HI Technical Bulletin Issue 5 November 2008
For registered members of the SAVA Certification Scheme
This month: Health and safety issues and the Home Inspector. Fact sheets explained Do you agree with the Inspector? Reader‟s comments on last month‟s case study. Index for bulletins issues 1 to 4.
Welcome to Issue 5 of SAVA‟s Home Inspector Technical Bulletin The bulletin focuses on Home Condition Reports and associated non-energy issues. We trust that you will find the bulletin useful for your day-to-day work and we welcome any feedback you have about what you would like to see covered in future editions.
Health and safety issues and the Home Inspector This article is to be read with a full
health and safety one of the main
understanding of the principles of risk
criterion for judging a category three
assessment and knowledge of current
condition
relevant legislation is required.
repeatedly states that the role of the
rating,
but
the
IRR
Home Condition Report is to identify For those that have minimal health and
safety
knowledge
these issues.
and
understanding the approach discussed
On the first reading, the guidance
in
to
seems clear. However, unless you
and
have an in-depth knowledge of health
this
document
will
lead
mis inte r p r e tatio n misunderstanding
by
the
reader.
and
safety
risk
assessment
in
Therefore reference should be made to
residential dwellings, some of your
the HSE web site www.hse.gov.uk
judgments are likely to be subjective.
for further guidance on the principles
This
of risk assessment.
between
It may also be
can
lead
to
inconsistencies
inspectors
and
advisable to undertake CPD activity to
misunderstandings with both sellers
ensure that current knowledge and
and buyers.
understanding of legislation and risk
sensible, objective, and accountable
assessment principles is achieved.
decisions, we have formulated an
To help you arrive at
approach that we hope you will find This
article
proposes
an
objective
useful.
method of assessing whether a defect poses a health and safety risk to the occupants of a dwelling. It is based on the
process first described in the
‗Home Inspector‘s Handbook‘.
This
revised procedure is presented here to generate a debate around what can be a grey area. The
HI
The health and safety risk assessment flowchart The initial task is to recognise that a potential health and safety risk could exist. During your normal inspection routine, you should be able to identify those features and defects that may
Inspection
and
Reporting
Requirements (IRR) make it clear that the issue of health and safety of the occupants has moved up the scale of
endanger the occupants and users of the building. should
go
Once identified, you through
the
following
steps:
to
Step one – does the element pose
previous survey types. Not only is
a potential threat to the health
importance
when
compared
HI Technical Bulletin
Page 2
and safety of the occupants?
may be too steep, too narrow and the
Step two – what level of risk does this
treads can be so small and/or variable
potential threat pose?
that they are dangerous to use.
Step three – can the potential threat be
banisters may be so far apart that small children could easily fall through.
reasonably remedied by repair or building work?
The
If you apply the latter judgment, you must
Step four – reporting action.
then move on to step two of the health and
We will now consider each of these steps in detail.
safety risk assessment.
Step two – what level of risk
Step one – does the element
does this potential threat pose?
pose a potential threat to the
Establishing
health
and
safety
of
the
occupants?
the
level
of
risk
is
usually
determined by the harm that may result from the
threat
happening.
and
the
likelihood
of
this
Although this is a complex and
In this first step, you should consider whether
sophisticated
there is a potential threat to the health and
starting point would be the list of risk items
judgement,
a
pragmatic
safety of the occupants.
mentioned in the IRR and to consider what are ‗low‘ and ‗high‘ risk situations for each of
One way of establishing this is to compare
these.
the element against current ‗benchmarks‘,
“The inspector should consider if there is a potential threat to the health and safety of the occupants.”
which can be found within an amalgam of
These
different
caution, as this is not a precise science; they
documents
Regulations,
British
including Standards,
Building Codes
descriptions
must
be
used
with
of
are intended to give you a broad framework
Practice and other publications such as those
within which you will have to come to your
published by the BRE, IEE, CORGI, etc.
own judgements. Once you have reached a ‗high risk‘ or ‗low risk‘ decision, you should
What we are looking for here are elements
then move on to step three.
that fall far below what is acceptable, making example,
Step three – can the potential
consider staircases. We think you should
threat be ‘reasonably’ remedied
them
a
danger
to
users.
