Building regs - Glass doors?
Discussion
Long story short, I'm at the end of a long night shift.
I live in a small new build development, a neighbours kid who is 2 came down the slight incline outside my house on his pushbike, lost control and ended up stoving himself head first in to my front door, which like all the other ones, is wood framed with sort of crazed glass in the middle ( I don't know if crazed is the right word, it is double glazed and lets light through but you can't really see anything through it apart from vague outlines).
Anyway, this lad who is a tiny slip of a thing managed to punch his head right through the outer layer of glass, leaving a 2yr old shaped hole in the outer layer and lots of fragments that have fallen down the middle between the two panes. He suffered a bump to the head and a cut chin but was otherwise unscathed.
I was under the impression that glass in doors had to be strengthened, much like a windscreen on a car, both for safety and security reasons.
Dad of the kid is now pursuing a 'no win-no fee' option,
just wondered if anyone could shed any light as to whether the builder/developer has been a bit naughty and cut some corners?
I live in a small new build development, a neighbours kid who is 2 came down the slight incline outside my house on his pushbike, lost control and ended up stoving himself head first in to my front door, which like all the other ones, is wood framed with sort of crazed glass in the middle ( I don't know if crazed is the right word, it is double glazed and lets light through but you can't really see anything through it apart from vague outlines).
Anyway, this lad who is a tiny slip of a thing managed to punch his head right through the outer layer of glass, leaving a 2yr old shaped hole in the outer layer and lots of fragments that have fallen down the middle between the two panes. He suffered a bump to the head and a cut chin but was otherwise unscathed.
I was under the impression that glass in doors had to be strengthened, much like a windscreen on a car, both for safety and security reasons.
Dad of the kid is now pursuing a 'no win-no fee' option,
just wondered if anyone could shed any light as to whether the builder/developer has been a bit naughty and cut some corners?
OllieWinchester said:
Dad of the kid is now pursuing a 'no win-no fee' option,
Against who??Himself for not supervising his two year old properly?
Anyhooo, I think it should be toughened glass, certainly one of our secondary glazing units had to be as it was less than 400mm from the floor.
You can still smash it, just its a lot harder to do, and it will smash into thousands of tiny pieces about 3mm square, which aren't very sharp.
(Car side windows will do the same. Windscreens on the other hand are laminated, if you smash one, it will stay together (to a point) but the shards are much sharper in my experience.)
Edited by chris1roll on Friday 24th September 07:22
Building Regs say: (part N)
"Glazing material in a critical location (which this is) will be satisfactory if it can be classed under the requirements of BS6206 as class C (Ie if it remains unbroken or breaks safely)"
When it refers to breaking safley, it means in to very small pieces like a car window. There is no requirement for a glass that doesn't break on this type of impact.
BS6206 is a document from 1981, so I would have thought that your double glazed window will be subject to that. Make sure by contacting the installer and confirming that the glazing conforms to the requirements set out in BS6206:1981 (if you can)
I would recommend telling you buildings insurer too (giving the details if the parent of the child)
Good luck!
"Glazing material in a critical location (which this is) will be satisfactory if it can be classed under the requirements of BS6206 as class C (Ie if it remains unbroken or breaks safely)"
When it refers to breaking safley, it means in to very small pieces like a car window. There is no requirement for a glass that doesn't break on this type of impact.
BS6206 is a document from 1981, so I would have thought that your double glazed window will be subject to that. Make sure by contacting the installer and confirming that the glazing conforms to the requirements set out in BS6206:1981 (if you can)
I would recommend telling you buildings insurer too (giving the details if the parent of the child)
Good luck!
Edited by mxspyder on Friday 24th September 17:23
OllieWinchester said:
Dad of the kid is now pursuing a 'no win-no fee' option
Got to love how this country is progressing!Anyway, the idea of modern glass for home use is to prevent arteries from being severed in exactly the situation you describe. It will still break, but the bits that fall onto the back of the kiddies neck won't end up doing a scene from the Omen. The fact that you mention the lad got away with just a couple of minor small cuts is testament to this.
