Living in a flat, I only have 6 windows.

I know why fensa are there etc, yet if wikes and www.u-fit.co.uk and
alike are still helping the DIY window installer, can I still do this
myself or not ?

What would happen when I sell ?
Can I just inform building control and get a certificate or something

wrote in message 
news:1125551019.866662.266030@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Living in a flat, I only have 6 windows.
>
> I know why fensa are there etc, yet if wikes and www.u-fit.co.uk and
> alike are still helping the DIY window installer, can I still do this
> myself or not ?
>
> What would happen when I sell ?
> Can I just inform building control and get a certificate or something
>


just fit them yourself.  pretty easy to do, and will save you a bundle. 
unless your flat is listed or new build you don't have to notify. 
especially if your replacing like with like.

steve

r.p.mcmurphy wrote:

>  wrote in message 
> news:1125551019.866662.266030@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 
>>Living in a flat, I only have 6 windows.
>>
>>I know why fensa are there etc, yet if wikes and www.u-fit.co.uk and
>>alike are still helping the DIY window installer, can I still do this
>>myself or not ?
>>
>>What would happen when I sell ?
>>Can I just inform building control and get a certificate or something
>>
> 
> 
> just fit them yourself.  pretty easy to do, and will save you a bundle. 
> unless your flat is listed or new build you don't have to notify. 
> especially if your replacing like with like.
> 
> steve 


Actually all door and window replacements must be done by a FENSA 
company, or inspected and signed off under Building Regulations. 
Failure to get this WILL be noticed during sale of property if the 
purchaser's solicitor is doing their job.

No idea of the cost for this - but could still be a money saver.

D

David Hearn  wrote:


>Actually all door and window replacements must be done by a FENSA 
>company, or inspected and signed off under Building Regulations. 
>Failure to get this WILL be noticed during sale of property if the 
>purchaser's solicitor is doing their job.


Like how?  

The sealed units might have dates on them but the frames visibly
don't.  1995 uPVC looks just as crap as 2005 uPVC (apart from the
yellowing) and your solicitor will say exactly what you tell them.

There is nothing to stop you replacing the panes of glass with like
for like single panes, or even fully compliant units post Fensa
Nazification and then claim the frames were pre Fensa Nazification.


--

Matt wrote:

> David Hearn  wrote:
> 
> 
>>Actually all door and window replacements must be done by a FENSA 
>>company, or inspected and signed off under Building Regulations. 
>>Failure to get this WILL be noticed during sale of property if the 
>>purchaser's solicitor is doing their job.
> 
> 
> Like how?  
> 
> The sealed units might have dates on them but the frames visibly
> don't.  1995 uPVC looks just as crap as 2005 uPVC (apart from the
> yellowing) and your solicitor will say exactly what you tell them.
> 
> There is nothing to stop you replacing the panes of glass with like
> for like single panes, or even fully compliant units post Fensa
> Nazification and then claim the frames were pre Fensa Nazification.


I was assuming that people were trustworthy and wouldn't lie on a legal 
document.  The seller is asked whether any windows have been replaced 
since April 2001 (I think it's 2001) and whether it was done by a FENSA 
company/paperwork to prove it etc.  Failure to provide this info can 
cause problems during sale.

Obviously, if you chose to lie and say it was done prior to 2001, then 
chances are you won't get caught - however, if multiple units have dates 
on them > 2001 then you're unlikely to claim they all got replaced?

Anyway - I was stating the legal side of it - not including illegal 
activities.

D

What are the new Regulations?

The Government's Approved Document L complementing the new energy efficiency 
regulations, was issued on 31 October 2001. It extends Building Regulations 
to cover replacement window and door installation from April 2002, when all 
installers and buyers of replacement windows and doors will be expected to 
comply with improved energy efficiency requirements. One of the main drivers 
is the need to reduce heat loss in order to conform to more stringent energy 
efficiency targets. Glass products will be expected to have lower heat loss, 
measured by their "U" value.

