Is this something to be concerned about?

[saveasteading]

2 hours ago, Romfordian said:

Personally I think the heavier building has settled more/quicker than the smaller building (clay soil)

 

Part of the design process is to assess the ground strength.

Then the SE calculates the weight and  other loads of the building and what area of foundations will spread the load far enough that any settlement is trivial.

For the 3 storey building that will require a larger area (perhaps 3 times as much)  of foundations than for the single storey, unless the ground is very strong.

 

It seems that they have added the single storey as if it was an extension, rather than lined through.

But it still shouldn't separate and move differentially.

 

Your inspector would know all of that, if he has any expertise, or even has been paying attention.

 

2 hours ago, Romfordian said:

I would hope NHBC are sending qualified people to assess issues, if not I'm wasting my time even asking. 

Perhaps others on here know if NHBC are to be relied on. I'm not from a housing background. 

I do know though that the big developers do not regard themselves as builders, and leave all that stuff to others.

The 'others' may, or may not, have included an SE. Or they may just have built to typical details (seriously that happens).

 

No you are not wasting your time. Every process starts somewhere, and you have it on record that they have made an inspection and agreed that there is shrinkage damage.

 

 

I wonder if this is something you should advise to your house insurer. They may send an independent expert and pick this argument up for you, with more clout, rather than paying to fix it.

Or perhaps they'll say not to worry, and you can accept that.

 

It's up to you if you want to take it further, or hope it goes away.

[Brickie]

Looks like a movement joint where the two meet-obviously can’t see if it’s continuous behind the render but if it is,that would probably rule out differential movement/settlement. 
I think it my earlier scaffold lift theory looks more & more likely-what height from ground floor is the crack approximately?

[Romfordian]

52 minutes ago, Brickie said:

Looks like a movement joint where the two meet-obviously can’t see if it’s continuous behind the render but if it is,that would probably rule out differential movement/settlement. 
I think it my earlier scaffold lift theory looks more & more likely-what height from ground floor is the crack approximately?

Around 5ft

[Brickie]

1 hour ago, Romfordian said:

Around 5ft

So around 1.5m. If they built 24 courses from dpc 24 x 0.075m=1.8m,scaffold ledgers would normally go in a bit below that so that there’s a bit of work showing that you can plumb off. 
Starting to feel like Columbo. 
In all seriousness,I’ve come across this many times on sites-scaffolders often can’t be arsed to cut boards or tubes so they just force them in,walk away & to hell with the consequences. 

[Alan Ambrose]

Hi @Brickie,

 

Sorry to be dumb, but would you mind explaining that in more detail.

 

TIA, Alan

[Canski]

56 minutes ago, Brickie said:

I’ve come across this many times on sites-scaffolders often can’t be arsed to cut boards or tubes so they just force them in,walk away & to hell with the consequences. 

Plus 1 for this. I’ve seen it many times too. It normally happens a week or so after the groundworkers have tracked next to your walls before cavity filling them. Also happens a day before you smash your shins on short standards a minute after the ladder guard has tried to throw you and your tools off the scaffold. 

Edited July 24, 2023 by Canski

[Brickie]

22 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

Hi @Brickie,

 

Sorry to be dumb, but would you mind explaining that in more detail.

 

TIA, Alan

Not a problem,and not dumb. 
What I think maybe has happened is this-the brickwork has been built to 24 courses (“first lift”). The scaffolders,by accident or not caring,have butted the wall with a tube when putting the first lift in and left it with 2 or 3 course tipping back,giving the 5mm gap we see in the photo. The gap would be at our below the scaffold board height so not necessarily seen by the brickies (or they saw but didn’t care.) The offending tube stayed in position during the rest of the build and so did the 5mm gap. 

[Romfordian]

3 hours ago, Brickie said:

Not a problem,and not dumb. 
What I think maybe has happened is this-the brickwork has been built to 24 courses (“first lift”). The scaffolders,by accident or not caring,have butted the wall with a tube when putting the first lift in and left it with 2 or 3 course tipping back,giving the 5mm gap we see in the photo. The gap would be at our below the scaffold board height so not necessarily seen by the brickies (or they saw but didn’t care.) The offending tube stayed in position during the rest of the build and so did the 5mm gap. 

 

Is that when scaffolding the main building or the smaller?

 

And is there any issue with it longer term?

[Brickie]

31 minutes ago, Romfordian said:

 

Is that when scaffolding the main building or the smaller?

 

And is there any issue with it longer term?

Either or. I’d imagine they might have built the main house all the way up,struck the scaffold & then built the annexe separately but maybe not. 
Longer term-I’d say all you can do is fill it & monitor. 

[Alan Ambrose]

@Brickie - thanks for the extra explanation. So, it's all in the detail , but not a big problem and can be just scraped out and filled?

[Brickie]

10 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

@Brickie - thanks for the extra explanation. So, it's all in the detail , but not a big problem and can be just scraped out and filled?

Either that or get them to cut that course out & rebuild I guess. Either way I’d monitor it & keep a record.