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

Nate--IRL--

jmayo wrote: »

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.

Yep I believe you are correct, I think I overhead something about these people being given apartments from NAMA on the news, but I can't be sure.

Nate

Ray Palmer

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

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.

Who can never sign off their own work and have to get a seprate person in to say it complies. They still aren't qualified to even say thier own buildings are compliant as they don't have the training. Architects are not and never will be engineers with out an engineers qualification, in this country, regardless of the title they want to give themselves. Mind you there are lots of people who just called themselves architects and have been grandfathered in.

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

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.

Nate

There name being first is the flawed system not a true reflection of who is at fault. Which is really the point I have made along with the fact they may never have done anything wrong as builders

TurkeyBurger

jmayo wrote: »

Nate,
The developer is bust and thanks to limited liability etc they will probably get to walk away from paying for the mess.

Not entirely true. Larry O'Mahony has stated to the Court that he is a bankrupt in the UK. Tom McFeely has stated that his company, Coalport, is trading and have the necessary means to rectify the issues. The President of the High Court has asked for a statement of both parties means by Friday morning.

jmayo wrote: »

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.

Possibly. The architect was/is Opperman Associates and they are still trading. I don't know about the engineers or the role of Homebond.

Nate--IRL--

Ray Palmer wrote: »

There name being first is the flawed system not a true reflection of who is at fault. Which is really the point I have made along with the fact they may never have done anything wrong as builders

Indeed, the Builder can't be held accountable for flaws in the design. But he is responsible for flaws in the construction. The project manager is Ultimately responsible for both.

Nate

Ray Palmer

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Indeed, the Builder can't be held accountable for flaws in the design. But he is responsible for flaws in the construction. The project manager is Ultimately responsible for both.

Nate

Not nessarily as an engineer has to sign of the construction complies and they oversaw it. In this case it seems the services were not installed correctly which some engineer signed off and checked. The same way that on inspection it was found to be at fault. The engineer signed this off so is liable. Unless they didn't have the certs which means the construction company and lawyers are at fault.

arch_survey

With regards to the difference between architects & consulting engineer’s certificates of compliance with building regulations here is what I have found:

Form: BR SE 9101 (Engineer’s Opinion on Compliance)

Part 3 – The Works

Consulting engineer will give a description of the Works he/she designed: 1. Structural (reinforced concrete ground beams, suspended ground floor, reinforced concrete walls, lift core walls, steel balconies, etc), 2. Non-structural (cladding, internal partitions, etc), & 3. Site Works (Drainage).

Part 5 – Opinion on Compliance / Design

We, the Consulting Engineers……….design drawings & specs of The Works, all as outlined above, are in Substantial Compliance with the relevant requirements of the Building Regulations 1997 as extended & amended.

Part 6 – Construction

We, the Consulting Engineers, did not supervise the construction of the works. It is the responsibility of the Main Contractor to ensure…….

RIAI Form 1 – Architect’s Opinion on Compliance with Building Regs

Point 3 – Design

Architect is of the opinion that the design of the relevant building & works is in Substantial Compliance with the Building Regulations. (At this point, the Architect usually states that s/he will enclose a copy of all the subbie’s cert on compliance) Final line is – The Opinion relies solely on those Confirmations in respect of such elements.

Point 4 – Fire Safety

Architect is of the opinion….

Point 6 – Inspection

Architect will date his/her final inspection date & point out Substantial Compliance with Regs

Point 7 – Construction

It is the responsibility of those concerned with the construction of the relevant building or works to ensure the compliance of such with the Building Regulations.



It is my belief that the Professional bodies have worded their Opinions on Compliance in such a way that one of their members who is signing-off held could never be held accountable in a court. Once the words ‘Substantial’ & ‘Opinion’ are used in a legal document.

