1940’s Prefab’s – Simple but effective!

Despite a desperate need for housing it is interesting that a planned, strategic approach was taken to the design and functionality of prefabricated housing in the 1940’s.

Source: Prefab at Avoncroft Museum - Source: Own

A number of years ago I visited Avoncroft Museum of Historic Buildings (Link), which is situated near junction 1 of the M42 in Bromsgrove in the West Midlands. The Museum currently has over thirty different buildings/structures which have been rescued and re-built over the last five decades including a timber framed merchant’s house, a windmill, a church and a granary to name but a few. Although these and other buildings are absolutely fascinating, the building that really caught my attention was the 1940’s prefab. There was something about the speed of construction and the simplicity and layout of the structure that made the building stand out from the rest. For those reading this article who are unfamiliar with prefabricated buildings, these are basically factory built components that are assembled (put together) on site.

Nowadays, prefabrication is something that is commonly used for new built construction, and offers efficiencies in terms of thermal performance, speed, improved quality as well as cost efficiencies. In the 1940’s very little consideration would have been given to any of these factors, with the exception of speed of construction. Originally designed as temporary structures with a maximum lifespan of 10 years, prefabs were identified in the 1944 Housing Act as a means of providing accommodation quickly in towns and cities that had been bombed heavily in World War II. Prior to the introduction of the Housing Act in 1944 the UK Government identified the need to provide temporary houses and set about achieving this through an initiative called the ‘Temporary Houses Programme’ (THP). The summary below from Epsom and Ewell History Explorer (Link) explains the planned approach to housing shortage and how design played a key part in its success.

Source: Kitchen within Avoncroft Prefab - Source: Own

As early as May 1943 the Government decided to invest in a prototype, temporary steel bungalow, which became known as the ‘Portal Bungalow’, named after the then Minister of Works, Lord Portal. The Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, promised 500,000 temporary new homes, although only 156,623 were actually produced  (between 1945 and March 1949). The houses would be prefabricated in sections, in factories no longer needed for war production, transported to where they were needed and ‘bolted’ together on site, in a fraction of the time it would take to build a conventional house.

As steel was needed for the war effort, and therefore in short supply, no steel prefabs were actually made. Nevertheless, the steel ‘Portal’ prototype, used as a starting point, provided inspiration to private firms who were then commissioned to design and produce their own versions, but within specific guidelines.

All were to have two bedrooms, the floor area was to be 635 square feet, and to allow transportation from the factory, each component part could be no bigger than 7½ feet wide. The most important stipulation was that they all had to make use of the government-approved ‘heart-unit’. A back-to-back kitchen, bathroom, fire place with back boiler, airing cupboard and toilet. The design of the unit kept plumbing to a minimum. Only the relatively few imports (8,462) from the USA did not use the ‘heart-unit’.

There were thirteen types from eleven different manufacturers (one from the USA). Although they were all based on the same concept, each manufacturer had their own detailed designs, and decided which materials they would use. The materials were chosen from concrete, asbestos-cement, steel, wood and aluminium or a combination of several, as decided by each manufacturer.

Source: Bedroom within Avoncroft Prefab - Source: Own

Despite a desperate need for housing it is interesting that a planned, strategic approach was taken to the design and functionality of prefabricated housing in the 1940’s. If you ever have the privilege of visiting a 1940’s prefab you will be able to see for yourself how these speedily constructed dwellings were able to provide a functional layout incorporating basic facilities for a family at that time. Granted, there would not have been the level of thermal comfort or possibly space that most modern houses can offer however, I am sure that those who lived in prefabs in the 1940’s would have been more than happy with their living conditions.

Although many prefabs have long since been removed and replaced with more modern structures there are still many of examples of prefabs that remain, of which many are now listed (protected). This really stands as a testament to a well thought out approach to meet an urgent need for housing at the time. Given our current need for new housing I wonder if our current decision makers could learn any lessons from such an approach?

Source: Second Bedroom within Avoncroft Prefab - Source: Own

Source: Bathroom within Avoncroft Prefab - Source: Own

Iconic World War II image - Source: http://fortiesknitter.blogspot.co.uk/

Author: Gary O’Neill

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with colleagues, friends and family?who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

The Romans - The Original Master Builders - Part 2

I doubt that the modern buildings that we are constructing today will leave a similar legacy to that of the Romans. If we could make the same positive impact that the Romans made to the built environment then we will leave behind a similar positive lasting legacy for our future generations

A Roman Hypocaust - Source: www.pages.drexel.edu

In my last article I demonstrated how the Roman occupation of the UK left a lasting impression on our built environment and how the introduction of new building techniques allowed larger, bolder buildings to appear, the like of which had never been seen before in the UK. I also explained that the location of towns and cities was carefully planned to make optimum use of the natural resources available in a particular location, and how gravity was used to provide fresh flowing water into towns and cities often using lead pipes, sometimes over great distances incorporating aqueducts which make use of masonry constructed arches. For the rich and important in Roman society their homes and other buildings became status symbols. The size of the building, the inclusion of mosaics and painted plastered walls, under floor heating and fresh running water would demonstrate how rich and powerful the occupant was.  

Larger Roman houses were designed around a central atrium. You can see from the image that a Roman atrium would have no roof and would therefore be open to the elements. A recess or trough would be built into floor which would collect rainwater, which would be used for many different things including drinking and washing. You could say that this is an early form of rainwater harvesting! something that is becoming increasingly popular today. Various rooms would then be designed directly off the atrium for which the amount and use of the rooms would depend on the size and status of the building. Larger Villas/houses would incorporate a second atrium, something referred to as a Peristylium, which would include a garden area and would also be designed to have rooms access directly off it. The orientation of the building would be designed so that Peristylium would be able to catch as much sun as possible, however for comfort, in warm weather the courtyard would also incorporate trees to provide much needed shade. 