[Top]

How will the Regulations affect installers?

They involve more stringent specifications for the products used. In 
addition, all installations will be subject to inspection by Local Authority 
Building Control, unless arrangements for self-assessment have been made. 
With the annual rate of replacement installations running at approximately 2 
million, inspection of each installation would cause a major bottleneck if 
channelled through the normal Building Control route.

[Top]

When do the Regulations come into force?

From 1 April 2002. However, the new technical regulations do not apply where 
contracts have been signed before 1 April 2002 and the installation is 
completed before 1 July 2002.

[Top]

What has to be certified?

Where a window or windows is/are completely replaced (as opposed to 
repaired) in existing dwellings, they must comply with Approved Documents 
Parts L1 and N (safety in relation to impact). In addition, the building 
should not end up with a worse level of compliance with respect to other 
applicable parts of Building Regulations, which includes Parts A 
(Structure), B (means of escape in case of fire) F (ventilation), J 
(combustion appliances and fuel storage systems) and M (access for the 
disabled).

Compliance with the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 is 
also essential.

David Hearn  wrote:

> Matt wrote:
> > David Hearn  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Actually all door and window replacements must be done by a FENSA 
> >>company, or inspected and signed off under Building Regulations. 
> >>Failure to get this WILL be noticed during sale of property if the 
> >>purchaser's solicitor is doing their job.
> > 
> > 
> > Like how?  
> > 
> > The sealed units might have dates on them but the frames visibly
> > don't.  1995 uPVC looks just as crap as 2005 uPVC (apart from the
> > yellowing) and your solicitor will say exactly what you tell them.
> > 
> > There is nothing to stop you replacing the panes of glass with like
> > for like single panes, or even fully compliant units post Fensa
> > Nazification and then claim the frames were pre Fensa Nazification.
> 
> I was assuming that people were trustworthy and wouldn't lie on a legal 
> document.  The seller is asked whether any windows have been replaced 
> since April 2001 (I think it's 2001) and whether it was done by a FENSA 
> company/paperwork to prove it etc.  Failure to provide this info can 
> cause problems during sale.
> 
> Obviously, if you chose to lie and say it was done prior to 2001, then 
> chances are you won't get caught - however, if multiple units have dates 
> on them > 2001 then you're unlikely to claim they all got replaced?
> 
> Anyway - I was stating the legal side of it - not including illegal 
> activities.
> 

As I understand it it is legal to replace the glazing, it's only if
you replace windows (i.e. frames and all) that Building Regs approval
is required.

-- 
Chris Green

"Matt"  wrote in message 
news:k9ndh11q3oskhiapu7nkmc8etmhl4cmfha@4ax.com...

> David Hearn  wrote:
>
>>Actually all door and window replacements must be done by a FENSA
>>company, or inspected and signed off under Building Regulations.
>>Failure to get this WILL be noticed during sale of property if the
>>purchaser's solicitor is doing their job.
>


That is indeed correct


> Like how?
>
> The sealed units might have dates on them but the frames visibly
> don't.  1995 uPVC looks just as crap as 2005 uPVC (apart from the
> yellowing) and your solicitor will say exactly what you tell them.
>
> There is nothing to stop you replacing the panes of glass with like
> for like single panes, or even fully compliant units post Fensa
> Nazification and then claim the frames were pre Fensa Nazification.


FENSA isn't just about the u values of the glass but also about safety, ie, 
upstairs openers being big enough to climb out of in case of fire, or the 
requirement to use toughened glass if it is less than a certain height above 
the floor etc., etc.

By all means, if people want to DIY their own windows they legally can do, 
but do it to the correct regulations and have them inspected and signed off 
by building control. It'll cost maybe 50-60 and be much less hassle when 
you come to sell the house because - as other posters have commented - it 
WILL be picked up by the purchasers solicitors at sale time.

Mogweed.