Oh and tell the Dad to do one, just before presenting him a bill for a new door. There's no reason why your insurance company should fork out for this.
surely if the kid got away without any real harm there's no claim to be had, or is he going to be mentally scarred for life living in constant fear of glass
sounds to me as if the glass has done exactly what it's been designed to, take the impact without causing harm to the child.
sounds to me as if the glass has done exactly what it's been designed to, take the impact without causing harm to the child.
Edited by andye30m3 on Friday 24th September 09:26
GKP said:
OllieWinchester said:
Dad of the kid is now pursuing a 'no win-no fee' option
There's no reason why your insurance company should fork out for this.I forgot to mention that you should keep the broken glass to show it broke safely. If it didn't, then loose it!
all doors with glass panels should be safety glass there should be a v with a B over it in a ring
in one corner.
as the glass did not fall in to shards then i would say it was safety glass, as there was a in print of the childs head then i would feel happy hes Alive ,
as said keep the glassed unit and send the bill to the childs father .
under British Law he has a dute of care and is responsible for his childs life ,care,actions.
in one corner.
as the glass did not fall in to shards then i would say it was safety glass, as there was a in print of the childs head then i would feel happy hes Alive ,
as said keep the glassed unit and send the bill to the childs father .
under British Law he has a dute of care and is responsible for his childs life ,care,actions.
Firstly, he is pursuing the claim against the developers, not me. I have only lived there a few months, and as I said they are a reasonably new build. If you could see my neighbours then you would understand that they perhaps represent the typical demographic for these sort of claims companies, and I'll leave it at that.
The glass didn't break in what I would call a 'safe' fashion, when you talk about car windows I assume you mean breaking into a million tiny little blocks that rattle around forever in your car door? In that case, then it did not break like that, some of the shards are fist sized.
Ref him being supervised, he is able to ride his bike on his own with stabilisers, unless his dad was actually within touching distance of him at all times while he rides his bike then this would have remained an unavoidable accident.
Lastly, reference the door being able to stand up to reasonable force, the kid that bumped his head into it is a tiny little 2yr old, I would not have expected the outside pane of glass to go through from his tiny frame impacting it. What if it had been an old dear returning home who tripped into it? She probably would have gone right through it.
I don't intend on putting my hand in my pocket. I'll have another look for a kitemark or whatever on the door but I did have a look before and couldn't see one. The father of the child says he used to work for a glazing company and the doors are of the wrong sort, but I just thought I'd throw it open to th e collective PH wisdom, and post in a new forum sub section to boot!
The glass didn't break in what I would call a 'safe' fashion, when you talk about car windows I assume you mean breaking into a million tiny little blocks that rattle around forever in your car door? In that case, then it did not break like that, some of the shards are fist sized.
Ref him being supervised, he is able to ride his bike on his own with stabilisers, unless his dad was actually within touching distance of him at all times while he rides his bike then this would have remained an unavoidable accident.
Lastly, reference the door being able to stand up to reasonable force, the kid that bumped his head into it is a tiny little 2yr old, I would not have expected the outside pane of glass to go through from his tiny frame impacting it. What if it had been an old dear returning home who tripped into it? She probably would have gone right through it.
I don't intend on putting my hand in my pocket. I'll have another look for a kitemark or whatever on the door but I did have a look before and couldn't see one. The father of the child says he used to work for a glazing company and the doors are of the wrong sort, but I just thought I'd throw it open to th e collective PH wisdom, and post in a new forum sub section to boot!
Of course if the glass hadn't broken, thus absorbing some of the force, the bump on his head would be bigger...
I can see both POV's; it's a pity everybody always looks for somebody to blame and can't accept it might been an 'accident'.
As a child I once applied the front brake on my bike too hard whilst at speed and went flying over the handlebars into a nettlebed. Should have sued the bike maker for fitting brakes that were too strong!
I can see both POV's; it's a pity everybody always looks for somebody to blame and can't accept it might been an 'accident'.
As a child I once applied the front brake on my bike too hard whilst at speed and went flying over the handlebars into a nettlebed. Should have sued the bike maker for fitting brakes that were too strong!
I'm just concerned about the way it broke, and if they have 'cut corners' so to speak by fitting incorrect doors. I'm not really happy knowing that if an adult tripped and fell into it then they would go right through it possibly causing themselves some harm, or equally if someone fancied gaining entry to my house then it wouldn't be a huge endeavour (If not particularly subtle!).
