Newsletter

'PERSPECTIVE'

Follow us
Connect

For Enquiries

T: +44 (0)20 7583 2244
E: info@probyn-miers.com

Swimming Pools

Client: Solicitors for owners
Situation: The houses are situated on a sloping site, with the swimming pools at basement level, with their roofs providing garden terraces at the rear of the existing houses.   After the first winter in service, rainwater penetration and condensation from the cold roof construction caused damp patches to appear on the swimming pool ceiling, which worsened and lead to partial ceiling collapse.The primary defects were an inadequate waterproof membrane to the terrace, inadequate drainage of the waterproof membrane and the lack of an adequate vapour barrier below the structural deck.
Action: Probyn Miers was appointed as architect to identify and analyse the defects and to consider alternative strategies for remedial works, including inverted roofs and pressurised roofs, and their respective advantages and disadvantages.
Result: The case was settled by negotiation with the architect.

 

Client: Building insurer
Situation: A dispute arose between a property owner and a building insurer about the scope and level of losses covered by an insurance policy following the discovery of extensive defects in a recently purchased house.  Probyn Miers was required to provide an opinion on standards achieved in design and workmanship, and to analyse a range of defects and areas of damage.
Action: Probyn Miers was appointed as architect to identify and analyse the defects and to consider alternative strategies for remedial works, including inverted roofs and pressurised roofs, and their respective advantages and disadvantages.
Result: The case settled before trial.

 

Client: Local authority
Situation:  This case concerned delayed completion and increased costs in the refurbishment and extension of a local authority leisure centre, involving employer’s claims against the architect (for alleged late and incomplete design information) and against the contractor, including disagreement over the scope of services to be provided by the architect and about the standard of the lead consultant’s advice on procurement and buildability.
Action: Probyn Miers was required to provide an opinion on the scope of the architect’s services, and the standards achieved in design, workmanship and contract administration.
Result: Probyn Miers provided an expert opinion on the matters in dispute.

 

Client: Property owner through his solicitor.
Situation: The project was a large extension to a detached house on a secluded, heavily wooded site. The additional accommodation included a living room, a guest bedroom suite, a double garage, a gym and a swimming pool with changing and shower facilities. The design was geometrically complex and incorporated several levels to take account of the natural slope of the site.Water ingress was apparent in several locations from the time the building was handed over and occupied. When roof coverings were removed to give access to rectify the leaks it was discovered that further significant deterioration was occurring within the roof construction because of the effects of condensation.In addition damp penetration became apparent in several areas and the property owner discovered that significant voids that had been formed beneath the floors of the store room, the garage and part of the gym, had no provision for natural ventilation.
Action: Probyn Miers carried out a site inspection and prepared a preliminary report. The purpose of the report at this stage is to assist the property owner in settlement discussions and negotiations with the Architect. It concluded that: i), the type of roof construction specified was not suitable for use as part of a swimming pool enclosure, ii), the detailed design of the roof would not prevent condensation or water penetration and would make effective maintenance impracticable, iii), the voids beneath the floors of the store room, the garage and part of the gym had been designed in such a way as to prevent the provision of natural ventilation, iv), the system of land drainage appears to be inadequate, and v), the design did not include an effective means of preventing the ingress of water from the ground.
Result: Awaiting further instructions as of 08 April 2013.


< Back
FIDIC The Academy of ExpertsRIBACIArb
 
Probyn Miers is a Limited Company registered in England and Wales registration number 5070857. The material in this web site is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice. While we do our best to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the contents of this web site, Probyn Miers accepts no responsibility for any loss which may arise from relying on information provided on the site. Privacy Policy and Cookies     Website by Nova Collective