For
know the current minimum standards for a staircase including:
by repair or building work? If
the allowable pitch of the staircase; the basic relationship between the risers and treads (including tapered treads);
the
repair
or
building
work
involves
radically changing the nature of the element, it would be unreasonable to do so.
For
example, installing a new staircase to replace
the minimum width, maximum number of
one that is too steep would involve so many
treads, minimum head heights; and
structural alterations that it would change the
provisions regarding handrails, balusters,
nature of the building.
guarding, etc. If straightforward repair or building work can This should give you a picture of an ‗ideal‘
resolve the matter, it would be viewed as
staircase or a ‗datum‘ against which you can
reasonable. Examples might include:
compare everyday.
those
that
you
come
across
This comparison will give two
possible responses:
falling off; replacing a dangerous boiler that could
1. The staircase is very similar to the current benchmarks. Where it is different it does not affect safety. In this case, no further consideration is required, the condition rating will not be affected and there will be no need to mention it in the Home Condition Report; 2. The staircase is well below the current benchmarks for safety.
re-fixing loose slates that are close to
The staircase
suffocate the building users; and repairing an electrical appliance that has exposed live wires. Having made this decision, you can then move towards deciding on what action to take.
The
underlying
principle
is
that,
although the condition rating of an element is influenced by the impact it has on the health and safety of the users, risks that have
Issue 5 November 2008
Page 3
existed for decades should not be unduly
but do not adjust the rating (because the
punished.
element cannot be easily changed); and do not mention the issues under the
This approach is fair to owners of older
‗Justification for Rating and Comments‘
properties that were designed and built when
section of the affected building element.
no coherent building standards existed. The health and property
safety risks in this
still
need
to
be
type of
identified
and
emphasised, but we think it should not affect the rating. This approach is at the centre of step four below.
on whether the health and safety risk is ‗low‘ resolved.
whether
it
can be easily
For ease of reference, we have
allocated a letter to the different types of action (see flowchart on page 4). These are generally
problems
that
can be
should: include the problem in Section C of the health and safety risk);
The rating and reporting decision will depend ‗high‘ and
high risk
resolved by building work (Action D), you
Home Condition Report (because it is a
Step four – reporting action
or
For
self-explanatory,
but
Action
apply a category three condition rating to the affected element (because it is serious and/or urgent); and report the risk under the ‗Justification for Rating and Comments‘ section of the affected building element as normal.
E
merits further discussion. It describes a high
For high risk problems that cannot be
-risk
reasonably
threat
that
cannot
be
reasonably
resolved by building work. As this does not
resolved
by
building
work
(Action E), you should:
“The rating and reporting
affect the rating, we think that such a
include the problem in Section C of the
decision will
potentially
Home Condition Report (because it is a
depend on
serious
problem needs
to
be
emphasised to make the readers of the
health and safety risk);
report clearly aware of the threat.
do not adjust the rating (because the
Therefore, we would recommend that it be mentioned in the Home Condition Report under
the
‗Justification
for
Rating
and
Comments‘ section of the respective building element.
A graphical representation of the
process is shown on page 4. The
following
paragraphs
outline
the
and ‗high‘ risk problems. For low risk problems that can be resolved by building work (Action B), you should: include the problem in Section C of the Home Condition Report (because it is a health and safety risk); apply a category two condition rating to the affected element (because it is neither serious or urgent, but is in need of repair); and report the risk under the ‗Justification for Rating and Comments‘ section of the affected building element as normal. low risk
problems
that
cannot be
resolved by building work (Action C), you should: include the problem in Section C of the Home Condition Report (because it is a health and safety risk);
health and safety
do report the risk under the ‗Justification
risk is „low‟ or
for Rating and Comments‘ section of the
„high‟ and
affected building element. If you have views or feedback on this topic, please email
reporting actions for varying types of ‗low‘
For
element cannot be easily changed); and
whether the
phil.parnham@blueboxpartners.com Phil Parnham August ©2007
whether it can easily be resolved.”
