Cant exchange because FENSA certificate is missing
nobody
punched in with the house number thats not good enough for them they
want the worthless piece of paper as well.
a replacement is ordered but that could take 10 days as they churn out
1000s of these worthless pieces of thick paper and it has to take its
turn.
meanwhile the solicitor and lender wont move on the exchange .
what a joke all over this pathetic piece of useless bum paper .
who started this neat load of twaddle ?
the window has a guarantee from the window installer who is a FENSA
member for decades .
its not as if they check the building for a correct installation and
then issue the certificate ,oh no ,they just send them out willy nilly
a few weeks after the window replacement .
God help anyone who does any work on their property ,like doing a
window job themselves .
conveyancing has always been bad but now its a whole lot worse ,due to
all the latest regulations .
you can see a time coming in the future where it will become almost
impossible to sell a house as they can throw a spanner in the works to
stall the conveyancing for months and years if they want.
rip off Britain again
Fredxx
"nobody" <xis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ab11f96-a110-451d...@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> although it shows up on the Fensa.org site when the postcode is
> punched in with the house number thats not good enough for them they
> want the worthless piece of paper as well.
> a replacement is ordered but that could take 10 days as they churn out
> 1000s of these worthless pieces of thick paper and it has to take its
> turn.
> meanwhile the solicitor and lender wont move on the exchange .
> what a joke all over this pathetic piece of useless bum paper .
> who started this neat load of twaddle ?
> the window has a guarantee from the window installer who is a FENSA
> member for decades .
>
> its not as if they check the building for a correct installation and
> then issue the certificate ,oh no ,they just send them out willy nilly
> a few weeks after the window replacement .
>
> God help anyone who does any work on their property ,like doing a
> window job themselves .
Why? Building control will provide a completion certificate.
tim....
"nobody" <xis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ab11f96-a110-451d...@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> punched in with the house number thats not good enough for them they
> want the worthless piece of paper as well.
> a replacement is ordered but that could take 10 days as they churn out
> 1000s of these worthless pieces of thick paper and it has to take its
> turn.
> meanwhile the solicitor and lender wont move on the exchange .
> what a joke all over this pathetic piece of useless bum paper .
> who started this neat load of twaddle ?
> the window has a guarantee from the window installer who is a FENSA
> member for decades .
I can't comment about the worthlessness of this particular piece of paper
but it never ceases to amaze me the number of important household documents
that people throw away.
I'm about to embark upon the purchase of a leasehold flat and I fully expect
that the first response to requests for previous year's management accounts
will be "lost", an answer which they will quickly find is not acceptable.
tim
Roland Perry
<1ab11f96-a110-451d...@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, at
18:05:03 on Wed, 20 Oct 2010, nobody <xis...@gmail.com> remarked:
>you can see a time coming in the future where it will become almost
>impossible to sell a house as they can throw a spanner in the works to
>stall the conveyancing
I'm selling my 85 year old house, and the buyer's solicitors are
insisting I take out an insurance (yes, that again) in case the 1920's
builder didn't in fact get permission from the original landowner to
construct a house that met the covenant imposed on the land [basically
that a posh enough house was built, on the correct building line - the
house in fact being remarkably consistent with all the others in the
neighbourhood].
What's the chances that the original landowner's successors [1] are
going to turn up in 2010 and complain after all this time? And harking
back to modern certificates like FENSA and Building Regs signoff, it's
perhaps a shame that once the house had been built [one assumes] to the
original landowner's satisfaction, that they couldn't remove that
covenant, or annotate the deeds that the landowner was satisfied.
The lack of which is looking like it will plague future buyers in
perpetuity (although it didn't worry my solicitor when I bought). Absent
some legislation with a statute of limitations on such complaints.
[1] The company selling the land in 1919 no longer exists; which is not
much of a surprise. But perhaps it has some kind of successor.
--
Roland Perry
djornsk
...
...
> God help anyone who does any work on their property ,like doing a
> window job themselves .
> conveyancing has always been bad but now its a whole lot worse ,due to
> all the latest regulations .
> you can see a time coming in the future where it will become almost
> impossible to sell a house as they can throw a spanner in the works to
> stall the conveyancing for months and years if they want.
>
> rip off Britain again
I'm in a vaguely similar situation with a buyer mad keen to proceed
frustrated by a lender
who declines based on reasons which don't make sense. The impression
given is that they either need
to ration their lending or perhaps one key individual dealing with the
loan application doesn't
know what they are doing. I expect the buyer will eventually walk
having shelled out several hundred pounds to
the "professionals" who in the current market have to screw the
punters over a few times before a sale comletes.
j
Big Les Wade
>In message
><1ab11f96-a110-451d...@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, at
>18:05:03 on Wed, 20 Oct 2010, nobody <xis...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>you can see a time coming in the future where it will become almost
>>impossible to sell a house as they can throw a spanner in the works to
>>stall the conveyancing
>
>I'm selling my 85 year old house, and the buyer's solicitors are
>insisting I take out an insurance (yes, that again) in case the 1920's
>builder didn't in fact get permission from the original landowner to
>construct a house that met the covenant imposed on the land [basically
>that a posh enough house was built, on the correct building line - the
>house in fact being remarkably consistent with all the others in the
>neighbourhood].
