torre

Cottingham vs Attey Bower & Jones is one reason conveyancers usually push for indemnity policies (as the conveyancer was held liable for £40,000 of damages) Well a quick search throws up this enforcement action in respect of a loft conversion after 12 years, again with costs in the region of £40k, so I'll stick with my description of 'low risk' rather than 'no risk'. There's simply no good reason not to seek cover from the vendor. Of course, none of this internet point scoring should distract that in the big picture, lack of building regs approval is more likely to highlight a risk of work done poorly than a risk of legal action.

@Roger440 I think we've both made the points that 1/ the risk is low, 2/ the cover is cheap and 3/ that it doesn't cover defective work. Isn't the only point of difference that one of us would ask for the cheap policy and the other wouldn't bother?

So the inspection chamber and pipe were both in place before the neighbour bought the property? As the chamber is unadopted I'd start by having a conversation with the neighbour, outlining this was put in by the builder ready for connecting to your property and letting them know you want to apply to connect to it. Be clear that after adoption the water company will be responsible for any problem with the chamber or the sewer, and that while you don't expect any work on their property is needed, you'd reinstate/compensate if it is. Hopefully the neighbour will be reasonable. One thing I've bumped into is that adoption may limit what cover is allowed - our water company wouldn't adopt unless we swapped ours from a recessed one you could lay blocks into for a flat cover that's not so aesthetically pleasing. Water company may well want you to install a storm attenuation tank even if they do allow rainwater into the sewer

Typically it's mortgage lenders who care, which may or may not apply in @WhiskyInTheJar's case, but may apply when they in turn need to sell. Lenders need to cover the small but tangible risk of enforcement action requiring works that devalue the property (and it's worth buyers asking for the same) The risks are low ( especially this example) but say next door make a large subsidence claim and it turns out your uninspected extension foundations undermined them then enforcement action would likely follow.

Bit late to this but I think I'd have preferred to seat the rafter on the 30-35mm you already have and supplement that with some substantial metal connectors. That would keep the plane of the roof flat. A company like Simpsons can probably suggest a connector (I joist rafters can be attached without any birds mouth after all) Won't raising the rafters at one end like this give you trouble later as there'll be a bit of a bow on your roof battens - hopefully not enough to stop individual slates sitting flat. With what you have, I'd still want a better mechanical connection between rafter and wall plate and would nail not screw (unless they're structural timberlok or something) for more shear strength. You need to be a bit careful you're not fixing your rafters mostly to the thin timber and leaving your wall straps holding down the wall plate below it, but not so much holding down the roof itself.

I agree this is the more likely explanation. Tell your conveyancer you don't think that's sufficient proof and you require a copy of the completion certificate, or (given it's some time ago) an indemnity policy from the vendor. These are cheap and easy for the vendor to obtain (but only cover you against enforcement action, not defective work). If your conveyancer is reluctant then ask if they'll indemnity you themselves based on having given advice - I'm pretty sure they won't.

Warranty providers now want to see compliance with ventilation for solar. For example NHBC guidance changed last year to treat in roof solar as impermeable. If you do want to full fill below the membrane you'd need to batten above for ventilation. Any single manufacturer could certify their system doesn't need ventilation (not sure any do though) but I don't think you'll get that assurance for warranty fitting trays and separate panels.

While I'd happily carry out a simple fix, I'd want to bring this to the attention of the developer anyway as it's sloppy, dangerous and unlikely to be the only example. The live and neutral visible at the back should have their outer sheath on too outside the fitting shouldn't they?

It might be worth asking Fakro themselves about flashings. Alternatively might their combination windows be an option for you? The sloped window meets a vertical directly at that junction. Velux do similar.

For a ground level patio I'm not sure they'd be much better than tile pedestals, which are probably quite a bit cheaper.

Maybe you could suggest to highways (and your local councillor) that this is an opportunity to solve an accessibility issue for these existing properties too? Is there's room for a convenient collection point for multiple bins ?

Have you asked them what about the project makes them unwilling? How have you determined they're incapable? I'd try and answer those questions before shopping around too much further or burning bridges with anyone already approached.

I'm surprised this hasn't come up at an earlier stage! No personal experience of piling but if you're only 4m away then I think it's likely the party wall 6m rule @SteamyTea linked will apply as you'll presumably be piling quite a lot deeper than the bottom of their foundations. In your case say they've a 1m strip foundation and you're piling deeper than 5m then PWA will apply. Bear in mind that you, not the piling company, will be liable to your neighbour for any damage to next door when taking the pilers advice. Have you already spoken to the neighbour at all about your piling?

Alternative to the chalk line is a membrane with a printed grid

I like the idea of a shadow gap, but getting the detailing right looks tricky!