Substantial – ample or considerable amount, quantity, size

Opinion – the formal expression of a professional judgment:

Well that’s my 2c.

murphthesmurf

None of this has surprised me at all.
I work as a fire alarm engineer. I have serviced the alarm at 3 hotels lately, 1 of them had a very good fire alarm system that would meet all the regs and I would feel safe staying there. The other 2 were a joke. I have informed the owners, verbally and in writing. Neither seemed to give a s&*t. They have detectors that
are 10-15 yrs old (possibly more) where the manufacturers life time is 5 yrs. No sounders in any of the guests rooms, not all rooms covered, the list goes on. The fire officer had visited the one hotel prior to our arrival. He wouldn't issue a cert until the owner had the paper work to say the fire alarm had been serviced. While I was there, having just finished the service, the fire officer turned up. The owner showed him the paper work, and off he went. How any fire officer could pass either of the hotels is beyond me. I'm no expert on emergency lights, but the one hotel had exit signs in the middle of walls, with no exit . If there were a fire, and you were lucky enough to hear the alarm go off, you'd be stumbling along the walls trying to find the doors.
When something goes badly wrong, then they'll clamp down, only thing is then is that its too late, as someone is likely already dead.

thomasj

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0210/dublin.html
One from the archives - February 2010

Council to sue developer over re-housing costs
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Dublin City Council is to sue a developer for costs of re-housing tenants who had to evacuated from apartments found to be a fire safety risk.

The council had to move 16 families from Priory Hall apartments in Donaghmede, which were built by developer Thomas McFeely of Coalport Ltd, last December because of non-compliance with fire standards.

A council report also states that the two sets of legal proceedings have been issued against the developer, both for the safety breaches and for failure to abide by four sets of planning permission, including a failure to build a link road.

Advertisement
A report to North Central councillors stated that Coalport has been given until 2 April to complete fire safety works.

But the council has previously stated that they cannot intervene on behalf of private apartment owners.

Residents of another scheme in Dundalk, built by the same developer, were served with an evacuation notice by the town council in December over fire safety concerns.

Local Labour councillor Sean Kenny said the council had 'shut the stable door after the horse has bolted'.

He said the council had housed their tenants in a scheme that was known to be a breach of planning conditions.

Mr Kenny said the compliance certificates given to the council for the scheme have now been shown to be 'duds' and the council failed to secure a financial bond from the developer.

The council has stated that before 2007 it was not its policy to require a bond where the developer was retaining the development in private management.

and also from 2010 from RTE
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0719/coalport_prioryhall.html

An area meeting of Dublin City Council heard that poor workmanship by the company Coalport has left many apartments in Priory Hall prone to damp penetration.
Council official Kieran Cunningham said that remedial works will be necessary to roofs and balconies while there are also problems with cladding.
He said on-going problems are now reaching a 'crescendo' with the buildings' deteriorating and that balcony railings will be in danger of falling off because of rust.
The meeting of the North Central Committee heard that the developer's lender, Irish Nationwide, had hired consultants to look at the cost of remedial works with a view to taking over the work.
The architectural survey was carried out on 16 apartments purchased by the Council for social housing, but which had to be evacuated last December when it was discovered they were a fire hazard.
The meeting heard that Coalport has still not carried out the fire safety works agreed in the complex, which is situated in the northern fringe development area.
Labour Cllr Sean Kenny described the architects' report as shocking and councillors requested a report on how such as systemic failure of oversight could be avoided in future.
Coalport has previously stated it was working to resolve problems in the estate of just under 200 apartments, but had no comment to make on the latest report.

How come its taken so long given some of the issues mentioned?

civdef

murphthesmurf wrote: »

I work as a fire alarm engineer. I have serviced the alarm at 3 hotels lately, 1 of them had a very good fire alarm system that would meet all the regs and I would feel safe staying there. The other 2 were a joke. I have informed the owners, verbally and in writing. Neither seemed to give a s&*t. They have detectors that
are 10-15 yrs old (possibly more) where the manufacturers life time is 5 yrs. No sounders in any of the guests rooms, not all rooms covered, the list goes on. The fire officer had visited the one hotel prior to our arrival. He wouldn't issue a cert until the owner had the paper work to say the fire alarm had been serviced. While I was there, having just finished the service, the fire officer turned up. The owner showed him the paper work, and off he went. How any fire officer could pass either of the hotels is beyond me.

