Notifiable work - Bathroom Conversion

[nero44]

Hello,

looking for some clarification on notifiable works on a victorian terrace. I have bought the property about 18 months ago and have done two bathroom renovations since. The first one was simply a refurbishment of an existing bathroom, no new soil pipes have been placed, so I am aware this is not notifiable.

The second bathroom was actually a conversion of a bedroom into a bathroom, completed fully by one company. As such, waste pipes have been installed, which feed into the existing SVP just outside of this former bedroom. I would assume this is notifiable work, due to the nature of the room changing, however no real structural work has been done.

My question is, do you agree that this would be notifiable? The company has issued a completion letter, which includes a warranty as well. I don't believe I ever saw a LABC on site, so I assumed they would self-certify. I plan to retire on this house, but if I were to sell it, would I require any other documentation to prove that the installation was done in compliance with regs?

 

[stuart45]

The work is notifiable, but they could have self certified it.

 

[nero44]

Agreed so far. So would my completion letter with the warranty be sufficient for a future buyer as proof? Or do I need to ask for an email confirming or something? The warranty letter just states what is covered, dates etc. Only once sentence states "...I acknowledge that I have received all deliverables and completed all services to my satisfaction and upon the agreed scope of works."

Doesnt specifically say that we have self-certified all works.

 

[stuart45]

You should have a compliance certificate. Tradesmen are often a bit slow to fill these out. You need to chase up the company that did the job.

 

[nero44]

Do you know what is exactly written on such document? Like I said I received a PDF which is a "completion document" and also has the guarantee letter attached. But it does not specify and regs other than the sentence I pasted above.

 

[stuart45]

It should state that it's a compliant with Building regs certificate. There's different schemes for different trades, but they are all saying roughly the same thing. Your scheme was probably APHC.
I'd contact the company who did the work first. You could also try APHC.
Building Control should also have records of the work, as it goes back to them.

 

[Flyfisher]

I do wonder how important all this seemingly ever-increasing documentation really is.

I was in my previous (not listed, 1950s) house for 21 years and during that time extended it, reworked the kitchen and bathrooms and made all manner of other alterations, including a loft conversion with a new window. I had planning consent and building regs for the extension but nothing for the loft conversion or the other remodelling. When it came to sell, I was presented with the usual list of questions asking if I had electrical certificates, gas certificates, etc etc. I could give the planning consent reference but had nothing else so I simply stated 'no' or 'don't know' to the various questions. It was never an issue and caused no problems when it came to selling.

I don't know when formal building control was introduced but I'd bet that the majority of period properties were built without the benefit of such bureaucracy and were not particularly the worse for it. Indeed, one of the many benefits of a period property is that it can be very difficult to know when certain things were done to it

It seems that we are increasingly being 'dumbed down' to the extent that the default assumption is that everyone is incompetent unless they have a certificate proving otherwise. I'm increasingly surprised that people are allowed into 'DIY stores' without having to show some sort of formal qualification of competence. Whatever happened to an Englishman's** home being his castle? Bah humbug!

** Other nationalities are available

 

[a twig]

I don't know when formal building control was introduced but I'd bet that the majority of period properties were built without the benefit of such bureaucracy and were not particularly the worse for it. Indeed, one of the many benefits of a period property is that it can be very difficult to know when certain things were done to it

Always worth having one eye on survivor bias with period properties, lots of terrible buildings were built back through history without competent oversight and are unsurprisingly not here today

That said there is definitely a balance to be struck and my recent experience building an extension does make me think the pendulum has swung a bit too far and is adding a lot of time and cost for increasingly diminishing returns

 

[Flyfisher]

Always worth having one eye on survivor bias with period properties, lots of terrible buildings were built back through history without competent oversight and are unsurprisingly not here today

That's a very fair point and I've no doubt there were cowboy builders back in the 'good old days' throwing up buildings that didn't last very long.

But to be equally fair, that seems to still be the case today. Not so much (perhaps) with cowboy builders but many buildings designed, built and approved by an array of highly qualified professionals working within ever more rigid guidelines and regulations have shockingly short lifespans before needing to be demolished on safety grounds, eg the recent issues over aerated concrete in schools and hospitals, not to mention the Grenfell Tower debacle.

