Page 1 of 1
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:47 am
by Tony McC
This is a tricky one and there's no definitive answer because much would depend on how a valuation surveyor or Building Control Officer would interpret the situation.
On one hand, the work is in breach of Part C of the Building Regs by being high relative to the DPC.....but, Part M of the Building Regs makes allowance for paving to be elevated to provide ease of access at doorways.
The complications arise when installers push the intent of the Part M document and extend the height of the paving well beyond the doorway and often extend such an interpretation along the full length/width of the property. As a gesture of insurance to counter the potential charge that they've exceeded the interpretation of Part M, they bung in a linear channel drain and then claim the invert of the channel (the lowest point inside the channel) is the point from which the measure to DPC should be taken.
In general, most BCOs and valuation surveyors would accept this, albeit reluctantly on the part of many.
However, your images show a section of paving, roughly 3m x 700mm, "behind" the channel drain and up close to the DPC - this is a potential breach, as the channel drain is *not* against the building so the 'height above invert' argument can't be used.
How would a BCO/Surveyor interpret this? A BCO may well decide it's such a relaticvely small area, and there's plenty of fall, so it could be overlooked, but an eagle-eyed surveyor, looking to get the lowest possible vaulation for a purchaser, could demand it be made fully compliant, or for the asking price of the property be reduced to reflect the (highly inflated) costs of remedial works.
I can't figure out why they didn't do the obvious thing and divert the channel drain so that it was in continuous contact with the house wall, forming two 90° corners in the image shown. It might have taken an extra 30 mins, cost another 30 quid, but there would have been no arguable issue.
Nor can I figure out why they don't spend some money on a new set of blades for their splitter - some of these cuts are as ragged as a very raggedy thing! And several of the cuts are out of compliance, too! The tolerance, as stated in the British Standard, is a*maximum* joint width of 5mm, with a target of 2-3mm. Too many at 5mm woulkd usually get the cutting-in condemnded as being too loose.
The examples you show are untidy, inaccurate, empty of jointing material, and, as I said, as rough as bear's arse - not good at all!
No idea where they get this figure of 6-8mm - I suspect they just made that up. Ask them for a reference to a BS or Interpave document which stipulates 6-8mm joints are acceptable.
French drain? ? ? FFS! A crap idea that was recognised as being crap 200 years ago and is only used nowadays by clowns and incompetents.
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:49 pm
by perd49
Thanks for the reply Tony.
I thought the drain should against the house and around the porch.
As you say: Part M of the Building Regs makes allowance for paving to be elevated to provide ease of access at doorways.
They asked if I wanted a step to the porch but I said no as the porch will be replaced at a later date.
The main guy said that the level of the drive is higher then the previous ground because of how they had to stagger the footings for the side walls so the tops would be level. I understand this, but I don’t understand why the footings weren’t lower then.
The whole job has been a pain. Wish I never got it done
I don’t know how to proceed with this.
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:57 am
by dig dug dan
Just looking at your profile, and your area is plagued with so called block paving companies, who all reside in the mobile home residences. Lets hope it's not one of them!
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:13 am
by perd49
dig dug dan wrote:Just looking at your profile, and your area is plagued with so called block paving companies, who all reside in the mobile home residences. Lets hope it's not one of them!
It’s possible as he told me he lives where his business is.
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:59 pm
by Tony McC
I'm with you on the issue of footing depth - the paving level takes precedence and you lift or drop the footing level to suit the paving, not the other way around!
It's the same principle when houses are built. The roof level is set by the planning consent, and the footings are placed to ensure compliance. It wouldn't go down well with the local council if the builder told them the house roof was half a metre higher than the neighbouring properties because they had to fettle the footings!
