, these aren't the most aesthetic devices (wrought iron would have been nicer but would have delayed things for weeks), but they have a character of their own. We'll be fitting the exterior lights to them, which will camouflage them a bit on the outside, and they don't show all that much from the inside. We'll live with 'em.

There are pictures and weekly progress reports on the whole palaver here.

 

[Lime]

Well done on the house.
It looked a bodgers nightmare and you have done a good job.
I'm sure you feel better about the safety and security now too.
However it looks as if you've had typical buider behaviour for the last part of the build.
I've had builders in the past and understand your frustration at their almost inability to not bodge when a good job was but another thought away.

 

[middi]

YEP, that's not bad at all, good photos and a good record.
One thing, whilst I am glad that you discarded those horrible concrete tiles, may I ask why you used new pantiles istead of new peg tiles. Although pantiles are quite nice and traditional in many respects, I would have thought peg tiles would have been more in keep with that particular age building.
Middi

 

[Keithj]

Yes, peg tiles would have been more "in character", although it was thatched until the 1930s. However...

1. Peg tiles are a LOT heavier and we weren't sure the timbers would be strong enough. The roof was already bowing from the weight of the concrete tiles. It was designed for thatch, remember!
2. The roofer we used, who was excellent, would not do peg tiles. In his view they take impossibly long, being far smaller than pantiles, and need an awful lot of pegging.
3. The new roof cost us over £10,000 but we thought it was worth it. Peg tiles would have cost several times that.

As it is, we ran into "building regs 2011 green requirements" that demanded all sorts of thermal insulation - fortunately the seriously expensive bit couldn't be fitted but it was still a hard clout on the wallet.

We think the end result is well worth what we paid for it. Most locals agree.

 

[biffvernon]

I'm the only person not implicated in one or another possible error, so of course I'm the one being asked to pay for the fix.

Sums up the situation for much of humanity.