# Forum Home Renovation Brickwork  Brick pier standards

## grant77

Hi just wondering had a bricklayer just build a front wall (front boundary -garden) the piers are 20c high (1714) joined by low 514 high wall. The piers are 400x400. To be rendered with ballustrade infill.
Currently they are hollow.
 Is it requirement they are filled with concrete with a rod into the footing ?  The renderer says it should the brickie says not required..   
Thankyou
Grant

----------


## cyclic

20c high (1714) ?? 
Rendered to pretty it up ok, but with ballustrade infill ?? What does that mean ?? 
Yes, If it were my fence/wall/piers, brick as in clay brick or block should be concrete filled with reo bar/twist bar/y12 attached to foundation because brick/block on it's own in a pier of ??? height is/are not strong 
Most walls/fences built with brick/block are never core filled because brickies don't deem it necessary but of course down the track a while they start cracking up. 
Lots of walls/fences here show cracks withing 2 years but then people find walls/fences are not covered under general building regulations.

----------


## grant77

Hi cyclic, 
Thanks for the reply. 20 course brick height ie. 1714mm high.  Ballustrade infill I just mean the powder coated Aluminium panels between the piers.
The piers are about 2m apart with 514mm high wall joining between them. 
Im trying to find out if its required to be core filled as per australian standards to see if I can go back to brickie or not but hard to find anywhere !?
Ta

----------


## cyclic

> Hi cyclic, 
> Thanks for the reply. 20 course brick height ie. 1714mm high.  Ballustrade infill I just mean the powder coated Aluminium panels between the piers.
> The piers are about 2m apart with 514mm high wall joining between them. 
> Im trying to find out if its required to be core filled as per australian standards to see if I can go back to brickie or not but hard to find anywhere !?
> Ta

  OK that explains it. 
No idea on Au Standards for fencing.

----------


## Marc

What do you care about standards? It is frickin wrong not to put in a $2 dollar bar and $10 worth of concrete in the center, because the pear will most likely crack if they don't.
Unfortunately for you it's too late since it can not be retrofitted and anchored to the footings unless you can source a 2m long drill and a 2m long nozzle for the Chemset tube.

----------


## johnc

My understanding is that you do need bar and concrete infill. The bricky should know that

----------


## grant77

Hi Marc - the reason Im chasing standards is because then I may have a legal leg to stand on and force him to rebuild the piers. Unfortunately hes already been paid for the job. 
If anyone knows where to find them online would be great, Ive been searching but its very confusing what to purchase/download that would have the required info..
Thanks

----------


## Marc

Yes, I figure that much. 
I use to be the same. 
One of the builders my architect brother used in the past, boosted a rate of 4 court cases per multistory building. Had a solicitor in his books and knew the law better than him. 
Today I think that the only thing that matters is to get the construction right and in order to achieve that, it is I who needs to know all the details required and to get the tradesman to do it. 
I enjoy revenge in the Jason Statham or Sylvester Stallone movies. 
Get someone to take the top off the piers, plonk a bar of 12mm reo in the cavity and fill with strong concrete. It is not the same but close enough if the footings are appropriate.

----------


## cyclic

No mention of how many piers there are but the idea of a reo bar placed in the cavity and not drilled into the foundation, then concrete filled, is better than nothing, and will at least go a ways to holding the pier together although it will still be reliant on the sticking power of the bricks and concrete to the foundation and the holding power of the brick wall.. 
The problem with bricks and blocks unfilled is as soon as you start drilling near the top there is every chance you will dislodge the top bricks. 
Of course the idea of a long drill bit to drill the foundation would be cheaper than removing the piers, and anchoring into the foundation would not be all that necessary for piers as long as the reo bar went 100mm into the foundation. 
With my trusty arc welder (mig is in Bris) and a small grinder I would have no trouble making a long drill bit to suit the rotary hammer drill. 
Something to ponder.

----------


## Marc

Sure, but anchoring is not only drilling. It is required to clean the hole to perfection and I say deeper than 100. More like 150. 
You can ... if you are really willing, tie a compressor hose to a long stick and blow the hole clean .. to certain extent. What next? How do you get chemset in the hole? I would attempt this in some way 500 deep, but 1.8m ?
And this is assuming the bricky did not drop any mortar in the cavity. If you needed to clean the mortar out of that cavity how would you do it? 
Forget it. 
Most brick fences demise comes from inadequate footings anyway. The bricky digs footings like he is used to do for a house, narrow and deep to uphold vertical forces. A fence produces lateral forces and needs wide and shallower footings. Ergo most brick fences start to lean.

