South Cambridgeshire Local Authority, yay/nay?

[Gema]

Hi, 

 

we are trying to decide whether to use Local Authority for building regulations or a private company. We are in South Cambridgeshire and would like to know if someone has had experience interacting with them (https://www.3csharedservices.org/) and they found them responsive or have some feedback.

 

Alternatively, if we were to use a private company for this, any recommendations for this side of the country? We have Act Surveyors, Delta, and Gateway building control on our short list.

 

Our reason to go with Local Authority would be that we've read that private BCAs are a bit hit and miss, so it seemed better to go with local authority. Until you read some of the posts here that have so many issues with constraint resources in some areas... At the end of the day, we'd like a BCA that's responsive, relatively fast to respond/iterate, and as clear as possible in their feedback.

[Dreadnaught]

I have used "3CSharedServices" for the building control for my (solo) self build in Cambridge city. I am currently at first fix and the next inspection is for completion (still some distance ahead).

 

I have been happy with them all the way through. 

 

Happy to provide more information if you like.

 

Dreadnaught

[Gus Potter]

9 hours ago, Gema said:

we are trying to decide whether to use Local Authority for building regulations or a private company. We are in South Cambridgeshire and would like to know if someone has had experience interacting with them (https://www.3csharedservices.org/) and they found them responsive or have some feedback.

 

Alternatively, if we were to use a private company for this, any recommendations for this side of the country? We have Act Surveyors, Delta, and Gateway building control on our short list.

 

Our reason to go with Local Authority would be that we've read that private BCAs are a bit hit and miss, so it seemed better to go with local authority. Until you read some of the posts here that have so many issues with constraint resources in some areas... At the end of the day, we'd like a BCA that's responsive, relatively fast to respond/iterate, and as clear as possible in their feedback.

Now to stir things up. 

 

Say you have a private regulated pension. The provider goes bust.. the UK gov often pick up the tab. 

 

But Private BC's need to hold cover for apparently 15 -30 years.. but if the company goes bust then what? 

 

To put this into context. As an SE I hold £2.0 million cover as a sole trader and it's expensive, but rightly so. If, god forgive I do make a mistake and someone gets hurt then the very least I can do is to have adequate insurance that could go to help someone that I have hurt. It's common knowledge that nearly all SE's stop practicing if you have designed something that has killed someone. Personally I would also hang up my boots.. the guilt could be very hard mentally to deal with. 

 

But private BC in England.. it's every man for them self! The piper calls the tune.. It's chancers charter! 

 

Private BC's are writing very much more liability that is supposed to be on 15 - 30 years for cover time! If bet if you look at their T & C's they have not factored in run off insurance cover. I think that this length of cover (if including run off)  is not really going to make private BC's competetive? But what happens when private BC goes bust.

 

I'm battling with a warranty provider at the moment.. deny, delay, defend,they do everything to avoid engaging in a Claim, same will happen with private BC. 

 

The thing lots of folk on BH don't get is that if your house is non compliant and someone like me turns up to value it.. it's blighted if  not compliant. 

 

In summary private BC may be fine to get you over the line.. but in ten years time you may struggle to seek recourse.

 

It's frankly an English gimmic. In Scotland we have a much more robust system that protects the public, not the best but much more in the round. 

 

OH I feel outrage from some of the English members of BH..! But deep down I know lots of you know you are chancing your arm!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 00:40 by Gus Potter

[Duncan62]

I've been using 3C for my build. First timer. Seen fine to me, but I know no different. Easy to book online and generally can come within a couple of days.

 

Not had any snags from our BC, but have had 1 from the warranty provider (incorrect tape used), so between them they'll keep you straight.

[Nickfromwales]

52 minutes ago, Duncan62 said:

I've been using 3C for my build. First timer. Seen fine to me, but I know no different. Easy to book online and generally can come within a couple of days.

 

Not had any snags from our BC, but have had 1 from the warranty provider (incorrect tape used), so between them they'll keep you straight.

BCO and warranty provider (private, combined) walked past a load of faux pas, totally focussed on a few things.

 

Council guys seem more focussed on the project, but also seem overworked.

 

Double edged sword for council vs private imo. 

[saveasteading]

My take is rather different.

What do you havd and need by way of design knowledge, site control and construction skills?

The bco is not your designer or clerk of works.

So if you are highly knowledgeable or you have a project manager or main contractor who is, then you have the confidence to proceed and get boxes ticked as you go. The bco will check things that worry them, or that they happen to notice, then sign it off.

Either LA or private will suffice.

My own preference is private because they have been, in my experience, happy to be team players, whereas LA have wanted to score points.... and hated any answering back.

 

Eg. They ask for the trench to go deeper, and I ask why.  They don't know but always say that.

 

But if you are not that experienced, and are sticking to tried and tested construction, then I would say use the LA.

