ProDave

If you don't mind me asking, how much are they paying you for this?

You mean YOUR build is being filmed for "building the dream"? That guarantees something has to go wrong. Those programs ALWAYS have some difficulties with the mournful music playing in the background. No such difficulties and yours will be scrapped, no "entertainment" value if nothing goes wrong.

I think the thing you need to check is what the actual load will be with the building you are constructing. If it's under 25KN/m2 then happy days. If not then that's when your troubles begin. And you do need this information from your SE. So rather than go at him with both guns blazing "blaming" him, start by simply requesting the actual ground pressure imposed on the foundations. Is that information actually stated in any of the documents he provided? P.S I took LABC to mean Local Area Building Control. Why do people choose such confusing names?

Having the bend on the steepest bit is not the best place, think icy weather, car sliding and not going round the bend? Is it possible to re route it first to avoid that and keep the bend on a more level bit? If not, a high kerb seems a good idea to catch a sliding car? I had concrete at my last house, cheap, easy and dependable, but if the ground does sink it will crack and start to look tatty. I have tarmac at the new house and it looks god but boy it is expensive. I don't know why as it was a very quick and easy looking job to just pour it, rake it flat and run a roller over it a few times. One solution if you just want cheap, is just two strips of concrete rather than a wide slab. A local farm here at the top of a hill has this on the steep section (gravel on the rest) and it works very well.

I'm getting confused over who said what. You seem to be using LABC to do building control AND warranty, but it is not clear in some of your statements which one has failed it? Are there indeed seperate departments and separate inspectors for these 2 functions? As regards load bearing, what you need to know is what load bearing the completed building will impose on the foundations that have been poured, not some theoretical value. Could it just be that the overkill foundations could take 50KN/m2 but are not actually being asked to support that much?

The nhbc documents make it clear that it is only habitable rooms that need to meet the minimum door widths. Unfortunately that is not made clear in the Scottish building regs. I feel a phone call to the "duty building control officer" will be due on Wednesday. I could of course fit a standard width door, but then I would expect someone to complain the flue pipe is partly blocking the door, hence my idea to reduce the door with to remove that argument.

What puzzles me is how he managed to melt a cable when he only installed a push fit and a compression fitting?

Yes, but what width of door does a "cupboard" require?

It's a "plant room" because that is what is says on the plans. Originally it was going to contain the mvhr, heat pump (GSHP) and hot water tank(s). however we have changed to a monoblock ASHP and the hot water tank is going to go in a cupboard off the small bedroom so it is a lot closer to the kitchen. So now it is just the mvhr and some storage space. (with our vaulted ceilings there is very little conventional "loft" space) But you have touched on an other potential issue, that is of the council tax valuer trying to include it as "habitable space" hence why (at least to start with) very little will be boarded. I guess a "solution" to both problems is just install a small trap door that you have to undo a few screws to get in there? The door can then come later. But I would rather know the answer now and just fit a door.

Can I ask a "variation" on this subject. What if you are a self builder. You have had a contractor in to build and erect a timber frame for you. They have finished and gone (without any accidents) The house is finished outside. You are now working 100% on your own to finish the inside of the house and not intending to employ any other trades. You have a self build insurance policy in place. How does the situation change?

simple version of question: What is the minimum door width into a non habitable room (plant room) under Scottish building regs? Longer version. The plant room is the attic space above the attached garage. It is accessed through a door from the master bedroom. Next to this door was going to be the twin wall flue from the wood burning stove in the room below making it's way up to the roof. But SWMBO has just changed the room layout around, and suddenly this wall needs more space, so the flue has to move. The flue position is dictated partly by joists positions, so to move the flue over, it would have to jump into the gap between the joists "one joist over" if you see what I mean. That would put the flue in front of the door opening. Here's a picture trying to explain it: The wall is a supporting gable end wall, there is a lintel over the door opening supporting the ridge beam, so moving the door opening over is not an option. the only option is to make the door narrower. I then have to make some assumptions as I have not yet chosen the flue. It seems from the searching I have done the minimum flue size recommended is 5" which in the twin wall version has an outside diameter of about 280mm. (I don't know why but nobody recommends a 4" flue which I would have thought was plenty for my little 3Kw stove) A further assumption is what distance has to be left between the flue and a combustible material (i.e. the joist) Building regs leave it entirely up to what the manufacturer of the flue specifies. As I have not yet chosen which one I am using, I have taken a "typical" 3" clearance and allowed 80mm between the flue and the joist. As the drawings shows that would allow me a door opening of 700mm wide which translates to an imperial 2ft 3" door. My question, is would this be acceptable (it would be acceptable to me) All I can find in building regs is the section on accessibility within a building which typically talks of door widths of 850mm but says a door may be reduced to 775mm if it is approached straight on (which this one is) But this is NOT a habitable room, it is the plant room so does that width still apply? The room in all probabilty will resemble a "loft" space with only part of it being floored for the mvhr to sit on and access to it.

That cable needs fixing somehow. Is there any slack in it where it disappears out of sight? if so you might be able to just pull it back and fit a junction box. I personally don't like the fact he's used push fit, and a bit of plastic pipe. Nick will be along to tell me it's fine, but I personally just don't like it. I would rather he had fixed the leaks and stayed with copper.

Did he itemise the hourly rate? (I do on my invoices) If what you are saying is true, that the parts cost £30, then that's £250 for 6 hours labour or £41 per hour. I know the SE is a LOT more expensive than here, so that is in fact probably a fair price. The only thing "wrong" with it, is the time taken and hence cost would have been lower if he had fixed both leaks in one go when it was drained the first time.