 

[lizziecupcakes]

Hi, I also checked this in advance with my own LA. Building control told me this is notifiable.

Fun fact: they also need to be notified if your adding a bath to an upper floor too because of the weight etc.

 

[stuart45]

You need to double up the joists when adding a bath.

 

[nero44]

Where does it say so? None of my joists were updated... floor was opened to lay pipes etc. taps for free standing mixer etc.

 

[stuart45]

It says it in the TRADA span tables and Building regs that joists under partition walls and in bathrooms under a bath should be doubled up and bolted together. There's a lot of extra weight with a cast iron bath full of water and someone in it.

 

[Lacan07]

I had to fit new double joists when I removed the chimney in my bathroom but having said that my freestanding bath that followed is made of the modern stuff (can't afford cast iron) and is surprisingly light to be fair. If it wasn't for the fact I sited the taps to come up from the floor and through the side of the bath thereby clamping it I'd be seriously worried.

In answer to the OP his 2nd bathroom was notifiable as it was previously a bedroom but at the end of the day does it really matter unless someone (like the solicitor) stumbles upon an old floor plan of the house and starts asking questions. I would also check the property forms required when selling a house, I can't remember exactly but I assume they can be easily filled in without directly lying.

 

[nero44]

I would also check the property forms required when selling a house, I can't remember exactly but I assume they can be easily filled in without directly lying.

hahah yes when I received the form from the seller there were many "not aware" or just remained unanswered. The previous owners installed new windows w/out fensa certificates, so they had to get indemnity insurance for it. So there are ways around I am aware.

I will ask the contractor, but chances are they will not have it or just won't provide. We are not on the best term, as this project had many problems. In a way I am also a bit hesitant to open a can of worms here as the entire project was just a mess....

 

[stuart45]

Building Control won't always insist on the floor being strengthened. It depends on the joist size of the existing floor. It's sometimes an issue as older houses often had undersized joists.
One of the main problems is plumbers notching out for a 40mm waste, and also joists getting damp from the bath.
Using a sheet of ply spreads the weight of the bath of there's any doubt.
Not having signed off work can be got around by indemnity policies, but occasionally the idea that the owner has been doing work without going through Building Control will make them withdraw from the sale.
Others will ask for Regularisation.

 

[Flyfisher]

hahah yes when I received the form from the seller there were many "not aware" or just remained unanswered. The previous owners installed new windows w/out fensa certificates, so they had to get indemnity insurance for it. So there are ways around I am aware.

Excactly. No need to lie (definitely not recommended!) but 'not aware' or 'don't know' is perfectly reasonable. Caveat emptor!

As for Fensa certificates, I've replaced many windows here (with LBC I hasten to add) but not a Fensa certificate in sight! As for indemnity insurance, what would it actually be indemnifying against? The window themselves are what they are so the indemnity is probably only against building control suddenly deciding to take some sort of enforcement action, which I believe they can't do after three years anyway. So basically, it's a case of bureaucracy spawning more bureaucracy and just pushing up costs for everyone.

 

[stuart45]

The rules used to be that Building Control had 12 months to issue an enforcement notice on the owner of the property from the date of completion of works. After that they'd have to apply to the High Court, which has an unlimited time scale. That's the reason why lenders often insist on an indemnity policy.
Builders who carried out the work could be prosecuted for up to 2 years after completion.
The rules have now been changed to 10 years, mainly because of Grenfell.
Windows aren't such a problem when selling, but structural work like removing load bearing walls, or chimney breasts can be.

 

[Stevers]

Building Control won't always insist on the floor being strengthened. It depends on the joist size of the existing floor.

Certainly in our house (1879) the same size joists are used throughout each floor, and that is likely to be the norm - barring any extensions, or for anything properly old. In our case our first floor joists are sized for a 15' span, yet the span in the bathroom is only 6', so no doubling in there. From what I can remember of beam theory, a 10' beam ought to be able to carry just over twice the continuous weight of a 15' beam. Since the span in the back bedrooms is just over 10', my take is that these wouldn't require doubling either if we converted either of those to a bathroom, but that would be close to the limit of what was possible, and only on the assumption that no notching would be made for waste water plumbing.