Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Priory Hall, Clongriffen residents told their apartments unsafe - another disgrace
Options
Comments
-
This doesn't surprise me at all. A past place of work (restaurant) would often get a call two days in advance of a "suprise" visit by the health inspectors...
Look at the likes of the story of Leas cross where the HSE affectively gave heads up to the nursing home that they were going to visit.
Look at the Frontline program last night where another self regulated body (bunch of lawyers, baristors, judges) where whinging and moaning about outside interference.
The head of the law society would not answer a lady when asked if the solicitors who ripped off abuse victims payouts were charged with theft. :rolleyes:
Ah but shure according to him didn't they pay it back and their files were sent to the high court.
The sooner people in this country cop on that shoddy regulation is totally at fault for the way this country is today.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
The system changed decades ago and people seem to be talking about it as if it was a quick one pulled over during the building boom. The system is a terrible idea and does leave a massive hole in how safe properties are.
Ultimately this is the structural engineers fault. An architect doesn't really have any say on the matter. The builders can ignore what they are told but the engineer says whether it complies. If anybody said it complied they are at fault.
The reason the builders are in trouble is becasue they didn't fix things once they were told not for actually doing it. There is an engineering company out there who could get seriously sued. Most likely the insurance company will pay out with the builders not getting into too much trouble. Strangely it might not actually be their fault at all contry to what people are assuming.0 -
This issue is so upsetting I've actually been tuning it out. I simply can't bear to hear anything about it.0
-
joe stodge wrote: »anyone else hear that pr1ck tom mcfeely today addressing angry residents outside the courts today???
he basically told them that they should be felling sorry him because he has had his accounts frozen and property sized, what an absolute appalling human being.
Apparently he said something along the lines of "the bank are taking my house - I hope that makes ye begrudgers happy"
Begrudgers? What the hell is he on about?0 -
Homebond, the developer and the architect should be prosecuted.
However in the north they have building control within each council who inspect at certain stages. They are known to be as tight as ducks ar*e in water over buildings and can stop building at any stage and they will not certify.
There is no building control officer / department within any council or body within ROI - this is a serious issue and should be implemented.
I don't think we have heard the end of this.
+1 Though not prosecuted, simply sued.
The builder is primarily responsible (or the electrical contractor if wiring is anything to do with the problem). But there layers of protection, which you need, as builders go bust all the time.
Usually when buying a house you get an architect's cert of compliance with design and building regs (building regs specify fire retardant materials etc). In an apartment block the architect will usually make their cert dependent on an engineer's cert or certs: passing the risk on as structural engineers know more about structure and mech & elec engineers know more about wiring etc. The certs are usually "based on intermittent visual inspection" etc etc in order to limit their exposure but if the problem is as serious as it seems to be, intermittent inspection properly carried out would have shown it.
If they didn't get any certs they'd be able to sue their own solicitors for negligence.
Either way, all the professionals would have insurance policies so builder insolvency should be overcome.
In addition there's homebond, and if there's neither homebond nor structural insurance, then there's another avenue against the buyer's own solicitor.
There might be some fact in this case that I've missed (haven't followed it that closely) but the bottom line, I think, is that this should be covered by suing the professionals.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is an absolute disgrace. The builder should be criminally liable for his ongoing neglect to fix the issues. He has quite the shady past from what i have heard.
But either way this doesnt fix the issue of the people being put out of their homes and the impact this has on their quality of life.
I have drove by Priory Hall quite a lot in recent years and have always said looks badly built.0 -
I'd say that we complain about regulation because we pay through the nose for shoddy service. If I'm paying for people in the county council to approve things, or for the financial regulator to keep things under control, I expect them to do their jobs and do proper inspections. What I invariably seem to end up paying for is the council to say "I'm sure it's grand" when dealing with big companies.
This is the same situation that's contributing to troughs being dug across roads around the place. Contractors are supposed to pay the council a bond before they dig holes across a road. Invariably the roads are not returned to a decent state, yet apparently no-one from the council checks up on what's been done, and the bond is automatically returned.