----------


## cyclic

> Sure, but anchoring is not only drilling. It is required to clean the hole to perfection and I say deeper than 100. More like 150. 
> You can ... if you are really willing, tie a compressor hose to a long stick and blow the hole clean .. to certain extent. What next? How do you get chemset in the hole? I would attempt this in some way 500 deep, but 1.8m ?
> And this is assuming the bricky did not drop any mortar in the cavity. If you needed to clean the mortar out of that cavity how would you do it? 
> Forget it. 
> Most brick fences demise comes from inadequate footings anyway. The bricky digs footings like he is used to do for a house, narrow and deep to uphold vertical forces. A fence produces lateral forces and need wide and shallower footings. Ergo most brick fences start to lean.

  I agree with you but I am simply offering cheaper easier alternatives, and no doubt the pier will have lots of mud inside which may be able to be removed by knocking a brick or 2 out at the base providing it is not going to be seen and does not alter the integrity of the pier, but without being there we can only say what should have been done initially.

----------


## Marc

You are right. Perhaps the way to do this patch up job is to cut a hole in the base. This way it all becomes easier, cleaning and chemset anyway. The drilling still needs to be done from above. I never attempted to drill concrete with an angle drill. Perhaps there is some industrial air drill that can do it. Not sure.

----------


## phild01

Bit of an assumption here what the foundation is like! Did the brickie do that as well.

----------


## Marc

Yes Phil, it's not about the footing. i was only pointing at a common problem with brick fences in general. Not saying this is wrong. I have no way to know that ... obviously.  
Still thinking about how to drill the footings concrete. Now that I think about it, the concrete can be drilled from the side opening with a long SDS Max drill. The hole will be say 60 degree, and the reo bar tip, can be bent the same angle and once the hole is blown clean and fill with resin, the bar can be easily pushed in the angled hole. 
Job done. I'll do the job for $200 a pier. 
Oops, Bunbury ...  :Frown:  ... plus airfare both ways? What is the cost of clandestine airfare?  :Smilie:

----------


## cyclic

> Yes Phil, it's not about the footing. i was only pointing at a common problem with brick fences in general. Not saying this is wrong. I have no way to know that ... obviously.  
> Still thinking about how to drill the footings concrete. Now that I think about it, the concrete can be drilled from the side opening with a long SDS Max drill. The hole will be say 60 degree, and the reo bar tip, can be bent the same angle and once the hole is blown clean and fill with resin, the bar can be easily pushed in the angled hole. 
> Job done. I'll do the job for $200 a pier. 
> Oops, Bunbury ...  ... plus airfare both ways? What is the cost of clandestine airfare?

  $200 a pier ?? that's daylight robbery. 
I will do them at $50 a pier if the op brings them to me. 
On another note, I was suggesting removing one or at the most 2 bricks to allow access.

----------


## cyclic

Just realised a question we have not asked. 
Do the piers start at foundation or are they sitting on the wall ??

----------


## Marc

Oops

----------


## grant77

Thankyou for all the comments !  The piers go all the way to the foundation, Im going to drive take a look at the wall today (its at a rental) and check the foundations. Does anyone know how deep the foundations should be for the piers ?  A engineer has also suggested putting a 12mm rod horizontally through side of piers, then putting a 1200mm rod with a hook on end in pier hooking under the rod then filling with concrete. I didnt really get how that would help fix it to the base but I guess he would know..

----------


## cyclic

> Thankyou for all the comments !  The piers go all the way to the foundation, Im going to drive take a look at the wall today (its at a rental) and check the foundations. Does anyone know how deep the foundations should be for the piers ?  A engineer has also suggested putting a 12mm rod horizontally through side of piers, then putting a 1200mm rod with a hook on end in pier hooking under the rod then filling with concrete. I didnt really get how that would help fix it to the base but I guess he would know..

  The engineers idea would not help in fixing the pier to the foundation, only to the point at which the horizontal rod entered the pier.
Of course anything is better than nothing but I would question the rust factor of the rod where it is in the brick below ground not surrounded by concrete also the pier is still relying on the sticking power of the bricks .
I really don't see the point.
Might as well just run 2 rods down the pier and core fill. 
Size of foundation should have been listed on the quote but I would think 450 x 450 would be minimum for all the wall regardless of piers.
With foundations for a non load bearing wall such as this it is important the foundation be substantial enough to stay in one piece and therefore keep the wall intact.
Size of mesh and strength of concrete used is also important and you have no way of knowing what was used. 
Another question arises, are the piers capped ?

