Door threshold and water ingress

[Tamdray]

 

Hello,

 

Forgive me if this is not a right place for this post but I do not know where to look for advice, and I would appreciate it if anyone could direct me to a right organisation or person.

 

I have a problem with the French doors in the new build that I have recently purchased.

 

Description of the problem:

 

- “French door are approximately few 3mm of floor level” as reported on a snag report (snagging was conducted by an independent company – picture 1),

- “Door frame is level with floor slab”, as reported on the snag report (picture 2)

- “frame at ground level secured to nothing it moves”, as reported on the snag report (picture 2),

- The gap between the floor and the bottom of the French door does not allow to lay flooring other than vinyl sheet, according to a flooring company,

- The concrete inside the house next to the ground part of the frame becomes wet when it rains (Picture 3a and 3b)

- My neighbours also noticed the ingress of water next to their French doors.

 

The builder’s respond:

 

- The French door has been built/installed correctly as it is for wheel chair access and this is the reason why the door frame is level with floor slab and why the frame must be loose.

- The water ingress should not take place and DPC tape/insulation will be used between the concrete floor and the bottom door frame to prevent the ingress. The fix will take place when the concrete becomes dry.

 

 

My points are:

 

- When comparing the build, design, condition or installation of the French door with the recommendation presented at https://www.building.co.uk/cpd/cpd-7-2015-level-thresholds-and-water-ingress/5073874.article (I am located in Scotland), I have a serious concern about the condition of the drainage (pictures 4a-c).

I cannot lift the landing area to inspect it and provide better photographs. Instead of a drainage channel there is only a gap between the landing area and the door’s slab. In the gap, there seems to be nothing but earth ground (no concrete, no PVC element, or anything that would work a drainage system). However, what I am worried the most is that under the door slab there seem to be some randomly put stones or bricks with huge gaps, cracks and wholes in and between them. I think that these areas are responsible for the ingress of water.

- If the above is correct, I think that the DPC tape/insulation will not solve the problem because the ingress of water takes place underneath and not between the slab and the concrete floor.

 

Could you advise, please?

[Nickfromwales]

Hi. 
The gaps under the threshold are unacceptable and zero requirement for disabled access compliance. Complete and total bollocks, I’m afraid. 
Negligence in setting the entire door / frame unit in, to be sympathetic to your chosen floor covering is just poor practice, and again, shouldn’t be tolerated.

Damp / water ingress from outdoors to inside is a fundamental installation error and that should have been mitigated BEFORE the unit was installed, and cannot practically be done retrospectively afaic. 
The unit needs to be removed and reinstalled, with those measures considered and executed correctly.

 

35 minutes ago, Tamdray said:

The builder’s respond:

 

- The French door has been built/installed correctly as it is for wheel chair access and this is the reason why the door frame is level with floor slab and why the frame must be loose.

- The water ingress should not take place and DPC tape/insulation will be used between the concrete floor and the bottom door frame to prevent the ingress. The fix will take place when the concrete becomes dry.

This is utter nonsense, and simply fails to accept the problems which 100% defo exist here. 
The unit needs to come out, there is no other way. That will allow for the threshold height to be set to the internal finished floor level ( ffl ) according to what you prescribe that to be. 
Tell this muppet “no sale”. 

[Temp]

1 hour ago, Tamdray said:

The builder’s respond:

 

- The French door has been built/installed correctly as it is for wheel chair access and this is the reason why the door frame is level with floor slab and why the frame must be loose.

- The water ingress should not take place and DPC tape/insulation will be used between the concrete floor and the bottom door frame to prevent the ingress. The fix will take place when the concrete becomes dry.

 

Total BS.

 

1) The Building Regulations (Part M) normally only require the front door to be "level access" and even then you are allowed a 12mm high step/weather bar above the finished floor level (eg above any wood flooring or carpet).

2) There is no excuse for a loose frame.

3) The water is coming in because its not fitted correctly. Worse they propose sealing it with tape on the inside ! Totally wrong. The water seal should be on the outside but that might mean taking the door out and fitting it correctly.

