Case Study - Commercial refurb

Question 1

What was the roof construction?

Answer 1

Timber joists covered with plywood and felt

Question 2

Did you carry out core tests to the roof to determine its construction and the presence of water if not why?

Answer 2

No - the client advised on the general construction following previous remedial work and there were no reported leaks internally. It was decided to review upon removal of the felt

Question 3

You say the roof covering had numerous tears and blistering but there is no mention of any indications of water ingress into the building-why?

Answer 3

There were no reported leaks internally through there was of course a risk of concealed defects. Repairs had been carried out on a frequent basis.

Question 4

How did you allow for repairs to the roof deck?

Answer 4

There was a provisional sum to cover deck repairs

Question 5

Is part K of the Building Regulations retrospective?

Answer 5

No - The regulations apply to new construction work, and do not require that existing buildings are brought up to standard. However, where new work is being carried out to existing buildings, such as alterations, insulation and so on the regulations do apply. The regulations may also apply if the use of a building is changed.

Question 6

How would the handrail be fixed to the roof?

Answer 6

The handrail was freestanding, stability is provided by cantilever counter balance weights

Question 7

What legislation, apart from the HSAW applied to your roof survey?

Answer 7

the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974;
the Work at Height Regulations 2005;
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015;

Question 8

What is the recommended distance from the unprotected edge you need to be?

Answer 8

I would risk assess it based on environmental conditions but generally 2m

Question 9

You recommended a monocouche render for the south facing walls-why as these renders are prone to cracking?

Answer 9

I considered silicone based and acrylic render but this was more expensive, acrylic render is not breathable

Question 10

What other types of renders may have been more suited and why did you reject them?

Answer 10

Lime but this was dismissed as more labour intensive
Silicone but this was more expensive
Cement and acrylic not considered breathable

Question 11

How did you deal with the residents right “ to quite enjoyment” when removing the render?

Answer 11

Through notification and communication to agree “noisy” work hours

Question 12

You suggest that the external walls may have been damp due to the faulty render. If so, what advice did you give to your client about their potential liabilities under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Answer 12

I advised that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 11 states that the freeholder is responsible for maintaining the exterior and structure of the building in good repair and that they should seek advice on liabilities from their RICS registered managing agent.

Question 13

What advice did you give to your client about their liabilities for any internal repairs to the individual flats?

Answer 13

I advised that they may be responsible for internal repairs under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 and that they should seek advice on liabilities from their RICS registered managing agent.

Question 14

Did your PI insurance cover you to give advice on fire safety matters?

Answer 14

No advice was given other than to seek advice from a competent specialist Fire Risk Assessor

Question 15

What other legislation may have required emergency lighting?

Answer 15

British standards and Approved Documents

Question 16

The contractor was responsible for the design of the emergency lighting so what performance requirements did you put in your performance specification.

Answer 16

It was to meet the specification provided by the fire risk assessment

Question 17

How did you check that the lighting installed met the legislation?

Answer 17

By reviewing product data sheets and comparing with the specification in the fire risk assessment

Question 18

Which of the following emergency lighting was actually required?

Answer 18

Escape route lighting:

Question 19

When accepting the lighting what tests were carried out?

Answer 19

A visual inspection with fittings activated by key switches

Question 20

There were 3 distinct areas of work to the project: the roofing works, the render works, and the emergency lighting. How did this influence your recommendation of the JCT intermediate contract?

Answer 20

There was a preference to include for contractors design

Question 21

The contractors submitted revised tenders with alternative products for the roof covering and render as these were the costliest items. What as the alternative material for the roof covering?

Answer 21

It remained as felt but was a different product

Question 22

Why was JCT Intermediate with CDP used?

Answer 22

It allowed for CPD and provided more comfort than Minor Works with regard to complex issues such as the roof and render

Question 23

What was the value of the works?

Answer 23

£330k

Question 24

How were payments paid?

Answer 24

The client was the freeholder and had received money from tenants which was held by the managing agent. Upon certification, an invoice was raised and money was released by the agent direct to the contractor. In general, similar payments are made direct from clients. JCT confirms the payment period which is usually 14 days, sometimes 21 days.