Stroma private building control. Any experience?

[flanagaj]

I have just taken out the Protek Structural Warranty policy and opted to use private building control.  They use a company called Stroma and their introduction was basically an email with absolutely no pleasantries, which went along the line of "supply these documents"

Now I am thinking or binning them before the 14 day period is up and switching to LABC.  At least with LABC, I know they answer emails and get back to you.   Has anyone had any experience of Stroma BC?

[Redbeard]

No, but my general experience of LA vs private BC has been that LABC are more thorough, though to be fair, see-very-little 'fly-bys' can be common to both, and the use of photographic evidence is, in my view, at very least a mixed 'blessing'.

[flanagaj]

2 minutes ago, Redbeard said:

No, but my general experience of LA vs private BC has been that LABC are more thorough, though to be fair, see-very-little 'fly-bys' can be common to both, and the use of photographic evidence is, in my view, at very least a mixed 'blessing'.

I have used LABC before on a renovation and I did find them very helpful.  They were always willing to provide advice and guidance.  I am concerned that by going down the private route, I won't get that luxury.

[Redbeard]

I'd go with your gut feeling, then, and go for LA.

[Nickfromwales]

1 hour ago, flanagaj said:

I have just taken out the Protek Structural Warranty policy and opted to use private building control.  They use a company called Stroma and their introduction was basically an email with absolutely no pleasantries, which went along the line of "supply these documents"

Now I am thinking or binning them before the 14 day period is up and switching to LABC.  At least with LABC, I know they answer emails and get back to you.   Has anyone had any experience of Stroma BC?

They over-egged the shit out of a project of mine previously, and cost the client a lot of unnecessary expense.

 

The issue is that these 'giants' stomp about and stipulate things and folk just take it for granted that their requests / demands are kosher, but sadly the majority of private are pretty hopeless.

 

I'd stick with LABC as they're usually more grounded as it's not about self-preservation or perpetuation of their companies commercial future.

[flanagaj]

1 hour ago, Nickfromwales said:

I'd stick with LABC as they're usually more grounded as it's not about self-preservation or perpetuation of their companies commercial future.

That was my thinking after I was sort of steered in the direction of private building control.  Private by the very name, indicates a business aimed at profit.   Where as LABC is not a charity, but is operated on a different model.  

[G and J]

3 hours ago, flanagaj said:

They were always willing to provide advice and guidance

I think here the word "were" is very relevant. Since Grenfell, there is a tendency not to give advice or opinion.

 

We have gone private and our inspector has recently self built himself and has been easy to deal with, so no complaints there.

 

We also have a potek warranty. We are just about to have the second "audit", "cavities", the inspection of the "foundations" was not straightforward, but resolveable.

[Jonny]

Just to add some balance. I used Stroma for a recent extension and found them very responsive and the surveyor was great, level headed and came up with practical solutions as needed. Information was returned quickly. 
 

As per any large company I am sure it is down to luck of the draw as to what region/surveyor you are working with. 

[BadgerBodger]

My general experience with building control is that they are as “hands off” as they need to be/feel they can be. If you don’t give them confidence they (rightly) weigh in on things. Maybe I’ve been lucky but I think if you are using and engineer and an architect with detail drawings they have a tendency to be a bit more relaxed. 
 

I’ve gone private because I was warned by one of my designers that the local LBA was struggling and engagement was not necessarily prompt or forthcoming.

Edited September 2 by BadgerBodger

[Jitender Singh]

I had a very disappointing experience with Stroma Building Control during my home extension.

Their inspectors initially accepted my flat roof and firring pieces as compliant. After I sent them photos and measurements showing that the roof fall was far below the minimum 1:80 requirement (around 1:140), they later changed their view and deemed the roof non-compliant.

Because the roof had been “passed” at the earlier inspection, my builder demanded final payment and then walked off the job when the roof was rejected. I was left to pay a second contractor to strip and rebuild the entire roof at my own expense.

Despite providing all correspondence proving this sequence of events, Stroma have denied any responsibility, stating that their inspections are only “sample checks.”

The issue was clear and easily measurable at the time of inspection and should have been flagged. The result was months of delay, financial loss, and huge stress.

I would urge anyone appointing Stroma to keep independent oversight of their builders and not rely on Stroma’s inspection reports.

[Mr Punter]

12 hours ago, Jitender Singh said:

I had a very disappointing experience with Stroma Building Control during my home extension.

Their inspectors initially accepted my flat roof and firring pieces as compliant. After I sent them photos and measurements showing that the roof fall was far below the minimum 1:80 requirement (around 1:140), they later changed their view and deemed the roof non-compliant.

Because the roof had been “passed” at the earlier inspection, my builder demanded final payment and then walked off the job when the roof was rejected. I was left to pay a second contractor to strip and rebuild the entire roof at my own expense.

Despite providing all correspondence proving this sequence of events, Stroma have denied any responsibility, stating that their inspections are only “sample checks.”

The issue was clear and easily measurable at the time of inspection and should have been flagged. The result was months of delay, financial loss, and huge stress.

I would urge anyone appointing Stroma to keep independent oversight of their builders and not rely on Stroma’s inspection reports.

 

A Building Control inspection does not absolve your contractor of their responsibility to design and construct to standards.  They should have designed the roof with a 1:40 fall.

[Nickfromwales]

On 12/12/2025 at 10:06, Mr Punter said:

 

A Building Control inspection does not absolve your contractor of their responsibility to design and construct to standards.  They should have designed the roof with a 1:40 fall.

Absolutely. 
 

Most contractors feel they need to fear, or hide away from the BCO. Engaging with them to keep the cogs oiled is often far more beneficial overall, and prevents such feckups. 
 

Depends on how far you let the builder go before provoking a visit from building control. 

[Gus Potter]

On 02/09/2025 at 11:40, flanagaj said:

I have just taken out the Protek Structural Warranty policy and opted to use private building control.  They use a company called Stroma and their introduction was basically an email with absolutely no pleasantries, which went along the line of "supply these documents"

Now I am thinking or binning them before the 14 day period is up and switching to LABC.  At least with LABC, I know they answer emails and get back to you.   Has anyone had any experience of Stroma BC?

I've recently been working with someone who has been using Protek. I have to be very careful about what I say here as I use my own name. One miss step from me here and I'll get sued and will probably lose any case. It's not just Protek it's also the NHBC, both will take my trousers down if I slander and rightly so. That said the rep from Protek told me the MD was a hands on guy and he would phone me. He did not and that was not good form!

 

I'm not taking favour as many other warranty providers make caveats and have "fine print", insurance is a business, a very competetive one.

 

I kind of know a bit about this as from time to time I advise Clients when they are claiming against warranty providers. To do so I have to understand just what was the policy covers and what it does not.

 

To put this another way.. I pitch up on BH and folk are chipping in to say that SE's are crap, Architects are crap, builders are crap .. and we are all over charging you and not taking on any, or, reducing our liability. The warranty providers are fighting back to keep their premiums competetive. 

 

One way they are doing this is to pass the risk on to other designers, so thier risk is less and they can reduce the premium.

 

As  above I need to be really careful about what I say. My own view is that the warranty providers have recognised that self builders often  just want to get cover so the can get lending it's almost akin to selling car insurance. Providers caveat this as the market is competetive. It's a race to the bottom. 

 

As a self buider you need to ask yourself. Do I want cover so the bank will lend to me or do I want cover that actually secures my assett and investment. So I'm going to quote Ruskin here: mull this over.

 

There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price alone are that person’s lawful prey. It’s unwise to pay too much, but it’s worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money — that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot — it can’t be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”

 

 

Edited 15 hours ago by Gus Potter