RE- Claim cluture, I'm as sick of it as the next man but unfortunately this is out of my hands. I remember running full pelt into some french windows as a reasonably built 10 year old, all that happened was a bleeding nose and a face mark on the glass. Considering that it was a much bigger body of glass I just don't really get it?
RE- Claim cluture, I'm as sick of it as the next man but unfortunately this is out of my hands. I remember running full pelt into some french windows as a reasonably built 10 year old, all that happened was a bleeding nose and a face mark on the glass. Considering that it was a much bigger body of glass I just don't really get it?
Edited by OllieWinchester on Saturday 25th September 00:40
Do you have any other problems with the house, as they could be indicative of any 'cost-cutting' that could have occured?
Is the child really two, with toddlers should we be counting months? Why would a two year old be riding a bike on his own? Maybe it was a trike? Either way the parents shouldn't leave him unsupervised and yes as you alluded to, his father should have been there with him. On the proviso the glass meets industry standard I think the house builder's insurers will fight it and any 'damages'-for what I don't know-will probably be reduced due to contributory negligence.
Is the child really two, with toddlers should we be counting months? Why would a two year old be riding a bike on his own? Maybe it was a trike? Either way the parents shouldn't leave him unsupervised and yes as you alluded to, his father should have been there with him. On the proviso the glass meets industry standard I think the house builder's insurers will fight it and any 'damages'-for what I don't know-will probably be reduced due to contributory negligence.
thebullettrain said:
Do you have any other problems with the house, as they could be indicative of any 'cost-cutting' that could have occured?
No, everything else seems fine and well put together.thebullettrain said:
Is the child really two, with toddlers should we be counting months? Why would a two year old be riding a bike on his own? Maybe it was a trike? Either way the parents shouldn't leave him unsupervised and yes as you alluded to, his father should have been there with him. On the proviso the glass meets industry standard I think the house builder's insurers will fight it and any 'damages'-for what I don't know-will probably be reduced due to contributory negligence.
I'm not that good on kiddies ages, 2 and a bit? He probably only comes up halfway up my thigh, and I don't know but I think it is possibly a 'my first bike' type thing with stabilisers, or maybe even a trike. I'm not a parent so I can't really comment on the parenting skills. Like I said, I just didn't know if there were any cut and dried rules for this sort of thing, I just find it very odd that in these days of 'elf an safety gone mad' that it is ok to make someones front door out of glass that shatters in to loads of pieces when a toddler bumps into it. My dad is a student landlord and they buy houses that have had old dears living in them for decades, first thing they do is remove the internal glass doors for safety reasons.
I couldn't care less if they win or not, I think if someone is making a claim like this it should be for genuine hardship caused by the problem, not motivated by the idea of a nice payout.
I just want my door replacing, can't see nippers dad having the funds to replace it so I'm sort of hoping that they are the wrong type and they come and replace all of them in the cul-de-sac. Not the end of the world if they don't though, eh?
Edited by OllieWinchester on Saturday 25th September 05:34
As Mxspyder and Redeye have said, the fact that the glass fragmented when it broke proves that it was toughened, Plate glass would have broken into long shards, which would have made a right mess of the boy.
Laminated glass (as used in car windscreens) would have cracked but held together, but there is no legal or technical requirement to fit laminated glass in 'protected' glazing areas.
Your neighbbour has no claim.
Laminated glass (as used in car windscreens) would have cracked but held together, but there is no legal or technical requirement to fit laminated glass in 'protected' glazing areas.
Your neighbbour has no claim.
ymwoods said:
Simpo Two said:
As a child I once applied the front brake on my bike too hard whilst at speed and went flying over the handlebars into a nettlebed. Should have sued the bike maker for fitting brakes that were too strong!
I did this pretty much every day as a kid!
OllieWinchester said:
Firstly, he is pursuing the claim against the developers, not me.
The father of the child says he used to work for a glazing company and the doors are of the wrong sort.
No idea why this information was not in your original post.The father of the child says he used to work for a glazing company and the doors are of the wrong sort.
This is clearly Somebody Elses Problem, and a different one to first described.
SEP
But in any case, the relevant Approved Document;
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF...
But in any case, the relevant Approved Document;
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDF...
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff