All Activity

5% on a conversion. One big advantage of that is that the builder can own or hire equipment and it falls within he one invoice. VAT reclaims do not otherwise allow tool hire or purchase. But otherwise...NO. There is nothing to stop you buying materials, and the only downsides might be if you get it late, or if there is a problem with quantities/ waste.

Although I'm qualified I still engage expert SEs because I can't keep up to speed on all aspects. I might 'know' that something will work but have lost the calculating skills and haven't kept up with the changes to codes. It is normally prudent to engage a local practice because they know the ground, the local preferences, and are available for site visits. Equally an Engineer doesn't usually want work far from home, for the same reasons. That can change if the work is purely academic as in the analysis of a beam or truss. But that will be an unuusual case. So we can rest assured that Chartered Engineers are not going to use BH to tout for business, and free advice should normally be received as well intended and without any strings .... with the unstated subscript that the project has not been visited or examined in detail and no liability can be inferred. Which leads me to emphasise that a concerned owner might not be noticing the underlying problem or cause*, and a site inspection is recommended in mot instances. *That's why we ask so many questions which can annoy some correspondents who simply want an easy answer. Gus is not touting for business, but his advice is rounded and pragmatic and up to date.

No. Except the builder shouldn't be charging you vat anyway, if he is installing the parts he buys. His service to you should be free of VAT.for goods and service. Trust us nothing to do with the subject.

I am not a new user at all. I registered with the site nearly 5 years ago but lived abroad. I am now trying to build a new house back in the UK. The thing I am particularly careful about is spending £000's on 'consultants' who have no formal qualifications but tell me I have to use their services because of statements in governance literature that are taken out of context. Producing a 'whois' to suggest that something may be underhand is laughable. Also, if you know your about domains the creation date is the date a registration is made at a specific registrar, which may have been registered elsewhere before. The 'whois' says very little of any value. However, I think this is new software but THERM is old software are horrendous and the age of the software is not the issue it seems to be more of 'I don't know it so here be dragons' It's clear that rather than try to be positive or help it is easier to be petty and snide and dismiss things. No wonder we all feel we are in the shitter. On a different note I spent time today talking to both Elmhust and Stroma about SAP in general and this subject in particular. Elmhurst are quite clear that the competent person is not a mandated or easy to determine individual. They do run an psi-value accreditation course so suggest that being a member of that helps give a stamp but also acknowledged that being on that register is in no way required. I also asked whether a report could be turned down because it was based on software that was not known. The answer is a very clear no. It is the job of the assessor to make sure that the SAP requirements as they pertain to building regulations allow the generation of a BREL report to Building Control. A SAP assessor is not obliged to be an expert in any field that generates number for SAP. He sighted solar, heating, mvhr as examples although these are governed by 'competent' person schemes. The chap from Stroma said that using defaults should be the backstop not the default implying that using defaults is essentially failing to do the work as an assessor if other values in any area covered by SAP are provided by the client.

Just did a Google search Bi-directional RCBOs became officially mandated for domestic installations with generating sources on July 31, 2024, following the introduction of BS 7671:2018+A3:2024 (Amendment 3). Manufacturers began releasing compliant domestic hardware around early-to-mid 2024. So lots and lots of installs done prior to that date, so doubt they were retrofitted. Our install was done in 2021 way before bi directional were available.

I feel at the eaves is a sensible approach, but it does depend on the rest of the construction. What are you going to do at the heads of the windows? In my mind, the only real risk of fire getting behind the external cladding is from an internal fire escaping through an open window (hence why they like to see them at the heads of windows, for a ventilated cavity). Your external walls presumably have a 30 min fire rating on the inside?

Apologies to you @retnuhnibor if I'm mistaken but yeah, it feels a bit off when a new user starts posting and referencing a specialist site that they've 'found' - especially one that was only created a few weeks ago... ``` Domain Name: psiclops.io Registry Domain ID: REDACTED Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.namecheap.com Registrar URL: https://www.namecheap.com/ Updated Date: 2026-06-23T06:32:03Z Creation Date: 2026-06-18T06:31:27Z ```

+1. I might even push the boat out a bit and add an isolator. It’s only money.

I naively assumed (isn’t that just so dangerous) that anyone exporting would have bi-directional doberries. The dude who fitted our solar PV/inverter/battery was most precise about what we needed where so I was all ready to go through it with our sparky who before I opened my mouth told me exactly the same thing, It made me think that everyone else knew all that and I was the only dunce lol.