 

As others have said the door needs to come out and be correctly fitted. The door might need to be remade....  It's quite possible they measured or built the opening incorrectly so when it came to fitting the door frame it was too tall. It's too difficult to raise the lintel above the door so they probably removed or cut bricks at the bottom and installed the door lower than it should be. The correct thing to do was get the door remade.

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Temp

[Temp]

PS: If this door does need to be wheelchair friendly for some reason.... 

 

I believe they have used the wrong type of door and sill. It looks like they have just fitted a standard non-wheelchair type too low in the hope that will do.

 

A clue is the thin upstand nearest to you in this photo. I don't think its strong enough for a wheel chair to drive over regularly..

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Temp

[Dave Jones]

The door manufacturer will have a specification for building in a level threshold design, ask them for it then ask builder/fitter if its been complied with.  There are not many who make them.

 

We have used successfully in the past a standard full cill, where the cill provides the both the drainage channel for the frame and the weatherproofing, this is then slabbed over tight top the frame. You must make sure though that the cill can drain under this either by bedding on pea gravel if your ground doesn't pool or a linear  under it tight to house and then drain to the soakaway (better).

 

Lastly as you are breaching the DPC i would recommend the builder fits a cavity tray along the full elevation of that wall 1 block higher on the inside to comply with building regs about ground level being below DPC by a min 75mm etc

 

All of this cant be done as an afterthought and needs to be planned from the get go which many on a price builders wont care/do as it requires time and effort. Architects even more clueless if your unlucky enough to be paying one to 'manage' it.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Dave Jones

[joe90]

I agree with all the above points, people like this give builders a bad name, totally unacceptable 

[Tamdray]

I am so grateful for your comments and help. I had been clueless, without arguments and pessimistic about a positive outcome before I read your responses. I thought about finding someone local to help me resolve the issue and argue/reason with the builder on my behalf but then how would I find someone who is competent? I could end up with the same person/company who was subcontracted by the builder to fit the doors in the first place. On the one hand, I understand that it is not the builder who did the poor job but on the other hand, should the builder not have a quality control process in place?

 

There has been some positive development today. The builder proposed to use a solution similar to the one described on the website from my first post i.e. https://www.building.co.uk/cpd/cpd-7-2015-level-thresholds-and-water-ingress/5073874.article, and although they are trying to avoid taking out the doors and fitting it again it seems that they are considering the option, and I think that thanks to your elaborate comments I will be able to reason and persuade them or even demand it from them.

 

The only aspect they are adamant about is the necessity for wheelchair access, which puts me in the position of conducting research on actual building regulations and learning whether they must apply. Thank you, @Temp for mentioning the Part M. Depending on that, I will be either be arguing for taking out the frame and fitting it with the threshold height accommodating flooring of my choice or fixing it in accordance to your suggestions. I trust you all entirely and I would like to have the frame removed and refitted but I am not sure whether I will be able to win the 'building regulations' argument.

 

 

[Marvin]

Yes....  when you put the frame in you have to take into account the inside floor covering thickness. Secondly the cill must have solid support otherwise it will bend when wheeled over.

 

Last one I repaired the fitters had filled the gap below the threshold with foam!!!

 

 

 

[Temp]

3 hours ago, Tamdray said:

There has been some positive development today. The builder proposed to use a solution similar to the one described on the website from my first post i.e. https://www.building.co.uk/cpd/cpd-7-2015-level-thresholds-and-water-ingress/5073874.article, and although they are trying to avoid taking out the doors and fitting it again it seems that they are considering the option, and I think that thanks to your elaborate comments I will be able to reason and persuade them or even demand it from them.

 

The only aspect they are adamant about is the necessity for wheelchair access, which puts me in the position of conducting research on actual building regulations and learning whether they must apply. Thank you, @Temp for mentioning the Part M. Depending on that, I will be either be arguing for taking out the frame and fitting it with the threshold height accommodating flooring of my choice or fixing it in accordance to your suggestions. I trust you all entirely and I would like to have the frame removed and refitted but I am not sure whether I will be able to win the 'building regulations' argument.

 

 

 

OK the drawing from that link is similar to what we did for our front door. 

 

 

 

However it won't solve your other problem which is an inability to open the door if you fit carpet or wood flooring. To solve that the door and sill need to be raised, probably at least 20mm. But if you raise the sill you have I don't think it will meet wheel chair access regulations as it will probably be too tall. Its hard to tell from the photos but looks like wrong design.

 

Regarding the water ingress... The weather seals on many doors will leak to some extent but they are normally designed so that any water that does get past the seals drains through passageways in the frame to the outside. This is sometimes called secret drainage. If they are installed too low or incorrectly this drainage route can be blocked and the only place for the water to go is inside the house. There is also the possibility of it collecting in the frame and freezing in winter. I would try and get information from the door manufacture. Check if it's intended for wheelchair use. Check their installation instructions have been or will be followed regarding drainage of the frame itself.

 

This photo shows secret drainage holes on a window. Don't let the builder just drill holes, they will be designed in by the manufacturer..

 

 

And this shows the complicated path through the door and frame that water can take on some doors. Try and get the equivalent drawing for your doors from the manufacturer. 

 

 

Regarding the need to be wheelchair friendly.. I know the regulations have changed since we built our house so it is possible they have to be. Perhaps a planning condition was imposed requiring greater wheel chair access.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Temp

[Tom]

21 hours ago, Tamdray said:

The only aspect they are adamant about is the necessity for wheelchair access,

 

Sure, but it should be level with your finished floor covering - whatever you choose that to be. They clearly realise it's been fitted wrong and are grasping as straws to avoid having to replace the door (which they will need to do as they won't be able to shave anything off the lintel). Stick your heels in and hold your ground!

[Tamdray]

21 hours ago, Temp said:

Regarding the need to be wheelchair friendly.. I know the regulations have changed since we built our house so it is possible they have to be. Perhaps a planning condition was imposed requiring greater wheel chair access.

I have found this passage in The Building Regulations:

'Optional requirement M4(3) (2)(b) applies only where the planning permission under which the building work is carried out specifies that it shall be complied with.'

 

I have also found the definition of Accessible Threshold there:

'A threshold that is level or, if raised, has a total height of not more than 15mm, a minimum number of upstands and slopes and with any upstands higher than 5mm chamfered. Other acceptable solutions are described in Accessible thresholds in  new housing – Guidance for house builders and developers, The Stationery Office  Ltd. ISBN 0 11 702333 3. 1999.'

 

Even though the maximum height is specified, the minimum height is not, if I understand it correctly. The only place where the minimum height is mentioned is the text on the aforementioned building.co.uk website, however, they do not appear to be an authoritative or regulatory organisation and therefore I do not know whether I can quote or trust them. They claim:

'The transition between the lower threshold unit and the internal floor level should accommodate accessible transfer for ambulant disabled people and wheelchair users, while enabling occupants to vary the type and thickness of floor coverings.'

 

 

I am becoming fixated with or obsessed over the doors and I inspect them every time I am in the kitchen, which is often as I like cooking But this preoccupation has led to another discovery: the floor is not level - it is higher next to the threshold of the doors (please refer to the photographs). When the doors are open, the height is about 14mm, which I remeasured as my very professional measurement tool does not show it clearly.

 

I do not feel comfortable in speculating and employing my limited imagination so I do not know whether leveling the floor and filling the gap to allow a satisfactory height of the threshold to accommodate floor covering may be a solution or it makes it all worse but strengthens the argument of having the doors replaced or taken out.

 

 

I have found what looks like the secret drainage but I am unable to establish if the holes are designed or drilled. The manufacturer's specification is in Excel file with macros (https://www.ukwg.co.uk/technical-support), which I cannot open because I have Linux OS but I will ask a friend of mine to have it checked for me. Nevertheless, there is nothing on their website mentioning about accessibility or wheelchair access/design.

 

That's it for another day of drama, research, education, worring ...

[Mr Punter]

In a new build you normally only need level access in the main entrance.  There is a lot wrong with your patio door install and I would have been surprised if you did not get water ingress.

[dpmiller]

@Tamdray  where did the last photo in your post come from as it's from a different door?

[Tamdray]

It is the same door. 'Fresh' photographs below.

 

 

[craig]

It's installed wrong. 

 

Part M covers one main door for disabled access, the specs may indicate this to be done everywhere but the maximum stepover is 15mm and a straight-up edge is to be avoided. However, it looks like a complete failure to take this measurement from the FFL and they have taken this from the screed level. From screed, you would normally have 15mm/20mm floor covering, so at least 20mm of that frame on the bottom should be visible, which would supply approx. 5mm from the underside of the door sash, to the FFL.

[Temp]

17 hours ago, Tamdray said:

I have found this passage in The Building Regulations:

'Optional requirement M4(3) (2)(b) applies only where the planning permission under which the building work is carried out specifies that it shall be complied with.'

 

 

 

Just looked at Part M again. I think you need to get a copy of the planning grant for your house as many sections of Part M are now only mandatory if there is a planning condition requiring compliance. 

 

Depending on what the planning conditions say you might need "accessible thresholds" on "other external doors" in addition to the front door/principal entrance. See the intro to section 3 then section 3.23 which refers to back to parts of 3.22.  

 

But even if this must be a wheelchair accessible entrance it looks like the sill design wasn't intended for that. This looks like a normal upvc patio door that has been installed lower to try and make it comply with something it wasn't designed for. It looks like a bodge, perhaps because their door/window supplier doesn't make one with a sill that is intended to be wheelchair accessible?

I suspect the strip of concrete/screed along by the door might even be a crude attempt to make a ramp, perhaps to make it comply with the 15mm high threshold rule)?

 

[craig]

New regs didn’t come into force until June 2022 from memory, this will have been approved pre June 2022 and likely won’t have been spec’d as Part M requirement.

 

Irrespective, it’s installed wrong and the wrong threshold for the job but pretty standard as well.

[Chanmenie]

14 hours ago, craig said:

New regs didn’t come into force until June 2022 from memory, this will have been approved pre June 2022 and likely won’t have been spec’d as Part M requirement.

 

Irrespective, it’s installed wrong and the wrong threshold for the job but pretty standard as well.

@craig Didn’t part M compliance become mandatory for all new builds in 2016.

or are you saying for pre June 22 it’s only applicable if specified on the planning approval. 

[craig]

@Chanmenie Part M has been mandatory for some time but that was only the main entry door. Not all doors had to comply with part M.

 

I have to read up to be 100% as I haven’t given it my full attention, as we make all doors accessible and have done for a decade+. I think that from June 2022 it applies to all. 

[Chanmenie]

2 hours ago, craig said:

@Chanmenie Part M has been mandatory for some time but that was only the main entry door. Not all doors had to comply with part M.

 

I have to read up to be 100% as I haven’t given it my full attention, as we make all doors accessible and have done for a decade+. I think that from June 2022 it applies to all. 

Ah that makes sense. Thanks for explaining @craig

[Temp]

13 hours ago, craig said:

 

I have to read up to be 100% as I haven’t given it my full attention, as we make all doors accessible and have done for a decade+. I think that from June 2022 it applies to all

 

Have you found a supplier that make uPVC patio doors that are accessible?

[craig]

13 minutes ago, Temp said:

 

Have you found a supplier that make uPVC patio doors that are accessible?

Yes, 2 😉

Edited September 18, 2022 by craig

[Tamdray]

It seems that there must be only one accessible entrance to the house. If the main entrance does not comply with the Part M the french doors must, which is the case with this house as I have steps to main entrance. The house was completed in August, which may mean that the Part M applies/applied, if I understand it correctly.

 

I am going to try to demand from the developer that they replace the French doors with new and accessible doors although I am rather pessimistic that they acquiesce. I think I may end up with a non-accessible doors being installed in a way that prevents water ingress but I fear they are going to do it wrong again. I think I will need to call NHBC and also learn what my rights are.

 

Another problem I have is that I do not know how I can reciprocate your invaluable help. Perhaps I can send you private message about the area of business in which I can offer you free advice as barter.

 

 

[Temp]

44 minutes ago, Tamdray said:

It seems that there must be only one accessible entrance to the house. If the main entrance does not comply with the Part M the french doors must, which is the case with this house as I have steps to main entrance.

 

That makes sense. It's meant to be the front door but Building Control have some flexibility to allow it to be another door (back door or patio etc) 

[Temp]

@Tamdray PM sent.