Full plans application drawings approved, property built to those drawings but failed final inspection

[Mr Punter]

Here is ChatGPTs take:

 

If Building Control made a mistake in approving the plans that led to the building failing the final inspection, they may be held liable for the cost of making the building comply with the required standards. However, liability in this type of situation can be complex and depends on several factors.

Firstly, it is important to determine whether the mistake made by Building Control was due to negligence or incompetence. If Building Control failed to identify a significant error in the plans that would have been apparent to a competent inspector, they may be found to have been negligent. On the other hand, if the mistake was due to a lack of knowledge or training, they may not be considered negligent.

Secondly, it is important to consider the terms and conditions of the building control agreement. The agreement may include provisions that limit the liability of Building Control in certain circumstances, such as where the building work was carried out by a third party, or where the error was caused by the property owner or their representatives.

If Building Control is found to be liable for the cost of making the building comply with the required standards, you may be able to make a claim for compensation. It is recommended that you seek legal advice to determine your options for making a claim and to ensure that you have a strong case.

[Temp]

Ask chatgpi about the House of Lords’ decision in Murphy v Brentwood 🙂

 

[Mr Punter]

1 hour ago, Temp said:

Ask chatgpi about the House of Lords’ decision in Murphy v Brentwood 🙂

 

But that case had nothing to do with failure with the Full Plans Approval but that they did not do a trench inspection.  Not relevant to the OP.

[Mike]

Not a great situation, but given the choice between spending £5K on a misting system, of £5K on legal fees, I think the former would be the better option.

[Lofty718]

7 hours ago, Temp said:

When did the BCO approve the drawings? Was it before or after end of June 22?

 

It appears Section 38 of the Building Control Act 1984 _may_ make BCO liable but it only came into force on about 28th June 22 with the Building Safety Act.

 

https://www.mishcon.com/news/introduction-of-section-38-building-act-1984

 

 

 

Interesting thanks for posting this.

 

I been digging and found this about section 38

 

[Adsibob]

20 hours ago, Lofty718 said:

It was an architectural technician not an actual ARB architect. However surely they should still have a responsibility to know the regs (in my opinion)

Were they holding themselves out to you as a member of the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists (CIAT)? (Check their website, any footers under their email signature or letters after their name in their email signature. Also check the CIAT register.

If they were, then yes they probably have some duty of care to you. 

 

20 hours ago, Lofty718 said:

I was not aware I could use a fire curtain

 

 

You definitely can use a fire curtain. You may need a fire engineer's report to satisfy to BCO that this woudl work, but that would be required with a mist suppression system anyway. Just more paperwork and fees, but such is life.

 

20 hours ago, Lofty718 said:

 

the BCO said door, sprinklers or misting system.

Yes, but the BCO has also been incompetent here, so you need to start taking everything they say with several pinches of salt.

 

20 hours ago, Lofty718 said:

 

However I do not know how a fire curtain would look, the ceiling is flat and square but space is limited, I can't really find many examples of domestic fire curtains anywhere online

There are some pictures here: https://www.coopersfire.com/sectors/domestic-housing/

You basically need to cut out a recess for the curtain, which is more like a roller blind. That needs power. In the event of a fire a sensor releases the blind and it drops down to effectively create a fireproof barrier between two spaces. Simples.

[Adsibob]

10 hours ago, Lofty718 said:

Interesting thanks for posting this.

 

I been digging and found this about section 38

 

If that is correct, then you're fine, as you can just say it's not been "completed" yet. Presumably you haven't been able to get a completion certificate yet, so easy to prove it's not completed yet. But it would surprise me if that was correct, because it would be an example of legislation with retrospective effect, which is pretty rare in a modern democracy.

[Lofty718]

Thanks @Adsibob I read through your thread here before I became a member and have been going through similar seperate problems with my project. The building industry needs a huge shake up and more regulation.