Thoie,
I totally agree with what you are saying but the problem is that in Ireland we have a system of self regulation, provided by your politicians. Ireland is going to move further towards self regulation as the civil services costs are unsustainable therefore money for increased supervision by the statutory bodies will not occur.
We need to go back to the root of the problem which is our current legislative framework, thank you mr politician. The provisional or competent persons who are being paid fees to supervise such works have a gun to their head, if the building is not signed off on, they donnt get paid? what sort of regulation is that.0 -
I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't the only case of its kind to come to light.
Plenty like it already have but just haven't had such decisive action taken.
It's one thing if it was a private individual losing out but with it looking like the council is going to have to foot the bill for this, you would think they atleast would be out for blood.0 -
-
"Regulation" is not the answer to everything as is often little more than a slogan that can mean many things in many circumstances. Civil service regulation of the monitoring sort is not efficient, and never will be, at least not without 65%+ tax rate and 95%+ employment so we can afford to have swarms of them (i.e. 2 jobsworths for every one that does the work). This case proves that. We have regulations, they're called the building regulations. We have professionals to ensure that jobs are done right. Those professionals are insured (that's regulation too). If they screw up, they get sued and the residents get compensated. The more screw ups the higher their insurance premium and if they screw up too often they won't get insurance and will not be allowed practice.0
-
Advertisement
-
Love nor Money wrote: »"Regulation" is not the answer to everything as is often little more than a slogan that can mean many things in many circumstances. Civil service regulation of the monitoring sort is not efficient, and never will be, at least not without 65%+ tax rate and 95%+ employment so we can afford to have swarms of them (i.e. 2 jobsworths for every one that does the work). This case proves that. We have regulations, they're called the building regulations. We have professionals to ensure that jobs are done right. Those professionals are insured (that's regulation too). If they screw up, they get sued and the residents get compensated. The more screw ups the higher their insurance premium and if they screw up too often they won't get insurance and will not be allowed practice.
I still prefer the British method of Building Control, as it prevents debacles like this, rather than dealing with the aftermath. An aftermath that will drag on for years through the courts, with no useful resolution for people caught up in this.
Self regulation failed miserably in this case. And I'd be very surprised if it is the last case we hear about.
Nate0 -
People obviously don't get how the system works.
The architect is very unlikely to be in any way at fault. Fire regulations are not his concern or designed by him. A seperate engineer is responsible for the design. Another engineer (most likely) then checks the installation.
The builder has to make sure the guys install it as told but the engineers are meant to be making sure it goes in right.
Aftrer that an engineer signs it off. The builder has to trust the engineer has done his job.
Not saying that the builder is innocent but he may not actually be at fault espcially if he hired a smaller firm to install the vent system.
It is no way near as clear cut as the bulder pulling a fast one or did this intentionally. THe engineers insurance and homebond should be sorting this out. It looks like this is propeganda by the state to look like they are pursuing somebody not actually the right people.0 -
Not sure if this has been mentioned before, or if its already public knowledge -
The Development company behind Priory Hall, Coalport Ltd. also built apartments in Dundalk - A five story block of apartments called Ard Dealgan. In November 2009 the local authority gave a closure notice and the residents had to leave immediately. The closure notice was given for serious fire safety concerns and was upheld on appeal to the District Court. There has no safety works been carried out, two years on they are still sitting vacant!
http://www.argus.ie/news/failing-to-comply-with-fire-safety-rules-1933571.html
http://www.dundalkdemocrat.ie/news/local/dundalk_town_council_steps_in_to_find_home_for_residents_of_apartment_block_1_1980395
http://www.dundalkdemocrat.ie/news/local/dundalk_residents_told_to_quit_apartments_over_fire_safety_1_19803730 -
They do it successfully in the UK and in the US - the latter especially is not know for its 65% tax rates.Love nor Money wrote: »"Regulation" is not the answer to everything as is often little more than a slogan that can mean many things in many circumstances. Civil service regulation of the monitoring sort is not efficient, and never will be, at least not without 65%+ tax rate and 95%+ employment so we can afford to have swarms of them (i.e. 2 jobsworths for every one that does the work). This case proves that. We have regulations, they're called the building regulations. We have professionals to ensure that jobs are done right. Those professionals are insured (that's regulation too). If they screw up, they get sued and the residents get compensated. The more screw ups the higher their insurance premium and if they screw up too often they won't get insurance and will not be allowed practice.0 -
Lady on Ray Darcy at the moment who is from Priory Hall and currently staying in the Regency Hotel. It's a terrible situation but I also can't believe she bought it from the plans in 2007 for 290k as her first home...0
-
Lady on Ray Darcy at the moment who is from Priory Hall and currently staying in the Regency Hotel. It's a terrible situation but I also can't believe she bought it from the plans in 2007 for 290k as her first home...