>
The whole thing is a giant heap of shite. One can see how it grew up in
a more or less reasonable manner for reasonable purposes; but ever since
it has been carefully exploited by the legal profession to extract as
much money as possible from unwitting clients.
--
Les
Anyone regularly attending or organising protests should expect to be of
interest to the state.
Ste
> punched in with the house number thats not good enough for them they
> want the worthless piece of paper as well.
> a replacement is ordered but that could take 10 days as they churn out
> 1000s of these worthless pieces of thick paper and it has to take its
> turn.
> meanwhile the solicitor and lender wont move on the exchange .
> what a joke all over this pathetic piece of useless bum paper .
> who started this neat load of twaddle ?
> the window has a guarantee from the window installer who is a FENSA
> member for decades .
>
> its not as if they check the building for a correct installation and
> then issue the certificate ,oh no ,they just send them out willy nilly
> a few weeks after the window replacement .
>
> God help anyone who does any work on their property ,like doing a
> window job themselves .
Unregistered fitters defy building regulations all the time, because
most property owners simply don't care. It's quite right that the
solicitor should require the paperwork to cover their own arses, but
often it's easy enough for a seller to either tell the buyer to
overrule their solicitor, or just tell them no, and let them withdraw
if they want.
tim....
"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dbc0547-4ceb-4941...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
------------------------------------------------------------
But why in the current market would the buyer accept such an ultimatum?
Even if I were personally not bothered by the missing piece of paper, I
would be bothered by the seller telling me that my solicitor is wrong to be
bothered by it.
tim
Martin Bonner
> often it's easy enough for a seller to either tell the buyer to
> overrule their solicitor, or just tell them no, and let them withdraw
> if they want.
Yes, but in this case it sounds like the solicitor who is insisting is
doing so in their capacity as the *lender's* solicitor - and as such,
the buyer can't overrule them.
nobody
for the boys to churn out these worthless certificates ,you cant even
get a facsimile copy or a emailed copy ,which in this day and age when
the title deeds are online is downright pathetic .The window installer
has already issued a 10 year guarantee and invoice and he is a member
of FENSA . windows that were installed before 2002 when they started
this FENSA cert malarkey don't require a FENSA certificate . As a
member of FENSA he is trusted to do a good job that complies with the
building regs ,so why issue another certificate from FENSA as well? if
missing this document is a deal breaker if you cant get another
quickly .
The agency says its a massive problem now as these certs get mislaid
over the years and the layman cant know that they will cause such a
huge problem years later . Obviously the main pieces of documentation
are held safely but this FENSA outfit is a shadowy organization and
the certs are meaningless to look at as you cant know who they are
from the black and white paper .
But they, if missing, can completely scupper a house sale ,along with
all the other pitfalls and indemnity insurance malarkey as well .
can conveyancing get any worse ? i suspect it will in years to
come ,when you have the wrong coloured house wiring or some other
bizarre obstacle.
it could take a year to exchange contracts and all the while they are
milking the price of the transaction .
with japanese knotweed spreading fast all over the country and local
councils doing little to eradicate it heres another problem awaiting
the house seller.
Percy Picacity
news:8iadvk...@mid.individual.net:
> "Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9dbc0547-4ceb-4941-92f1-25ee7749e7f7
@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.
I don't think the main question is about who is right or wrong, but
about who pays for the insurance. It is probably not enormously
expensive, and the only reason for the buyer to refuse to pay it
himself is a misplaced righteous feeling that it is the seller's
responsibility. As you say, the seller than has to decide how
valuable this particular buyer is to him, and the buyer has to
decide whether to throw away incurred consts on a "principle". To a
rational buyer this should be no contest, I would have thought. I
have to admit to irrational brinkmanship in the past myself,
however!
--
Percy Picacity
martin
> i suspect this FENSA outfit is a Labour party creation as its a jobs
> for the boys to churn out these worthless certificates ,you cant even
> get a facsimile copy or a emailed copy ,which in this day and age when
> the title deeds are online is downright pathetic .
It's the modern day equivalent of the Guild. It restricts entry into the
market and existing members and new members have to pony up a percentage
of their income in order to remain a member.
Then all you need is a little government connivance in order for it to
no longer be a loose trade association but a full on restrictive market.
Ste
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Is it a bad sign to say to the buyer "your solicitor is bothered
because he's under an obligation not only to take reasonable care that
his client's interests are protected, but also to show with evidence
in the future that he took reasonable care if his client disputes the
matter with him later, and it costs him nothing (or even increases the
fees he may charge) to insist that the paperwork be delivered up. In
contrast, I am satisfied that the windows were fitted in accordance
with Fensa, secondly I can show you evidence (the website) that
confirms this, and thirdly it would be of absolutely no consequence
even if they were not. Yet the requirement to produce the paperwork
merely adds cost, delay, and inconvenience for us both, especially at
a time when I can least comfortably bear additional inconvenience."
