saveasteading

Insurers generally want a 5 lever mortice. So as long as you dont leave it within reach through letter box or broken window, they wont be able to use it. I like to have a 'yale' too just for night time security and ease, but use the mortice when going out.

I clicked 'send' too early and have now said much more. I don't trust them to use a meter properly.

I'm just sharing today's annoyance. Perhaps it will help someone else. We will be using engineered timber over a large area and have it in storage because it was a bargain. We recently got a reference to a contractor to lay it. The price was ok so we said go. Now they are saying that we need to prove that the screed is dry enough. It is, and will be beyond dry come September when it is to be done. Even when we use the ludicrously conservative 1mm/ day we have double that time since it was laid, and the wind has been whistling through at 25 to 30 C. Having told them that, they now say (without reference) that it must be 19C all the time and actually 0.5mm/ day is correct. Even that means that it is dry. So they are either charlatans, or ignorant. From long experience I know floorers always try this because they want to sell an upgrade of sealing and even over-screeding, and/or lose any liability in case of any future problem. so 1. we explain why it is dry. Very civilly quoting the material used and the time it's been down. 2. we then emphasise that their sudden doubling of the time required isn't relevant. 3. Now they say that if they turn up and test the screed in September and it isn't to their dryness satisfaction then they will refuse to do it and charge £500 aborted visit. I'm thinking this is perhaps all they do... turn up, charge £500 and go away. It would appear that they are used to getting this extra pay, and are somewhat annoyed that we are daring to answer back. Obv I don't trust them at all and would like to tell them to go cheat elsewhere. But maybe they are just ignorant. They only do one thing, so they should not be ignorant and thus I suspect the other option. If you cheat in one way, you are cheats generally, so who knows if they are any good. That they were recommended by a well known supplier bothers me. Maybe it's all too easy for them. In the past I've presumably convinced the floorers that there is no issue and just to get on with it. I may have signed papers to that effect. But this is on a different level. It's about 250m2 of flooring , so a nice job for someone.

the jagged one following the mortar. ie not what is prob F That is a common effect. In your case i'm thinking that the wall to the left has moved by these few mm. If that has been there for years then it prob just needs repointing. If new then it could be this recent drought causing sinking. could we see that wall from further back? Damp at chimneys is very common. Rain can come down the chimney if there is no cap. Or can creep through from the brick of the chimney itself. Is it just staining or can you se dampness?

Crack E is significant. Is the window in the original house? Any chance of a wider shot? Is the damp on the inside of an external wall? The cavity ties should be fine.

You are right to resolve if it is a big deal or toutine. The majority of such issues I've looked at over decades have needed attention but only maintenance. A boss once used this as standard advice to worried owners.... can you get a pound coin into the gap? No, don't worry but it needs attention. Yes, let's have a look and sort the cause. A 1910 house doesn't usually have good damp resistance. They had fires indoors, opened lots of windows and lived with it. Again, tell more.

Cracks may require SE but may be routine.. How extensive and how wide? Pictures would be helpful. Damp probably not SE.... it's usually a maintenance issue ... gutters, ground levels.. pics again and descriptions. and maybe we can point you in the right direction at no cost.

We can't tell. What sort of issue concerns you? If, for example, it is damp and rot and insulation then an Architect or Building Surveyor is your best bet IFFFF the Architect is a doing person rather than of the arty persuasion. If walls are cracked and you fear the strength of the building then an Engineer is essential, and you'll end up with one anyway. Absolutely not. They will insist on seeing the building holistically because what you have reported on may be a symptom rather than the fundamental issue. Then you just have to be sure to check the rest of the house out too, if concerned. To me, as an Engineer, if I received that sort of enquiry it would seem exaggeratedly contractual, and I would prefer a simple enquiry in plain English. "I'm concerned about my 1910 house because it has cracks and damp....etc" Or phone. A professional will tell you if it isn't what they do or doesn't suit their business model. I suggest you agree initially to a site visit and preliminary inspection. a few £hundred. Only after that can the scope be discussed properly. But back to the start. Can you tell us any more about your concerns?

No offence was intended, and I, probably others too, are aware that a discussion, even when off course. may be looked at by many more people than we see. A tweak on the rudder can remind everyone of the original point. ai can sometimes be very wrong. It picks up info regardless of source. I don't think ai wil offer any recourse if a fault develops in your buiding. we meanwhile do our best and can wander off the path sometimes. Back to your question again. Yes that is a cold bridge but also is with the special blocks which underlap the beams. It can be designed out in other ways.

