Running foul of building control
Language: English Series: Contract Journal ; 362(5854/5) 2 January 1992, 7(1)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: Two cases have recently been reported where the lack of remedial work to a building was the cause of dispute. Two issues arose in the first, where a breach in the Building Regulations was not initially rectified, and a late attempt to do so was prevented by the owner. It was decided that the contravention could not be held against the builder if the remedy was obstructed by the owner. But, lack of intent could be alleged once a part of the building was purported to be finished; action did not have to wait for practical completion. In the second, argument arose over deliberate or fraudulent concealment conducted 20 years previously. A time bar had arisen which could be waived if concealment could be proved. However, hard evidence had to be forthcoming to win the case.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS45681 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 54470-1001 |
Two cases have recently been reported where the lack of remedial work to a building was the cause of dispute. Two issues arose in the first, where a breach in the Building Regulations was not initially rectified, and a late attempt to do so was prevented by the owner. It was decided that the contravention could not be held against the builder if the remedy was obstructed by the owner. But, lack of intent could be alleged once a part of the building was purported to be finished; action did not have to wait for practical completion. In the second, argument arose over deliberate or fraudulent concealment conducted 20 years previously. A time bar had arisen which could be waived if concealment could be proved. However, hard evidence had to be forthcoming to win the case.