A Peristylium - Source:The Desert Sun

If you ever watch programmes such as Time Team (for those who do not know, this is a TV programme where Archaeologists, Geo-Technical Engineers and Historians have three days to unearth and re-construct a particular building/structure), you will see that there is always a great deal of excitement when they suspect they have unearthed a mosaic. The reason for the excitement is because this will often tell the Archaeologists that they have found a significant or high-status building. Mosaics were usually constructed within floors however wall mosaics were also used.  Making an elaborate mosaic was a task that would require the skills of a master mosaic craftsman would set out the picture/design while others would complete the actual work of making the mosaic. Small pieces of stone or clay would be used to create the image of the mosaic which would often depict a historical event, have a cultural or spiritual meaning, possibly depict an animal or even be an elaborate geometric design. Some of the best examples of Roman mosaics in the UK can be seen at Fishbourne Palace in West Sussex where Archaeologists discovered a number of elaborate mosaics which they have dated back to AD75 – 80, making them the oldest discovered mosaics in the UK. The mosaics at Fishbourne Palace provide a good insight into the skill that would have been necessary (to design and construct), remember over nearly 2000 years ago, to produce such elaborate designs. 

Arguably, one of the most innovative ‘inventions’ that was introduced by the Romans was under floor heating. It is staggering to believe that this would have been possible at the time however palaces, bath houses and high status buildings would often incorporate under floor heating, which was provided by a system know as a hypocaust. A hypocaust comprised a raised floor which would typically incorporate a two foot (600mm), void underneath. The void would be created by the stone floor surface being supported off pedestals (small columns). Heat would then be introduced into the void by a furnace, where a person (usually a slave) would ensure that a fire was continually burning.  As the heat would built in the floor void the stones forming the floor surface would start to absorb this heat, which through conduction would eventually increase the temperature at the floor surface, this would heat the rest of the room as well as the floor. Furnaces were reasonably large and therefore took up a lot of space so the Romans usually designed these to be out of sight and therefore located them in an adjoining room.  

The Romans were so ingenious they even thought about ventilation!  As you would image the furnaces used for the under floor heating system would also create a lot of smoke/fumes, which needed to be directed away from the internal spaces. The Romans dealt with this by building spaces into walls, known as flues, to provide a safe path for escaping smoke and fumes. Excavations at Ashtead Villa in Surrey revealed that the Romans used box flues to vent hypocaust systems. ‘Box-flues are hollow box-like tiles set into walls to allow hot air from an under floor hypocaust to heat the room walls’  Source: www.thenovium.org

Roman hollow box tiles - Source: http://www.thenovium.org

There is no doubt that Roman Architecture and Roman Engineering was well ahead of its time, evidenced by the vast array of buildings and structures that still exist today in many parts of the World. Within this and my previous article I have briefly discussed a small number of Roman techniques such as rainwater harvesting, the use of mortar, the use of arches, under floor heating, ventilation etc. for which although technology has developed, these are still used extensively today. I doubt that the modern buildings that we are building today will leave a similar legacy. If the earth still exists in 2000 years (a completely separate discussion!), what conclusions will the people of that time draw about us and the built environment we are creating now? If we can make the same positive impact that the Romans made to the built environment then we will leave behind a similar positive lasting legacy for our future generations. I suspect however that very little of the World we are creating today will remain compared proportionally to the amount of Roman remains that exist today. This really tells its own story. If I am around in 2000 years I will be more than happy to be proved wrong!

Author: Gary O’Neill

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with colleagues, friends and family who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

The Romans - The Original Master Builders - Part 1

There was nothing random about the location of Roman villages and towns. Even before construction would commence the Romans would carefully select where towns and villages would be sited. These were carefully planned to make optimum use of natural resources such as food, water, timber, stone etc. in a particular location

The Colosseum - Source: Gizmodo

One of the wonderful things about living in the UK is our diverse history and what this history has left behind as a reminder of different historical period. This is no better demonstrated than in our built environment where there exists many wonderful buildings/structures that provide us with an insight into bygone cultures, politics, classes, lifestyles, technologies and the like. It is only by looking at our historic built environment that we can fully appreciate the skills and ingenuity of the people of their time. Our predecessors would not have had access to modern building equipment and modern techniques that are available today. Nowadays with the use of things like digital laser measuring equipment and off site manufacturing we are able to work to high levels of accuracy allowing us to design to extremely tight tolerances, something I am sure our predecessors would never have ever dreamed of. Therefore, next time you look at an older buildings, possibly a heritage building, just take a few moments to appreciate the skill, ingenuity and blood and sweat that would have been necessary at the time of construction in order for the building to be robust enough to be standing, often hundreds or even thousands of years, after completion. 

From a built environment point of view in the UK, a significant period in history was from circa 43AD to 410AD, which is when the Romans occupied large parts of the UK as well as most of mainland Europe. At the time the Romans were extremely powerful and were able to take occupation of pretty much anywhere they wanted due to their superior military skills and power. The Romans brought with them technical skills and building techniques never seen before in the UK. This allowed them to stamp a lasting mark on the UK, for which the large amounts of remaining Roman buildings, structures, roads and remains bare testimony too even today, nearly 2500 years after they were first built!

