New house frame issues

Why don't you give your Site Supervisor's number to your inspector and let them sort it out directly?

They are not required on N1 tile roof

They aren't required on a tile roof until it gets to N3.

I could show you all the calculations behind it but I'd probably bore you.
Your builder is right, the inspector is wrong

I do love the arm chair expert comments wanting to burn the builder though

Just to be clear is this the builders inspector that says they are needed or one you have engaged privately on top of the mandatory inspection

The reference appears to be about plate ties or top plate to stud connection not truss to top plate connection (grips and cyc ties etc)

Yes, I engaged that inspector privately and I'm glad I did it because he found a few issues which are going to be rectified.

I don't want to burn my builder that is not my intention. I just want my future home to be built as per requirements and to be safe. So far I am not happy with workmanship but I believe we can solve this. That's why I'm asking for a second opinion before I go further.

Cheers

PS Sorry, I'm typing on my Samsung and that is pretty hard with my fingers

Thank you for asking... this has been an insightful discussion.

It wasn't you I was implying had the burn the builder mentality

Sorry to hear about any other issues you might have had though, but the tie down seems all good.

It's not burning the builder to trust your inspector. If I'd have trusted my builders SS and inspector then I would still have no corner blocking, mortar filled weep holes, mortar in my AJ's, a junction box sitting on a downpipe, 20 odd studs over 605 centre one of which was 655, incorrect lintel over a large span, holes in wall wrap and all my wall insulation would have been a mixture of R1.5 and R2 and missing in other parts. And all the time the SS and their inspector said they were good to proceed.

I have had a run in with builders on couple of occasions where we had trusses sitting on top plates between studs and I asked that either a stud or blocking be put in only to be told that their frame engineering design does not require plate to be supported.
This is in clear breach of AS 1684 and good workmanship practice however I am led to believe that recent changes to NCC (I have not verified this) allow for computer engineered design to be adopted ahead of AS 1684. If so then it would allow for stupid frame design (by engineers who else, who don't have basic skills to line up trusses with studs) to be adopted ahead of good framing practice.
There is a catch, workmanship, skill and care rank higher in hierarchy than NCC because they are part of statutory warranties and I look forward to my day in expert witness exchange where I can have a debate on this.

Functionality is not enough- aesthetics matter. Don't believe me?
Just ask Apple, the biggest, richest and most successful company in the history of the world (they have more money than US government)
that is built on the premise that inside of a computer should be just as beautiful as outside.

House frame should not only be functional but also well set out and look good. Setting out is a matter of grey matter or lack of it.

Just my take on it

Apple is priced accordingly.

If builders abided by Apple perfection then each house would cost 300% more.

There's a reason why the iwatch costs $900 compared to a similar spec Android watch costing $300.

Apple was an example only, you missed my point
Builder already promised in warranties to construct your home in workmanlike manner with skill and care.
Isn't frame set out part of builder's skill? Isn't a nicely set out and constructed frame part of the promise?
I didn't say it had to be done to furniture timber tolerances.

By the way iwatch is incomparable

You missed the point of making a bad example.

House frame is building element that will be covered and not seen when the home is completed so in that sense it is analogous to inside of a computer that is not seen when the casing is complete. So my example isn't as way out (bad) as you make it out.

So does it mean frame can be poorly set out and thrown together without regard to workmanship and it's OK just because engineering formula says it is structurally functional. Many have argued that this is so, I disagree.

Would not every owner want their frame to look nice? They are entitled to it!

Going to the WA building commission with a building inspection report that is not done by a Structural Engineer is a waste of time and money...save your money you arent coastal, high risk, up on a hill ,open unshielded, etc,.etc you are Classified N1, Though, It is good building practice to put in cavity straps connected to wall plates
Dextel, just curious did they give you a copy of the engineering drawings and specs stamped along with your plans at contract signing?

No they didn't. Are they supposed to give me the complete pack of plans? Should I ask them for that?

I advise clients to get/ask for a full set of contract docs including Engineering Drawing and Specis
Reasons
1.Councils will not give building approvals without them..they have a full set why shouldnt you?
2.Builders and engineers make changes/revisions on site, they need to be documented and checked?
3.Should you later have structural problems or disputes how will you ever know what was done by who,where,why and when?
4.In the event of 3 above....How do you know if the engineering docs/specis/reports pertain to your build if you have never ever seen them before?

Sorry to hear about your issues, but my point is in regard to the initial responses to the problem that telling someone to hold payments with a stuff the builder attitude with no regard for firstly finding out what is correct, in my view is the wrong approach.

Ok, Here is my take on the industry.

The problem is certifiers who aren't properly trained or experienced.

I've seen the 2 extremes. I've had certifiers who walk in and walk out after 5 mins, then I have a giggle at a couple of things that aren't yet done (with intention to be) and no mention.

Then I see them come in with no idea and start randomly stating that it needs more straps here and there and not accepting certain methods which are clearly listed in the 1684 as a method that can be used. In Dextels case it seems to be one of these ones.

I could go on and on about some pretty out there requests from certifiers who have no idea about bracing and tie down requirements. I've had plenty of mates who have come to me what is correct after a run in with one of these inspectors.
They are 99% sure the inspector is wrong but they don't know how to get the proof to hold an argument.

This leaves carpenters and builders who aren't much wiser confused.

If the guys who are supposed to check the industry were better qualified this would in my view return better consistency amongst workmanship

I'm not trying to take away from anyones bad experiences, just trying to say there are 2 sides to the coin

Today I got response from the building inspector saying that there is possibility tie down straps are not required but only if approved by local council. Change in story, isn't it?

Anyway, I spoke with a building inspector from the building commission and he had confirmed that story, I rang our local council, they confirmed that plan is approved and correct.

btw I've got full engineers specification from our builder if anyone is interested to see it

http://www.dex-tel.com/dreamstart/C1874 ... tified.pdf


PS there are always two sides of the coin

PPS as far as I'm concerned my case is closed.

I'm glad that you got to the bottom of this!