Browse Forums Paving & Concreting Re: Concrete, weep holes and window sills 2Jan 30, 2019 5:36 pm 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. Re: Concrete, weep holes and window sills 4Jan 30, 2019 9:15 pm 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. Re: Concrete, weep holes and window sills 6Jan 31, 2019 10:27 am 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. Re: Concrete, weep holes and window sills 8Jan 31, 2019 11:04 am 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. Re: Concrete, weep holes and window sills 11Feb 11, 2019 6:44 pm 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. Re: Concrete, weep holes and window sills 13Feb 11, 2019 9:22 pm I asked about termite protection because the concreter would almost certainly have broached it if it was there. The concreter probably thinks that he is on a hiding to nothing and has decided to dig his heels in. A lot do that. 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. Re: Concrete, weep holes and window sills 14Feb 16, 2019 6:51 pm He sure is digging his heals in. I sent the email as SaveH2On suggested, also citing the regulations and standards to which I believe the work is non-compliant (i.e. AS 3727.1, AS 2870, AS 4773 and the NCC). He visited a couple of days later to inspect and measure, and again to talk with me before I could insist that all communication be in writing. His position is that he can't justify ripping it up and re-pouring (expected, as he has a vested interest). He acknowledged the regulations, but made clear that he thought that site conditions sometimes mean that they can't always be complied with. The rationale in my case was to account for fall away from the house and provide clearance above the pipes - we had installed by licensed plumbers many months prior to combat subsoil moisture (admittedly, I see that NCC does indicate that there could be some wriggle room there, but not to what extent) He proposed blocking up the partially covered weep holes and drilling more higher to provide ventilation. He also suggested that should water enter through those partially covered holes, it would simply exit out another. This was all said while acknowledging he wasn't an expert in damp courses or brick permeability! I left it at that. He had made his position clear. So far I haven't hinted at getting independent professional advice, but I kind of wish that I had asked if he was confident his reasoning would stack up against an inspector's report. Any way, time to get that report done. Can anyone recommend an inspector with expertise in the Geelong area? As an aside, the concrete is hard up against the window sill tiles (previously there was a one brick gap). I asked what what would happen if there was some movement in the concrete. His response was that the tiles might pop! I mean, seriously... Re: Concrete, weep holes and window sills 15Feb 16, 2019 8:13 pm Celicam He proposed blocking up the partially covered weep holes and drilling more higher to provide ventilation. He also suggested that should water enter through those partially covered holes, it would simply exit out another. This was all said while acknowledging he wasn't an expert in damp courses or brick permeability! He sounds like a decent enough guy who has taken on concreting work without knowing the regulations applicable to his chosen trade. Unfortunately, this lack of regulatory knowledge has led to the work he did being substantially non compliant and there is no easy fix apart from removing the concrete. I would be very surprised if he was not a novice and he needs to learn from this. The second concreter also seems to have let him down. Re weep holes, their purpose is to allow water inside the wall an escape route, they are not there for ventilation and having an impermeable barrier above the Damp Proof Course (DPC) doesn't allow water to escape. The regulations are there for a reason. A building consultant can only advise you and not instruct the concreter. They also cannot instruct the concreter although given the concreter's lack of prior regulatory research, a report may be an inducement for him to enact a resolution. If it goes to V-CAT, a building consultant may also have to be prepared to attend as an expert witness (if qualified) to be of any use which would cost you more money and while V-CAT do take expert opinion seriously, the applicable regulations and photographic as well as other evidence when presented are things that the concreter could not dispute. Building_expert is a serious contributor on HomeOne as well as being an advertiser, maybe contact him via his profile and ask his advice as to your best next step and the benefit if any of having an independent report. 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. Re: Concrete, weep holes and window sills 16May 14, 2019 9:03 am A little update. The concreter has come to the party. Kind of. I engaged a building inspector to provide a report. That report showed the paving to be defective with respect to the applicable regulations, and recommended that it be demolished and reconstructed at the concreter’s cost. It also recommended that I be refunded the difference between the contract (quote) price and the invoiced price. I provided that report to the concreter and identified several infringements of the Domestic Building Contracts Act (relating to warranty, deposit amount, and contract price variation). He subsequently acknowledged the defective work, and admitted that the increase in price was due to his error in measurement. He is prepared to remove the “non-compliant concrete just not the compliant part” and give a proportional refund. After several attempts by me to have him elaborate, he has not identified the boundary of the “non-compliant” and “compliant” areas of concrete (I expect he means the first metre or so from the walls). After removal and refund of that area, he would consider the issue resolved and walk away. He will not refund the difference in contract and invoiced price. He expects that I would then engage someone else to reconstruct to compliance, and has suggested that I would need to modify the existing plumbing and add more drainage to achieve that. He blamed the non-compliance on the location of subsoil drainage pipes. The pipes were present and accessible (pit at pipe junction, and trenches backfilled but not covered by paving) for measurement by the concreter at every stage prior to and during the job. My position is that he failed in his due diligence; he should have not accepted the job – or continued work - if he had identified that the position of pipes would result in non-compliant paving. I have confirmed the building inspector’s opinion that partial removal and reconstruction would be visually unacceptable (unfortunately not explicitly written in the report). I also suspect that the excessive height of the remaining section of concrete (wherever and whatever that is..) would be problematic in achieving required surface drainage at the building. The total job area is around 90m2, and I expect he may want to remove around 15m2. What do you think – would I be realistic and reasonable in pursuing removal and rectification of the entire job area? Re: Concrete, weep holes and window sills 17May 14, 2019 11:32 am Celicam I engaged a building inspector to provide a report. That report showed the paving to be defective with respect to the applicable regulations, and recommended that it be demolished and reconstructed at the concreter’s cost. It also recommended that I be refunded the difference between the contract (quote) price and the invoiced price. The report is no surprise and the recommendation obvious. Celicam He is prepared to remove the “non-compliant concrete just not the compliant part” and give a proportional refund. After several attempts by me to have him elaborate, he has not identified the boundary of the “non-compliant” and “compliant” areas of concrete (I expect he means the first metre or so from the walls). After removal and refund of that area, he would consider the issue resolved and walk away. He will not refund the difference in contract and invoiced price. Hmmm? From your description, it appears that he considers the 'fix' to entail building a moat against the wall. Is the sloped concrete on otherwise flat ground? If he hasn't put his offer in writing, could you send him a summary of your conversation along with a diagram of your perception of his intent and ask him to verify or otherwise detail further? One thing that I haven't mentioned previously is that the role of the Damp Proof Course (DPC) below the weep holes is to prevent rising damp which can cause brickwork efflorescence and other problems. The link below gives more detailed information is is worth reading. https://www.abis.com.au/defective-or-br ... oof-course Celicam He expects that I would then engage someone else to reconstruct to compliance, and has suggested that I would need to modify the existing plumbing and add more drainage to achieve that. He blamed the non-compliance on the location of subsoil drainage pipes. I have some sympathy for him as he has tried to work around the problem of the ag pipe being cut into the original driveway but he shouldn't have taken on or continued the work once the pipe's location was known. He needs to learn from the experience but what he has said is correct although the proper course of events would have seen the recommendation made and enacted prior to pouring the new driveway. Reading between the lines, I suspect that he tried to save you further outlay to secure the work and I also suspect that he is new to the business by virtue of his volumetric miscalculation of required concrete and the lack of regulatory knowledge including the purpose of weep holes and DPC. I assume that laying the ag pipe was made difficult by the original driveway. Re-laying the ag pipe along its current course would depend on the current slope to the silt pit and from the silt pit to the Legal Point Of Discharge (LPOD) but if the downpipes drain to a LPOD, then the silt pipe almost certainly also would but this would need determination. Celicam My position is that he failed in his due diligence; he should have not accepted the job – or continued work - if he had identified that the position of pipes would result in non-compliant paving. You are correct of course. You hired someone who you trusted to be professional in the execution of his duties and he also had a responsibility to himself and his business to deliver a compliant product. There are no winners here. Celicam I have confirmed the building inspector’s opinion that partial removal and reconstruction would be visually unacceptable (unfortunately not explicitly written in the report). I also suspect that the excessive height of the remaining section of concrete (wherever and whatever that is..) would be problematic in achieving required surface drainage at the building. It would look ridiculous and would not satisfy what was originally agreed. Do you know how close to the wall the ag pipe is? The interim course of action would be to find out whether the ag pipe can be laid deeper and retain sufficient slope to the LPOD once the concrete is taken up. 