We've had a leak underneath an upstairs shower for a while now. I've finally gotten around to opening up the ceiling underneath and having a look. There's a 135 deg, 1 1/2" BSP to 40 mm compression elbow coming straight off the 1 1/2" BSP outlet from the shower waste. Based on the muck around it and how clean everything else was, it's clear that's the source of the leak. The BSP nut was very loose - I had to turn it nearly two turns to tighten it up. I hand tightened it up as firmly as I could and tested: immediate leak. Dismantled and pulled out hair, gunk, etc from the shower waste outlet, then cleaned up the fitting and connections as best I could. Installed again, firmly hand-tightened everything, tested: immediate leak at BSP joint. What would be your next step? My first thought is that the rubber washer's hardened over time, so replace that and see what happens. Anything else to look out for? Should I go for the same square section washer? @Nickfromwales, tagging you in for visibility. Thanks.

>>> I raised the subject of "automatic fire suppression". Would be interested to hear about that. FYI, just spoke to Envirograf - they asked what the BCO said and actually agreed with him ... but said that for belt-and-braces a strip under the eaves and gables and at the bottom of the cladding was good. Also the windows etc. But then they are selling the stuff. 😀 p.s. Envirograf said there was a v good illustration on the NHBC website. Envirograf couldn't / wouldn't send me a link or copy. And I can't find it. Think I'm going with a strip at the top of the cladding only. >>> External cavity measures are borderline irrelevant for a regular domestic dwelling of 1 or 2 stories, in my own opinion. Might depend on how generally flammable the build is, but kind of agree - esp. as we're one storey and all rooms except bathrooms have a door to the outside.

You can disassemble the top of the white elbow, reclaim all the internals and reconstruct, then just push a fresh bit of copper into it. Fingertip of fairy liquid to lube the rubber and pipe before assembly will let it all pop back in with ease. Or, for insurance, just cut the pipe 100mm above the elbow and use 1x straight connector > copper > tap.

The construction drawing have been architected and had a first pass with the structural engineer - it is an engineered balloon timber frame that will be site constructed. Psiclops is not tool to determine buildability but to look at the construction from a thermal physics perspective. I'm not sure what you are alluding to with respect to missing elements from the drawing as these are junction details at the junction. This is a California corner, which requires 3 timber sections and has been looked at by the SE. The wall itself clearly had more I-Joists studs in it (every 400mm) but these are not required as part of the thermal modelling and are represented thermally by the compound I-Joist wall. This is a valid way to do the wall from a thermal perspective. Psiclops takes a DXF and converts this into 'drawing' much like THERM and Flixio do. This is then given materials and boundary conditions. It's not Psiclops that is missing the detail, if is is missing, it will be my DXF. If you can tell me what your concerns are, either with the wall or with the model that would really help but your comments are somewhat vague. I'm also still not sure if your critique is about my drawing or Psiclops. I still feel, with your old cap on, you are trying to say you would be applying junction defaults but with you old cap on you would have to give a detailed rational for that and it still feels it's just something that unfamiliar to you. I have attached another image which is probably closer to what you are alluding to. The psi-value of this is 0.001 w/mK different

Surely the easiest would be to simply cut the 15mm polypipe in the middle and with 2 straight through push fit connectors add in a length of 15mm polypipe to bring the tap up to the required height. That way you leave both connections as they are and you're much less likely to mess one up and start on a series of trips to the nearest big shed to get more bits. EDIT - it won't look like a bodge as you're going to cover it all in insulation 😉

He's definitely one of the good guys

Replace with copper? Probably not so hard.

I'm trying to understand the relationship between getting a decent trade discount and then VAT reclaim on invoices in my name. Is it sensible to open a bank account with dual card access for myself and my builder/Project manager (whom I completely trust). My thought process is he can use his trade account to purchase with a discount but ask for VAT receipts to be made out to my name and address to ensure VAT reclaim. That way I keep a handle of current cash balance and outgoing from my account. Is this allowed and best practice Thanks

probably like the polyplumb stuff with a toothed metal retaining ring. Can only really remove them by sliding back over down the pipe or cutting them off.

I can confirm that the advice I got from Gus was helpful, and the more so because he does it for a living. I'm sure the administrators are well able to spot when people are on the forum motivated by commercial interest rather than collaboration.

And the quote from Jean-Paul Junkers - "Every politician knows what they should do. What they don't know is how to get elected again afterwards".

Not sure why I ended up reading the Toolstation reviews, but if you are attempting something @ProDave just be aware that one of the reviews says "Designed for single use so not ideal. Can be disassembled to enable reuse with a little gentle persuasion." Might be wise to use the coupler approach if you do anything rather than try to disassemble the elbow...

I liked someone's advice in a prev discussion. Buy a German or German approved one. The quality will be good and safety thought through.

Smear in clear silicone is what nhbc inspectors look for below sinks where waste cut into shelf.

Again, similar but no flats. Unbranded so fits with cheap builders: https://www.toolstation.com/elbow/p46696?

This brand, Whitespeed looks like it: https://www.static-caravan-spares.co.uk/15mm-elbow-connector-white