As I say, I know many people who have had windows fitted by
unregistered fitters (I do it myself occasionally), and no one gives a
toss provided the windows are in fact fitted in accordance with the
building regulations. In fact a relative of mine installed a massive
conservatory about 6 years ago in a previous home of his, and he just
took out an insurance policy costing merely a few tens of pounds,
which covered him fully in the event that not only was the
conservatory in defiance of regulations, but that anyone from the LA
cared enough to actually establish the fact and insist that it be
remedied. The low premium on the policy avers that such claims are
uncommon.
Ken
<2feb1da3-3a7d-44c4...@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Martin Bonner <martin...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
Why can't the buyer insure against it himself?
--
Ken
tim....
"Percy Picacity" <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9E18821D539...@208.90.168.18...
I thought that the issue is who pays for the replacement certificate
And that is most definitely the person who lost it - the seller
tim
Percy Picacity
@mid.individual.net:
Is it unlawful to sell a house without a certificate? If not it
would seem to be a matter for negotiation between the parties.
--
Percy Picacity
Tim Watts
> Is it unlawful to sell a house without a certificate?
Absolutely not. I'm not a lawyer, but I have read up quite a bit on
building regs.
> If not it
> would seem to be a matter for negotiation between the parties.
Yes.
Not forgetting of course that the windows may have been fitted pre 2002
or may have been done by a non FENSA registered person but notified to
Building Control, in the latter case another bit of paper would exist,
being the completion cert.
Big Les Wade
>As I say, I know many people who have had windows fitted by
>unregistered fitters (I do it myself occasionally), and no one gives a
>toss provided the windows are in fact fitted in accordance with the
>building regulations.
Actually no-one cares if the windows are *not* fitted according to the
building regulations. The only thing that matters is whether the
installation is acceptable to the new owner.
Robin
> the market and existing members and new members have to pony up a
> percentage of their income in order to remain a member.
>
> Then all you need is a little government connivance in order for it to
> no longer be a loose trade association but a full on restrictive
> market.
May I say I do rather like that analogy?
May I also suggest it tends to be reinforced by the tendency to rely on
British Standards for statutory (or de facto) regulation? Thence all
the efforts to make legislation more accessible by way of the internet
are frustrated because the relevant British Standard is not just
unavailable online but also often unavailable in public libraries. A
good example is domestic electrical work. Part P of the building
regulations means one can still DIY some electrical work (and all work
with a building notice). But in order to know what is and is not
acceptable work one needs BS7671:2008 which costs it ~£70 and is rarely
available in public libraries. acceptable.
Now is probably not a good time to campaign for free availability online
of all material which is required in order to comply with statutory
requirements (as I think is still the case in some jurisdictions) but I
hope that come the upturn it may be possible to catch the eye of some of
the few in Parliament who still care about such things or perhaps the
Hansard Society.
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com
Fredxx
What's to stop the insurance company going after the fitter for costs plus
any additional work if building control stuck their oar in.
Roland Perry
<5213494a-0717-4e1f...@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, at
13:10:02 on Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>thirdly it would be of absolutely no consequence even if they were not.
The major consequence for the buyer is surely that when he comes to
sell, he will be back in this same awkward position.
--
Roland Perry
tim....
"Percy Picacity" <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote in message
> certificate
>>
>> And that is most definitely the person who lost it - the seller
>>
>> tim
>
> Is it unlawful to sell a house without a certificate?
No, but it will cause an equal problem when the buyer comes to sell
> If not it
> would seem to be a matter for negotiation between the parties.
Obviously. But it is much harder for the seller to say "your problem" when
he item in question is something that he has actually lost (rather then if
he never had it).
Personally, if I were buying from an arrogant so and so who wouldn't take
responsibility for his own mistakes I would wonder how much other trouble he
was going to cause later (like taking things he agreed to leave, not leaving
keys to all the doors etc)
tim
tim....
"Big Les Wade" <L...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:6spQgCC8...@obviously.invalid...
> Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> posted
>>As I say, I know many people who have had windows fitted by unregistered
>>fitters (I do it myself occasionally), and no one gives a toss provided
>>the windows are in fact fitted in accordance with the building
>>regulations.
>
> Actually no-one cares if the windows are *not* fitted according to the
> building regulations. The only thing that matters is whether the
> installation is acceptable to the new owner.
As the new owner will have no idea what a newer new owner will accept why
should he set himself up with a problem for the sake of waiting for the
arrival of a piece of paper now?.
tim
Fredxx
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ClFJg+TV...@perry.co.uk...
Except he will be able to say that he didn't have any windows or doors
fitted. Would you expect every window to have a FENSA certificate?
Roland Perry
Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Fredxx <fre...@spam.com> remarked:
>>>thirdly it would be of absolutely no consequence even if they were not.
>>
>> The major consequence for the buyer is surely that when he comes to sell,
>> he will be back in this same awkward position.