----------


## grant77

Ok so I dug around under the pier and the footing is only 50mm deep !  Basically hes just poured a 300 wide x 50mm deep strip the length of the front. Im 99% sure there would be no mesh. That footing is probably fine for the low wall as its only 514 high ? but hes just gone and built the piers on the same strip footing as the wall.  Now Im thinking is there even any point knocking a hole in side of pier (my favourite option) and fixing rod into concrete as at 50mm thick is it even going to help to tie to this..?  Where talking 12 piers about 20metres length. No the piers aernt capped.    :Frown:

----------


## phild01

I had a feeling the attention to detail wasn't there and inadequate founding.

----------


## Marc

If you found 50 mm concrete, you basically have no footing so no point anchoring to virtual nothing. 
50 mm really? If you had 100 mm it would still be something.  
I think that there is no point in trying to improve on what you have. Besides the legal remedy, I think it is either wear it and let it be for what it is, or knockdown and rebuild.  
If it is a rental and you can't find the builder, just let it go. If the ground is stable it may last a decade, who knows ... 
By the way I disagree at the usual 45x45 footing for brick fences. I believe they should be 600 wide by 350 deep with 4 rod reinforcement strip. The lateral forces on a brick fence are underrated. 
By the way, what did you pay for this gem of a job?
No shame in admitting defeat, I have been conned many times.

----------


## intertd6

> Hi just wondering had a bricklayer just build a front wall (front boundary -garden) the piers are 20c high (1714) joined by low 514 high wall. The piers are 400x400. To be rendered with ballustrade infill.
> Currently they are hollow.
>  Is it requirement they are filled with concrete with a rod into the footing ?  The renderer says it should the brickie says not required..   
> Thankyou
> Grant

  After reading this and your other descriptions, the brickie has done his job, you asked him to build a wall to your design, if you think it is not structurally adequate now that is your problem for not engaging an engineer in the first place, a bricklayer is not an engineer, there are no standards for him to know how to design it, just common workmanship standards such as bond, ties, control joints, etc. Who designed the footing? And why didn't they provide a starter bar for the piers if one was needed for a reinforced pier core? The builder seems at fault if the wall is under designed & ultimately you were the builder.
inter

----------


## cyclic

> After reading this and your other descriptions, the brickie has done his job, you asked him to build a wall to your design, if you think it is not structurally adequate now that is your problem for not engaging an engineer in the first place, a bricklayer is not an engineer, there are no standards for him to know how to design it, just common workmanship standards such as bond, ties, control joints, etc. Who designed the footing? And why didn't they provide a starter bar for the piers if one was needed for a reinforced pier core? The builder seems at fault if the wall is under designed & ultimately you were the builder.
> inter

  When in doubt blame the owner ! you must be joking.
While I partially agree some owners do get ripped off by taking the cheapest quote, in most cases they do not know or understand what should be done so they rely on the so called experts the tradesman, to do the job correctly, and that is why people come here and unfortunately ask questions after the event, and if you don't want to try and assist so be it but don't blame the driver because the Mechanic did a krap job on the brakes. 
As a Registered Builder and Licensed Plumber Drainer I too got ripped off many times with crap work by Tradies/Workers who were only interested in the ting of the cash register and in a lot of cases were never trained correctly..

----------


## joynz

I just spoke to my friend who is a qualified brickie with 40 years experience and a licensed builder (UL) in Vic. 
He said to pull it down based on the OP claim that the footing is just 50mm deep and and 300mm wide.  He laughed when he heard that and said it will fall down ... 
He also commented that a wall that high would have needed a permit so there will be engineering drawings so check what these showed.   
And to chase the brickie for compensation because those footings make the wall untenable. 
(The question of reo and core filling in every pier isn’t so clear cut though however.  He would expect one or two bars in gate piers though - but the engineering should show what’s needed.  With the tragic collapse of some walls in recent years he says he would expect it to be over engineered if anything.)

----------


## joynz

> When in doubt blame the owner ! you must be joking.
> While I partially agree some owners do get ripped off by taking the cheapest quote, in most cases they do not know or understand what should be done so they rely on the so called experts the tradesman, to do the job correctly, and that is why people come here and unfortunately ask questions after the event, and if you don't want to try and assist so be it but don't blame the driver because the Mechanic did a krap job on the brakes. 
> As a Registered Builder and Licensed Plumber Drainer I too got ripped off many times with crap work by Tradies/Workers who were only interested in the ting of the cash register and in a lot of cases were never trained correctly..

  +1

----------


## Marc

You could hope for a stray car to run into this fence and claim it on insurance?  :Smilie:

----------


## phild01

Grant, did you dig far enough down to confirm the foundation depth that it was not just a bit of overflow you saw. As always pics tell a lot more than words.