Her mortgage is with KBC - who are not subject to the diktats of our government.0 -
Monty Burnz wrote: »Her mortgage is with KBC - who are not subject to the diktats of our government.
Sorry, call me slow but I don't follow the connection between my post and yours? My comment was a sort of an aside on the crazy attitude of people still buying from plans in 2007 for massive prices.
With regard to the actual issue, it's hard to see what the appropriate solution is. I'm generally against mortgage forgiveness but for issues like this perhaps there should be a scheme in place to protect people where the monies cannot be recovered from the at-fault party (the developer in this case).
What galls me slightly is her moaning about the suitability of accommodation being provided by the council at the moment - am I right in saying this is currently being provided free of charge? If that's the case the tenants should be very happy they are being catered for at all.0 -
If that's the case the tenants should be very happy they are being catered for at all.
I'd find it hard to be very happy particularly given that McFeely is still living at Ailesbury Road.0 -
-
I looked at renting in Priory Hall last year and then didnt - luckily! The apartments look awful from the outside but inside they are lovely.
IMO there are going to plenty of 'priory halls' in the near future. Not just for fire dangers but other things too - insulation etc.0 -
Advertisement
-
HardyEustace wrote: »
Your article states that the bank has a judgment against that property? He doesn't own the equity in it anymore so while he might be there for the moment it's certainly not a permanent arrangement.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »The system changed decades ago and people seem to be talking about it as if it was a quick one pulled over during the building boom. The system is a terrible idea and does leave a massive hole in how safe properties are.
1990 and p flynn was it not ?
That name rears it's head again.Ray Palmer wrote: »Ultimately this is the structural engineers fault. An architect doesn't really have any say on the matter. The builders can ignore what they are told but the engineer says whether it complies. If anybody said it complied they are at fault.
The reason the builders are in trouble is becasue they didn't fix things once they were told not for actually doing it. There is an engineering company out there who could get seriously sued. Most likely the insurance company will pay out with the builders not getting into too much trouble. Strangely it might not actually be their fault at all contry to what people are assuming.
Ultimately shouldn't the builder/developer be at fault.
He sold the product and it wasn't fit for use.Love nor Money wrote: »"Regulation" is not the answer to everything as is often little more than a slogan that can mean many things in many circumstances. Civil service regulation of the monitoring sort is not efficient, and never will be, at least not without 65%+ tax rate and 95%+ employment so we can afford to have swarms of them (i.e. 2 jobsworths for every one that does the work). This case proves that. We have regulations, they're called the building regulations. We have professionals to ensure that jobs are done right. Those professionals are insured (that's regulation too). If they screw up, they get sued and the residents get compensated. The more screw ups the higher their insurance premium and if they screw up too often they won't get insurance and will not be allowed practice.
Having lawsuits after the fact is not the answer either.
Well forgive me but the so called professionals who were responsible to see it was done right made a right balls up out of it.
Our monitoring of the regulations is the real joke.
Things like certs given before build rather than continous monitoring.
If it is not civil service/public service doing the monitoring or regulations then who ?
Do you really think that regulation should be left to the industry themselves ?Ray Palmer wrote: »People obviously don't get how the system works.
The architect is very unlikely to be in any way at fault. Fire regulations are not his concern or designed by him. A seperate engineer is responsible for the design. Another engineer (most likely) then checks the installation.
Is the architect not responsible for layout design and engineer responsible for actual build ?