 

You mention CIAT and he is a member of them and I have just received an email from them today asking for more information however they do not have much power and going down that avenue at best would have the technician removed from the body and I would gain nothing from getting him in trouble, everyone makes mistakes.

 

I think the fire curtain could work and they don't look too obtrusive I am going to look into this further.

 

To add to my bad luck, I had broadband being installed and the guy didn't realise I had a pocket door in the wall and drilled right through my lovely pocket door

 

I will keep the thread updated here because it could potentially help others avoid ending up in this situation. I had read about fire surpression being needed in some properties but no one had mentioned it to me for my build so I assumed it wasn't needed. I thought I had everying in good order and organised so it's a bit of a disappointment to miss such a big issue

Edited April 6, 2023 by Lofty718

[Lofty718]

1 hour ago, Adsibob said:

If that is correct, then you're fine, as you can just say it's not been "completed" yet. Presumably you haven't been able to get a completion certificate yet, so easy to prove it's not completed yet. But it would surprise me if that was correct, because it would be an example of legislation with retrospective effect, which is pretty rare in a modern democracy.

These laws are still being implemented, it's quite vague but I believe it was giving royal assent last year.

[Dave Jones]

just remember going to lawfare will take months/years and you will not have a completion cert in the meantime. You cant insure using a normal home insurance etc

 

wood for the trees.

[Temp]

22 hours ago, Mr Punter said:

But that case had nothing to do with failure with the Full Plans Approval but that they did not do a trench inspection.  Not relevant to the OP.

It the case everyone cites to say BCO aren't liable for mistakes they make.

[Lofty718]

28 minutes ago, Temp said:

It the case everyone cites to say BCO aren't liable for mistakes they make.

I've seen that case cited a lot but never in these particular circumstances. So it's rather difficult to speculate

[Mr Punter]

On 05/04/2023 at 18:16, Temp said:

Ask chatgpi about the House of Lords’ decision in Murphy v Brentwood 🙂

 

The House of Lords' decision in Murphy v Brentwood has significant bearing on this situation. The Murphy v Brentwood case, also known as the "Hedley Byrne" case, established the principle of a duty of care owed by professionals who provide advice or services.

In the context of building control, this means that Building Control has a duty of care to ensure that their inspections and approvals are carried out with reasonable skill and care. If Building Control fails to exercise this duty of care and their negligence causes damage or loss, they may be held liable for this damage or loss.

The Murphy v Brentwood case also established the principle of "pure economic loss", which refers to losses that are purely financial in nature and not associated with physical injury or damage. In the context of building control, this means that a property owner may be able to claim compensation for financial losses incurred as a result of Building Control's negligence, such as the cost of making the building comply with the required standards.

Therefore, the House of Lords' decision in Murphy v Brentwood has a significant bearing on this situation, as it establishes the legal framework for determining liability in cases of negligence by Building Control. If Building Control's mistake in approving the plans was due to negligence, and this negligence caused financial losses, the property owner may have grounds to make a claim for compensation.

[Temp]

https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/ck0a8ceh1n3th0b36ja0dc7c9/270418-building-control-and-duty-of-care-murphy-v-brentwood-revisited

 

Quote

 

Murphy v Brentwood [1991] UKHL 2

 

In Murphy v Brentwood the claimant purchased a property which transpired to be built on defective foundations. The claimant sought damages from Brentwood District Council’s building control function in respect of diminution of property value, alleging that building control had negligently signed off on the foundation plans. It was held that building control was not liable for the cost of remedying the defects. This was decided on the basis that for policy reasons, the common law duty to take reasonable care does not apply to building control in circumstances where no physical injury had been suffered and the loss is purely economic.

 

Therefore, according to Murphy v Brentwood, in most circumstances there is no legal recourse in respect of pure economic loss against building control which has approved defective plans.

 

However, the inherent flexibility of the common law means that the position is not settled. Depending on the facts, a successful claim against a public body for pure economic loss cannot be discounted.