Latest posts:
Rate this!
Stephen Clyne
Member - 4 posts
It has been very useful. For Colin, its an Academy so no Education Authority involvement.
Update, the architect is hiding behind his PI insurance and asserting that meeting the headroom requirements under any circumstances is compliance. The Contractor, with whom I sympathise says, the architect says.....
The most helpful response has been the Insurance Underwriter's Risk Assessor (who incidentally until approached by the underwriter has no obligation to the underwriter so a source of unbiased and honest advice - very useful piece of knowledge). His advice is that whether there is a risk or not, because the insured thinks there might be, there is an obligation to notify the insurance underwriter. As the liabilities in the event of an incident are financial (not criminal) it is the insurance underwriter who bears the brunt. We have therefore done so. If the underwriter is concerned, he will dispatch his/her risk assessor to advise the underwriter who will (a) accept the risk (b) reject the risk or (c) load the risk. If (a) we can all relax, if (b) we can raise the matter with the architect/contractor as a fact not conjecture, and if (c) again we have a matter of fact for the architect to remedy.
I thank everybody who has shared their experience - as a first time user I am well pleased. I will post a blog once the Insurer has settled the matter.
Rate this!
Stephen Clyne
Member - 4 posts
I've learnt a lot since starting this dialogue. A domestic building would be signed off by Building Control, whilst apparently buildings designed and specified by a professional team although there is an inspector involved (Building Control or Approved Inspector) , is signed off by the Architect. Also involved is the CDM Co-ordinator who witnesses the design process.
Compliance with the Building Regulations is assured by the Architect, which can be by adherence to the guidance in the Approved Documents or otherwise.
In my case, now that everyone understands the issue, it appears to being resolved amicably with the contractor. The Architect's risk assessment reveals an 'unusual' risk which obviously is 'prima facie' that he has to do something about it.
The other party that has just emerged is the building insurer's risk assessor. The insurer not accepting the risk is a very useful weapon in the Client's armoury.
Rate this!
Stephen Clyne
Member - 4 posts
I am due to take possession of a 9,000m2, 3 storey secondary school building with staircases that have quarter landings within straight flights of stairs. Because they are not vertically above each other, the 2m minimum headroom required by the building regs does not stop a tall person hitting their head as they move from landing to flight - you leave the landing area horizontally. For an institutional building with crowded stairs - risk assessment makes this situation unacceptable for the building owner.
Rate this!
Stephen Clyne
Member - 4 posts
Is apparent compliance with the guidance in the building regulations a defence? The builder says, it complies. The Approved Inspector has allowed it, but our risk assessment identifies a significant risk.
0 (0)