>
>Except he will be able to say that he didn't have any windows or doors
>fitted. Would you expect every window to have a FENSA certificate?
If it appears to be fitted after some cutoff date, maybe some people do.
Just like they routinely ask for Building Regs certificates long after
the council can call for any remedial work to be done.
--
Roland Perry
tim....
But it's a cost, delay and inconvenience that you have brought upon yourself
by not keeping hold of an important document.
Why do you think it is reasonable to make this mistake your buyer's problem?
tim
Fredxx
But that's the rub, the new owner wouldn't be asked to date the installation
of a window, or the date of any major building works, if it was fitted or
completed before he purchased the property. Or at least I've never heard of
it and not aware of any seller questionaires asking the question. BICBW
Roland Perry
>>>Would you expect every window to have a FENSA
>>> certificate?
>>
>> If it appears to be fitted after some cutoff date, maybe some people
>> do.
>> Just like they routinely ask for Building Regs certificates long after
>> the council can call for any remedial work to be done.
>
>But that's the rub, the new owner wouldn't be asked to date the installation
>of a window, or the date of any major building works, if it was fitted or
>completed before he purchased the property. Or at least I've never heard of
>it and not aware of any seller questionaires asking the question. BICBW
I'm selling my house and have received enquiries about the status of a
conservatory which was built about three years before I moved in. While
I have copies of Building Regs signoff (obtained when I bought the
property), I'm completely unsighted on the issue of whether the
conservatory either needed or obtained planning permission.
It would be useful if these two local government activities were linked,
with Building Regs approval conditional upon the thing having 'passed'
the planning process. Or maybe it already is, in which case I'm unsure
why I'm being asked the question.
--
Roland Perry
Big Les Wade
>
>I'm selling my house and have received enquiries about the status of a
>conservatory which was built about three years before I moved in. While
>I have copies of Building Regs signoff (obtained when I bought the
>property), I'm completely unsighted on the issue of whether the
>conservatory either needed or obtained planning permission.
>
All you have to do is reply "I don't know. Nobody has ever mentioned it
before. By all means ask the local authority for copies of PP or BRs,
but I don't have any".
These are the answers I am going to have to give when I sell my house. I
have no idea when the many alterations were done. I don't have building
regulations approvals or planning permissions for any of them - not even
for the original construction of the house. It didn't bother me when I
bought it and I can't imagine anybody worrying about it now.
>It would be useful if these two local government activities were
>linked, with Building Regs approval conditional upon the thing having
>'passed' the planning process. Or maybe it already is, in which case
>I'm unsure why I'm being asked the question.
No, they aren't linked AFAIK.
You're being asked the question because the buyer's solicitor wants to
cover his arse, justify his existence and perhaps surcharge his client.
Roland Perry
Oct 2010, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> posted
>>
>>I'm selling my house and have received enquiries about the status of a
>>conservatory which was built about three years before I moved in.
>>While I have copies of Building Regs signoff (obtained when I bought
>>the property), I'm completely unsighted on the issue of whether the
>>conservatory either needed or obtained planning permission.
>>
>
>All you have to do is reply "I don't know. Nobody has ever mentioned it
>before. By all means ask the local authority for copies of PP or BRs,
>but I don't have any".
I know; but the posting I was replying to seemed to suggest such
questions never arose.
>These are the answers I am going to have to give when I sell my house.
>I have no idea when the many alterations were done. I don't have
>building regulations approvals or planning permissions for any of them
>- not even for the original construction of the house. It didn't bother
>me when I bought it and I can't imagine anybody worrying about it now.
My buyer's lender is holding out for an insurance policy covering what's
equivalent to the PP (from the original landowner) for building the
house 85 years ago. I have decided to pay up (£250-ish) for a quiet
life, but it still grates.
--
Roland Perry
The Todal
If the conservatory should have had planning permission but didn't have it,
what are the chances of the local authority ordering the new owner to
demolish the structure and restore the property to its original condition?
Unless you are fairly sure of your answer, why assume that the solicitor is
looking for a way of charging extra fees to his client?
Clive George
Because he wants the house. That's the only reason why it should be done.
If time/the market is on the buyer's side, then he can push for it to be
the seller's problem. If time/the market is on the seller's side, then
vice-versa.
A couple of years ago it would have been the buyer's problem - seller in
a rising market says "Fine, I've got another buyer for more money". Now,
it's more likely to be the other way round. But for the right house in
the right place, it may not be.
nobody
the buyers solicitor ,but he is now not happy with the format of the
paper .
the re-issues are not A4 as the originals and are half the size and
the paper is thinner ,so he is making further stalling queries as to
the differences of FENSA certificate and wont exchange contracts .
i now have to write to the MANAGER of the FENSA organisation for
confirmation of the document and get an explanation from them as to
why its not the same size as the original and the paper is thinner
quality .
breathtaking stupidity is now rampant .
nobody
disclaims all
liability in the event of non compliance of an installation .'
!!
but wait a minute aren't they supposed to be checking that the
installation conforms to the building regulations ! theyre
not worth the paper they are written on
A.Lee
They are not.