HI Technical Bulletin
Page 4
Health and Safety Risk Assessment Flowchart STEP ONE
Action A
Does the element pose a potential threat to the health and safety of the occupants?
No further consideration is
NO
(Compare against current benchmark.)
required.
YES
STEP TWO What level of risk does the potential threat to health and safety pose?
LOW RISK
HIGH RISK
STEP THREE
STEP THREE
Can the potential threat be rea-
Can the potential threat be
sonably remedied by repair or
reasonably remedied by repair or
building work?
building work?
YES ACTION B
NO ACTION C
YES ACTION D
NO ACTION E
Include in C2;
Include in C2;
Include in C2;
Include in C2;
Category 2 rating.
No effect on rating.
Category 3 rating.
No effect on rating.
Report risk under
Do not mention in
Report risk under
Report risk under
building element.
report.
building element.
building element.
Issue 5 November 2008
Page 5 Type of Risk
Lack of windows for emergency
Typical example of low risk health and safety
Typical examples of high risk health and safety
situations
situations
Ground floor non escape window
Upper floor non escape windows (especially at 2 nd
escape
floor and above)
Inadequate fire precautions
A few door closers missing on main escape route;
Upper floors escape through lower floor room to exit;
lack of fire alarms in two storey property, etc.
lack of fire doors on loft conversion; poor fire separation between flats/house in multiple occupation, etc.
Lack of safety glass
Size of non-safety glass only marginally exceeds
Large areas of non-safety glass; glass on main
building regulation standard, glass on little used
circulation routes, etc.
circulation routes. Lead water pipes
Radon gas area
Lead pipes limited to rising main only; property in
Lead pipes form part/all of internal plumbing system;
hard water area.
lead pipes in soft water areas, etc.
Property in low to medium radon risk area with
Property in high radon area with few or no
some evidence of precautions against gas build
precautions against gas build up, etc..
up, etc. Lack of safety rails, steep stairs Stairs marginally in excess of max. pitch; handrail
No handrails or handrail loose; very steep stairs with
mainly in place but with a few sections absent,
small treads; narrow, tapering stairs at top and/or
balusters slightly over 100mm centres, etc.
bottom, broken nosings, etc .
Detection of gas smell
Not applicable.
Smell of gas
Unsafe parts of building at high
Small sections of loose gutter, one or two slipping
Larger areas/sections that are very loose/unsafe over
level
slates, small patches of loose render over areas
areas frequently used by occupants/members of the
where few people pass beneath (e.g. side garden
public (over front door and/or street), etc.
that is little used), etc. Absence of test certificates for
Not applicable.
Absence of test certificates will require further
services
investigation and so will be an automatic CR3.
Asbestos risk
See later section on asbestos .
See later section on asbestos
Inappropriate use of
Use of garage as lounge/dining room, etc.
Non-conforming loft conversion; using damp cellar as
accommodation
sleeping accommodation, etc.
Fact sheets We have produced a number of fact sheets to help our Home Inspectors provide a value added product to their customers.
These
fact
sheets
are
designed to be read by the home owner and we hope will provide useful additions to the HCS by way of standard appendices. We also see a role for some in providing basic additional information within a HIP, and have checked the legality of this. The fact sheets will cover a number of fact sheet covers an individual subject
uses ―non technical‖ language to keep
asbestos,
radon
giving background information.
your clients informed.
gas, drainage systems and
cavity
gives
different
subjects
thatched
roofing,
–
such
as
a
maintenance,
walling. We are also producing a consumer friendly explanation of domestic EPCs to
try
very
to
answer
some
of
questions we get in the office.