I've never had a design or installation queried for foul or surface water. I'd have to read the docs again, but I think the proposal of a Chartered Engineer working to the principles of these docs and referring to site specifics will be accepted. Eg. Scotland allows 20% reduction when using a treatment tank. England does not, but it is in the tech papers so apply it if it's necessary. Basically if you use a good treatment tank it's going to be ok, they want it to be OK, and so come up with a justification.

A bold assertion without knowing the detail. Everything on its merits.

I read that as..." how much detail do we need to go into? For examples: A builder may have been asked to do this for the first time. A self builder may have been "sold" the idea at an exhibition, without having the pros and cons explained.* *there is a reason I see such systems at self build exhibitions but not at trade exhibitions. Not that it's bad, but that there are options and there is more to know.

Not at all. There is a cold bridge but it is not completely cold if thought through with insulation above. A building is a cold bridge between indoors and outdoors... but it is relative. If near trees then the foundations will be deep and the trees won't affect the slab. The main downside of suspended floor is the essential draught under it. You lose the benefit of the natural insulation of the earth.

I'd expect that mass production on a bench means precision. Then yes I like your idea as the timber would lay exactly where intended.

@David Cooke there are other anomalies too. I'm designing for myself in this instance, and there is lots of ground. I'll make up my mind when I see in the trenches and test the porosity. A balance between the codes and my own opinion. But if I was designing for someone else I would follow the codes , including taking the more cautious options, because 1. I don't want to have to come back to sort it. 2. There is professional liability. 3. What if it didn't work and esp if it overflowed into adjacent property? With some clients I might explain, and share the risk/ benefit. With others I'd take no chances. As @Gus Potter and I established, the regs take precedence but as professionals we would see that they had probably miswritten the regs and that the intention is clear. Also as professionals we can decide on what is best. The regulations are actually the little green bit at the start and the rest is suggestions based on research. Our drainage field is into what was once commercial orchard. I'm expecting the percolation to be very variable, depending on old drainage and voids created by roots. An average would be meaningless if the percolation numbers are say 40s/mm and 120s/mm. What I expect to do is put in the smaller area of trench but have scope to extend it. For the record I have established that all groundwater will eventually end up 800m away downhill in a stream.....which we could pipe into direct technically. So we are really doing SUDS in slowing down flow and flooding. BUT if a bco wanted proof they'd expect it to follow the regs.

This has been around for decades and is simple and effective. I've never used it and so haven't checked the relative cost. They will give a a value for a central cross section. The overall effect of the beam bearings depends on the size and shape of the building and is reality, not a flaw... any beam has the same. The main benefit of this is in insulating under the beams, in vacant space, and saving insulation above. Best is to work out the relative costs every way , if inclined. At the internal wall I assume the eps block is cut to fit. Another advantage will be the finish. With concrete blocks they don't always sit tight and you have to brush a sandy mortar into the gaps. And lighter to handle of course.

Not for me. Reasons to support that system? IF the ground doesn't need to be excavated and tipped to get to that level IF there are no experienced builders available or it's diy Reasons against? The holistic cost is likely to be high, A local builder may be suspicious of some new trendy system A local builder can do traditional build much more readily. 300mm of eps on the middle areas where it isn't so important but 200 at the critical perimeter is weird. you have great ground conditions so don't waste it on a floating slab. I have an inherent dislike for a heavy structural beam to the perimeter ( compare it to a big floor beam holding an upper car park floor?) sitting on top of 200m of eps. trench footings and masonry to Floor level masonry or timber above. 100-150 mm concrete slab with crack control only 150mm pir or 250mm eps then a screed. that will likely save you half your cost to floor level.

Then you broke up the concrete for hardcore? I wish we could return the big bags and they were recycled. Or the material didn't turn to plastic dust if you try to reuse them.

I think the EU are becoming stronger on this. Not a lot of resources though.

Great idea. Did you deliberately make the leftovers ultra wet to avoid a solid lump?

You are a manager. You had space too?

There's a report on BBC website today saying ASA are aware of many such adverts. A fan and some cardboard fins in one case (and NASA mentioned). They can't fine or control online stuff. the nature of some of the businesses behind these ads means enforcement alone isn't enough to stop the problem," said the ASA. Another story is about travel adapters. Amazon, alibaba etc say they "take safety very seriously." But clearly they don't.

That doesn't matter. In fact it grips the concrete better than non-rusted, and without water it won't change.

and kept secret? There was much more blurb but they missed that one.

@Gus Potter and I have been discussing this in detail. The resolution? Use the appropriate national building reg's and don't mix them. The other documents are guidelines even if better written and used as the basis for the national regs. Without checking, don't the GBRs say to work to the building regs? To my mind, option 1 will work well but not comply. More pipes would make it comply. Option 2, looks like the book says, except one trench may be too near to the bank.