I looked into FENSA registration a couple of years ago.
Virtually anyone can get registration if they pay the fee. How hard is
it to comply with Building Regulations to fit a window? - Not very.
The hard work is done by the window makers, who have to comply with
insulation and strength regs, then you get a bloke in a transit van to
knock out your old windows, and fit new, but being careful to not have
it sitting too close to the brick face.
It isnt hard. Yet I see such a bloody mess around the internal window
frame when I go to peoples houses. When you break off a strip of
plaster, i wouldnt consider a strip of plastic trim, stuck crudely
around the window to be acceptable, yet these 'registered' fitters seem
to think it is alright.
Sure, there must be some good ones around, but being FENSA registered
means virtually nothing as regards to quality, just that they've paid
the £250ish fee each year.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
martin
This sounds like he is stalling. If you have a second buyer lined up I'd
be talking to him about now.
>
A.Lee
The Solicitor is being a prize tit.
Self-certified electrical forms are available in A4 books of 10, or they
can be downloaded and printed out yourself. I print mine myself onto A4,
as it is the cheapest paper.
Nowhere does it say these must be A4 on 100gsm paper (for example).
I'm sure the same must apply to the FENSA certificates - either buy a
pack, or print them yourself.
What matters on these forms are that the relevant boxes are ticked, the
address is put in correctly, as well as a description of work carried
out, and a legible signature/details of the fitter/fitting company,
along with their registration number (if available).
If it is on pink or yellow A5 paper,it makes no difference to the
certification of that installation.
Richard Head
> But it's a cost, delay and inconvenience that you have brought upon
> yourself
> by not keeping hold of an important document.
>
> Why do you think it is reasonable to make this mistake your buyer's
> problem?
>
> tim
It seems to be a modern disease, the main symptom of which is to deny
responsibility for one's actions and to blame other people for one's own
mistakes.
BartC
news:1jqrwij.187glky1ntnw5cN%alan@darkroom.+.com...
> nobody <xis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I looked into FENSA registration a couple of years ago.
> Virtually anyone can get registration if they pay the fee. How hard is
> it to comply with Building Regulations to fit a window? - Not very.
> The hard work is done by the window makers, who have to comply with
> insulation and strength regs, then you get a bloke in a transit van to
> knock out your old windows, and fit new, but being careful to not have
> it sitting too close to the brick face.
> It isnt hard. Yet I see such a bloody mess around the internal window
> frame when I go to peoples houses. When you break off a strip of
> plaster, i wouldnt consider a strip of plastic trim, stuck crudely
> around the window to be acceptable, yet these 'registered' fitters seem
> to think it is alright.
When they did my kitchen window, they knocked out a big chunk of brick
around the frame.
Instead of making good, they were just going to fit extra-wide plastic trim
to cover it!
When I said I would fill it myself, they then decided to do it properly.
--
Bartc
GB
Don't! Tell your buyer to sort it out with their solicitor. Give an
ultimatum that they exchange by <a date soon> or you are pulling out.
BTW, you haven't taken your house off the market yet? You are still
marketing it right up to exchange?
--
Murphy's ultimate law is that if something that could go wrong doesn't,
it turns out that it would have been better if it had gone wrong.
tim....
That's not going to work for things which are "permitted developments"
unless councils start to charge for certificates for same
tim
tim....
"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:8idl6k...@mid.individual.net...
I agree. I think that it is extremely unlikely that the buyer's sol is
asking questions of the seller so that he can charge a fee for taking some
action based upon the answer
tim
Percy Picacity
AFAIK none, after 4 years or so. Except perhaps in some special
areas or properties.
--
Percy Picacity
Ste
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Because the insurance company is not insuring the fitter or the
quality of work. It is insuring the policyholder from any expenses
incurred by the LA finding out that the windows are not to regulation.
Ste
>
> I looked into FENSA registration a couple of years ago.
> Virtually anyone can get registration if they pay the fee. How hard is
> it to comply with Building Regulations to fit a window? - Not very.
> The hard work is done by the window makers, who have to comply with
> insulation and strength regs, then you get a bloke in a transit van to
> knock out your old windows, and fit new, but being careful to not have
> it sitting too close to the brick face.
Quite true.
> It isnt hard. Yet I see such a bloody mess around the internal window
> frame when I go to peoples houses. When you break off a strip of
> plaster, i wouldnt consider a strip of plastic trim, stuck crudely
> around the window to be acceptable, yet these 'registered' fitters seem
> to think it is alright.
It is virtually unheard of for window fitters to make good by
replastering, unless you specifically ask for it to be done and pay
for the extra work accordingly. Most people, faced with the prospect
of redecorating, are quite content to have plastic trim applied.
> Sure, there must be some good ones around, but being FENSA registered
> means virtually nothing as regards to quality, just that they've paid
> the £250ish fee each year.
Indeed.
Tim Watts
> Because the insurance company is not insuring the fitter or the
> quality of work. It is insuring the policyholder from any expenses
> incurred by the LA finding out that the windows are not to regulation.