the Each
general potential
It also
advice
on
problems,
legislation and we are trying to make them visually interesting with useful pictures and graphics. Each one is easy to understand and
All
are
available
as
downloadable
documents from NES one – we would welcome any suggestions as to what might be useful in the future. Please email suggestions to Hilary Grayson at hilary.grayson@nesltd.co.uk
HI Technical Bulletin
Page 6
Do you agree with the Inspector? This monthâ€&#x;s case study focuses on
defects
of
dampness
and
cracking in walls and the use of cross-referencing in the HCR to clarify
the
effects
of
these
defects. It was submitted by Ian Martin, DipHI The roof is covered with blue slate tiles. The tiles have a mortar mix on rear at batons. No roofing felt present. Hipped roof. Flat roof to extension
Photo 1
There are several tiles that have slipped on the main pitched roof.
Daylight can
be seen through the tiles. The flat roof is leaking, causing damp to ceiling below.
Do you agree with the Inspector?
The flat roof surface undergoing local attempted repairs using roofing felt and polythene sheet but is still leaking. (See Photo 2
photos 1 and 2).
Contact the Editor with your views and opinions at bulletins@nesltd. co.uk.
Main walls and extension wall are cavity brick construction.
300mm thick.
Wall
to rear has smooth render finish.
Sub-
floor ventilation provided on east and Photo 3
west sides of property.
There is evidence of horizontal cracks on the western wall having been repointed. Joints between some bricks are now 15mm.
These repairs extend along the
full extent of the wall 2, 3, 4 courses down from the roofline. These cracks are Photo 4
10-15mm wide.
There is extensive cracking in the render on the rear exterior wall.
Tapping this
render gives a hollow sound indicating that it is not secured to the brickwork below. (See photos 3, 4 and 5).
Photo 5
Page 7
Issue 5 November 2008
HI Technical Bulletin
Page 8
Last month‟s case study Last
at:
remarks that wood boring activity would
movement defects: front gable wall and
month‟s
case
study
looked
appear to be inactive to the majority of
around bathroom window
timbers inspected. What about the minority?
Comments were sent in by Shane Hancock,
I would have left out the word majority as it
ACIOB, ABEng. Building Surveyor/
shows some uncertainty.
Estimator, Reading Borough Council.
The inspector also says the word 'may' in two
―With regard to the cracked lintels, the
further
cracking would appear to be consistent with
uncertainty.
lack of support, but checking the opening and
deflection was found in the bathroom floor
closing of the windows would go some way to
but this could equally be caused by wet rot
confirm this.
not necessarily wood boring insect.
out would
The windows that were taken have
been substantial
timber
framed ones offering good support.
gable
through
not
walls
are
being
quite
tied
in
which
also
shows
I am assuming that some
No
indication was found of live activity, so just the defect and further inspection should have
With regard to the gable wall apex (leaning out),
sentences
been reported.
often
weak
I will at this point say that without access to
and
given
the inspector‘s notes, plans and drawings I
appropriate support. It looks like there may
cannot disagree with his ratings‖.
have been a small window/opening at the top.
The angle of cracking would appear to
point to the reveal which is at right angles, lower right of picture; this would need further investigation. Looking at the carved stonework at the soffits, the photo shows a couple of wires and I wonder if the initial damage was caused by trying to form an opening for the wires to pass through. I would also like to comment on some of the wording, for example in E10, the inspector
Index for HI Technical Bulletins Issues 1 to 4 As requested by many of our readers we have prepared an index which covers all articles featured in the first four issues of the HI Technical Bulletins. The index is available in PDF format - to access it go to NES one— Useful Documents. For any feedback and comments please email: bulletins@nesltd.co.uk Registration Services : 01908 442 277 registration@nesltd.co.uk Compliance: 01908 442288 compliance@nesltd.co.uk Technical Support Helpdesk: 01908 442105 support@nesltd.co.uk Training enquiries: 01908 442254 training@nesltd.co.uk NES One Credit Top up line: 01908 442299 To download electronic copies of the bulletins, login to NES one and go to ‗Useful Documents‘ All original content © 2008 National Energy Services Ltd SAVA The National Energy Centre Davy Avenue Milton Keynes MK5 8NA Web: www.sava.org.uk