In message , Matt 
 writes

>David Hearn  wrote:
>
>>Actually all door and window replacements must be done by a FENSA
>>company, or inspected and signed off under Building Regulations.
>>Failure to get this WILL be noticed during sale of property if the
>>purchaser's solicitor is doing their job.
>
>Like how?
>
>The sealed units might have dates on them but the frames visibly
>don't.  1995 uPVC looks just as crap as 2005 uPVC (apart from the
>yellowing) and your solicitor will say exactly what you tell them.
>

Is it really worth avoiding doing it properly for the cost of  building 
control application? given that you then have to lie on the form you 
fill in when you sell your house And risk the sale falling through, or 
worse (even if probably unlikely)
-- 
Chris French

chris French wrote:


> Is it really worth avoiding doing it properly for the cost of  building 
> control application? given that you then have to lie on the form you 
> fill in when you sell your house And risk the sale falling through, or 
> worse (even if probably unlikely)


<rant>

Surely that's the whole point.  If I saw a house at a good price with 
the right location,location,location I wouldn't give a fig about whether 
the windows are de-fenestred or whatever.

You see a house, you want it, you buy it otherwise somone else will beat 
you to it.

Besdies which, surely all "modern" windows and replacemnt windows are 
going to be more than better than the ones they replace.

Hell, before we know it we'll be having to have argon filled triple 
glazed, quadruple sealed units from Norway or something spoilt of course 
by the compulsory "trickle" vents !

</rant>


-- 
http://gymratz.co.uk - Best Gym Equipment & Bodybuilding Supplements UK.
http://trade-price-supplements.co.uk - TRADE PRICED SUPPLEMENTS for ALL!
http://fitness-equipment-uk.com - UK's No.1 Fitness Equipment Suppliers.
http://gymratz.co.uk/hot-seat.htm - Live web-cam! (sometimes)

freestyle_london@yahoo.co.uk wrote:


> Living in a flat, I only have 6 windows.
> 
> I know why fensa are there etc, yet if wikes and www.u-fit.co.uk and
> alike are still helping the DIY window installer, can I still do this
> myself or not ?


You can do it yourself, but should submit a building noitice first.


> What would happen when I sell ?


So long as you have paperwork from building control then nothing.


> Can I just inform building control and get a certificate or something


Yup, IIUC that is the way to go if you are not able to self certify.

-- 
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
|          Internode Ltd -  http://www.internode.co.uk            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|        John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk              |
\=================================================================/

In message <YzDRe.100332$G8.39492@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, "Pet @ 
www.gymratz.co.uk"  writes

>chris French wrote:
>
>> Is it really worth avoiding doing it properly for the cost of 
>>building  control application? given that you then have to lie on the 
>>form you  fill in when you sell your house And risk the sale falling 
>>through, or  worse (even if probably unlikely)
>
><rant>
>
>Surely that's the whole point.  If I saw a house at a good price with 
>the right location,location,location I wouldn't give a fig about 
>whether the windows are de-fenestred or whatever.


You might not be but someone else may well be. Certainly some people 
would be

>


-- 
Chris French

Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk wrote:


> <rant>


<snip argument that is hard to fault>


> </rant>


I agree with what you say, however don't forget that some (less 
scrupulous) people may be inclined to "use" the fact that you lied or 
falsified a legal statement later.

So new householder discovers dry rot for example, then tries to sue you 
for the cost of fixing it on the grounds that "you deliberately hid all 
sorts of major faults from me before the sale - look I can even prove it 
for the windows which must be substandard since there is no paperwork 
for them...."

-- 
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
|          Internode Ltd -  http://www.internode.co.uk            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|        John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk              |
\=================================================================/

usenet@isbd.co.uk wrote:

> David Hearn  wrote:
> 
>>Matt wrote:
>>
>>>David Hearn  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Actually all door and window replacements must be done by a FENSA 
>>>>company, or inspected and signed off under Building Regulations. 
>>>>Failure to get this WILL be noticed during sale of property if the 
>>>>purchaser's solicitor is doing their job.
>>>
>>>
>>>Like how?  
>>>
>>>The sealed units might have dates on them but the frames visibly
>>>don't.  1995 uPVC looks just as crap as 2005 uPVC (apart from the
>>>yellowing) and your solicitor will say exactly what you tell them.
>>>
>>>There is nothing to stop you replacing the panes of glass with like
>>>for like single panes, or even fully compliant units post Fensa
>>>Nazification and then claim the frames were pre Fensa Nazification.
>>
>>I was assuming that people were trustworthy and wouldn't lie on a legal 
>>document.  The seller is asked whether any windows have been replaced 
>>since April 2001 (I think it's 2001) and whether it was done by a FENSA 
>>company/paperwork to prove it etc.  Failure to provide this info can 
>>cause problems during sale.
>>
>>Obviously, if you chose to lie and say it was done prior to 2001, then 
>>chances are you won't get caught - however, if multiple units have dates 
>>on them > 2001 then you're unlikely to claim they all got replaced?
>>
>>Anyway - I was stating the legal side of it - not including illegal 
>>activities.
>>
> 
> As I understand it it is legal to replace the glazing, it's only if
> you replace windows (i.e. frames and all) that Building Regs approval
> is required.


Yes, it is the frames (and glass) which are the important bit - just 
replacing a broken pane, or misted unit does not require FENSA/BCO 
interference.

D

Pet @ www.gymratz.co.uk wrote:

> chris French wrote:
> 
>> Is it really worth avoiding doing it properly for the cost of  
>> building control application? given that you then have to lie on the 
>> form you fill in when you sell your house And risk the sale falling 
>> through, or worse (even if probably unlikely)
> 
> 
> <rant>
> 
> Surely that's the whole point.  If I saw a house at a good price with 
> the right location,location,location I wouldn't give a fig about whether 
> the windows are de-fenestred or whatever.


I would probably agree with you about buying a new place.  It's just 
when you find your house on fire, and the room you're stuck in doesn't 
have any fire escape openers that you'll realise some of the less 
obvious specifications in the Building Regulations.

Or maybe when your little kid picks something heavy up and hits a low 
level window and breaks it, do you realise that not having safety glass 
wasn't a good idea.

Obviously these things need to be checked for prior Apr 2002 installs - 
but with post Apr 2002 windows that have been properly signed off, you 
shouldn't have to worry about these issues.



> You see a house, you want it, you buy it otherwise somone else will beat 
> you to it.
> 
> Besdies which, surely all "modern" windows and replacemnt windows are 
> going to be more than better than the ones they replace.


Depends whether nice hardwood ones were stripped out to put in cheapy 
uPVC ones where the fitter didn't realise that the bay was held up by 
the 6" thick wooden poles, and that uPVC isn't quite as strong in that 
area.  New doesn't automatically mean better - look at modern washing 
machine lifetimes... ;)  I would assume though that for insulation 
purposes, newer will probably be better.

D

>> Is it really worth avoiding doing it properly for the cost of  building

>> control application? given that you then have to lie on the form you fill 
>> in when you sell your house And risk the sale falling through, or worse 
>> (even if probably unlikely)
>

My friends house was purchased without a Fensa certificate. The surveyor 
identified the age of windows (printed inside sealed units) and advised to 
see/obtain certificate. His solicitor asked for it, but seller was a party 
in a divorce and not speaking to other half, who handled this type of thing 
and it rumbled on and on with nothing happening. Company that fitted had 
gone under and been bought out numerous times and the new company wanted to 
charge 38 (I think) to get a certificate copy.

Eventually my friend just bought the house, as there were far more important 
things to argue about than a certificate, things like price !!!.

Interestingly they left the garden shed when they moved out as they hadn't 
taken it apart before the move and the moving company didn't have time so 
they initially tried to arrange a date to "collect it" and when that failed 
sent a bill for 500 !!!! My friends solicitor said ignore as they had 
removed some fixtures inside (light fittings, washing machine waste pipes 
and door knobs !!!) and when they returned those they could have their shed 
back.

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:45:57 +0100, "Ian_m"  wrote:


> >> Is it really worth avoiding doing it properly for the cost of  building
>>> control application? given that you then have to lie on the form you fill 
>>> in when you sell your house And risk the sale falling through, or worse 
>>> (even if probably unlikely)
>>
>My friends house was purchased without a Fensa certificate.


Ok, I've got to ask. What's a Fensa certificate? We had the front (bay) windows 
double glazed in our semi about 10 years ago - I've a feeling this this
something I should know about :-O
Thanks

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:16:07 GMT, mike <mike@mail.nomail> wrote:


>On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 13:45:57 +0100, "Ian_m"  wrote:
>
>> >> Is it really worth avoiding doing it properly for the cost of  building
>>>> control application? given that you then have to lie on the form you fill 
>>>> in when you sell your house And risk the sale falling through, or worse 
>>>> (even if probably unlikely)
>>>
>>My friends house was purchased without a Fensa certificate.
>
>Ok, I've got to ask. What's a Fensa certificate? We had the front (bay) windows 
>double glazed in our semi about 10 years ago - I've a feeling this this
>something I should know about :-O
>Thanks



Ten years ago it wouldn't have mattered.

This is a trade organisation for the window industry, the members of
which can self-certify their work to be in accordance with the
building regulations in respect of safety and energy saving.

Nowadays, if you go for new or replacement windows, you need to either
employ a Fensa registered contractor or submit a building notice at
the local suthority.


-- 

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Andy Hall 
wrote:

> This is a trade organisation for the window industry, the members of
> which can self-certify their work to be in accordance with the
> building regulations in respect of safety and energy saving.


And this AIUI is all they are certifying, not that the workmanship 
(other than as controlled by BR) is to any particular standard. They 
can fit the window out of level and make a real mess of the making good 
yet still legitimately certify it.

-- 
Tony Bryer SDA UK  'Software to build on'  http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

in 443716 20050902 164240 Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam> wrote:


>This is a trade organisation for the window industry, the members of
>which can self-certify their work to be in accordance with the
>building regulations in respect of safety and energy saving.


What is covered - does it include the garage, or a conservatory, or a large porch?

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:19:51 +0100, David Hearn wrote:


> I would probably agree with you about buying a new place.  It's just 
> when you find your house on fire, and the room you're stuck in doesn't 
> have any fire escape openers that you'll realise some of the less 
> obvious specifications in the Building Regulations.


Hi David, I'm not arguing against you here, my understanding of this is as
you say...


> 
> Or maybe when your little kid picks something heavy up and hits a low 
> level window and breaks it, do you realise that not having safety glass 
> wasn't a good idea.


Although as mentioned elsewhere in this topic, one could replace a
pane in an existing window without BR and use unsuitable glass, all quite
legally.

Doesn't it worry you that in that last decade so many extra regulations
have been brought into to force when we used to manage quite well without?

My local Homebase carries not one sign mentioning Part P let alone Part L.

Problem with Part P and Part L is people are quite content to ignore them
(at least round my way and I have yet to see lack of certification
impact significantly on sale of a property). Once people get into the
habit of ignoring BR, it's difficult for them to get large scale
structural work signed off, so I would worry that this state of over
regulation is likely to result in more unsafe work happening rather than
less.

Tim

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:41:55 +0100, Tony Bryer 
wrote:


>In article , Andy Hall 
>wrote:
>> This is a trade organisation for the window industry, the members of
>> which can self-certify their work to be in accordance with the
>> building regulations in respect of safety and energy saving.
>
>And this AIUI is all they are certifying, not that the workmanship 
>(other than as controlled by BR) is to any particular standard. They 
>can fit the window out of level and make a real mess of the making good 
>yet still legitimately certify it.


That's my understanding though the trade body may well have a means of
disciplining errant members. The thing is that the self certification
scheme avoids the cost of calling in a BCO to certify the work, so
members of the body have a commercial edge. Building control visits
seem to have varying costs depending on the local authority or is
there a published price guide?

AJH

In article ,
	Tim S  writes:

>Problem with Part P and Part L is people are quite content to ignore them
>(at least round my way and I have yet to see lack of certification
>impact significantly on sale of a property). Once people get into the
>habit of ignoring BR, it's difficult for them to get large scale
>structural work signed off, so I would worry that this state of over
>regulation is likely to result in more unsafe work happening rather than
>less.


This is happening already. When Part L came in, solicitors started
asking detailed questions relating to it. From colleagues who've
moved recently (3 or 4, so not statistically very significant), the
solicitors' questions had been much more restricted. One that I saw
specifically asked only about any structural alterations and alterations
to underground drainage. The other two were similar (I didn't see the
exact wordings, and probably weren't quite the same). None mentioned
windows or heating systems. I suspect such questions were just leading
to delays, chains falling apart, resulting additional expense, and
were all quite pointless, hence seem to have be dropped. It would be
interesting to know what sort of questions people here have been
asked when moving in the last year or so.

-- 
Andrew Gabriel

If you bother to work out the value of the saving in heat loss you will
find that double glazing is a waste of money and that just about every
other way of reducing heating bills is more cost effective. So I'd say
don't bother.

cheers

Jacob

Tim S  writes:

>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:19:51 +0100, David Hearn wrote:


[18 lines snipped]


>Doesn't it worry you that in that last decade so many extra regulations
>have been brought into to force when we used to manage quite well without?


Yes. This has been described by political commentators are "anarcho-fascism"
where heavier and heavier regulatory burdens are pointlessly imposed on the
law-abiding, while criminals are effectively ignored, since it is hard and
expensive to catch them. Hence speed cameras everywhere, but no effort to solve
other vehicle crime, SORN which only impacts those who bothered to tax their
vehicles in the first place, and Part P and L.


>My local Homebase carries not one sign mentioning Part P let alone Part L.
>
>Problem with Part P and Part L is people are quite content to ignore them
>(at least round my way and I have yet to see lack of certification
>impact significantly on sale of a property). Once people get into the
>habit of ignoring BR, it's difficult for them to get large scale
>structural work signed off, so I would worry that this state of over
>regulation is likely to result in more unsafe work happening rather than
>less.


This is the usual effect of State interference; the opposite of that intended.


-- 
       "The road to Paradise is through Intercourse."
        [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

In article ,
	jacob@jpbutler.demon.co.uk writes:

>If you bother to work out the value of the saving in heat loss you will
>find that double glazing is a waste of money and that just about every
>other way of reducing heating bills is more cost effective. So I'd say
>don't bother.


Yep, that's why, knowing my double glazing needed replacing (first
generation aluminium screwed to the old sash boxes which had gone
rotten), I got it done in the February just before Part L came in.
I saved some 500 that way, which went towards a condensing boiler,
much more cost effective. My installer (a local guy) told me
afterwards that the saving was actually over 1000 against
what it would have cost 2 months later, because the price of
Pilkinton K glass lept up at that point, when it no longer needed
to compete with regular glass.

-- 
Andrew Gabriel

jacob@jpbutler.demon.co.uk wrote:


> If you bother to work out the value of the saving in heat loss you will
> find that double glazing is a waste of money and that just about every
> other way of reducing heating bills is more cost effective. So I'd say
> don't bother.


If energy saving is your only reason for installing, then I would agree. 
There is plenty of "low hanging fruit" to get first in most houses.

However there are plenty of other reasons a window might need replacing, 
and going the single glazed route is not always easy either these days!

-- 
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
|          Internode Ltd -  http://www.internode.co.uk            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|        John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk              |
\=================================================================/