Which (without disagreeing with anything you say) is a complete nonsense
once the limitation period for action has passed.
cf the earlier post about the "possibly unauthorised 85 year (or
whatever) house build).
This sort of nonsense will pervade, or dare I say, get worse unless
people start refusing to play along...
Tim Watts
> On 22 Oct, 17:15, a...@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
>>
>> I looked into FENSA registration a couple of years ago.
>> Virtually anyone can get registration if they pay the fee. How hard is
>> it to comply with Building Regulations to fit a window? - Not very.
>> The hard work is done by the window makers, who have to comply with
>> insulation and strength regs, then you get a bloke in a transit van to
>> knock out your old windows, and fit new, but being careful to not have
>> it sitting too close to the brick face.
>
> Quite true.
Having fitted 3 such windows in the last year (under building control I
might add - but only because I had a BNA open anyway I might also add!)
it is quite hard to get the frame fit wrong - other than actually not
fix it at all bar a couple of squirts of expanding foam.
I have very little time for the notion of Building Regs on windows,
except for two aspects which occur to a fraction of all windows
installations and which are not related to Part L:
1) That they should meet fire regs where necessary - ie have opening
egress windows a fireman can fit through as stipulated in Part B where
required (some rooms with inadequate means of escape).
2) Part A - structural integrity - eg a bay window where the frame takes
the load above it.
Those are sensible and proper. When neither apply, it is a waste of BCO
time to be pratting around looking at them - a view shared by a BCO I know.
>
>
>> It isnt hard. Yet I see such a bloody mess around the internal window
>> frame when I go to peoples houses. When you break off a strip of
>> plaster, i wouldnt consider a strip of plastic trim, stuck crudely
>> around the window to be acceptable, yet these 'registered' fitters seem
>> to think it is alright.
>
> It is virtually unheard of for window fitters to make good by
> replastering, unless you specifically ask for it to be done and pay
> for the extra work accordingly. Most people, faced with the prospect
> of redecorating, are quite content to have plastic trim applied.
>
Absolutely - this is the method I have seen done professionally. I
replastered mine...
>
>> Sure, there must be some good ones around, but being FENSA registered
>> means virtually nothing as regards to quality, just that they've paid
>> the £250ish fee each year.
>
> Indeed.
Like many other schemes.
Roland Perry
2010, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>> It would be useful if these two local government activities were linked,
>> with Building Regs approval conditional upon the thing having 'passed' the
>> planning process.
>
>That's not going to work for things which are "permitted developments"
>unless councils start to charge for certificates for same
I'm sure I paid a fee to get building control involved in inspecting my
loft conversion. All I'm asking for is that the subsequent certificate
can also be deemed to indicate that everything was OK from the PP point
of view as well (PP not required, but we did ask first).
--
Roland Perry
tim....
Surely it's also against the costs of putting it right.
Compared with the costs of complete replacement if that's the only way that
any fault can be rectified, the LA's investigation costs are going to be so
tiny that any sensible person would happily "self insure" that risk.
And I know that the insurance costs are small, but that's because the risk
of investigation is tiny not because the resultant expense of an
investigation is tiny
tim
tim....
"Tim Watts" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:i9t3eg$ita$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
On 22/10/10 21:40, Ste wrote:
> On 22 Oct, 17:15, a...@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
>>
>> I looked into FENSA registration a couple of years ago.
>> Virtually anyone can get registration if they pay the fee. How hard is
>> it to comply with Building Regulations to fit a window? - Not very.
>> The hard work is done by the window makers, who have to comply with
>> insulation and strength regs, then you get a bloke in a transit van to
>> knock out your old windows, and fit new, but being careful to not have
>> it sitting too close to the brick face.
>
> Quite true.
Having fitted 3 such windows in the last year (under building control I
might add - but only because I had a BNA open anyway I might also add!)
it is quite hard to get the frame fit wrong - other than actually not
fix it at all bar a couple of squirts of expanding foam.
I have very little time for the notion of Building Regs on windows,
except for two aspects which occur to a fraction of all windows
installations and which are not related to Part L:
1) That they should meet fire regs where necessary - ie have opening
egress windows a fireman can fit through as stipulated in Part B where
required (some rooms with inadequate means of escape).
2) Part A - structural integrity - eg a bay window where the frame takes
the load above it.
Those are sensible and proper. When neither apply, it is a waste of BCO
time to be pratting around looking at them - a view shared by a BCO I know.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that most would agree with you. But where I disagree is with the
(implication) that these reasons are rare.
IME of having windows fitted, one (or both) of the above has been the case
in 4 out of 4 houses.
Either, I've been very unlucky or it is the norm, not the exception, to have
to inspect installations for these reasons.
tim.
Fredxx
"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dabb2999-6d85-4b4d...@t1g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
I agree, but that's also my point. What's preventing the LA from insisting
that the owner replaces the windows with ones that do conform at his own
expense?
Ste
Yes, that's what I meant by "expenses incurred by the LA finding out".