 

Also I'd say to use the full plans process where they agree the design before you start (compulsory in Scotland. )

 

 

[Roger440]

11 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

 

 

The thing lots of folk on BH don't get is that if your house is non compliant and someone like me turns up to value it.. it's blighted if  not compliant. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In England i would say that 95% of houses are "not compliant" in some way or other. 

 

If every job that should have building regs actually did, the whole system would collapse in short order.

 

Different when talking about new houses though.

[Roger440]

15 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

 

My own preference is private because they have been, in my experience, happy to be team players, whereas LA have wanted to score points.... and hated any answering back.

 

Eg. They ask for the trench to go deeper, and I ask why.  They don't know but always say that.

 

But if you are not that experienced, and are sticking to tried and tested construction, then I would say use the LA.

 

Also I'd say to use the full plans process where they agree the design before you start (compulsory in Scotland. )

 

 

I recall my first foray into doing something requiring building regs, a timber frame, timber clad outbuilding.

 

Council bloke said 3 meter trench foundations. I might have been a bit green back then, but that sounded like nonsense to me. On questioning, he said it was because of the trees alongside. (mostly Ash). I said, if i dig a massive trench ill be cutting through all the roots which will destabilise the trees. "Not my problem" was the answer. 3 meters or you dont build it was the message.

 

Needless to say, binned him off and went private. Sensible discussion about what was and wasnt acceptable followed.

 

As far as i can see, asking for deeper trenches is to absolve them of thinking, and reducing their liability, entirely at your expense.

 

If i was doing it now, as you say, full plans route. Fortunately the previous owner built a massive shed thus neatly removing that problem. 

[kandgmitchell]

13 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

In summary private BC may be fine to get you over the line.. but in ten years time you may struggle to seek recourse.

 

It's frankly an English gimmic. In Scotland we have a much more robust system that protects the public, not the best but much more in the round. 

I'm not up to speed with Scottish law but here you are unlikely to get recourse from any BC provider LA or private. Murphy vs Brentwood 1991 effectively blocked actions against LA building control and the later Zagora vs Zurich Building Control Services Ltd 2019 along with Herons Court vs NHBC Building Control Services Ltd in 2018 made any successful action against private inspectors almost impossible. You have to remember the inspectors job is to check the building complies with the law. It's not to advise you how to build. Of course you get helpful inspectors and others that are not, in the same way police officers differ in their approaches to the public.

 

I'm not sure calling what is now a pretty highly regulated profession that involves criminal sanctions against those not properly registered, as well as having a publicly available list of persons entitled to be "building inspectors", a "gimmic". Please correct me if I'm wrong but the only other construction professionals that have to be registered by law are architects.

[Alan Ambrose]

I’m using Vantage based in Earl Soham, prob not so far from you. Seem good, but I’m not looking to them for advice (as above) and have solicited their views on only a couple of details.

[kandgmitchell]

A decent BCO whether public or private ought to be able to point out any objections they have to a detail which should then allow the designer to adjust that detail to bring into compliance. I'd find it surprising that they would simply say "no". The main issue of many LA's is simply lack of staff, when we built 2 years ago I used the LA for the sewer connection back into the site. The guy was helpful but pointed out there was just him full time and two part time contract staff to cover a huge mainly rural area. I used private BC for the house....

[SteamyTea]

15 hours ago, Gus Potter said:

but if the company goes bust then what? 

Seems to remember that someone on here has that problem.

If I remember correctly, they where having trouble getting the paperwork that shows what had been done and signed off.

 

Can't remember who it was, or what was resolved.

[saveasteading]

2 hours ago, kandgmitchell said:

the only other construction professionals that have to be registered by law are architects.

It's a strange situation. Architects and others on here may correct me.

I'm a Chartered Civil Engineer. If I do a job wrong the consequences could be catastrophic... think building or dam collapsing. So one has to be qualified to be insured.

But not registered by law.

Meanwhile the term Civil Engineer is used by many a groundworker. Some are good of course. They could not say Architect though or would be in trouble.

 

A Chartered  Surveyor who helped our business in claims said only 3 professions were required by their charters to do what was 'right' for society* even if it meant going against their employer's instruction. Medical Doctor, Nurse, Civil Engineer.

I've a feeling he said that Surgeons and Structural Engineers didn't have such a requirement either, and certainly not Lawyers, Surveyors, Architects.

 

I've just paid my annual fees so can maybe find what I've signed for.

 

I welcome correction.

 

[SteamyTea]

24 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

welcome correction

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/professions-regulated-by-law-in-the-uk-and-their-regulators/uk-regulated-professions-and-their-regulators

 

May not be what I thought you meant.

 

[Roger440]

4 hours ago, kandgmitchell said:

A decent BCO whether public or private ought to be able to point out any objections they have to a detail which should then allow the designer to adjust that detail to bring into compliance. I'd find it surprising that they would simply say "no". The main issue of many LA's is simply lack of staff, when we built 2 years ago I used the LA for the sewer connection back into the site. The guy was helpful but pointed out there was just him full time and two part time contract staff to cover a huge mainly rural area. I used private BC for the house....

