Advice on fitment of bay windows

[e39boy]

Hi,

I have attached some more pictures, which will help to visualise.

My Main questions now are;

1) Is the Roof Structure above the top bedroom window load bearing onto the Window Poles?

2) Looking at the pictures, should there be a Steel spreader plate above the poles to carry the structure above it?

3) Are pole jacks standard practice/standard for every bay window install? Or are some poles designed to sit on the cill? Reason i ask is that so i can go back to to company with an idea of how it should be done, rather than getting fobbed off.

Appreciate everyones help!

Thanks

 

[crank39]

1/ Pretty certain it's a cantilever roof above but best practice would be to fit bay jacks

2/ Yes, spreader plates do what they say, they spread the load rather than point loading

3/ Jacking poles are a requirement as a means of support if the existing bay was load bearing

Read Approved Doc A: Structure

In a way I feel sorry for the fitters, I've been a fitter and I know what it's like, you have no control over the job, the job was sold, it was surveyed and you've been sent to fit, you get given the parts and told you have 2 days. They'll know it needs bay jacks but they can't create waves back at the office, the boss will moan and say get on with it, no one will question the surveyor for not including bay jacks. Looks like it's snowing too, they have both bays out, they're now under pressure to at least get some frames in and the last thing they need is a lengthy argument with the boss and surveyor about the lack of bay jacks.

A few years ago a warranty company sent me out and a colleague out to check a bay suspected of moving, well it was and after inspection and what we found we had to do some temporary repairs

 

[e39boy]

Hi,

The weather was really bad! raining/snowing and windy! They had removed both bays, so the house was open to the elements totally.
At first they were planning on cutting the bay cills segments, to get the correct angles and then they said they were going to glue it all back up. This I refused straight away, as it just seemed like a big bodge. This is when they came up with their plan of re-using the old cills temporarily until they receive the new ones.

At first I though it was ok, but the more I think about it, and the more research I have done, including the invaluable advice on here it is really starting to worry me!

I understand mistakes can happen, and was perfectly fine with the job being delayed. The house is not currently occupied, so I am not majorly rushed. Plus it is a bonus of the fitters as well. But I want the job to be done perfectly as it should. I only think that's fair.

 

[e39boy]

What would a re-enforced cill look like? Would it look physically any different?

 

[crank39]

Don't let them fob you off with a reinforced cill, it's a U channel tin section that is slid into the back chamber of the hollow cill, the sections don't even meet but stop short by 100mm from the cill mitre joints/welds, they have to because there's no way of welding the reinforcement together once it's inside the cill. A reinforced cill will not hold your brick barrel up, the weight needs to be transferred down through the pole and onto the brickwork below, there should be no weight on the cill, it should in effect be a floating cill

 

[crank39]

Taken from Approved Doc A

.....'It should be noted that if, after the completion of an installation and the issuing of the FENSA
certificate, it can be established that an adequate means of support was not fitted where
needed, a retrospective non-conformity will be levied against the installation company even if
weeks, months or years have elapsed which will likely incur significant cost'......

 

[e39boy]

Another mix to the story...When i initally booked them, they said they were Fensa registered. I have e-mailed Fensa today and they have said that the company is not on their list. I have not approached the company about this yet...

 

[crank39]

Ok interesting, Fensa take misuse of their logo very seriously. First off check their website to see if they advertise the logo and claim to be registered, also see if they have the 5 digit member number along with the logo. Also check with CERTASS to see if registered with them and not Fensa, both are self certification schemes. If they advertise as being Fensa and have logos on website and on vans then report them

Misuse of the FENSA Brand

FENSA takes very seriously situations where the FENSA brand is being used without permission and possibly misleading consumers. If you see the FENSA logo being used on a website, marketing material...

fensahelp.zendesk.com

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Oof! Do they trade under a different name? Are they Certass registered instead? You can search both their databases, not that you should have to. Just ask for their registration number.