Did you sign off on a service knowing the system is defective?

lomb

Correct me if I'm wrong but the building was built by an IRA hero. Not one person mentioned that in britain and northern Ireland every building is built with hands on certification by the council at each stage under building regulations and that's the correct way. You can't make it up...

jesabellainm

Here are a few corrections:
The Priory Hall site was purchased by Larry O'Mahony and Thomas McFeely.
Any money needed was provided by Michael Fingleton at Irish Nationwide.
No monitoring or controls were imposed of course.
The builder was Coalport Building Company Ltd.
Coalport is owned by Mr McFeely.

Of course Mr McFeely seems to be guilty of completing extremely negligent work. But McFeely has a long history of poor development.
I was just doing some google searches there and I find articles about residents of a housing development he did in Portarlington nearly a decade ago ended up protesting outside his house on Ailesbury Road. Then there are developments in Clondalkin and Dundalk that have similar fire safety issues, though mercifully not as serious as Priory Hall.

O'Mahony had stood to share in the profits from the development with Mr McFeely and in my opinion O'Mahony shouldn't be allowed to excuse himself by the fact that he has earlier this year started renting a house in Manchester and voluntarily declared bankruptcy. The Irish Times reported in August, that Mr O'Mahony's bankruptcy like that of many Irish developers is a strategic one making use of the swift bankruptcy regime in the UK. O'Mahony continues to own a home at 7 Shrewsbury Road where he spends just under half of his days with his second wife Christine. When not in Shrewsbury or Manchester, you may bump into Mr O'Mahony on trips to the villa he is reported to own in the luxurious Pinheiros Altos Golf Resort in Portugal. Both McFeely and OMahony and even OMahony's wifes have villas in the area. But usually properties in that area are owned through offshore companies so it will take a significant amount of work to get to the bottom of it in court.

focus_mad

Regarding self certification, an architect who has designed a property can sign off on it. Same goes for a Building Surveyor. In my experience with a number of architects they have no comprehension of standards/regulations.

On a positive note, we are in the middle of being instructed to put a large building in compliance, and with this pressure on the council etc now, the fire officer and building control came out for an inspection to say get into compliance or we are shutting it down. So at least some people are getting off their asses now!!!

Also the builder, while not responsible for design etc, has z certain level of responsibility otherwise it would be contributory negligence.

jmayo

Ray Palmer wrote: »

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 design

No I don't have a civil engineering degree, I have another engineering degree.
But I don't need any degree to have noticed that this particular developer/builder has left a trail of half finished dangerous developments behind them.
Now call that coincidence if you want, but I think a lot of people would call it negligence and disregard.
Yet you are still finding excuses for them.

Yes engineers are responsible for the actual signoffs, but again who hires them ?
Oh and take a look at the developers history which I think might have a bearing on why people may have being willing to let things slide.

murphthesmurf

civdef wrote: »

Did you sign off on a service knowing the system is defective?

No, I gave him a docket for the service I had done. This just lists the number of detectors tested, how many passed or failed etc, and the battery tests. Its not a certificate. It merely says that I had been out to carry out a routine service. I attached a recommendation sheet listing the defects with the system and the work required to bring it up to scratch. However, I have no authority whatsoever in the matter. I can only advise the customer. I made it very clear to him. I tried to get him to at least get a few of the oldest devices changed now, then a few next time etc, he asked me "but did they work?" to which I told him the truth, yes they worked, but they are too old, you could have a fire as soon as I leave and they may not work, they need changing. He had no interest. Thats all I can do. I certainly wouldn't want to stay there, some of these places are death traps.
Here's an example -
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=hotel%20fire%20newquay%20cornwall&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-england-cornwall-13277198&ei=4YygTvmAM8HLhAebrNjZBA&usg=AFQjCNHiay4_cbnXYx55G2MFKTVRKFRd2w

After this there was a huge clampdown in Cornwall on all hotels and b&b's. Too late for the dead guests though.