 

Post ocober 23, they are very restricted in terms of what they can say. Guidance is a definite no no. Of course, old habits die hard and im sure plenty still do.

[Roger440]

6 hours ago, kandgmitchell said:

I'm not up to speed with Scottish law but here you are unlikely to get recourse from any BC provider LA or private. Murphy vs Brentwood 1991 effectively blocked actions against LA building control and the later Zagora vs Zurich Building Control Services Ltd 2019 along with Herons Court vs NHBC Building Control Services Ltd in 2018 made any successful action against private inspectors almost impossible. You have to remember the inspectors job is to check the building complies with the law. It's not to advise you how to build. Of course you get helpful inspectors and others that are not, in the same way police officers differ in their approaches to the public.

 

I'm not sure calling what is now a pretty highly regulated profession that involves criminal sanctions against those not properly registered, as well as having a publicly available list of persons entitled to be "building inspectors", a "gimmic". Please correct me if I'm wrong but the only other construction professionals that have to be registered by law are architects.

 

It might be highly regulated now, but there still no recourse against building control as you have observed and precedent set in law.

 

Not sure id call it a gimmick, but its largely a pointless excercise. They can, and do, sign off any old crap, and there nothing you can do about it. Other than report it to the regulator. Who may or may not take action. But no recourse is available to you as the homeowner. 

[saveasteading]

12 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

May not be what I thought you meant.

Seems to be a "Who to complain to" list.

Only Architects from the construction industry. How odd.

If you work with fluorine  gas there seem to be multiple regulating bodies.

[kandgmitchell]

4 hours ago, saveasteading said:

Only Architects from the construction industry.

It's out of date as building inspectors have to be registered and it's an offence to call yourself one and not be registered.  Given the potential for criminal action being taken against inspector as per:

 

Criminal offences

Criminal offences include:

giving advice or acting outside the scope of your registration

deliberately doing anything that implies work is within scope of your registration, when it is not

acting as or implying that you are an RBI, without being registered

obstructing, deceiving or impersonating an authorised BSR officer

giving false or misleading information to BSR

failing to provide information as requested by an authorised BSR officer

If your registration is suspended it is a criminal offence to:

carry out restricted activities

give advice relating to restricted activities

deliberately do anything to imply your registration is not suspended

If there is evidence you have committed a criminal offence, you may be prosecuted.

 

I'd say the chances of getting lots of advice from a BI are getting slimmer. Not sure many other construction professionals are under such constraints.

 

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, kandgmitchell said:

It's out of date as building inspectors have to be registered and it's an offence to call yourself one and not be registered.  Given the potential for criminal action being taken against inspector as per:

 

Criminal offences

Criminal offences include:

giving advice or acting outside the scope of your registration

deliberately doing anything that implies work is within scope of your registration, when it is not

acting as or implying that you are an RBI, without being registered

obstructing, deceiving or impersonating an authorised BSR officer

giving false or misleading information to BSR

failing to provide information as requested by an authorised BSR officer

If your registration is suspended it is a criminal offence to:

carry out restricted activities

give advice relating to restricted activities

deliberately do anything to imply your registration is not suspended

If there is evidence you have committed a criminal offence, you may be prosecuted.

 

I'd say the chances of getting lots of advice from a BI are getting slimmer. Not sure many other construction professionals are under such constraints.

 

 

There must have been a fair bit of dishonesty going on for it to result in all that!

 

Although it was pretty clear it was going on.

[kandgmitchell]

I'm not sure there was widespread dishonesty rather than widespread variation in expertise. The registration process is meant to try and drive up standards and in reaction to Grenfell (and be honest some of this may be political with a small p) something needed to be seen to be done.

[kandgmitchell]

Oh and to add - for every non-compliant detail that was missed by a BCO there was an incompetent builder or designer that actually did the work! 

[saveasteading]

I never came across the slightest hint of corruption. But maybe I don't spot any hints, not thinking that way myself.

(I'm forever seeing social media comments blaming everything on 'brown envelopes", presumably from people who would if they could.)

 

However, I have come across ignorance and misplaced self- importance esp in LA inspectors.*

 

It surprises me when I occasionally see on here that a BCO has given a self- builder advice, as they do spot checks, not thorough inspections.

 

My guess re the now required registration is that some authorities or businesses were delegating to juniors or other unqualified staff, so that had to stop. If there was any criticism in Grenfell et al, then I've missed it.

 

* one such young LA chap told me he wasn't accepting block paving in an industrial yard. I asked him why and he blustered some nonsense. So I told him I'd get an Engineer's letter to him. He responded that I needn't bother as they'll write anything they are asked for. I did a how dare you rant, but wished I could have got him sacked.

Readers , I was that Engineer but was probably dressed other than he expected.

So yes, there need to be standards for a BCO,  and I hope they have risen.