----------


## Marc

Another solution would be to brace the piers with a diagonal galvanised pipe 1.5" running at 60 degree behind the fence and up half way the peers, one for each. if done properly and anchored correctly it should give peace of mind. Not perfect but a cheaper solution than rebuild.

----------


## grant77

Hi all - the cost was $5500 plus bricks about $1000.  I got 3 quotes on 'hipages' under bricklayers. He wasnt the cheapest they where all about same price but he actually had a lot of good reviews so I went with him. So I really dont get why this job so bad. 
I submitted a application to local shire for the wall but the only detail required was for wall heights and location. They just issued a uncertified building permit which when I look at it it states wall is required to be built to Aus standards. No outside engineer (certification) was required. I had no idea on what standards would be for a brick wall. I just naively assumed if Im hiring a bricklayer he would know the standards and build to that ?  Even now its been hard to find out the actual standard required as per the codes. Even Joynz brickie friend said its not clear in the codes about wether core fill with rod required if no gates used. But one thing is clear the footings dont comply.
I dug about 100mm under the pier to check the footing.
Hey Marc your idea with the pipe - do u mean the pipe just running from the outside of the pier out into the lawn ? That wouldnt really work be to unsightly and a trip hazard in this location.
But youve given me a idea - what if I extend the base of piers to the rear say 300mm up to 6c (514mm) = to the height of the low wall.  
   ie. the base of the piers becomes 700x400. The rear 300 section can have a 400 deep footing. Then knock out the lower 2 bricks (343mm) from the original pier and concrete fill in one pour the inside of column to about half way only, it will also flow out the back and fill the new footing 400 deep + rear of pier upto 343mm.    The top brick (171mm) will form a box with a concrete base just be a planter behind each pier. Im sure I didnt explain that very well Ive attached a pic..      I appreciate everyones input so far !  Pic attached of 1 section of wall

----------


## johnc

You don't have much in the way of lateral force, just wind load and the chance of being struck by a random car. The 50mm footings will not last long before they start to fail. As you haven't rendered yet I would consider knocking it down, putting in a 450 x 450 footing with trench mesh plus your rebar for the pillars. As it is the brickie had to know 50mm doesn't cut it, that is insufficient for a footpath which will crack in all but the most stable soil types.  
With a proper footing just core fill would have been adequate in your situation, not perfect but probably fine, core fill is more recent most fences 40 years ago would have hollow pillars. 
Your suggested remedial footing will not work, the forces (gravity) are more likely to tilt the fence over time. You might be able to dig under the pillars and put a 400mm square footing in drilling up from underneath to bring your rebar through from the top. You are putting reliance on the 50mm of footing holding the weight of the pillar. You also need to ensure the underpinned footing has no voids between the new and existing concrete. Not for the feint hearted and something you need to take advice on from a safety perspective.

----------


## phild01

I still think you need to dig well under to confirm that footing size, 50mm is hard to believe.

----------


## johnc

+1

----------


## intertd6

> When in doubt blame the owner ! you must be joking.
> While I partially agree some owners do get ripped off by taking the cheapest quote, in most cases they do not know or understand what should be done so they rely on the so called experts the tradesman, to do the job correctly, and that is why people come here and unfortunately ask questions after the event, and if you don't want to try and assist so be it but don't blame the driver because the Mechanic did a krap job on the brakes. 
> As a Registered Builder and Licensed Plumber Drainer I too got ripped off many times with crap work by Tradies/Workers who were only interested in the ting of the cash register and in a lot of cases were never trained correctly..

  Im not joking , the OP applied for the permit so they are the builder, the bricklayer is responsible for the masonry under the directions given to him by the builder, he isn't a concretor or a footing or wall designer, people come here after stuffing up, instead of doing their homework first, the analogy that fits is like the driver having someone unqualified do the brakes for them, the responsibility stops with them.
If there isn't a properly designed footing under the wall it should be demolished . It costs to do things properly, it costs even more if it isn't.
inter

----------


## Marc

> But youve given me a idea - what if I extend the base of piers to the rear say 300mm up to 6c (514mm) = to the height of the low wall. ie. the base of the piers becomes 700x400. The rear 300 section can have a 400 deep footing. Then knock out the lower 2 bricks (343mm) from the original pier and concrete fill in one pour the inside of column to about half way only, it will also flow out the back and fill the new footing 400 deep + rear of pier upto 343mm. The top brick (171mm) will form a box with a concrete base just be a planter behind each pier. Im sure I didnt explain that very well Ive attached a pic.. I appreciate everyones input so far ! Pic attached of 1 section of wall

  Hi Grant ...Yes, good effort, and better than nothing, but underpinning with concrete as per JohnC above is a better way. 
If you check brick fences around you you will find a lot that are out of plum and that have started tilting.. When the brick wall is out of plumb, the center of gravity is displaced and produces a lateral force that aggravates the tilt to the point of toppling over. A usually slow process that starts with inadequate footings. A house wall footing can be 450x450 because it has the benefit of all the other walls at 90 degree that act as bracing. The footings act in conjunction with one another and get mainly vertical loads.  
A fence that is linear is balancing on a narrow strip of concrete ( in your case non existing) and any even small subsidence in the ground will start the tilting process. Best brick fences are in a square zig zag with planting boxes in each recess.  
At this stage I would consult someone that does underpinning and knows what he is doing, if you don't like my propping up suggestion, conceded rather ugly. The concreter will dig around and make a proper assessment of the situation and suggest a remedial footing. Hopefully cheaper that knocking down and rebuild. Any approach you chose will mean money and mess. Of course you can always hope for the best and keep an eye on it with a level at hand.

----------


## joynz

> Im not joking , the OP applied for the permit so they are the builder, the bricklayer is responsible for the masonry under the directions given to him by the builder, he isn't a concretor or a footing or wall designer, people come here after stuffing up, instead of doing their homework first, the analogy that fits is like the driver having someone unqualified do the brakes for them, the responsibility stops with them.
> If there isn't a properly designed footing under the wall it should be demolished . It costs to do things properly, it costs even more if it isn't.
> inter

  Brick laying is a certified trade.   
The OP doesn’t have to know any details about how to build a brick wall.  They hired a certified (presumably) tradie - the payment isn’t just for a brick wall - it’s for a fit for purpose wall to the relevant standards.  
It’s not like they told the brickie to build a substandard wall! 
The problem isn’t the reo and core filling - it’s the footings.  No competent brickie would do 50mm x 30mm footings (assuming the OP hasn’t mismeasured).

----------


## JB1

> Brick laying is a certified trade.   
> The OP doesn’t have to know any details about how to build a brick wall.  They hired a certified (presumably) tradie - the payment isn’t just for a brick wall - it’s for a fit for purpose wall to the relevant standards.  
> It’s not like they told the brickie to build a substandard wall! 
> The problem isn’t the reo and core filling - it’s the footings.  No competent brickie would do 50mm x 30mm footings (assuming the OP hasn’t mismeasured).

  In Victoria, brickies (painters, plasterers, tilers, hell even carpenters) aren't required to be Certified.   
Doesn't mean they don't have to do a professional job. 
What was on the quote/invoice? 
Sent

----------


## intertd6

> Brick laying is a certified trade.   
> The OP doesnt have to know any details about how to build a brick wall.  They hired a certified (presumably) tradie - the payment isnt just for a brick wall - its for a fit for purpose wall to the relevant standards.  
> Its not like they told the brickie to build a substandard wall! 
> The problem isnt the reo and core filling - its the footings.  No competent brickie would do 50mm x 30mm footings (assuming the OP hasnt mismeasured).

  This whole saga sounds fishy to me, surely out of few bricklayers that quoted it,  one of them would have told the builder it needed a proper footing that would need designing.
inter

----------


## Marc

Yes Inter, you are right, but the horses have bolted.  
What is the best remedy, besides the obvious knock down and rebuild at this stage?

----------


## joynz

> This whole saga sounds fishy to me, surely out of few bricklayers that quoted it,  one of them would have told the builder it needed a proper footing that would need designing.
> inter

  A qualified brickie would do a Cert 3 as part of an apprenticeship in Vic.

----------


## intertd6

> Yes Inter, you are right, but the horses have bolted.  
> What is the best remedy, besides the obvious knock down and rebuild at this stage?

  a vac truck could excavate a mass footing in 2 hit & miss stages , that would be a couple of K, concrete & some steel on top of that, plus an engineers certification. bobs your uncle .
 Inter

----------


## intertd6

> A qualified brickie would do a Cert 3 as part of an apprenticeship in Vic.

  and what do they teach them in a Cert 3? It sure as isn't how to run a one man show business, trying to survive after completing a trade on wages & dealing with every Tom dick & Harry wanting work done at 1964 prices.
inter

----------


## grant77

Originally Posted by *intertd6*  
 This  whole saga sounds fishy to me, surely out of few bricklayers that  quoted it,  one of them would have told the builder it needed a proper  footing that would need designing.
inter  
The 3 quotes where for a  total price including  "piers, wall and footing" with pier and wall heights.  But none of the quotes specified the actual footing size.
 Being just a common basic front garden wall I didnt realise I would have to research & design the footing for them -  so yeah my mistake there

----------


## cyclic

> Originally Posted by *intertd6*  
>  This  whole saga sounds fishy to me, surely out of few bricklayers that  quoted it,  one of them would have told the builder it needed a proper  footing that would need designing.
> inter  
> The 3 quotes where for a  total price including  "piers, wall and footing" with pier and wall heights.  But none of the quotes specified the actual footing size. 
> Being just a common basic front garden wall I didnt realise I would have to research & design the footing for them -  so yeah my mistake there

  Not your fault at all.
If you quote to do a job you know how to do it correctly or you should not be in the industry.

----------


## Marc

Besides the debate of who's fault it is, only relevant if the solicitor wants to mount a case, (I say that it sits square on the brickie), it is clear that at this stage and if your assessment of 50 mm deep footings is correct, you need to underpin the fence if you want it to last. 
Inter hinted at a method used by underpinners with a vacuum truck. Pressure pump and powerful vacuum that sucks the mud and leaves a neat hole. Brilliant invention. 
They will probably suck up one meter on and one meter off, then concrete the holes and vibrate the concrete, and repeat with the other sections to complete the footings.  
How to lay the reo? I have no idea but if I was on a desert island with no one to tell me I would probably have reo a bit longer than the section to concrete, push it in the dirt at one end and fill in. The next section once cleaned out will show the reo sticking out and so more reo can be tied up to that one (?)  
Interesting to watch that job. Also a bit of a gamble to see if a 500 mm high wall can take it to be up in the air. I suppose that the first section will need to keep the first pier sitting on solid ground and not cantilever ... Ok I have no idea.  :Smilie:

----------


## intertd6

> Not your fault at all.
> If you quote to do a job you know how to do it correctly or you should not be in the industry.

   If the wall had failed & fallen over the OP as the builder would be responsible, this is proven in case law, ignorance is no defence for not knowing the how it was to be properly constructed, the wall as built may last for years or never fail, there are thousands of masonry fence structures in streets all over the country built on brick or shallow concrete footings, to try and claim in this case that the wall is inadequate, when there was no design & none needed by the council,  is an exercise in futility of which there would be only one winner, the lawyers.
Inter

----------


## cyclic

> If the wall had failed & fallen over the OP as the builder would be responsible, this is proven in case law, ignorance is no defence for not knowing the how it was to be properly constructed, the wall as built may last for years or never fail, there are thousands of masonry fence structures in streets all over the country built on brick or shallow concrete footings, to try and claim in this case that the wall is inadequate, when there was no design & none needed by the council,  is an exercise in futility of which there would be only one winner, the lawyers.
> Inter

  So as I mentioned in #24, if the mechanic stuffs up the brakes on your car and worse still, you kill 10 people due to the brake job being stuffed up then you are at fault because you should know how the brakes should have been fixed and not only that, you should know the brakes were incorrect, and in essence you should know everything about everything that you get other people to do.
Is this correct inter ??

----------


## Marc

I think that the law makes a distinction between an owner builder that contracts trade for the purpose of building a house, and in that case he is the builder, to the case at hand were someone calls a tradesman to do a job, be it building a fence or installing a window or hot water system. Big difference. Usually the distinction is done based on the cost of the project and the same cost outlines the need for an owner builder license or not. And even the exemption from a council permit.  
If the fence falls on a tenant and kills him, it would be a brave barrister who tries to pin this on the owner because he did not design the footings properly. Landlord insurance would pay and that would be the end of the matter.

----------


## joynz

> If the wall had failed & fallen over the OP as the builder would be responsible, this is proven in case law, ignorance is no defence for not knowing the how it was to be properly constructed, the wall as built may last for years or never fail, there are thousands of masonry fence structures in streets all over the country built on brick or shallow concrete footings, to try and claim in this case that the wall is inadequate, when there was no design & none needed by the council,  is an exercise in futility of which there would be only one winner, the lawyers.
> Inter

  Can you provide examples of the case law  to which you refer? 
And I don’t mean where a person builds a whole house or does a significant  reno as an ’owner builder’ (which does legally make them the builder - but they can still get a remedy from their trades).   
I mean a situation like this where a normal householder hires a brickie to put up a small residential wall.  Because the OP is definitely not the builder in this case.

----------


## johnc

> If the wall had failed & fallen over the OP as the builder would be responsible, this is proven in case law, ignorance is no defence for not knowing the how it was to be properly constructed, the wall as built may last for years or never fail, there are thousands of masonry fence structures in streets all over the country built on brick or shallow concrete footings, to try and claim in this case that the wall is inadequate, when there was no design & none needed by the council,  is an exercise in futility of which there would be only one winner, the lawyers.
> Inter

   It isn't that simple, people can be joined in an action which would bring the brickie into it, failure to adhere to Australian standards perhaps, and then is it a criminal matter, commercial or small claims. I don't know the answer nor does anyone here.

----------


## johnc

> I think that the law makes a distinction between an owner builder that contracts trade for the purpose of building a house, and in that case he is the builder, to the case at hand were someone calls a tradesman to do a job, be it building a fence or installing a window or hot water system. Big difference. Usually the distinction is done based on the cost of the project and the same cost outlines the need for an owner builder license or not. And even the exemption from a council permit.  
> If the fence falls on a tenant and kills him, it would be a brave barrister who tries to pin this on the owner because he did not design the footings properly. Landlord insurance would pay and that would be the end of the matter.

  If someone was killed you are entering the criminal area, no insurance for that. Failure resulting in cost is not tenant related, it would be the building insurance either way you would have to look at the individual policy and chances are if the person was a qualified tradies who knowingly built a footing below standard with a high likelihood of failure you can expect the insurer to decline or go after the tradie. 
My guess is there is little likelihood of insurance cover when the owner has arranged the works and arranged the subbies.

----------


## Marc

Landlord insurance covers for legal liability up to 30 millions to other people or their property. An accident is not a criminal matter. Negligence is covered and is also not a criminal matter.

----------


## intertd6

> So as I mentioned in #24, if the mechanic stuffs up the brakes on your car and worse still, you kill 10 people due to the brake job being stuffed up then you are at fault because you should know how the brakes should have been fixed and not only that, you should know the brakes were incorrect, and in essence you should know everything about everything that you get other people to do.
> Is this correct inter ??

  Not at all, building is different to mechanical work, To put your analogy into perspective, the OP is the mechanic he owns the workshop,  he didnt do the work one of his subordinates did the work.
inter

----------


## intertd6

> Can you provide examples of the case law  to which you refer? 
> And I dont mean where a person builds a whole house or does a significant  reno as an owner builder (which does legally make them the builder - but they can still get a remedy from their trades).   
> I mean a situation like this where a normal householder hires a brickie to put up a small residential wall.  Because the OP is definitely not the builder in this case.

  the case was where a brick wall in Melbourne blew over in a gust of wind & killed a couple of people, known colloquially in all states as industrial man slaughter , it is a criminal matter with minimum gaol sentences, the principle (builder) is responsible for all activities on site, that responsibility can not be delegated to subcontractors .
inter

----------


## Marc

Industrial manslaughter is a curiosity law loved by Labor that itches to punish the bad capitalist. 
Unlikely to be introduced in NSW.
But it is also a bad example. If my grandmother calls an electrician to install a light and then the neighbour comes and touches the switch and gets electrocuted, my granny is very unlikely to be called the principal builder and responsible for what the electrician has done. 
The OP is not the builder of the fence. Fact. if the fence costs 30,000 and he is required to present plans to the council, the council may ask him to take out an OB license and in that case, he is responsible. Not in this case.

----------


## intertd6

> Industrial manslaughter is a curiosity law loved by Labor that itches to punish the bad capitalist. 
> Unlikely to be introduced in NSW.
> But it is also a bad example. If my grandmother calls an electrician to install a light and then the neighbour comes and touches the switch and gets electrocuted, my granny is very unlikely to be called the principal builder and responsible for what the electrician has done. 
> The OP is not the builder of the fence. Fact. if the fence costs 30,000 and he is required to present plans to the council, the council may ask him to take out an OB license and in that case, he is responsible. Not in this case.

  Unfortunately in this case a building permit had been issued, it is in WA where there are industrial man slaughter laws, the OP is the builder, end of story
inter

----------


## joynz

> Unfortunately in this case a building permit had been issued, it is in WA where there are industrial man slaughter laws, the OP is the builder, end of story
> inter

  I’m a bit confused by this post. 
Are you giving the opinion that the OP could be had up for ‘Industrial manslaughter’ because they got a permit for a domestic fence?  Snowflake’s chance. 
Anyway, here’s a short summary of the brick wall collapse in Melbourne to which I think you are referring:  *Melbourne wall collapse: compensation under the Sentencing Act*  20th Apr 2017 Recent compensation settlements involving the families of pedestrians killed by a wall collapse highlight a rarely used avenue of compensation: claims under the _Sentencing Act_ 1991 (Vic) (_Sentencing Act_). *Background*
On 28 March 2013, a 15-metre-high wall on a building site on Swanston Street in Melbourne collapsed, killing three pedestrians. The site where the collapse occurred was controlled by the construction company Grocon. WorkSafe Victoria brought a civil prosecution against Grocon and another company with breaching workplace safety laws in relation to the incident. In 2014, Grocon pleaded guilty to the charge in the Magistrates’ Court and was ordered to pay a $250,000 fine. 
Copied from https://www.lawyersalliance.com.au/o...sentencing-act

----------


## intertd6

> I’m a bit confused by this post. 
> Are you giving the opinion that the OP could be had up for ‘Industrial manslaughter’ because they got a permit for a domestic fence?  Snowflake’s chance. 
> Anyway, here’s a short summary of the brick wall collapse in Melbourne to which I think you are referring:  *Melbourne wall collapse: compensation under the Sentencing Act*  20th Apr 2017 Recent compensation settlements involving the families of pedestrians killed by a wall collapse highlight a rarely used avenue of compensation: claims under the _Sentencing Act_ 1991 (Vic) (_Sentencing Act_). *Background*
> On 28 March 2013, a 15-metre-high wall on a building site on Swanston Street in Melbourne collapsed, killing three pedestrians. The site where the collapse occurred was controlled by the construction company Grocon. WorkSafe Victoria brought a civil prosecution against Grocon and another company with breaching workplace safety laws in relation to the incident. In 2014, Grocon pleaded guilty to the charge in the Magistrates’ Court and was ordered to pay a $250,000 fine. 
> Copied from https://www.lawyersalliance.com.au/o...sentencing-act

  I am pointing out the chain of responsibility, if the OP's wall was to fall over & kill someone they would be the first one in the dock defending themselves from criminal prosecution, that is a given, the so called bricklayer would be be called in to give evidence of how they were allowed to build a substandard wall, the builder , the council and possibly the possibility the bricky would also be chased for compensation if he had some big assets which would be highly unlikely , all of this all comes back to who is responsible for the wall, the value of the job falls in a grey area of what a handyman is allowed to do, someone can call themselves a bricklayer & not even need a licence to do the work, a wall was asked to be built without a proper design or scope of works or any professional consultant input, I'm seeing the final result is self inflicted.
inter

----------


## joynz

> I am pointing out the chain of responsibility, if the OP's wall was to fall over & kill someone they would be the first one in the dock defending themselves from criminal prosecution, that is a given, the so called bricklayer would be be called in to give evidence of how they were allowed to build a substandard wall, the builder , the council and possibly the possibility the bricky would also be chased for compensation if he had some big assets which would be highly unlikely , all of this all comes back to who is responsible for the wall, the value of the job falls in a grey area of what a handyman is allowed to do, someone can call themselves a bricklayer & not even need a licence to do the work, a wall was asked to be built without a proper design or scope of works or any professional consultant input, I'm seeing the final result is self inflicted.
> inter

  Sigh.  Calling the OP ‘the builder’ doesn’t make him a builder. 
There is absolutely no legal expectation that any homeowner should know the fine detail of how to do electrical work, brick work, carpentry or plumbing.  And no reasonable person would expect that.  That’s why you hire a tradie - in good faith as happened here. 
We don’t yet know if the footings are OK or not.

----------


## intertd6

> Sigh.  Calling the OP the builder doesnt make him a builder. 
> There is absolutely no legal expectation that any homeowner should know the fine detail of how to do electrical work, brick work, carpentry or plumbing.  And no reasonable person would expect that.  Thats why you hire a tradie - in good faith as happened here. 
> We dont yet know if the footings are OK or not.

  And yet the OP got approvals, organised, ordered materials & engaged a subcontractor to build the wall, that is the description of a builder, electrical, plumbing & mechanical work are specialised trades that can only be done by licenced people , the other trades are vertually open slather, what you are saying is if a builder builds something and it is faulty or defective they can fob the client off & tell them to chase the tradesman as they aren't responsible, contracturally or for safety that can't be delegated.
inter

----------


## johnc

I think we have done the bush lawyer stuff to death. There is nothing to be gained from flogging this topic, who ends up in court and who gets an unfavourable outcome turns on the facts and it is an unwise person who tries to predict an outcome.

----------


## intertd6

> I think we have done the bush lawyer stuff to death. There is nothing to be gained from flogging this topic, who ends up in court and who gets an unfavourable outcome turns on the facts and it is an unwise person who tries to predict an outcome.

  Bush lawyering would tell you for something like this it isn't worth pursuing any action, the costs would more than likely outweigh the benifit, if there was a design & documentation to support a win even then the bricklayer might not have the money to pay & the OP loses again,
ask me how I know that?
inter

----------


## johnc

> Bush lawyering would tell you for the for something like this it isn't worth pursuing any action, the costs would more than likely outweigh the benifit, if there was a design & documentation to support a win even then the bricklayer might not have the money to pay & the OP loses again,
> ask me how I know that?
> inter

   Usually legal action is never worth it

----------

