Priory Hall, Clongriffen residents told their apartments unsafe - another disgrace

whiskeyman

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1012/prioryhall.html

Shocking stuff.
Imagine being stuck in debt with a mortgage here, then to be told you've to get out??
And that McFeely chancer living in Ailsbury Road??
Stress levels for those owners must be a nightmare.
How no one is behind bars for this is yet another tale of shame after the boomtime

Thoie

How did the place get a fire safety cert in the first place though?

Meirleach

Thoie wrote: »

How did the place get a fire safety cert in the first place though?

Y'see...you grease the hinges, and the door opens.

Nate--IRL--

Thoie wrote: »

How did the place get a fire safety cert in the first place though?

The cert is given before construction begins, it is given based on the plans. It is required for the commencement of works on the site IIRC. Any changes to the plans require a new cert.

What seems to have happened is the Fire cert requirements were not adhered to for construction.

Nate

El Weirdo

I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't the only case of its kind to come to light.

Ste.phen

This came up before, again in relation to the same builder, I know it's easy to say this now, far removed from the situation, but did none of the buyers' solicitors check the place out before letting them sign the dotted line? :O

2qk4u

When the owners move out do they still have to pay their mortgage ?

Milk & Honey

2qk4u wrote: »

When the owners move out do they still have to pay their mortgage ?

Of course. They borrowed the money. The apartment was simply used as security.

Thoie

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

The cert is given before construction begins, it is given based on the plans. It is required for the commencement of works on the site IIRC. Any changes to the plans require a new cert.

What seems to have happened is the Fire cert requirements were not adhered to for construction.

Nate

Ste.phen wrote: »

This came up before, again in relation to the same builder, I know it's easy to say this now, far removed from the situation, but did none of the buyers' solicitors check the place out before letting them sign the dotted line? :O

This is what puzzles me - when I was buying there was a bit of a delay waiting for the fire cert from the fire brigade (not the right term, but you know who I mean - not some 18 year old with a fire blanket in the back of a van). I assumed the delay was because they were doing the inspection, now I'm a bit concerned.

amen

Its not the solicitors responsibility. The buyers should have got an Engineer to check the property.

There was a prime time program on RTE about 5 years ago on New houses in Dublin with unsafe/not finished party walls. Fire hazard but people were buying away

Nate--IRL--

Thoie wrote: »

This is what puzzles me - when I was buying there was a bit of a delay waiting for the fire cert from the fire brigade (not the right term, but you know who I mean - not some 18 year old with a fire blanket in the back of a van). I assumed the delay was because they were doing the inspection, now I'm a bit concerned.

To me this would indicate a revision to the original plans submitted for the Fire Cert. Nothing to be unduly worried about, but I'm no expert. It's been a while since I've had to do a cert.

Nate

vonbarracuda

Ste.phen wrote: »

This came up before, again in relation to the same builder, I know it's easy to say this now, far removed from the situation, but did none of the buyers' solicitors check the place out before letting them sign the dotted line? :O

I think that was an estate in Portarlington I remember rte showing the roofs where all over the place and slanted.
Feel so sorry for the people of Priory Hall who bought in good faith and hope it works out for them in the end

Zamboni

I hope this guy didn't sign on the dotted line...

http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=444706

ABajaninCork

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

The cert is given before construction begins, it is given based on the plans. It is required for the commencement of works on the site IIRC. Any changes to the plans require a new cert.

What seems to have happened is the Fire cert requirements were not adhered to for construction.

Nate

Is it legal to grant a fire cert BEFORE construction? Makes absolutely no sense to me. Thought it would've been checked and signed off AFTER to make sure the building was in line with the plans...

Monty Burnz

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Of course. They borrowed the money. The apartment was simply used as security.

I'm totally opposed to debt forgiveness, but these people have been royally let down by the system and should be looked after even though it will mean higher taxes for the rest of us.

Nate--IRL--

By "The System" you of course mean Homebond and the CIF. Homebond should be prosecuted to fix this, not lumping this on the taxpayer. Although I'd have no problem with the state leading and funding this prosecution.

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Is it legal to grant a fire cert BEFORE construction? Makes absolutely no sense to me. Thought it would've been checked and signed off AFTER to make sure the building was in line with the plans...

That is the process. The Design is signed off as compliant with the Fire Regs. The actual construction may be subject to spot checks, but they are rare.

Nate

mathie

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm totally opposed to debt forgiveness, but these people have been royally let down by the system and should be looked after even though it will mean higher taxes for the rest of us.

So a private transaction becomes a public problem?

Monty Burnz

mathie wrote: »

So a private transaction becomes a public problem?

They should not have been allowed build and sell buildings that do not meet the fire code. There should be some minimal level of protection for consumers when buying something as expensive as an apartment. If you bought a TV that didn't work properly, you'd be protected by consumer legislation.