 

[mrrusty]

If it was me and the company were installing new windows on a bay like that without appropriate jacks/support, I think I would probably go find a tame building surveyor to come out and report before the job is finished. It's difficult to argue as a layperson against the "expert installers", and you really don't want to have the bay shift afterwards and have the hassle of chasing after the event.

It would probably be money well spent and would give you ammo to get the job done properly. @crank39 obviously knows what he is talking about.

 

[ronniecabers]

If it was me and the company were installing new windows on a bay like that without appropriate jacks/support, I think I would probably go find a tame building surveyor to come out and report before the job is finished. It's difficult to argue as a layperson against the "expert installers", and you really don't want to have the bay shift afterwards and have the hassle of chasing after the event.

It would probably be money well spent and would give you ammo to get the job done properly. @crank39 obviously knows what he is talking about.

There is no need to waste money on building surveyor. Crank and others ( myself included ) have already stated that the way the installation company are trying to rectify this mistake is completely wrong. Put basically, if they don't put baypoles direct onto concrete cill/ block work and put them onto the upvc cill ( regardless of reinforcing as explained by Crank and even some cill ' reinforcing ' is reconstituted plastic rather than metal ), then there is a REAL possibility of movement , or even worse collapse. If the Installers can not see this and will not do it correctly then ask then to leave site . If they are Certass or Fensa registered they should know about the support needed, as its written into scheme handbooks quite clearly . I am concerned that they are looking for a cheap and easy fix and in this case the ONLY fix is frame removal and upon fitting the new cill jacking kits used on every angle and frame joiner with Reinforced poles, the entire height between block work and ' jacked up' to fit nice and tight so there is no possibility of movement

 

[mrrusty]

There is no need to waste money on building surveyor. Crank and others ( myself included ) have already stated that the way the installation company are trying to rectify this mistake is completely wrong

@ronniecabers - On the contrary - it is exactly because you have clearly advised the problem, and obviously have the experience to back it up (and I completely agree with your opinion), that my suggestion to go and find someone who can back the OP up on site is perhaps something to be considered. It's one thing as a customer to face up to the contractors and say "some bloke on a forum has told me you are doing it wrong", and quite another to stand there alongside a qualified surveyor. Only the OP knows whether he feels confident enough to force the contractors to do the job properly without any back-up, or whether paying for a bit of back up could be good value in the long run.

 

[ronniecabers]

@ronniecabers - On the contrary - it is exactly because you have clearly advised the problem, and obviously have the experience to back it up (and I completely agree with your opinion), that my suggestion to go and find someone who can back the OP up on site is perhaps something to be considered. It's one thing as a customer to face up to the contractors and say "some bloke on a forum has told me you are doing it wrong", and quite another to stand there alongside a qualified surveyor. Only the OP knows whether he feels confident enough to force the contractors to do the job properly without any back-up, or whether paying for a bit of back up could be good value in the long run.

I see your point and fully understand but various building regulations have been quoted , If OP wishes to address the issue without spending any money then quoting said building regulations should be enough for the fitters to realise OP has done his research. I will admit , thinking more on it , that maybe a chat with the fitters, asking how they tend to resolve the issue of no baypoles to the block work may be an easy way forward. OP doesn't have to argue about it , of they say they aren't putting them in , tell them to call their boss.
Maybe local building Control may be interested too, so I do concede , if all else fails get Building Control involved, even if it involves paying

 

[e39boy]

Hi Everyone,

The window company have agreed to take out the frames on the bottom, and re-do it properly with Pole Jacks sitting on the brickwork.

They are however adamant that the top window does not need window jacks and claim that it is not load bearing. They are intent on leaving the poles resting on the UPVC cills. Shall i push for Pole jacks on the top windows too?

Also, is there anyone on here that could recommend a structural engineer or building surveyor, that could put it in writing formally whether the top window is load bearing and whether it needs jack poles?

Thank you in advance

 

[crank39]

Get building control to pop out, someone with letters after their name, also if installer isn't fensa then BC might have to sign it off so an ideal opportunity for them to see what they're signing off. Glad they're fitting them in the lower bay though, they wouldn't be if they didn't need them, they knew full well it did