jack

Unfortunately, the law doesn't provide an option for taking personal circumstances into account. The person you're corresponding with has a flowchart in front of them, and they've followed the boxes to get to this point. If there isn't an "are there mitigating circumstances?" box, that's the end of it. The whole system is utterly disgusting. There was an article about it in the last Private Eye where Waverley Council sent someone a £67k bill after they got planning permission, demolished an old extension, and replaced it with a new one. The size of the extension meant that CIL shouldn't have been triggered, but the council is insisting that without having applied for the waiver before commencing the work, the payment is due and there's nothing they can/will do about it after the fact.

One way to think about whether labour is "in the course of construction" is to consider whether the result of that labour is a physical change that brings the building closer to completion. Demolition and digging foundations clearly satisfy that test, for example, as does first fix wiring even if the electrician didn't supply materials. In your example, a surveyer setting out foundations does not result in a physical change in the real world. Any stakes or markers are temporary indicators of locations. That doesn't result in a physical change that brings the building closer to completetion, and hence VAT is payable. However, if you paid a surveyer to set out the foundations and to dig the trenches, and he invoiced you for both on the same invoice, that would be zero-rated. Considering whether you're paying for professional services is a reasonable shorthand, but I believe it's easier to think about it in terms of construction. There are three basic principles at work: 1. An invoice solely for labour that is "in the course of construction" is zero-rated (and hence an invoice solely for labour that is not "in the course of construction" should include full VAT). 2. An invoice solely for materials is not zero-rated at source, but the VAT can be reclaimed after the building is complete. 3. An invoice only has a single VAT rate, which is set by the lowest-rated item on the invoice. As such, the whole of an invoice that includes an item for labour that is "in the course of construction" is zero-rated, even if it also include materials, hire charges, and professional services (eg, design work or engineering calculations) that would not be zero-rated if invoiced alone. Obviously these other items also need to be related to the building.

While services (without supply of goods) are generally not zero-rated, labour without supply is still zero-rated as long as it is work done "in the course of construction". An electrican should zero-rate installation even if they didn't supply what's being installed. This is why "demolishing existing buildings and preparing the site" (see below) is zero-rated even if no materials are supplied, but structural engineering services are not. https://www.gov.uk/vat-builders/new-homes: The "in the course of construction" phrase above is a hyperlink on the website, which takes you to: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/buildings-and-construction-vat-notice-708#are-my-services-made-in-the-course-of-the-construction-of-the-building From the same link:

Someone posted about a problem claiming for a home automation system that controlled their lights. I believe it was rejected because it controlled other things that weren't allowed. One way around that might be to see if the supplier will word the invoice appropriately. Or maybe the invoice could be itemised in such a way that it's clear what components solely relate to claimable items (e.g., mains dimmers). We did. We regularly bought non-claimable items at the same time as claimable items, so I marked up each invoice/receipt in pencil showing how I'd removed the non-claimable item.

Welcome. A good start would be to browse our member blogs, available from the menu at the top of the landing page. You may find people who've done things similar to what you're considering.

Either the battens/tiles are at a slight angle, or the roof itself dips towards the dormer. Difficult to say from this angle, but the fact that it levels out again towards the bottom suggests it's the roof sloping/bending rather than the battens not being straight. Depending on how the dormer is supported, perhaps its weight has caused the roof to sag a little towards the middle? That would explain the symmetric nature of the slope either side of the dormer. Whatever's causing the apparent angle, I suspect the scaffolding rails visually emphasise it. I reckon it'll be a lot less obvious once the scaffolding is down.

@luappy13, is this something you can comment on?

I think it's nice to try designing it in. We did that with horizontal cladding, which mostly worked. We also did it with brick slips, and that worked well. That said, there's always going to be some variance in dimensions of the cladding you buy, so it might not be possible to convert your perfect cladding scheme into the real world. The vertical returns into these windows will presumably have some sort of battening to form a cavity behind. It might be easier to shim out the battening so the reveal positions match the cladding either side of the window.

We use our garage as a gym. It has the same 300 mm of insulation under the slab as the rest of the house, and is insulated to slightly better than building regs standard. The main thermal weaknesses are airtightness (garage door and rear access door) and the garage door itself (insulated, but obviously not as much as a decent door, let alone a wall). We hemmed and hawed about adding UFH and wish we had now. It's bloody freezing using it on cold winter mornings! I'd only have run it intermittently during the coldest weather to keep the floor temperature a few degrees higher than it gets now, so it really wouldn't have used much energy. Absolutely not! We have polished concrete floors downstairs and they keep things very comfortable with the underfloor cooling on during runs of hot weather (all covered by excess solar). I really wish we'd done the same upstairs. If doing it again, I'd probably have tile with UFH upstairs. Use rugs during winter to keep feet off tiles, and remove the rugs in summer so the underfloor cooling can do its thing.

Necrothreadia!

I have the same, but we decided to retrofit electric heaters in our bathrooms a few years after we moved in. It wasn't like they were freezing, but stepping out of the shower onto unheated tiles wasn't very pleasant in the depths of winter. I also found that a bit more heat reduced the amount of condensation we were getting when it was cold. If I were doing it again I'd absolutely have gone for some form of UFH in the bathrooms. Some have used electric mats under tiling to good effect. The rest of the upstairs is fine unheated.

100% agree. It's been mild and sunny here recently. Left alone, the house starts slowly heating up over a few days. However, it's very cool overnight, so every morning I open up some windows to allow cross-ventilation upstairs and down. Even on boost and with summer bypass active, MVHR gives nothing like the cooling effect of this sort of purging.

I'm not sure whether it was on BH or elsewhere, but I have the vaguest of memories that there's been a case along these lines.

I feel like I'm missing something obvious here. If I understand correctly, the fence you have erected is on the correct boundary line as shown on the deeds. You're also happy enough for that to be the boundary line (presumably that's the case given you built a fence there). If that's correct, then your neighbour stating that he doesn't make any sense. The boundary (in legal terms) already appears to be where your fence is. Presumably you aren't accessing, or trying to exclude him from accessing or controlling, the strip between your fence and the retaining wall. The builder built the retaining wall and the fence that runs along it, plus it's on the neighbour's property, so I can't see how that anything to do with you. All that's left is the shared passage that doesn't currently have a fence. If you're happy with it like that, but he isn't, then he's free to put up his own fence at his own cost. There might be a question over who owns the gravel, if it comes to that, but maybe you're happy to just leave it as it is. If your neighbour doesn't like the position of the retaining wall, he'll need to move it closer to the actual boundary at his expense. Party wall laws might come into it at that stage, which could make things expensive for him (and moving that wall or building a new one will also be a significant expense, especially if you refuse him access to your land to do it). Has be specified exactly what more he wants from you? Because to me, it seems you've already given him everything that's yours to give.

I appreciate that different council departments deal with council-as-beneficary covenants and planning, and that councils aren't responsible for considering covenants that give rights to third parties. However, is the position not muddied if the same legal entity that has the benefit of a covenant over a property grants planning permission to build on that property? I'd at least run the argument that granting planning permission is tacitly waiving rights under the covenant. I wonder whether there's any caselaw on this?

On replacements, agreed. We had one of our fixtures fail after about three years (and, tbf, none fail in the seven years since). Unfortunately, the company had ceased trading, so no chance of a replacement. Given the time that had elapsed, there was no guarantee that one would have been available even if the company had been around. That said, if you're talking about using halogen-type fixtures with replaceable bulbs instead, I'm not sure whether our building control guy would have allowed them at the time we did the build. From (admittedly decade+ old) memory, building regs require a certain proportion of low-energy lighting, and he didn't consider halogen type fittings as meeting that requirement, even though we would have used LED bulbs. It may be different now given that you'd have to be mad to use actual halogen bulbs in such fixtures. Another approach would be to stick to fixtures with a separate driver. Assuming temperatures are kept under control, the chances of LEDs themselves failing is much lower than the driver failing.

Halogen replacement LED bulbs have a driver (optionally dimmable) built into their base. However, in a new build you'll generally be using LED fixtures, which are all-in-one units without a replaceable bulb. You can buy fixtures that come without a driver, so you can choose how you drive them.

I installed an 8-channel 240V DMX Whitewing unit a few years back, to replace some of the highly unreliable cheap dimmers we originally installed. Better dimming quality and they're been rock solid for several years. I also have a similar multi-channel Theben KNX dimmer from a little while before that (KNX is built in to the v1 Loxone miniserver I run). It's also very good and rock solid, although more expensive than the Whitewing unit, and not quite as good at dimming at the low end. It's worth noting that the dimming characteristics of mains dimmers at the low end aren't great. You need a minimum brightness to get the lights to come on. Constant current dimmer drivers are a lot better, but they do limit your choice of fixtures somewhat, especially at the budget end.

We moved in at the end of 2015 and I think I started doing underfloor cooling two or three years later. As I've written elsewhere on BH (and you've experienced yourself), it works insanely well. I suspect one of the biggest factors in how well this works in individual circumstances is floor makeup. We have a polished concrete screed, on top of a nominally 100 mm structural slab with embedded UFH pipes. That's a great combination for storing a lot of coolth and transferring it efficiently. The one carpeted room downstairs is, unsurprisingly, noticeably warmer than the rest of the space. I've tried everything from 14 - 17 °C flow temp over the years and all have worked fine. I'd have to check, but I think I just left it at 15 or 16 °C after the last time I changed it a few years back. In terms of condensation, the only exposed and unsulated pipes in our system are the manifold pipework and connectors. We get a breath of condensation on the metal parts of those, but never enough for it to drip. As @JohnMo says, running the cooling while the sun's out means free cooling if you have PV.

These have been very successful projects by all accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Big_Battery Apparently they provide inertia support too.

In ordinary (non-bypass) operation, MVHR tries to maintain any temperature difference between the inside and the outside. On a cold day with the heating on, it recovers most of the heat from the outgoing air. Same in summer when it's cooler inside than out. In both situations, you want summer bypass off. Summer bypass is used when the outside air temperature is closer to the desirable temperature than the inside temperature. For example, if it's 23 deg outside and 28 deg inside, you want summer bypass on so that the 28 deg air is entirely replaced with the 23 deg air from outside. In most MVHR units, summer bypass operates automatically based on the temperature difference between inside and outside. Assuming yours has some form of automated control, check that it's operational. If you can only control it manually, I'd turn summer bypass on as soon as the outside temperature is lower than the inside temperature. In the UK, that's generally late afternoon or early evening, depending on the day and the temp in the house. You can generally leave it on all night and then turn if off when the outside temperature gets higher than the inside temperature. It's also more effective if you boost the fan speed.

I wasn't aware of that model, thanks. Still, my question was why such vehicles weren't selling en masse if there's such massive demand for a vehicle with such capabilities. I know plenty of people with BEVs and a few with more standard PHEVs/HEVs, but I don't know a single person who drives a car with a range extender. That said, I completely agree with the rest of your reasoning. I've been a BEV driver for around five years and wouldn't go back. I can't comprehend the idea of worrying about what will happen in 10 or 20 years. The tech will be unrecognisable within 5 years imo. Good answer!

Sure, that's another option. So why do you think these aren't being produced/sold en masse if (as @ProDave suggests) there's such as big demand for a vehicle that can provide what they offer at the price they can offer it?

Good salespeople are exceptional at telling people what they want to hear. You're plainly an EV skeptic, so even a whiff of that from you during your conversation with them would have had them reflecting your opinion straight back at you. I, too, would like a hybrid with a massive battery-only range. But that essentially means packaging a full BEV into a full ICE vehicle. You'd end up with the full weight and cost of an entire ICE drivetrain and fuel, coupled with the full weight and cost of a long-range BEV drivetrain and batteries, plus whatever's needed to integrate them. Something like that would be extremely heavy, and insanely expensive to buy and maintain. Something has to give, and in the hybrid market today, it's battery-only range. At all times, car companies deliver in the intersection between what people want and what it's practical/commercial to deliver. That overlap has grown continuously since the introduction of EVs, and presumably will continue to grow (as the PHEV and BEV market has done continuously).

Perhaps. I suspect you'd need very good air circulation (i.e., beyond that offered by MVHR).