> Compared with the costs of complete replacement if that's the only way that
> any fault can be rectified, the LA's investigation costs are going to be so
> tiny that any sensible person would happily "self insure" that risk.
>
> And I know that the insurance costs are small, but that's because the risk
> of investigation is tiny not because the resultant expense of an
> investigation is tiny
My reasoning exactly.
Ste
That is *exactly* what the LA will demand. The insurance policy
underwrites the risk of the LA finding out (and, necessarily,
demanding that the works be put right).
tim....
BC and Planning are two different functions. They don't talk to each other
(professionally) and they don't do each other's work
tim
Roland Perry
2010, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>BC and Planning are two different functions. They don't talk to each other
>(professionally) and they don't do each other's work
It's a strange old world, when a council's BC officials are able to sign
off a building which requires, but didn't obtain, planning permission,
from that same council. As a minimum I'm asking that the BC certificate
should be countersigned by the people in the planning department to say
that things are also in order from a planning point of view.
--
Roland Perry
tim....
> In message <8ig1fh...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:10:47 on Sat, 23 Oct
> 2010, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>BC and Planning are two different functions. They don't talk to each
>>other
>>(professionally) and they don't do each other's work
>
> It's a strange old world, when a council's BC officials are able to sign
> off a building which requires, but didn't obtain, planning permission,
Maybe it is, but that's how it works.
It works the other way too. Sometimes it is possible to get planning
permission to build a building which isn't feasible from a BC pov.
> from that same council. As a minimum I'm asking that the BC certificate
> should be countersigned by the people in the planning department to say
> that things are also in order from a planning point of view.
I know what you are asking. But my point is that you aren't going to get
this to happen unless someone puts in a process of charging you for doing
it. That's because in order to achieve it, the planning department are
going to have to "investigate" the validity of the claim that it is a
permitted development (and sometimes this answer isn't obvious).
tim
Big Les Wade
But only if the work was done less than one year ago. After that, the LA
cannot issue a notice. And it has essentially no powers to
retrospectively enforce BRs; the only exception being the fabled High
Court injunction, which no LA would ever resort to.
--
Les
Anyone regularly attending or organising protests should expect to be of
interest to the state.
John Briggs
> In message <8ig1fh...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:10:47 on Sat, 23 Oct
> 2010, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>> BC and Planning are two different functions. They don't talk to each
>> other
>> (professionally) and they don't do each other's work
>
> It's a strange old world, when a council's BC officials are able to sign
> off a building which requires, but didn't obtain, planning permission,
> from that same council.
And I would say that, in practice, that would never happen. People will
now point to examples of BC signing off buldings or alterations that are
not fully in accordance with the planning permission - but that is not
the same thing. There may also be example of extensions etc which
subsequently require retrospective planning permission (usually because
of subsequent extensions) - but again that is not the same thing.
--
John Briggs
m...@privacy.net
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> It's a strange old world, when a council's BC officials are able to sign
> off a building which requires, but didn't obtain, planning permission,
> from that same council. As a minimum I'm asking that the BC certificate
> should be countersigned by the people in the planning department to say
> that things are also in order from a planning point of view.
When I built my two extensions (admittedly 20odd years ago) the council BR
department wouldn't consider the plans until PP had been obtained. This
sounds a good strategy. I wonder if it has changed?
--
BD
Change lycos to yahoo to reply
Roland Perry
2010, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>As a minimum I'm asking that the BC certificate
>> should be countersigned by the people in the planning department to say
>> that things are also in order from a planning point of view.
>
>I know what you are asking. But my point is that you aren't going to get
>this to happen unless someone puts in a process of charging you for doing
>it. That's because in order to achieve it, the planning department are
>going to have to "investigate" the validity of the claim that it is a
>permitted development (and sometimes this answer isn't obvious).
How does that correlate with Mt Briggs's recent answer, and the current
scheme where the council often seems to be able to tell you that PP
isn't required, but without a costly "investigation".
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 2010, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>> It's a strange old world, when a council's BC officials are able to sign
>> off a building which requires, but didn't obtain, planning permission,
>> from that same council.
>
>And I would say that, in practice, that would never happen.
So why can't this be officially recognised, and subsequent buyers
therefore relieved of the need to make separate enquiries about the two
aspects?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 2010, m...@privacy.net remarked:
>>As a minimum I'm asking that the BC certificate
>> should be countersigned by the people in the planning department to say
>> that things are also in order from a planning point of view.
>
>When I built my two extensions (admittedly 20odd years ago) the council BR
>department wouldn't consider the plans until PP had been obtained. This
>sounds a good strategy. I wonder if it has changed?
The difference is probably those extensions which don't need PP, leaving
the vendor later trying to prove a negative. Whereas what I'm asking for
is the 'lack of need' to be annotated at the time, on the BC
certificate.