Who is responsible for having bedrooms that are only accessible through the kitchens, one of the biggest sources of fires in the home ?Ray Palmer wrote: »The builder has to make sure the guys install it as told but the engineers are meant to be making sure it goes in right.
Aftrer that an engineer signs it off. The builder has to trust the engineer has done his job.
Not saying that the builder is innocent but he may not actually be at fault espcially if he hired a smaller firm to install the vent system.
It is no way near as clear cut as the bulder pulling a fast one or did this intentionally. THe engineers insurance and homebond should be sorting this out. It looks like this is propeganda by the state to look like they are pursuing somebody not actually the right people.
Is the builder not responsible when he and the people he hires cut corners most likely to cut costs ?
Would this be like the way homebond sorted out the pyrite issue ?
You have been doing handstands around here trying to lay the blame at the engineers feet, anybody but the developer/builder.
Who hired the ones that built the apartments, who hired the engineers ?
It was the developer and I believe he who pays the piper calls the tune.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
JMayo nobody will disagree the Developer is ultimately responsible, but other professionals were complicit in the deception/fraud. In this case, where the developer is bust, to whom do the buyers of these apartments seek redress?
Nate0 -
To answer your questions the answers is basically NO!1990 and p flynn was it not ?
That name rears it's head again. etc...
Architect designe engineer says if it complies and informs the architect what needs to be inplace for compliance. Another engineer makes sure things are put in correctly. The builder follows the both engineers and they tell him whether it complies. He then sells it based on what he has been told is a safe and compliant building.
The builder will be held responsible but ultimately will sue the engineers and the insurance companies will pay. See this is how it may have nothing to do with the architect nor the builder. The builder may not have cut a single corner to save money the engineers may have not done their jobs.
It is the lack of understanding about how things are built and industry that makes people think they "know" the builder is at fault. It is not straight forward and most people don't realise an architect is more about being artistic than structural concerned. They have to have an artistic portfolio to get into college should be an indication they aren't concerend about load pressure or structural integrity let alone all fire regs and how the services in a building fit together.0 -
The builder may never have known anthing was wrong is the point I am making. There is a massive assumption to say it was intentional. All things being equal it is much more likely to be incompetence.Nate--IRL-- wrote: »JMayo nobody will disagree the Developer is ultimately responsible, but other professionals were complicit in the deception/fraud. In this case, where the developer is bust, to whom do the buyers of these apartments seek redress?
Nate
Part of the problem is the system sue the guy who built the property and then get him to sue the guy who said it was built right.
The builder may not have done anything wrong but is responsible, which is actually a little unfair but somebody has to remain responsible0 -
Nate--IRL-- wrote: »JMayo nobody will disagree the Developer is ultimately responsible, but other professionals were complicit in the deception/fraud. In this case, where the developer is bust, to whom do the buyers of these apartments seek redress?
Nate
Nate,
I would bet that at the end of the day the redress will be paid for by guess what the taxpayers.
Fair enough the state has huge qeustions to answer with regard to how cack handed regulation is, but it will be once again the sucker taxpayers that will be left with the bill.
The developer is bust and thanks to limited liability etc they will probably get to walk away from paying for the mess.
Next we will hear the engineering contractor, architect, etc are all bust.
Homebond will probably find an out so who will be left to once again carry the can.Ray Palmer wrote: »To answer your questions the answers is basically NO!
Architect designe engineer says if it complies and informs the architect what needs to be inplace for compliance. Another engineer makes sure things are put in correctly. The builder follows the both engineers and they tell him whether it complies. He then sells it based on what he has been told is a safe and compliant building.
Why oh why do I think about how auditing firms turned a blind eye to dodgy accounting practices in order to get continuing work. :rolleyes:
What happens if engineer tells builder he needs to spend x amount more to get complex to be compliant.
Does builder say fair enough, thanks for that or might they just let engineer know they wouldn't be getting anymore work ?Ray Palmer wrote: »The builder will be held responsible but ultimately will sue the engineers and the insurance companies will pay. See this is how it may have nothing to do with the architect nor the builder. The builder may not have cut a single corner to save money the engineers may have not done their jobs.
