Approved Inspector gone bust - what next?

[LnP]

As mentioned elsewhere, PWC Approved Inspectors have gone bust, so I have to decide where to go now for building control.

 

I registered the build with PWC before the BR change in June 2022 and did some very minor works before June 2023 so that I could say the build had started and could carry on under the old regs. We haven't started with the build though. My original decision to go with PWC was on advice from local builders who complained that the LA BCOs were slow to respond. The builder would be ready for the BCO to inspect something, but would have to wait 2 or 3 days for the go ahead. PWC gave a faster response.

 

I now have a choice:

1) "Revert" back to the LA Building Control which will allow me to carry on under the pre June 2022 regs. The LA will charge me £1200.

2) Start again with another Approved Inspector, which I think (but I haven't confirmed this) will mean the build will have to be under the new regs. They might be a few hundred pounds cheaper than the LA.

 

My architect says that the new regs wouldn't be a problem for us as we will anyway be exceeding BR thermal performance and starting again with another Approved Inspector shouldn't be a disadvantage. But are there issues other than thermal performance which would be a downside under the new regs?

 

I'm looking for advice please. Which way would you go?

 

Thanks

Edited August 31 by LnP

[Oz07]

Was the solar gain on glazing areas easier to pass under old regs could be one to watch for

[DevilDamo]

Option 2 is not an option. Your project will now have to be dealt with the Local Authority Building Control department.

[kandgmitchell]

On 31/08/2024 at 20:32, DevilDamo said:

Option 2 is not an option. Your project will now have to be dealt with the Local Authority Building Control department.

I'm not certain that's correct. There are provisions for "transfer notices" within the Approved Inspector Regulations which allow for the transfer of a project from one approved inspector to another. However, in this situation you may have to issue a cancellation notice yourself to the LA, you can then appoint a new Approved Inspector who issues a new Initial Notice. Have you had a cancellation notice from the LA at all?

 

This stuff is very complicated so you need to discuss this with any new AI (who may not be keen anyway) and/or the LA to find a legal way forward.

 

From my recollection the operation of the version of the regulations any work is subject to, is relevant to when the work started rather than when any notices are served so the regulations should be the same for either LA or new AI.

[LnP]

1 hour ago, kandgmitchell said:

I'm not certain that's correct. There are provisions for "transfer notices" within the Approved Inspector Regulations which allow for the transfer of a project from one approved inspector to another. However, in this situation you may have to issue a cancellation notice yourself to the LA, you can then appoint a new Approved Inspector who issues a new Initial Notice. Have you had a cancellation notice from the LA at all?

 

This stuff is very complicated so you need to discuss this with any new AI (who may not be keen anyway) and/or the LA to find a legal way forward.

 

From my recollection the operation of the version of the regulations any work is subject to, is relevant to when the work started rather than when any notices are served so the regulations should be the same for either LA or new AI.

I just spoke to Quadrant Approved Inspectors. They told me my understanding of the options is correct - 1) revert back to the LA, or 2) cancel the existing notification and start again under the new regs. They told me Option 2 should be possible because the project has hardly started, but I do nevertheless need to confirm it with the LA.

 

I'm still interested in thoughts about what the downside of Option 2, switching to the post June 2022 regs would be.

• Need to comply with Part O for overheating - is it a big deal or might it be a useful exercise anyway?
• I read on here that getting an EPC is more hassle under the new regs - somebody said you need to photograph every potential cold bridge?
• We're looking at timber frame 0.11 W/m²C anyway.
• ... any other things to think about?

Thanks

[kandgmitchell]

There was an initial notice served by PWC on the LA which suspends their involvement. The LA may now accept a simple change over to a new AI (it's a lot less hassle for them) with everyone pretending you hadn't actually done any work, otherwise you will need to go through the transfer process. Working under the later regulations will involve; high speed broadband, electric vehicle charging plus as you say enhanced thermal insulation requirements with photo's of various stages so the EPC supplier can confirm you've done what you are meant to. Part O is also a consideration, perhaps get your architect to assess the design against the new regs before you make up your mind.

[DevilDamo]

6 hours ago, kandgmitchell said:

I'm not certain that's correct.

But what if the initial AI has not issued a Part Final Certificate for a particular element? Or does that only apply when you’re wanting to transfer to another AI without them going into liquidation?

[Alan Ambrose]

Surely which regs you use is related to when you start, not when you engage BC?

[DevilDamo]

7 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

Surely which regs you use is related to when you start, not when you engage BC?

Nope, it’s when the application is submitted/validated. The only exception to that is during a time of transitioning between new regulations coming in which happened in 2022.

[kandgmitchell]

12 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

But what if the initial AI has not issued a Part Final Certificate for a particular element? Or does that only apply when you’re wanting to transfer to another AI without them going into liquidation?

This area is very complicated, my impression is that the LA ought to have issued a notice of cancellation as soon as it was obvious the AI was unable to continue with it's work. That triggers a defined period for the client to seek another AI to take over or else the project reverts to the LA. I suspect however that all parties tend to take a sensible and pragmatic approach in these extreme circumstances and I guess if the project has hardly started it makes sense to in effect start again. 

 

I agree the regulations used are those in force at the time of the initial notice. If the OP wants to avoid a particular requirement in the latest regs that significantly affects their design then they need to engineer a transfer pdq from the original intial notice. If they aren't bothered then simply start again with the latest regs.

[Richard Anthony Johnson]

If you want to switch, evidence will be the main issue.  You'll need to prove to the inspector that you've met requirements, which could mean opening up works for inspection. Re-applying will automatically revert to the new regs. Allowing the current application to revert back to the LABC will keep it active.

[LnP]

Update - I had paid PWC with a credit card, so I made a Section 75 claim against the credit card company .... and they have refunded my money, all £905!! Very happy😁.

[Alan Ambrose]

Did you decide your new route yet? I imagine that the remaining private BC companies are incentivised to find the least painful route for your transfer to them.