--
Roland Perry
Lordgnome
It always amazes me that so much fuss is made of minor issues when a
property is exchanged. We lived in a very old terraced house in Wareham
which had a "flying freehold" i.e. the neighbour's chimney passed through
the attic room and there was a bit of space where you could walk round this
and over next door's bedroom. This had never caused a problem for centuries,
but it was not clearly shown on the deeds.
When we sold it, the buyer's solicitor made a fuss with the result that they
later blocked off that bit of room with a plaster wall, achieving nothing
but losing themselves a bit of attic space!
Les.
Roland Perry
Sun, 24 Oct 2010, Lordgnome <l...@nospam.null> remarked:
>It always amazes me that so much fuss is made of minor issues when a
>property is exchanged. We lived in a very old terraced house in Wareham
>which had a "flying freehold" i.e. the neighbour's chimney passed through
>the attic room and there was a bit of space where you could walk round this
>and over next door's bedroom. This had never caused a problem for centuries,
>but it was not clearly shown on the deeds.
>When we sold it, the buyer's solicitor made a fuss with the result that they
>later blocked off that bit of room with a plaster wall, achieving nothing
>but losing themselves a bit of attic space!
I suppose the problems start if that neighbour wants to remove the
chimney through the attic (because they've removed it lower down).
Although anything happening even on a normal party wall is going to be a
potential pitfall.
It's important to get the deeds right, though. I had a detached house
where the four foot gap between my house and next door was entirely
owned by next door, as was the strip of back garden aligned with it.
This was all very obvious from the arrangement of fences and gates.
But oddly, the strip of front garden aligned with the gap was mine! The
wiggle on the thumbnail sketch on the deeds was just visible, as was
(during my time anyway) the division between the two open plan front
gardens, but that might not always be the case.
--
Roland Perry
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
I'm not sure how this plan of yours would work. What threshold would
you set for getting Development Control involved as well as BC. A
replacement glazing unit?
Would this be a way of making BC more expensive or a cheap way of
getting a Lawful Development Certificate without all the trouble of
asking the neighbours?
Roland Perry
Oct 2010, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <r.moss-...@computer.org> remarked:
>>>> As a minimum I'm asking that the BC certificate
>>>> should be countersigned by the people in the planning department to say
>>>> that things are also in order from a planning point of view.
>>>
>>> When I built my two extensions (admittedly 20odd years ago) the
>>> council BR
>>> department wouldn't consider the plans until PP had been obtained. This
>>> sounds a good strategy. I wonder if it has changed?
>>
>> The difference is probably those extensions which don't need PP, leaving
>> the vendor later trying to prove a negative. Whereas what I'm asking for
>> is the 'lack of need' to be annotated at the time, on the BC certificate.
>
>I'm not sure how this plan of yours would work. What threshold would
>you set for getting Development Control involved as well as BC. A
>replacement glazing unit?
If the process ends up with a Building Regs certificate, that
certificate would also be proof that the planning process had been
complied with.
>Would this be a way of making BC more expensive or a cheap way of
>getting a Lawful Development Certificate without all the trouble of
>asking the neighbours?
It's not intended to be a way to short-circuit the planning process,
which would happen in parallel as now.
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
> Actually no-one cares if the windows are *not* fitted according to the
> building regulations. The only thing that matters is whether the
> installation is acceptable to the new owner.
...bearing in mind that the new owner might actually be a bank or
building society, and might thus be more bothered than an individual
who either believes they're good enough or is willing to take on the
risk of having to replace them if there are problems with them.
Neil
R. Mark Clayton
"nobody" <xis...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ab11f96-a110-451d...@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> although it shows up on the Fensa.org site when the postcode is
> punched in with the house number thats not good enough for them they
> want the worthless piece of paper as well.
> a replacement is ordered but that could take 10 days as they churn out
> 1000s of these worthless pieces of thick paper and it has to take its
> turn.
> meanwhile the solicitor and lender wont move on the exchange .
> what a joke all over this pathetic piece of useless bum paper .
> who started this neat load of twaddle ?
> the window has a guarantee from the window installer who is a FENSA
> member for decades .
>
> its not as if they check the building for a correct installation and
> then issue the certificate ,oh no ,they just send them out willy nilly
> a few weeks after the window replacement .
>
> God help anyone who does any work on their property ,like doing a
> window job themselves .
> conveyancing has always been bad but now its a whole lot worse ,due to
> all the latest regulations .
> you can see a time coming in the future where it will become almost
> impossible to sell a house as they can throw a spanner in the works to
> stall the conveyancing for months and years if they want.
>
> rip off Britain again
>
>
>
tim....
"R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:raSdnQY2EJMfglrR...@bt.com...
> Your buyer is stalling and looking for ways to delay or withdraw
> altogether.
why does the buyer need an excuse to do this?
tim
Martin Bonner
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@btinternet.com> wrote in messagenews:raSdnQY2EJMfglrR...@bt.com...
>
> > Your buyer is stalling and looking for ways to delay or withdraw
> > altogether.
>
> why does the buyer need an excuse to do this?
They need an excuse to delay (otherwise the OP puts his house back on
the market). Some people prefer having an excuse to withdraw for
psychological reasons.