Roman Road - Source: realmofhistory.com

Firstly, let me dispel a myth - most would associate Roman buildings as large masonry constructed villas, with painted plastered walls, mosaic floors and running water etc. This is largely down to the media as when a film or documentary about the Romans is broadcast, this is what is usually portrayed, however these larger masonry structures were inhabited primarily by the rich and powerful, and the reality was that most people during the Roman occupation lived in timber constructed buildings similar to the Celts who preceded them. It is from the larger masonry villas and structures that more advanced building techniques were introduced into the UK.

There was nothing random about the location of Roman villages and towns. Even before construction would commence the Romans would carefully select where towns and villages would be sited. These were carefully planned to make optimum use of natural resources such as food, water, timber, stone etc. in a particular location. Security was also a key consideration where the Romans would ensure that the location and orientation of their towns and villages provided a secure environment as possible for those who would occupy these settlements. Early Roman towns were fortified around their perimeter with an earth ramp (embankment) and a wooden fence, however these were replaced in and around the 3rd century with much more robust stone walls, towers and gates.

Prior to the invasion of the UK, the Romans had spent hundreds of years building large, bold palaces, temples, bath houses and elaborate towns and cities throughout their ever expanding empire. The jewel in the crown was Rome itself which boasted buildings such as the Colosseum (completed circa 80 AD), the original St. Peter’s Basillica (completed circa 349 AD) and the Pantheon (completed circa 125 AD).  These types of buildings demonstrated that the Romans had exceptional architectural and engineering skills, the like of which had never been seen before.

Source: http://www.bible-history.com/maps/06-roman-empire.html

Larger buildings started to emerge in the UK where the Romans introduced limestone mortar which comprised of a mixture of lime, sand, gravel and water, to bind stones together to form walls, arches and vaults. Other mixtures were used to form mortar depending upon available raw materials in a particular location, however when set the completed wall/structure would be extremely strong and durable, which is evident from the many remaining Roman buildings and remains that still exist today.

Sanitation was also a priority as the Romans realised the importance of hygiene in reducing illness and death in the general population. Running water, drains and sewers were therefore considered as very important during the planning of Roman towns and cities. Gravity was a great ‘asset’ which the Romans would use to channel water from springs and other natural water courses, sometimes over considerable distances. This emphasises the earlier point that the Romans were meticulous in planning of the location of towns and cities to ensure that they would have a watercourse close by which was at a height (level) which would allow them to use gravity as a natural transporter of fresh water.

In my next article I will discuss Roman buildings in more depth and demonstrate how the Romans incorporated under floor heating into their palaces and bath houses, how the Romans included plastered and painted walls and how mosaics were used as status symbols by the rich and famous.  

Author: Gary O’Neill

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with colleagues, friends and family who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

Brexit 'deal agreed' - But is it a good deal for the UK?

This is a voyage into the unknown which was always going to be complex and challenging. The terms of the divorce were never going to be amicable as Europe cannot be seen to make it easy for the UK as they will clearly want to discourage other European nations from going down a similar road

Source: European Union Experts

As a member of the British public I am becoming increasingly frustrated by the constant messages coming out of Westminster and Brussels about Brexit. Like most people, I am not party to the Brexit negotiations, so I have to make do with the scraps of information that are constantly thrown at me through the media, which basically tell me nothing.  All we seem to be hearing is that ‘Britain has made concessions on this and concessions on that’. We hear today that the UK and EU have now agreed a deal for stage one of the negotiations, but how do we know if it is a good deal or not? Have the EU made any concessions? When I think of the Brexit negotiations I get the image of a vulnerable British rabbit encircled by 27 European wolves all waiting to pounce on every whimper that the rabbit makes, until it reaches a point where the rabbit is terrified into conceding for fear of being attacked by the wolves. What I want to know is where is the British Lion that will stand its ground, fight its corner and keep the wolves at bay?

At this moment in time, above everything what we need is strong leadership. You may not like Donald Trump or agree with his approach to politics or agree with his policies, however, there is no doubt that he is in charge and that he is not prepared to be messed around. Teresa May continually told us that she wanted to 'strengthen her hand' with Europe and so she called a 'snap' election. This must rate as one of the biggest misjudgements in British political history because, instead of strengthening her hand she ended up cutting one of them off!  With the hand that remained she had to hold out the begging bowl to the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) in order to secure a very slim overall Parliamentary majority. The European Union must have laughed its socks off in the knowledge that they would now be negotiating with a wounded Prime Minister, with limited power who faced opposition from all corners including her own party. Not exactly the strong leadership that we need, is it?

Source: Sheet Plant Association

Whether people voted remain or leave is now irrelevant, that debate and that ship has now sailed. There is no point in dwelling on this because on Thursday 23rd June 2016 51.9% of the British public decided to leave Europe, and at 11pm on Friday 29th March 2019 the UK will leave Europe. The triggering of Article 50 seemed to take forever as we were told that the UK wanted to be as ‘prepared’ as we could before giving formal notice to Europe that we would be parting ways. It took nearly nine months from the referendum before Article 50 was finally triggered on 29th March 2017, giving us two further years to ‘negotiate’ a divorce. This is a voyage into the unknown which was always going to be complex and challenging. The terms of the divorce were never going to be amicable as Europe cannot be seen to make it easy for the UK as they will clearly want to discourage other European nations from going down a similar road.

