saveasteading

Interesting. Please keep us informed how this proceeds. In summary, the screw system will cost a fair bit more but reduce hassle? Please remember that, from your SE information, the foundations will not be 2.5m deep everywhere, some being distant from the trees. It reduces to 1.3m, and you will still be digging at least 0.5 out to concrete around the screws. It's up to you of course. Make sure you get a fixed price for the screws and the SE knows your plans....I am guessing that SE will add reinforcement to the concrete, and the groundworker will have to hand dig around the screws....but I look forward to hearing more. One more concern. How long have the trees that were in the way, been gone? It takes a year or so for the ground to adapt to the reduced water demand.

Ask how they design. Some, mostly younger go straight into 3d. The better the design suite the more it can handle every detail as a complete model ( ie not pictures but working drawings). Revit , for example, is superb.

Timber frame

I think your contract is with M&S. This is more "money" than building. Have you tried MoneySavingExpert ? Etc.

It involves a site visit and a formal proposal to the building inspector. This could be by an SE or any other professional who can demonstrate sufficient knowledge. A builder may suffice. Whether building notice suffices is probably irrelevant, as it is a 2 day job to fit the bracket and the bco will want to see proposals before allowing it to proceed. I did the proposal myself (got the letters) , and fitted the gallows bracket, then got a bricky (of sorts) in to make good. But our chimney breast was already illegally removed so the works was less. The bco only looked at it as finished, and didn't get more than his head though the loft hatch. Some people say don't use gallows bracket, but it seems ok to me for most circumstances. Your bco has probably seen this work a dozen times. Do they speak to you in your area? Personally, I don't approve of chimneys being removed as they provide a lot of strength and help the building to breathe. But that is up to you.

And did you go through them or direct to the underwriter?

Was the insurance direct with the company, or through a broker?

Many contractors decline insurance work, because payments can be very slow. Therefore those who accept it quite reasonably charge more for the delays and risk and hassles. Insurers know this. Also this is the sort of work that can have nasty surprises for the contractor. Again they will add for the risk. Insurers know this too. 3 x their offer is probably about right. But we don't know the extent of works of course! The insurer is probably chancing their arm on a cash offer, and it won't take much to convince them it is unacceptable. Some insurers spend more money on resisting claims than in pay-outs. But they don't want to have a formal complaint to resist. I would write again and say that you have taken advice etc....you don't have to say where. Give them a deadline as their delay is forcing you to live in...'insert own term.' Ask them what is the next step in a complaint process if they don't agree. (Perhaps accept a cash offer of 3 x the current one, and then contractors can get paid direct by you.) perhaps even offer a lump sum settlement of 4 x theirs, and negotiate down to 3.

I suspect they allowed tolerance twice by mistake. The installer measured the openings, and took 15mm off all round. Then the manufacturer did the same. I don't know what industry standards there are, but I would think at least they pay for the extra cost in finishing this.

Would have cost what? And prob wouldn't address these issues which became apparent. A day's pay to sort it will be best value, and probably always was the best way. JM83 You are not losing out.

There was once a thing called RIBA Fee Scales. It was banned as being anticompetitive. You can find plenty of examples online, for individual consultants. It is a handy indicator of the cost IF you know the build cost....but it has not been designed yet. Worth looking though. Is it sensible that the fee increases with the cost? No. So a fixed fee is needed. 8. Always good fun. Brief the Architect on what you want and whether they are encouraged to experiment and use flair, or not. Tell them your absolute budget to include all fees. it is common to only quote the build cost, ie excl fees. Ask what happens if their design cannot be done for the stated budget, which is a critical term of the contract (if it is). Is their fee forfeit, or do they rededign for no charge? Sounds over harsh but word it your own way. Then prepare for ashen face or some woffle about contractors and their pricing. One architect said to me " the client always finds more money". Beware. But there are plenty good ones, tho not cheap where you are.

Same in England. https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/resources-landing-page/riba-plan-of-work I would also say. 1. Make sure they have done buildings very like you want, with references. Because most Architects will take any work...a very self confident profession. 2. Within the scope of work, ask precisely what other professions will be needed and cost guidance. Because some will include ancillary design such as traffic acess, energy, working details and others will hive it off at your expense. 3. What happens if there is a planning issue? How do they deal with the time and costs? 4. There are contractors who will do turnkey including planning and design. Typically the same cost but they are taking much of the risk off you. 5 The most expensive iption is to stage 8, but also a turnkey contractor. Easy for the Architect. 6. There are lots out there. Speak to 4 or 5. If it doesn't click try 4 or 5 more. 7 cheaper does not mean worse...they might just bd very good at it...and vice versa. I could go on.

Nice work and price. But add waterproofing the walls and base, muck away, the stair, fire escape provision, and it is expensive for a wine and potato store.

If you had asked precisely for what you now know you prefer, then he might have charged the extra day anyway. Stay friends.

1. Their home page kind of confirms what I say above. Infrastructure, temporary buildings. 2. Basements are silly expensive. Have done one successfully, only because the original architect had designed it in ( as a car park that cars couldn't exit) and it became something else. So expensive, and such a lot of hassle. Built to keep water out, but it also kept it in, during construction. Does it rain in Ireland?

Trench fill. It depends how wide the footing needs to be. If very wide it can be a lot of concrete, so you might split the difference and start blockwork at about 1m down.

Me too. On a site next to one of ours, previously coastal marshland, they completely lost many piles. They had to put lots extra in and redesign the foundations. In case you are worried, we allowed for the very low ground strength and put in enormous pads. The building rises and falls with the tide. Back to the job in hand. There are many types of pile, and the site conditions are known. You should get a low risk quote. But piles here should bear at about 3m, and the top m then be broken back, so i still favour strips. My rule of thumb is to switch at about 2.5m trench depth, but here it is less. Stop press, mike2016 has PMd me a site plan with annotations. There are trees close to the building, so footings have to be deep near the trees. It doesn't change the solution too much. I don't think we knew about the trees before, but the SE had allowed. Whether the floor can be ground supported is debateable. I think it is unikely to be affected by the trees once encapsulated by the foundation. Others might want cordek or similar. I would prefer beam and block for simplicity and value.

I am saying that the last time I reearched this, they were being used for phone masts and such, which are big-time structures, but not buildings. The big advantage is in accessing remote locations with everything in kit form. Also for garden sheds and garages. I think they may be very useful for portakabins etc. Perhaps also for other modular buildings on poor ground. Not aware of them being economic for habitable, permanent buildings. Although they look substantial due to the screw, the central core is quite skinny. Decent strength in the vertical plane but not bending. I looked into using them very seriously some years ago. The reps were saying they were economical for buildings. But analysis showed that we would need enormous numbers of them, so we abandoned the idea. Very happy to hear otherwise. I was keen to try them at first but found that the reps were overselling, and not knowledgable. I think at the time they had obtained rights from Australian manufacturers and were overexcited.

..probably be all over you thereafter too, asking for proof of everything. You might even lose out using the hypothetical method if the virtual vat inspector decided on a high installation cost, then both charged and fined you.

Up to you. I don't expect any errors in the calculations. It's more about understanding the whole scenario. Anything from your consultants should anonymise who they are. I was thinking about quality. Having worked on major structural concrete projects, then come across the typical groundworker, they are not remotely the same. With my own money I use the normal groundworker but have to supervise. I have seen them variuosly leave drink tins on the bottom about to be concreted in, add masses of water to concrete, stamp mesh down to the bottom, not lap the mesh, bodge drains with silicon, refill overdug excavations...... Some of them don't take instruction willingly. I am seeing on BH why an SE might overdesign a bit....knowing it is likely to be badly built

Yes but too much work. If it was in Central London then the muckaway would be expensive. Likewise if it was contaminated. If I had to make a decision now, it would be for trenches. Simply based on experience as designer and contractor.

I would pay the extra for galvanised.

Yes, best to avoid trade names, and there are more...quinntherm xtratherm, recticel.... Asking for pir allows suppliers to offer whatever is the best value.

Be careful everyone, as these are serious accusations. For example it might have been prudent to sell the vehicles internally, to release cash for operational purchases. Also there is probably no "right" time to appoint an administrator. If every company struggling for orders was to refuse new business in case it all went wrong, then that would be the end of most. I'm not supporting anybody here as I don't know. Just saying to try to make points general rather than specific and avoid accusations.

Assuming this slab is designed as structural, ie self supporting, then the reinforcement must be positioned precisely as instructed, ie distance off the bottom. Then concrete quality and compaction. This is not stuff that most groundworkers do, or even know about. And one layer of bottom mesh is unusual in a structural slab. I'd expect some top as well. It all seems strange and I feel this is not the whole story. Drawings?