Trouble With The Builders!

jonon9

Ok first post in this fourm so i hopw the answers are here its gonna be long so bare with me.

My mother is living beside a house that recently decided to erect a pourch so she had no problems with that as long as it didnt past the boundary line/wall,
so the work started and as the few days pasted I realised that the "so-call-builders" didnt tie in the block work to the house and the roof is coming onto our property by about 8 inches.

So we confronted him about this and his exact words were "a sure it doesnt need to be tied in" this made me cop on that this fella is a take the money and run guy, so I said what about the line separating the block wall and the bricks(see pic below) and he said that the plaster will cover that.

Another thing was that my mother was gonna hire these guys to build her a pourch so this morning they were talking to her and I said that ye will have to tie in to the wall for structure reasons and all of a sudden he burst out in a rage and walked off saying im the builder here not you (thing is I used to labour for 4 fully qualified blocklayers so I learned a thing or two over the years.

Now his quoting a price tag of 2400 euro for a pouch thats only 6ft x 4ft x 7ft high

My question is should I tell this man fix the overlaping of the roof back to the line and tell him get lost or hire someone else??

sorry for the messy english.

DSC_0001.JPG

DSC_0002.JPG

DSC_0003.JPG

DSC_0004.JPG

Pot Noodle =

Ring the Planning enforcement officer

jonon9

I thought of that but I dont thing there is any planning permission involved no drawings for the pourch it even could be a cash in hand type job.

Poor Uncle Tom

I'm afraid there's more then a roof on your Mother's property. It looks like the blockwork is the full width of the boundary brickwork. If this is the case half of the blockwork is on your Mother's property. And what about the foundation? anyway, you need to get some on-site advice, get a good local Architectural Technicial to look at the job and advise you.
If your feeling on the builders is not to go near them, then let them ride off on the horse they rode in on.

BTW, if the 1.8 x 1.2 is an inside measurement then the porch needs planning permission, and, imo, the brickwork should be removed before building as it probably does not incorporate a radon barrier or even a DPC, this means a new porch with rising damp problems.

Get a good local bonded AT in today.

onq

+1 What Tom and Pot Noodle have said, but also ring Building Control and formally request that they attend and review this work.
Its not clear if this is a cavity of some sort, it looks like a single leaf in block going over 1.8M high - if this is so I'd be concerned.

Planning will only deal with the size of the porch and may request a retention permission be lodged.
Building Control are empowered to deal with shortcomings in the construction of the porch.

They can address the wall plate detail and the apparently inadequate chase for the flashing where the porch meets the pebbledash.
The felting is poor and the way the eaves are detailed suggests water will pond on the dip in the felt and eventually rot it and leak.

The only way to finish this porch is render it which will leave a very odd detail abutting your mothers brickwork finish.
I would be unhappy with the design of the porch details and the quality of the work.
2.4K all in doesn't sound too bad if the work was compliant.

Be careful with this boyo and his temper - I'm thinking more about your Mum and you have several choices.

• If he acts awkwardyou could always report him to the HSA.
• Report him to the Gardaí if he doesn't settle himself down and behave.
• Finally if he decides to escalate matters, report him to the revenue commissioners.

FWIW

ONQ.

jonon9

Thanks for the advice everyone.

now that I look closer the quality of the work is really quiet poor to say the least. I took internal measurements today and it is 4ft wide by 7 1/2 ft high this is just the block work alone. Im just gathering all my facts before I get an inspection done I posted more images below

DSC_0001.JPG

DSC_0002.JPG

DSC_0003.JPG

DSC_0004.JPG

DSC_0005.JPG

dunleakelleher

Have you talked to next door about this?

jonon9

Yes sure have but she seems not really interested in the whole situation just as long as its done.

cork2

is his lead flashing even buried into the pebbledash???? i could be wrong but it looks as if it fitted to the dash and a plaster bead fixed to the lead. also ya the block work should be tied in appropriately.

jonon9

Afraid not. the lead is just pressed up to the pebbledash and a bead ran along it, also is that I just found out the wall plate is not even bolted to the darn wall he used a nail gun!

Pot Noodle =

Does he wear a Ten Gallon Hat on site

cork2

that roof will pour water in without the correct flashing and you wouldnt mind but its as straight forward as you can get. the nail gun is used at times for the wallplate but only to hold it in place while your bolting or strapping it plus your blockwork needs to be dead level for it.

jonon9

I knew I seen a couple of horses wandering around. Il just have to wait and see what tomorrow brings if we decided not to go for the porch Idea I be telling him to remove his roof and wall back of the property.

astrofool

Can the guards get involved here? The whole thing needs to be ripped down pronto from the looks of it, and before he rides off, leaving your mother to have to knock it down.

drBill

Apart from all the build quality issues - and it looks like a shockingly sloppy effort - the big problem I see is that that it is blatantly trespassing on your mothers property, not just the eave overhang but also the structural blockwork is well over the dividing line. This will translate into a raft of legal problems if your mother ever tries to sell the house which will make the 2400 build cost look like small change.
If's not a pretty situation but personally I wouldnt allow a millimeter of structure across the dividing line and I'd be calling a halt to the work until that was agreed upon and in writing.
Just my 2 cents worth as someone who got badly stung by a seemingly harmless legal matter like this when selling our house a couple of years ago. Net result was that a good sale fell through because of it, and the house lay empty and unsold for over a year while the solicitors and planners pushed papers around.

mickdw

That is so wrong its unreal.