The economy and particularly trade are topics that continually arise as British industry tries to work out the impact of what Brexit will actually mean for imports/exports and to them and their business in a wider context. Again, the EU ‘dictated’ that the next stage of discussions (including trade) could not take place until we have dealt with three key issues; the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, the financial terms of the exit package and agreement of how to deal with the border between Northern and the Republic of Ireland. You would think with all of the UK concessions we have been hearing (which we have no real details about) that negotiations would have moved much quicker however, to the contrary, we are seeing headlines such as; ‘We can't go on like this': mood of resignation in EU as Brexit talks stutter’ in the Guardian (December 5th 2017) (Link). Within the article the current confusion and chaos around Brexit is summed up by a Finnish MEP; ‘the government’s weakness was 'a key question' for the EU. 'We are also in a very difficult position because it would not be in our interests to see the whole thing fall apart', 'At the same time … it’s not our duty to help the British government in a negotiation that is between them and us. The bottom line is that the May government is facing an impossible task', adding that promises made to British voters during the referendum campaign and before June’s snap election could not be kept. The government was in 'an ever-worsening, deteriorating cycle'.

It is a fact that there will be quite a number of years of ‘transition’ whether the UK strike a complete Brexit deal with the EU or not. It will take the UK and indeed European countries and their economies time to adjust as we get used to the reality of life without each other. Therefore, if we know and accept that there are some turbulent years ahead then the question arises of whether it is in the best interests of the UK to strike a deal with Europe that involves so many concessions that we are effectively still a European nation but without the ‘official membership’. There is plenty in the media about the implications of a ‘no deal scenario’ and yes, this would have serious implications.  In the Guardian (December 7th 2017) (Link) the House of Lords warn that a ‘no deal’ Brexit would be ‘the worst outcome possible’.  Well, maybe it would but at this point in time nobody really knows. What I would like to see and I’m sure many others would share this view, is a British Government that shows some fight, a British Government that stands up for Britain, a British Government than shows leadership and a British Government that provides confidence to the British people that they have a plan in whichever scenario plays out.  At present, all we see if confusion, discord and poor leadership which has reached a point where we have no idea what is going on. Sadly, this also seems to be the case for those negotiating Brexit on our behalf! What a sad state of affairs.

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice

An Introduction to the Tort of Nuisance – Part 1

….an interference or disturbance must be shown to be unreasonable in order to pursue an action in nuisance, which by default must means that there are some occasions when interferences or disturbances will be reasonable

Source: http://www.mylubbock.us/

I have recently written a number of articles which discuss the Tort of Negligence which tends to get a great deal of publicity with legal specialists offering their services on a no win no fee basis.  You will see television adverts, billboards, newspaper and magazine articles, unsolicited emails and sometimes cold calling from legal companies trying to convince us that we have a legitimate claim in negligence for one reason or another.  A further area of Tort law which is just as significant, but less well known is the Tort of Nuisance.

In the case of Walter v Selfe (1851) the definition of nuisance is defined as: ‘…..an inconvenience materially interfering with the ordinary comfort, physically, of human existence, not merely according to elegant or dainty modes of living, but according to plain and sober and simple notions among the English people’.  It is always interesting to read a judge’s decision and particularly the language that is used in ‘older cases’.  The vast majority of nuisance cases relate to an ‘unreasonable’ interference with the use and enjoyment of land or property.  What is also interesting is the fact that an interference or disturbance in nuisance must be shown to be unreasonable in order to pursue an action, which by default must means that there are some occasions when interferences or disturbances will be reasonable.  As an example let us consider a person who is working night shifts and therefore has to sleep during the day.  Does noise from a neighbouring property (during the day), constitute an unreasonable interference or disturbance?  It is unreasonable to expect the neighbour to be completely silent and an action in nuisance by the night worker is highly likely to fail.  On the other hand if the noise complained of can be proved to be excessive and persistent then the outcome could be very different.   The definition of what is considered as unreasonable interference is further clarified in the case of Carley v Willow Park Golf Course Ltd. (2002), ‘Interference must be such as would not be tolerated by the ordinary occupier. No use of land is reasonable if it produces substantial discomfort to others, or materially damages their property’.

Source: http://metro.co.uk/

Examples of what may constitute nuisance are not limited to noise as per the example above, and can include things such as odour, lighting, waste, air quality, bonfires and so on……  Nuisance can be categorized as public nuisance, private nuisance and statutory nuisance and I will endeavour to explain the difference between each over the course or this and the next few articles.

Public Nuisance is defined as an unlawful act or omission which endangers or interferes with the lives, comfort, property or common rights of the public. As it is the general public that are affected, actions in public nuisance will mean that a number of people are affected (sometimes a considerable amount of people), not just an individual. Public nuisance is considered as a criminal action, where proceedings are brought by the Government who will typically seek an injunction to remedy the nuisance, not damages.  Sometimes however damages will accrue as a result of a successful injunction resulting in a defendant suffering financial consequences to rectify the impact of the nuisance. For example, a manufacturer who has polluted a river or stream may be served with an injunction preventing them from further pollution (the nuisance) and be fined for the costs of any clean up or re-mediation works.  Also, in some situations a criminal sentence may also be handed down by the courts.

There are a number of previous cases which provide examples of public nuisance including Benjamin v Storr (1874). For the purposes of his business, Storr kept horses and vans standing outside Benjamin’s coffee house throughout the day which caused an obstruction to the highway (a public nuisance). Benjamin complained that he had suffered special damage due to the vans and horses obstructing light, resulting in increased expense incurred for keeping gas lights burning throughout the day.  He further alleged that the smell of the horses was offensive and deterred customers from using the coffee house.  The court found in favour of the plaintiff (Benjamin) and demonstrates that a defendant can be found guilty of public nuisance (the obstruction of the highway) and also be faced with an action in tort for the loss and disruption resulting from the nuisance. 

Other examples of cases of public nuisance to look at include Tarry v Ashton (1876), Attorney General v PYA Quarries Ltd (1957), Dollman v Hillman (1974) and Tate & Lyle Industries v Greater London Council 1983), however, to conclude this article I would like to finish with a case that always generates some discussion with my students, the outcome of which, at first glance does seem a little unfair;

Wandsworth London Borough Council v Railtrack plc (2001), The defendant (Railtrack) owned a bridge which attracted large numbers of pigeons.  Interestingly, although the owner was not at fault, they were held liable to contribute to the local authority's costs of the bridge to deal with the nuisance.  As stated above, at first glance it does seem unfair that the defendant could be held responsible for what is effectively ‘the forces of nature’.  The justification from the courts for their decision was that the number of pigeons were enough to constitute a public nuisance, and the defendants became liable where they had not remedied the nuisance after a reasonable time. The judge went onto state; ‘the fact that the pigeons were wild, and that the nuisance was one of inconvenience rather than the causing of actual damage were not relevant. The local authority's request was reasonable’.

The above introduces the tort of nuisance and provides some case examples to demonstrate the point.  As with all areas of law, further reading will help to deepen understanding where I have provided some other cases for further reading and research. In my next article I will consider private nuisance.

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

Negligence – Part 3 - Defences to Negligence

In today’s extremely litigious society there will always be those who are willing to pursue a claim in negligence if they feel a professional has been negligent which has resulted in them suffering some loss or damage. Unfortunately this is the World we now live in and due to the fact that a defendant (the person accused of negligence), does not intend for the bad consequence to happen, many who are accused of negligence are likely to be surprised that they find themselves in that predicament.

Source: http://imgarcade.com/

In my two recent negligence articles (Link 1) & (Link 2) I have introduced the basic principles of the tort of negligence and discussed the ‘ingredients’ necessary to establish a claim in negligence. I have also considered the significance of this area of law to the professional person and in particular those working in Construction and the Built Environment. In today’s extremely litigious society there will always be those who are willing to pursue a claim in negligence if they feel a professional has been negligent which has resulted in them suffering some loss or damage.  Unfortunately this is the World we now live in and due to the fact that a defendant (the person accused of negligence), does not intend for the bad consequence to happen, many who are accused of negligence are likely to be surprised that they find themselves in that predicament.

In the event that someone is found to be negligent there are a number of defences in UK law that may be used to reduce or nullify any damages or compensation that can be claimed.  These defences do not remove the fact that a person has acted and has been proved to be negligent, moreover, to help them to reduce the impact and consequences of their actions.  The three defences of Contributory Negligence, Volenti non fit injuria and Ex turpi causa will be considered within this article. The latter two are Latin terms which are typical of terminology within the UK legal system which have been used over many hundreds of years and continues to be used today.  I will provide a translation for each together with the explanations below.

Source: http://www.barberandsims.com/

Contributory Negligence – This defence has been used for many years where a person who has been found to be negligent will try to prove that an injured party has contributed to their own loss or damage by their actions (or omissions).  A passenger who is injured in a road traffic collision and is not wearing a seat belt is a good example.  The driver of the vehicle may have caused the injury to the passenger and negligence may have been established, so there is no question of the driver’s negligence.  The driver however may argue that, yes, they may have acted negligently and caused the accident and the injury and loss to the passenger, however if the passenger had been wearing their seat belt then in all likelihood the injuries sustained would have been less severe.  Therefore, by not wearing the seatbelt the passenger has contributed (to the negligence) and to the extent of their injuries. These circumstances appear in the case of Froom v Butcher (1976), where the Court of Appeal reduced the amount of damages payable to the claimant by 20%.

Prior to 1945 if a person found liable in negligence could prove that the injured party had contributed to the negligence then this could negate any damages completely.  Basically the rule was all or nothing, however, in 1945 a general power to apportion damages was given to the courts by the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.  This meant that as in the case of Froom v Butcher the courts have the discretion to consider the extent of contributory negligence and to award damages accordingly.

Volenti non fit injuria (‘to a willing person, no injury is done’) - If a defendant can demonstrate that the claimant (the person/party who have suffered loss, damage or injury as a result of the negligence of the defendant) voluntarily agreed to undertake the legal risk of harm at their own expense then this can negate any damages completely.  Unlike contributory negligence which allows the courts to apportion damages, volenti non fit injuria is a complete defence. When using volenti as a defence the defendant must show that the claimant acted voluntarily in the sense that they were able/capable of exercising free choice. The courts will consider the ability of a person to be able to make a free choice and therefore whether they are able/capable of making a voluntary assumption of risk.  This will be a matter of fact in each individual case and the courts will consider things such as mental capacity, alcohol and substance consumption etc.

The case of Morris v Murray (1991) is a commonly quoted case in respect of Volenti; The plaintiff (Morris) agreed to be flown by the defendant (Murray) in his light aircraft though he knew the defendant was inebriated. The plaintiff drove the car which took them to the airfield and he helped to start and refuel the aircraft, which was piloted by the friend. Shortly after take-off the aircraft crashed, killing the pilot and severely injuring the plaintiff. At first instance the court found the defendant failed in his claim of volentii non fit injuria, but the plaintiff succeeded in negligence.

Held: The defendant’s appeal was allowed. The defence of volenti non fit injuria applied, and the claim failed. The plaintiff willingly embarked upon the flight, knowing that the pilot was drunk; that the danger in embarking upon the flight was both obvious and great and the plaintiff was not so drunk as to be incapable of appreciating the nature and extent of the risk involved, and, therefore, he was to be taken to have fully accepted the risk of serious injury and implicitly discharged the pilot from liability for negligence in relation to the flying of the aircraft; and that, accordingly, the maxim volenti non fit injuria applied as a defence to the plaintiff’s claim. Source: www.swarb.co.uk

There are however statutory restrictions on the use of volenti In the case of car passengers. Section 149 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 prohibits any restriction on the driver’s liability to his passenger when required to be covered by insurance. Therefore a driver who is found to be negligent which cases injury, loss or damage to his passengers cannot use volenti as a defence.

Ex turpi causa no oritur action (‘from a dishonourable cause an action does not arise’) - A person who is injured whilst involved in a criminal act may be denied an action. In these circumstances the courts are likely to find that no duty of care is owed. The case of Ashton v Turner and Anr (1981) provides a good example; ‘The Claimant was injured when the Defendant crashed the car in which he was a passenger. The crash occurred after they both had committed a burglary and the Defendant, who had been drinking, was driving negligently in an attempt to escape. The judge dismissed the claim holding that as a matter of public policy the law would not recognise a duty of care owed by one participant in a crime to another. He held in the alternative that, even if a duty of care was owed, the Claimant had willingly accepted as his the risk of negligence and injury resulting from it’. Source: www.e-lawresources.co.uk/

UK case law is well established with many other case examples that demonstrate the application (or not) or each of the three defences discussed above.  Law can often appear unclear and complicated at first glance and I always advise my students that the most effective way of understanding the law is to research previous cases.  Anyone who wants to find out and understand more about this area of law will find that a simple internet search will provide you with all of the information you need.

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

Negligence – Part 2 – Reducing the risk of negligence claims

There are a number of areas of civil law or tort which may be considered by an ‘injured’ party such as Nuisance, Trespass and numerous others however in many cases built environment/construction professionals find themselves defending a claim in negligence.

Source: http://davidlaw.com/

In Part 1 (Link) of this article I explained how the tort of negligence is particularly relevant to the role of the built environment/construction professional and why it so important to act with professionalism, vigilance and attention to detail at all times.  The consequences of not doing this could result in a mistake/omission/error, albeit unintentionally and may lead to a loss, damage or injury occurring.  If this does happen then an action may be sought in negligence to recover the loss. There are a number of areas of civil law or tort which may be considered by an ‘injured’ party such as Nuisance, Trespass and numerous others however in many cases built environment/construction professionals find themselves defending a claim in negligence.

As also identified in Part 1 of this article; In order to assess whether a person has acted negligently the courts will consider a person’s conduct and actions against how a reasonable person would act in the same circumstances. Although important this is just one consideration in establishing negligence. Over many years through the doctrine of Judicial Precedent, case law has developed a method of establishing negligence based upon decisions made in previous cases. The landmark case of Donaghue v Stevenson (1932) established the modern version of negligence and set a precedent for the main principles of establishing negligence and ‘the neighbour test’.  It is not the purpose of this article to discuss the circumstances or detail of the case, as this is information is widely published however it is worth exploring the principles that arose from the case and how negligence is measured and proved.

Source: http://legemetevangelium.wordpress.com/

In order to establish negligence there are four main ingredients for which all need to be proved. If just one of these are missing or cannot be proved then any action in negligence will fail.  Firstly, a duty of care must be owed to the plaintiff (the ‘injured’ party) by the defendant (accused of the negligence).  Next, if a duty of care is established then it must be shown that the defendant breached this duty.  Thirdly, if the first two elements are in place then proximate cause must be established. In other words, but for the breach of duty, the injury or loss would not have happened. Finally, if all three previously discussed elements are established the plaintiff must demonstrate that the loss/injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's action or inaction.

Source: https://sielearning.tafensw.edu.au

The first two elements of negligence require the establishment of a duty of care and if shown that this has been breached, but what is a duty of care? A common definition of a duty of care is: ‘A requirement that a person act toward others and the public with watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would. The Oxford Dictionary’s definition is a little more concise; ‘A moral or legal obligation to ensure the safety or well-being of others’. As built environment/construction professionals the understanding of duty of care and how it applies is fundamental.  If there is a contractual relationship with a Client, then any loss/damage that may occur is usually dealt with through the contract and any dispute through contract law.  If you read the details of Donaghue v Stevenson you will note that a claim for negligence can be brought in the absence of a contract, so if a Client’s claim were to be unsuccessful in contract law, they may pursue a claim in negligence instead.

As a construction professional it is always worth thinking about your activities and asking yourself if you are meeting your duty of care and acting reasonably.  The measure of reasonableness of a built environment/construction professional will be established in a number of ways. Firstly, by the standards set within an individual’s particular profession. Then, if a mistake has been made and if an appropriately qualified and experienced person taking reasonable care would not have made the mistake, then the professional person may be liable in negligence.  To establish what are reasonable standards in a profession, either the plaintiff or defendant can call an eminent practitioner to give evidence in Court as an expert witness, which is another measure of reasonableness. 