Nate--IRL--

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If you bought a TV that didn't work properly, you'd be protected by consumer legislation.

Correct, but the taxpayer doesn't buy you a new TV or pay for the broken one.

Nate

Monty Burnz

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Correct, but the taxpayer doesn't buy you a new TV or pay for the broken one.

Nate

This is true - but does the company that sold these apartments still exist? Is there any hope of legal redress for the buyers?

Nate--IRL--

The construction would have been registered with HomeBond - http://www.homebond.ie/

But I will point out that Homebond also went to great legal lengths to get out of their obligations with those houses affected by Pyrite. It is Homebond that should be prosecuted IMHO and maybe go after the CIF for good measure.

EDIT:- Here is a very depressing thread about the Pyrite affair and what the Priory Hall residents can expect in terms of remedy.

http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=28471&hilit=pyrite

Nate

mathie

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They should not have been allowed build and sell buildings that do not meet the fire code. There should be some minimal level of protection for consumers when buying something as expensive as an apartment. If you bought a TV that didn't work properly, you'd be protected by consumer legislation.

Yeah I'd agree that consumer legislation isn't protecting these people here.
It's a shambles.

But I wouldn't expect my neighbour have to be taxed more if I bought a dodgy TV and the shop didn't do anything about it.

Lantus

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Is it legal to grant a fire cert BEFORE construction? Makes absolutely no sense to me. Thought it would've been checked and signed off AFTER to make sure the building was in line with the plans...

The system of planning and regulation in general in construction is for the best part 'self regulating' which means it is assumed that all parties work to and adhere to all requirements without checking.

Ireland has no real effective buildng control like the UK which has much more regulatory and enforceable controls at its disposal (not to say they are a shining example)

we have a situation near where I live where a shop cannot open because the path outside does not comply with fire safety regs due to it's size. Even though the planners signed off on the plans and awarded a fire cert.

No one really checks that things have been done properly and contractors are masters at knowing how to get around the system and avoid things while promising the moon to everyone in ear shot who will listen.

Until ireland adopts a rigorous system of building control and approval with a scaleable system of fines and penalties ultimatley leading to court and prosecution nothing will change.

ABajaninCork

I find it absolutely amazing that this situation was allowed to develop at all. I feel so sorry for the people stuck in the middle. It must be awful for them, and very stressful.

Whilst the UK is by no means a shining example, there's no way the builder would be allowed to sell units that do not comply with fire regs. Anything picked up by the Fire Brigade would have to be rectified and inspected BEFORE the building was released for sale.

I asked the question because I just found it odd...

NIMAN

Just another perfect example how this country was/is run by crooks at all levels who look after each other, and when something goes wrong they can wriggle out of any prosecution and make the little guy pay for it.

A shocking story, my heart goes out to these people.

whiskeyman

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1014/prioryhall.html

Update on this case. So, the judge is shocked.
Court order to evacuate on stay til Monday.
Judge has even ordered a fire brigade to be at the site all weekend! I think that's a sign of how serious he feels the situation is. Maybe belittles the council somewhat too?
I wonder how this will play out?
If evacuation goes ahead? Where will the 200 (approx) residents be houses in such short term?
Where will they move all their possessions?
Total madness.

Monty Burnz

whiskeyman wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1014/prioryhall.html

Update on this case. So, the judge is shocked.
Court order to evacuate on stay til Monday.
Judge has even ordered a fire brigade to be at the site all weekend! I think that's a sign of how serious he feels the situation is. Maybe belittles the council somewhat too?
I wonder how this will play out?
If evacuation goes ahead? Where will the 200 (approx) residents be houses in such short term?
Where will they move all their possessions?
Total madness.

You can't go wrong with bricks and mortar...

odds_on

NIMAN wrote: »

Just another perfect example how this country was/is run by crooks at all levels who look after each other, and when something goes wrong they can wriggle out of any prosecution and make the little guy pay for it.

A shocking story, my heart goes out to these people.

+1m.

And much of it in the construction industry but not only them, just about every walk of life from the "odd job" man up to the government.

username123

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Of course. They borrowed the money. The apartment was simply used as security.

In that case Id tell the bank that they are welcome to repossess.

username123

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They should not have been allowed build and sell buildings that do not meet the fire code. There should be some minimal level of protection for consumers when buying something as expensive as an apartment. If you bought a TV that didn't work properly, you'd be protected by consumer legislation.

Apparently there were problems with this building company being in trouble for breaches of health and safety while the building work was in progress, there were 2 seperate incidents where building materials fell on cars of members of the general public. There were also massive delays in the build.

I totally agree, there should be some level of protection for those buyers. SOMEONE signed off on these buildings being safe and they werent - someone needs to take responsibility.

Nate--IRL--

username123 wrote: »

I totally agree, there should be some level of protection for those buyers. SOMEONE signed off on these buildings being safe and they werent - someone needs to take responsibility.

That someone was Homebond.

Nate