I have a customer like that. she bought a new tv recently and she called me out twice because it "was not working" the issue was she didn't know how to select hdmi 1 input and it was just trying to receive a freeview signal, which it could not do as they have no ordinary aerial. Both times I showed them how to select hdmi 1 and even wrote instructions. I had to go back there again to change a light fitting and I noticed the tv was on with nobody in the room and the sound muted. I got the impression they now never turn it off, just mute it when not watching it because they still can't fathom how to operate it.

True. My preseent house, 13 years ago, they didn't ask for any certification. But this time I am minded to fit a temporary electric hob until after completion.....

Contrary to popular belief, it is still legal to DIY your OWN gas work, as long as you are competent. where it would become an ofence, is if someone not gas safe registered started doing work for other people.

Use plastic coated 10mm copper, usually sold on a roll, already annealed so it's soft to bend. No spring needed, though I do have a hand held bender for it that I inherited from my dad to make a neat bend. In the basis of fewer joints = fewer places it can leak, I have just one joint to connect to the hob and one to the regulator. Use propane not butane, then no risk of freezing and no need to cover the cylinder. If it's a back up hob and not a big problem if it runs out then one cylinder is okay, but for a main hob I would always use 2 cylinders on an auto changeover regulator. You are most likely to use your gas hob when there is a power cut, would going outside to change the cylinder if it ran out be a nuisance then? Even though the gas usage is small I would still use the big 47Kg cylinders simply because the gas is cheaper in the larger cylinders.

A lot of holiday rentals here use a key safe, just give the tenant the number. Most are by the back door. Why not give the cleaner her own key, and hide mum's spare key somewhere away from the house? i.e. not under the doormat or plant pot by the door.

We have a rug in front of the fireplace with UFH and solid wood floor. No problem. Yes if you lift the rug it's a bit warmer under there but does not cause problems and noes not limit the heating in any practical way.

If it's any help, I used the Baumit.com thin render system. Their website id not very helpful, but the base coat render was MC55W mixed from powder, with their Silokon Top top coat ready miced in a tub. That comes in a range of colours and textures.

The aim of any business is to make a living for its owner and any staff employed. I sleep better at night knowing I have done a fair job for a fair price and know that my customers are happy with the work and happy to recommend me to others. In all trades there are good and bad. Electricians are no exception, we hear horror stories of poor work and extortionate charges frequently. I will finish by saying that it sounds like you are a reasonable person, and it is just such a shame that when I was looking, I could not find an architect that I would describe as reasonable. Perhaps it's time to talk more of the positives rather than negatives?

Re "architectural technologists" the only reason they were the "cure" for everything was that was the only route I could find to get the package of work that I wanted. I had designed the house myself and done all the drawings for planning. All i wanted was someone to detail the drawings so building control would issue a building warrant, and produce a set of drawings from which a builder could construct it. For some reason no architect that I spoke to was able to quote for that package of work, they all just wanted to charge the standard fee based on their over inflated estimate of the build cost with no negotiation. That is my main gripe with architects. All this contract stuff just further entrenches my view that they are out to make the maximum money from the minimum work. If I took that view in my business as an electrician I wold be out of business very quickly. There might well be some very good architects out there that will do just the work you want them to do for a fair price, and with a fair contract. It's just that I could not find one.

Like I say, all you are doing is highlighting how devious some architects are in wording their contracts. Yes I agree if that is what the contract says then that is how the law will interpret it. What I am saying, is an architect COULD word their contract fairly, i.e they are designing a house to be built on a particular plot and if the plot changes ownership then the new owner can build the house that was the subject of the design on THAT plot for little or no extra fees. Yes they could word it (and it seems they often do) that only the original owner has the right to build the house on that plot. That is just writing in a clause to extort money in return for no actual work, which to my mind is verging on fraud. The ONLY way that would be fair, is upon payment from the NEW owner, they them made a partial refund to the OLD owner, In effect the old owner selling back to the architect the licence to build the house and the new owner purchasing that licence. Keep on arguing all you like, but this just demonstrates how devious some architects are. and then you wonder why they have a bad reputation?

Sensus. ALL you are doing is exposing how bad architects and their contracts are. If someone PAYS the architect to design ONE house for ONE plot and provide all the plans, then I am pretty sure that 99.9% of people would think it perfectly reasonable if the plot changes ownership, to expect owner B to be able to build the SAME house on the SAME plot without anything more than a small administrative fee. Any attempt to "sell" the copyright to the new owner while possibly perfectly legal (if that's the ay the original contract was worded) it would be to most people very very sharp practice and extracting money for old rope. I am not talking about building multiple houses to the same design, or building the same house elsewhere, just the one house on the one plot as the architec designed it. Perhaps the ONE lesson from this, is when you appoint an architect, make SURE points like that are worded to YOUR satisfaction in the contract that you sign. And can I throw into the mix what happens when the OWNER designs his house and gives that design to the architect to detail (was the case with my present new build) There can be no argument that I own the copyright to the "design" the architect only owns the copyright to the details that he produces.

In the above example. The original owner paid to have a house designed for THAT PLOT. The fact that the plot has changed hands and the new owner does not have a right to build that house on that plot unless he pays a fee to the architect to buy the copyright, is verging on fraud. Yes if he wanted to take that design and replicate it elsewhere then I see a justified case of having to buy the copyright, but not for building the ONE house on the plot that the architect designed it for. So as Peter says, a reasonable admin charge to cover the time actually taken to provide the drawings would be reasonable.