How can we reduce the risk of negligence claims? - The tort of negligence can be a legal minefield for all professionals and something that should not be underestimated.  Before undertaking any professional services it is worth establishing precisely what is expected for your fee, a robust scope of services and knowing exactly who the services are being provided for and who will be relying on your advice.  This may sound simple and obvious to many however it is these simple things that can help to avoid confusion and reduce the possibility of cutting corners and of possible negligence claims in the future. 

Underestimating a fee or confusion over the scope of services does not diminish a professional’s responsibilities in respect of duty of care, and this would certainly be a very weak defence if a claim for negligence was brought by a Client. Acting with watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence will help to avoid these types of scenario, however in the fast paced World of commerce where everything seems to be done at 100mph, sometimes working to impossible deadlines, it is easy to see how we can sometimes ‘drop the ball’. Good robust quality assurance procedures will help to identify issues/mistakes before they leave the office, however it is also worth reviewing and training staff on an ongoing basis to improve knowledge and competence, all of which will help to minimize the risk of negligence (and other) claims in the future.  How much of this are you or your organization currently doing?  Something to think about maybe?

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

Negligence – Part 1 – An Introduction - Construction & Built Environment

As professional people our Clients pay for our services with the expectation that we will provide a high quality service and give good appropriate advice.  In the event that we do not meet this expectation and our Clients suffer some loss or ‘damage’, then they may attempt to recoup any losses through the courts

Source: http://www.claimsjournal.com/

Professional people should have a good understanding of the law and especially those areas of law which are relevant to their own particular field.  There are however some areas of law that are better know and understood than others. Law (in general terms) does not discriminate between specific professional roles and practices. Moreover it relates to the manner, conduct, attention to detail and professionalism in which we undertake our day to day professional duties. Yes, there will undoubtedly be ethical standards and codes of conduct to follow which may vary from profession to profession, however the underlying principles will be the same.  These ethical standards provide a level of protection however they will not make a professional immune from acting and becoming negligent.

As professional people our Clients pay for our services with the expectation that we will provide a high quality service and give good appropriate advice.  In the event that we do not meet this expectation and a loss or ‘damage’ is suffered, then our clients may attempt to recoup any losses through the courts.  A particular area of law where professional people can find themselves brought into question in this respect is the Tort of Negligence. For the remainder of the article I will refer to the role of the built environment professional however the principles of negligence are relevant to all professional roles. I will introduce negligence and consider how it is defined and how it is measured and in part 2 I will discuss the main ‘ingredients’ necessary to prove negligence.

Source: http://www.albanyworkerscomplawyer.com/

A quick internet search provides numerous definitions for negligence.  Yourdictionary.com states negligence as ‘failure to use a reasonable amount of care when such failure results in injury or damage to another’ and lectlaw.com provide; ‘the failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community’. These definitions are interesting because throughout you will notice the word ‘reasonable’ or the term ‘reasonably prudent person’.  In order to assess whether a person has acted negligently the courts will consider a person’s conduct and actions against how a reasonable person would act in the same circumstances. As a construction/built environment professional, this assessment will consider whether an experienced person taking reasonable care would not have made the same mistake, then the professional person may be liable in negligence. This is worth thinking about when carrying out our day to day duties and why it is so important to act with professionalism, vigilance and attention to detail at all times.  I wonder how many of those who have been found liable in negligence, with hindsight will wish they had paid closer attention to these things.

An important factor of negligence is that a defendant (the person accused of negligence), does not intend for the bad consequence to happen.  If intent could be proved (the courts refer to this as mens rea, which is a latin term meaning ‘a guilty mind’), then this would more than likely result in a criminal prosecution and not a civil action.  There are however circumstances where a person can face a criminal action and later also face a civil action from those who have suffered the consequences of a negligent act.  As an example let us think about a passenger injured in a motor vehicle collision.  Drivers do not generally get into their vehicles each day with an intention to injure, however road traffic collisions occur on a regular basis.  A driver who exceeds the speed limit may face a criminal prosecution under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, which could lead to a fine or imprisonment depending upon the severity of the offence. In addition the driver may also face a civil action in negligence from the passenger who was injured in the collision (or anyone else who is injured in the incident). This interaction between criminal law and civil law (in our example, negligence) is also something that can occur with the construction/built environment professions and something that all working in the sector should be conscious of.

It is not necessary to search too far to find examples of where construction/built environment professionals have been found to be negligent. One such example is the case of Theodore Goddard v Fletcher King Services (1996). Fletcher King had overall responsibility for a commercial letting. Theodore Goddard (Solicitors), which drafted the lease, accidentally deleted the upwards-only rent review clause. A Surveyor at Fletcher King reviewed the draft lease but did not notice the error. The judge found that although the Solicitor had primary liability for the terms of the lease, the amendment to the clause was 'such a blunder' that an experienced Surveyor should have noticed the deletion. The Surveyor was ordered to contribute 20% of the loss. This decision has potentially wide-ranging consequences for professionals who work together on a transaction and have some input in one another’s drafting, a common relationship between construction/built environment professional and legal professional.

In Part 2 I will discuss negligence in more detail and consider the main ‘ingredients’ necessary to prove negligence and in particular ‘duty of care’ and how this relates to the construction/built environment professional.  I will also discuss the famous case of Donaghue v Stevenson (1932), and how the decision in this landmark case formed the modern tort of negligence as we know it today.

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.

UK Construction – Is a skills shortage really a surprise?

It clear for everyone to see that there is currently a skills shortage within the UK construction industry, a problem that is likely to get worse before it gets better.  There needs to be a radical re-think into the manner in which we attract people into the industry, but equally as important is how we actually keep them.

Source: http://www.constructionfutures.org.uk/

At present construction is prominent in the news every single day and increasingly the topic revolves around a skills shortage.  Having worked in the UK construction industry for many years I would suggest that a skills shortage is an inevitable result of the nature of the construction industry and really should not be a surprise to anyone.  In a recent article, Building Magazine (online) highlight the current chronic lack of skills within the UK construction, suggesting that the skills shortage is now at its highest level for six years (Link):

‘Fears of skills shortages in the construction industry hit their highest level for six years in the second quarter of 2014, with 51% of firms saying there are insufficient workers to meet demand, according to the latest RICS UK construction market survey. The survey, which reports a balance of positive responses against negative, showed skills shortages were particularly acute in quantity surveying and bricklaying, where 54% and 59% of respondents, on balance, reported shortages respectively’

The issue was also highlighted in an article early this month in the Telegraph on-line (Link):

‘The scale of the skills shortage in the booming construction sector has been uncovered by data showing the number of vacancies in the industry has risen almost 40pc in the past year. There were 18,000 vacancies in construction in the three months to May according to Office for National Statistics (ONS) data, a rise of 5,000 on the same period in 2013. Government stimulus measures such as Help to Buy are contributing to the rise but construction – which employs a total of 2.1m people – is still suffering from the after effects of the recession according to the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB)’

Source: http://www.wecf.eu/

In reality the fact that there is a skills shortage will not come as a surprise to many who work within the construction industry, as the cyclical nature of the construction industry inevitably results in a large turnover of personnel.  When times are tough construction personnel will either choose to seek career opportunities in other sectors or will be made redundant or ‘layed off’, as construction companies contract whilst adjusting to tougher economic conditions. 

In the UK between 2008 and 2012/13 we experienced not just a recession, but a ‘double dip’ recession and only narrowly avoided a ‘triple dip recession’.  During this period construction suffered significantly with many construction companies going out of business.  Those that did survive found themselves in an exceptionally competitive market which required them to make some serious business decisions just to enable them to stay in business.  One of the first things to suffer during this period for many companies was the training budget.  Having spoken to numerous employers during this period when trying to find placement opportunities for our undergraduate building students, the message was generally consistent, ‘we cannot afford to take anyone on right now, but contact us again when things pick up’.  I am sure that this was replicated across all sectors of the construction industry and at all levels, particularly the construction trades. Some might say that this is just a commercial reality, however this will undoubtedly be one of the main reasons why we have a skills shortage when things eventually start to improve, just like they are now. I wonder how many good quality people we have lost to other industries when they could not find work in the construction industry during this period?

Source: http://www.merchantcircle.com/

The cyclical nature of the construction industry and the negative news that goes along with it during an economic downturn will do little to convince young people that construction will provide a secure future for them.   If this is added to the fact that jobs are more difficult to come by during these periods it is easy to see why young people may consider careers in other sectors.  This will also be a contributing factor to a skills shortage as we need a regular supply of ‘new blood’ to replace those who are retiring or leaving the construction industry.

The current UK Government clearly see Apprenticeships as a way of bridging the skills gap and business secretary Vince Cable has recently given his support to a new commission which is being introduced to oversee apprenticeship.  The Telegraph on-line report (Link):

‘A commission to investigate the quality of apprenticeships in the construction industry and the number of people taking up the training programmes is being launched to help ensure the sector has enough skilled workers. The cross-party project is being launched today by think-tank Demos to examine vocational training across all sectors, though it will focus on construction. The Commission on Apprenticeships comes after an analysis by the Construction Industry Training Board found that the building industry needs 120,000 apprentices over the next five years to fill an emerging skills gap. Research shows that the number of people completing construction apprenticeships has plunged by almost 75pc since the financial crisis, with just 3,760 apprentices completing training in 2012-13, compared with 14,250 four years ago’

On the basis that we have a general election next year some would argue that this type of initiative is introduced to win votes and in reality there is no guarantee that the current government will be in place to see it through.  Trying to introduce 120,000 apprentices into the construction industry over the next five years is all well and good but what about the current shortage and the needs of the near future? With a little foresight would it not have been better for the Government to invest in apprenticeships during the difficult economic period in anticipation that we would need skilled workers to sustain a recovery?  In actual fact what happens is that the Government take a reactive rather than a pro-active approach which only serves to get us into the predicament we now find ourselves in.  No doubt politicians will say that they do not have a crystal ball however they do not need a crystal ball to know that the construction industry always recovers after a recession and usually very strongly. All that is needed is a little forethought into preparing for a recovery that can be sustained, rather than waiting for productivity and output to increase and then start scratching their heads and asking ‘where are all the workers?’

It clear for everyone to see that there is currently a skills shortage within the UK construction industry, a problem that is likely to get worse before it gets better.  There needs to be a radical re-think into the manner in which we attract people into the industry, but equally as important is how we actually keep them.  Government policy and funding needs to take a much longer term approach to ‘training and retaining’ to try to avoid the chronic skills shortages that we are seeing now and have seen after previous recessions. If we continue with the same short sighted approach we have adopted in the past then all we are doing is stifling recover which does not just affect the construction industry but wider sectors of the economy also.

Please feel free to share this article and other articles on this site with friends, family and colleagues who you think would be interested

Information/opinions posted on this site are the personal views of the author and should not be relied upon by any person or any third party without first seeking further professional advice. Also, please scroll down and read the copyright notice at the end of the blog.