Flashing will allow water flow in.
The whole thing is just left up against the house.
Its crossing onto adjoining property.
The 2 lintels over head are used incorrectly as they have zero strength rating when not forming part of a composite structure. In this case, there is little loading being applied to them but that is more luck than judgement.
Knockto the ground is the only answer here.

jonon9

I know what you mean a few blows with a sledge and I'd say it will crumble

Mellor

I recently was hired to do a planning premission for a similar porch.
The logical thing to do was to speak to the neighbours. When I did, they were happy for it to go ahead and decided to get it done also.

Combining the two together made planning easier to attain. And also allows for a better construction imo.

This is a terrible job and will probably have to come down. Explain to the neighbours that the issues you have with it sailing over your land and they must fix it. Tell them it's their problem, not the builders. (which it is)
If it all comes down, build together next time.

Pot Noodle =

A good Builder will tell them just the same Arch at the moment are surplus to be clear, another bill

DOCARCH

If I was the OP, I would definitely contact the enforecment section of the council. Looking at photos, that porch has to be over 2.0m.sq., I'd be 99.9% sure (taking into account the area of existing external walls 'internalised' - 2.0m.sq. is actually tiny). I too have done both retention and planning applications for porches - looking at that one, looks like about 3.5m.sq.

If enforcement inpsect and conform porch is in excess of 2.0m.sq., the probable route is that your neighbour would apply for retention permission. If they do, you could then make an observation asking the council to condition that the porch, if granted retention, be altered and built wholly inside the existing boundary wall with no part of the structure or roof overhanging the boundary wall.

Enforcement is anonymous so the enforcement section will not/cannot tell your neighbour you made contact/made a complaint. Obviously if you make an observation, they will know, but if you are unhappy, I think this is the first and easiest route to go.

As Mellor said, this really has nothing to do with the builder, it is your neighbours problem, so I would talk to them - don't bother with the builder.

drBill

Apologies for slightly hijacking this thread, but I was just wondering what would be the correct technique for tying that blockwork into the rest of the structure? Thanks!

jonon9

Been a eventful morning today on behalf of Mr Bob the builder he himself got an inspector to come round and he started telling me that he sees nothing wrong with the structure even though I clearly pointed out the overhang is on our property and his answer was "I see it as a blessing"

astrofool

So the builder got an inspector, who told you it was fine for the builder to illegally build on someone elses property? Did you get their name/details/qualifications so you can report them as well? This just sounds bizarre, I'd have taken a sledgehammer to it the day it went up.

onq

jonon9 wrote: »

Been a eventful morning today on behalf of Mr Bob the builder he himself got an inspector to come round and he started telling me that he sees nothing wrong with the structure even though I clearly pointed out the overhang is on our property and his answer was "I see it as a blessing"

That's a disgraceful comment from a Council Office - ehrm, he WAS a Council Inspector, wasn't he, not a Television Inspector or something else?

I hope you got his name and position and credentials, because you'll need them to take this up with the Council and you'll need to write a formal letter in order to do so and this should refer to the date and time of the visit and what was said.

My best advice is if you retain a building professional and a solicitor to make your case.
While you've had some sound advice here, it is remote from the action and may not be relied upon in the event of a dispuite.

As was pointed out to me recently on another thread, exempted development can only occur "within the curtiladge of a house" and that means any building over the boundary and onto your mother's land may not be considered exempted development unless its the subject of an agreement.

I'm talking about the foundations, wall, and roof section, not just the eaves that projects beyond the party wall.
Your mothers land presumably runs to the centreline of any wall and she already refused the offer of a joint extension.
As far as I can see this suggests no permission on her part to build along the centreline but only she knows what was said.

The adjoining owner may cite your mother's acquiescance in allowing the work to proceed as proof of an agreement, but there is no formal agreement in place with agreed drawings as I understand it an correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Planning will only deal with whether it "looks" alright in the context of adjoining development [usually centring on scale and materials] and the 2.0 sqm internal area issue.
They're unlikely to proceed to court on the basis of the latter because studding out internally could reduce the internal area to 2.0 sq.m.