Seen as it is the same builder that has been involved in numerous cases of shodgy workmanship and unfinished sites, I don't give him the benefit of the doubt you appear to.
Added to that the builder has not been forthcoming in remeding any of the messes they have left behind.
They have had to be sued on numerous occassions.
On the contrary they have given ample examples of how little they care about the complexes they have built.
How you are finding excuses for him leaves me frankly quiet amused.Ray Palmer wrote: »It is the lack of understanding about how things are built and industry that makes people think they "know" the builder is at fault. It is not straight forward and most people don't realise an architect is more about being artistic than structural concerned. They have to have an artistic portfolio to get into college should be an indication they aren't concerend about load pressure or structural integrity let alone all fire regs and how the services in a building fit together.
If you reread my post I was questioning the architect about the poor layout that is a firehazard not about the build qaulity.
BTW in my long distance past as part of my engineering studies I had to sit in on some of those load bearing, stengths of materials courses. :mad:I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »The builder may never have known anthing was wrong is the point I am making. There is a massive assumption to say it was intentional. All things being equal it is much more likely to be incompetence.
Part of the problem is the system sue the guy who built the property and then get him to sue the guy who said it was built right.
The builder may not have done anything wrong but is responsible, which is actually a little unfair but somebody has to remain responsible
There you go again.
Fook it before you are finished you will convinced us that coalport (mcfeely and o'mahony) are a charity.
Funny how this particular builder has never "intentionally" left any messes behind them.
Oh wait a few people and a local authority beg to differ on that score.
If it was incompetence then why not quickly move to remedy the situations rather than do nothing.I am not allowed discuss …
0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »It is not straight forward and most people don't realise an architect is more about being artistic than structural concerned. They have to have an artistic portfolio to get into college should be an indication they aren't concerend about load pressure or structural integrity let alone all fire regs and how the services in a building fit together.
An architect is very much concerned with Fire Regs and Building Services as they directly influence design, and will take head of the structural engineers requirements also in the design. Being an architect is not all arty farty stuff, he is the lead designer responsible for the project - all other disciplines are under him.
Nate0 -
Sorry do you have a civil engineer degree or ever worked in the building design? I do and have. The local authority are pursing him as that is the method that has to be pursued. Funny how you know what went on in the building of these appartments yet don't know who does what in building designThere you go again.
Fook it before you are finished you will convinced us that coalport (mcfeely and o'mahony) are a charity.
Funny how this particular builder has never "intentionally" left any messes behind them.
Oh wait a few people and a local authority beg to differ on that score.
If it was incompetence then why not quickly move to remedy the situations rather than do nothing.
Actually they aren't reponsible. Influence on design is not the same as full knowledge nor making them fully responsible for construction. An architect is not in charge of a project unless he is contracted to do so and then hires sombody else to insure plans and design are compliant. Builders generally do not hire an architect to do this. All other disiplines are certainly not under the architect generally they are hired to design and follow up that design as they lack so much practicle detail. I know a lot of architects as I went to college with them and they don't know the strength of a standard brick let alone fire regs in any detail.Nate--IRL-- wrote: »An architect is very much concerned with Fire Regs and Building Services as they directly influence design, and will take head of the structural engineers requirements also in the design. Being an architect is not all arty farty stuff, he is the lead designer responsible for the project - all other disciplines are under him.
Nate0 -
Advertisement
-
Ray Palmer wrote: »Actually they aren't reponsible. Influence on design is not the same as full knowledge nor making them fully responsible for construction. An architect is not in charge of a project unless he is contracted to do so and then hires sombody else to insure plans and design are compliant. Builders generally do not hire an architect to do this. All other disiplines are certainly not under the architect generally they are hired to design and follow up that design as they lack so much practicle detail. I know a lot of architects as I went to college with them and they don't know the strength of a standard brick let alone fire regs in any detail.
Actually we are both right - it depends on the setup of the project. There are many types of architects Design architects or Project architects for example.
In the end who ever signs the Certification of Compliance is on the hook. The can choose to sue any sub-contractors they've hired for consultation, but their name will be on the first suit.
Nate0
Advertisement