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. Re: Concrete, weep holes and window sills 18May 14, 2019 2:33 pm SaveH2O Hmmm? From your description, it appears that he considers the 'fix' to entail building a moat against the wall. Is the sloped concrete on otherwise flat ground? I don’t believe he thinks that the “moat” is the end-point, but that it (plus the partial refund) is where his part in the total solution ends. After he is done, reconstruction would be my responsibility. The ground in this area is flat. SaveH2O If he hasn't put his offer in writing, could you send him a summary of your conversation along with a diagram of your perception of his intent and ask him to verify or otherwise detail further? He has stated in writing that he will remove “non-compliant” concrete, but has declined to elaborate so I can’t be 100% sure I understand his intent. I emailed him a photo of the driveway, asking him to mark it up to indicate the area he would remove. His response (via email, mind you) was that he is computer illiterate and did not know how to do that. I’d say he is in his 30s, so find that difficult to swallow. But yes, good idea, I’ll cack up a diagram. SaveH2O One thing that I haven't mentioned previously is that the role of the Damp Proof Course (DPC) The report documented what could already be signs of rising damp at the affected site. No efflorescence at this stage, however. SaveH2O Reading between the lines, I suspect that he tried to save you further outlay to secure the work and I also suspect that he is new to the business by virtue of his volumetric miscalculation of required concrete and the lack of regulatory knowledge including the purpose of weep holes and DPC. That and the other infringements of the DBCA that could see him hit with significant penalties if VBA choose to prosecute. SaveH2O I assume that laying the ag pipe was made difficult by the original driveway. I’m unsure how difficult the slotted PVC was to lay, but do know that clay stopped them from going as deep as they wanted. The plumbers cut through the original driveway to dig the trenches, as we wanted the water issue addressed sooner and didn’t have a timeframe for driveway replacement. The outlet of the silt pit connects to the downpipe system. SaveH2O It would look ridiculous and would not satisfy what was originally agreed. Absolutely, but I’m unsure how I go about pursuing having the whole lot redone, based on its aesthetics rather than function/performance. SaveH2O Do you know how close to the wall the ag pipe is? The interim course of action would be to find out whether the ag pipe can be laid deeper and retain sufficient slope to the LPOD once the concrete is taken up. Good idea. I doubt there is much room to adjust the height of the pipes and pit, but would be worth having that assessed. Will reach out to the original plumbers first. The closest pipes are approx. 1.5m from house, from memory. Re: Concrete, weep holes and window sills 19May 14, 2019 3:51 pm Celicam I’m unsure how difficult the slotted PVC was to lay, but do know that clay stopped them from going as deep as they wanted. The plumbers cut through the original driveway to dig the trenches, as we wanted the water issue addressed sooner and didn’t have a timeframe for driveway replacement. Ok, the ag pipe was buried under the original concrete driveway in a trench. I wrongly assumed from earlier text that it was encased in the original concrete. The new driveway is higher yet you said in post 7 that the pipe is now encased in the new concrete. I can't get my head around how the pipe could have been trenched under the original concrete driveway but is now encased in the new higher driveway. Was the new driveway made thicker to cope with heavier vehicular traffic or was the old driveway thin and cracking? Celicam Will reach out to the original plumbers first. Good idea, he will know and understand the situation and give good insight on the levels that the concretor had to work with. I would like to be there to hear what the plumber has to say about the pipe coverage under the original driveway. 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. Re: Concrete, weep holes and window sills 20May 14, 2019 5:44 pm Yes, ag pipe was laid lower than the original driveway. Attached photo shows the condition of that portion of the driveway prior to concrete job commencing. Concreter would have only had to remove some scoria in order to determine depth of pipes. Trench closest to house runs Ag pipe, the other runs the outlet from pit to join downpipes. Like ⋅ Add a comment ⋅ Pin to Ideaboard ⋅ SaveH2O Was the new driveway made thicker to cope with heavier vehicular traffic or was the old driveway thin and cracking? Unsure of original driveway thickness. It was badly cracked and heaved, apparently without mesh. The new driveway is 100mm thick (where measurable) and with mesh. SaveH2O I would like to be there to hear what the plumber has to say about the pipe coverage under the original driveway. You're welcome to be present if you fancy a trip west! You are correct. Just read through all the ncc rules and 75mm is the minimum requirement for me. 4 11145 it depends on the natural ground level, if they excavated their boundary wall needed to be built as a retaining wall. If you filled, which sounds like the case then you… 1 7074 I know foam has been around since the 90's and CSR started manufacturing Hebel in 1989, so it's definitely possible 5 5421 |