If an unagreed matter of trespass is pointed out to them this may encourage them to take action, particularly if you refer them to Section 160 of the Planning and Development Act which allows third parties to take legal action against unauthorised development and which tends to make local authorities look very lame if private individuals do this.

If all this doesn't get the planner's attention, you should make a formal referral to building control, who are in a position to address matters of Structure, Part A, Resistence to Moisture Part C, Materials and Workmanship Part D, and other matters.

If building control aren't interested or cite pressure of work you could try formally reporting their lack of interest or inability to attend to the County Manager or to the Department of Environment or to John Gormley the Minister - he who shouts loudest is heard best and there should be no huge workload at this time.

Alternatively, or as well, you could formally report the matter to the Health and Safety, because competence is an issue in carrying out any work and they will call out if requested.

ONQ.

onq

drBill wrote: »

Apologies for slightly hijacking this thread, but I was just wondering what would be the correct technique for tying that blockwork into the rest of the structure? Thanks!

The tying in of blockwork starts at foundation level.
That's if its decided to tie in, as opposed to install a soft or sliding joint.
The ground must be carefully prepared, tamped and filled to reduce any settlement.
Trenches are well compacted and blinded to eliminate leakage and loss of "fines" reducing strength.
Found widths may also be over-specified to reduce settlement and new founds are mechanically fixed to old.
Bolts may be inserted into specially prepared boreholes with a fixative material around them, all to engineer's detail.

That particular blockwork may not have a foundation under it at all.
Proceeding up the wall, "toothing in" is a traditional method using coursing.
But the OPs picture you'll see that the courses of the new don't align with the old.

Bolts were once used but metal mesh fixed to the existing and built in to courses is recent.
Remedial works to older building can use emergency techniques, like strapping or bolting or tension bars.
Any above ground work would be suspect in this case because of the possibility of there being no foundation support.

ONQ.

jonon9

Thanks again for the info. Why does building have to be such a pain in the bottom in this country. Nothing is been done till monday morning so hopefully it will be a quiet weekend.

Pot Noodle =

Tell your neighbour that you will charge them rent for building on your property ay €5,000 per calendar month if they do not take it down

Poor Uncle Tom

Stay on-topic please.

onq

Pot wrote:

A good Builder will tell them just the same Arch at the moment are surplus to be clear, another bill

What are you trying to say Pot Noodle?

ONQ.

sinnerboy

..... and think VERY carefully before you answer that Mr Noodle

Pot Noodle =

I am just saying a good builder knows a lot about building regulation that is all

DOCARCH

Pot wrote:

I am just saying a good builder knows a lot about building regulation that is all

I'd really beg to differ! They are few and far between!

Pot Noodle =

That is true you only have to look at the thread pictures but some of us actually take pride in what we do

onq

Pot wrote:

I am just saying a good builder knows a lot about building regulation that is all

I'm not sure the phrase "a good builder" should be associated with this thread.

ONQ.

onq

Pot wrote:

That is true you only have to look at the thread pictures but some of us actually take pride in what we do

There are some builders whose workmanship and service to the client are exemplary.
Neither of these two attributes or having a sunny disposition guarantees the knowledge to build compliantly.
Any of us in practice for 20 years or so have had to address two massive upgrades in required design and construction knowledge; -

1. in 1992 with the building regulations [ongoing and as amended] and
2. in particular the last five years with the current and growing emphasis on conservation of fuel and energy, reducing the carbon footprint and minimising embodied energy.

Unfortunately from the photographs supplied it seems clear that the builder in question has not mastered even basic trades and good practice detailing from 20 year ago.

ONQ.

Pot Noodle =

True but for €2400 what do you expect cheap is not always good

onq

Pot wrote:

True but for €2400 what do you expect cheap is not always good

That's simply not acceptable in relation to the subject development Pot Noodle.

Apparent trespass without agreement, what appears to be non-compliance with Parts A, C and D of the Building Regulations just for starters.

It doesn't matter what he charges, a builder must build compliantly, within the law and where another property is concerned all should be done by agreement.

There is no question of leaving it to trusting the builder where it comes to people's goods or property or health - its "trust but VERIFY".

ONQ.

muffler

This is going off on a tangent here lads so please think before you post.

The thread is not for debating the issue of builders vs architects/techies or the overall quality or workmanship of builders in general. Feel free to post away about the porch but please do so without getting into the legalities of it all.

The OP should know and understand by now where they stand and what needs to be done.

jhipwell

total disaster, if i were you i would call a halt to this shambles, make your stand, he is protruding to your mums property like you say 8inc, your mam would also like a portch, this would look offset and strange because of his extra 8inch, giving the appearance our mums home is smaller! rem flashing and guttering have also to be added, these walls are not tied, any movement in the ground over the coming years will have an effect on this, heavy door ect, this will eventually cause your mother a heart ache and you too down the line, now is the time to stop this ****e.