Treehouse72

murphthesmurf wrote: »

No, I gave him a docket for the service I had done. This just lists the number of detectors tested, how many passed or failed etc, and the battery tests. Its not a certificate. It merely says that I had been out to carry out a routine service. I attached a recommendation sheet listing the defects with the system and the work required to bring it up to scratch. However, I have no authority whatsoever in the matter. I can only advise the customer. I made it very clear to him. I tried to get him to at least get a few of the oldest devices changed now, then a few next time etc, he asked me "but did they work?" to which I told him the truth, yes they worked, but they are too old, you could have a fire as soon as I leave and they may not work, they need changing. He had no interest. Thats all I can do. I certainly wouldn't want to stay there, some of these places are death traps.
Here's an example -
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=hotel%20fire%20newquay%20cornwall&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEsQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-england-cornwall-13277198&ei=4YygTvmAM8HLhAebrNjZBA&usg=AFQjCNHiay4_cbnXYx55G2MFKTVRKFRd2w

After this there was a huge clampdown in Cornwall on all hotels and b&b's. Too late for the dead guests though.

Can you not also report it - anonymously if needs to - to the Health and Safety authorities?

liammur

Dublin city council knew about this a few years ago? Did they not inform anyone about the matter?

A Dub in Glasgo

This is indeed a strange situation that nobody can identify who is accountable for this sorry mess.

I got my garage converted to a habitable room 4 years ago and the amount of paperwork I had to supply to get the conversion signed off was a lot. The key is the building regulations which I had to send in all the certificates to the council and the council officier came out to inspect the conversion.

how the Irish Government / Councils can allow any chancer to throw up a whole apartment block without any accountability is beyond a joke.

miss no stars

Here's what I'm confused about, maybe I've picked this up wrong.

Apartment block thrown up during the boom. Many people buy apartments for completely extortionate prices and happily move in and pick out curtains etc. Council's social housing division decides it would be worth getting a few of them so, like all good buyers, they have their engineers carry out an inspection of them to make sure what they're getting is kosher. Engineers determine there's serious fire risk. Council raises alarm and the ensuing stuff with judges and mandatory evacuation happens. Council tries its best to house the evacuated residents. (<--- is that roughly correct?)

So, if the council's engineers picked it up in their inspections when they went to buy, how in hell did all those residents buy pads there WITHOUT the problems coming to their attention? Did they just not have their apartment inspected before signing on the dotted line?? Did none of them get the place inspected?

See, I have sympathy for the residents in that they're in a bad situation right now. But they kinda put themselves there - or they should be looking to the person who did their inspection for them and sueing them! Like, nobody forced them to buy there, nobody forced them to move in. It's up to people to be adults and to go into contracts with their eyes open. Yeah it stings when this happens, but it's not the public purse's fault. Private contracts are private contracts so the residents should take a class action against whomever their legal representation reckons is liable. With all the publicity there'd probably be a couple of big firms willing to do it pro-bono or to team up to do a pro-bono.

markpb

miss no stars wrote: »

how in hell did all those residents buy pads there WITHOUT the problems coming to their attention? Did they just not have their apartment inspected before signing on the dotted line?? Did none of them get the place inspected?

As far as I know, the senior architect must sign off that the building has been built in accordance with the law and with the fire safety certificate. As long as this has been done, there should be no reason for a buyers snagger to check that it meets the fire safety plans because they're supposed to trust the architect. In any case, a lot of the problems weren't with individual apartments, it was with the outside materials, the protection around the gas mains, etc. These wouldn't normally be checked by the snagger because they're external to the owners apartment.

This was entirely the fault of DCC and the self regulation environment and not the owners. They bought an apartment on the understanding that it was built properly.

Also, I don't believe that DCC spotted it during a routine check before purchasing - it was spotted by DFB during an audit, presumably because the builder had dodgy fire safety problems in other apartment complexes.

TurkeyBurger

miss no stars wrote: »

Here's what I'm confused about, maybe I've picked this up wrong.

Apartment block thrown up during the boom. Many people buy apartments for completely extortionate prices and happily move in and pick out curtains etc. Council's social housing division decides it would be worth getting a few of them so, like all good buyers, they have their engineers carry out an inspection of them to make sure what they're getting is kosher.

You are largely correct, you just have some of the time-frame a bit confused.

miss no stars wrote: »

Engineers determine there's serious fire risk. Council raises alarm and the ensuing stuff with judges and mandatory evacuation happens. Council tries its best to house the evacuated residents. (<--- is that roughly correct?)

Of course people took all reasonable steps to inspect what they were buying into. Solicitors were engaged to check that all certificates of compliance were in order, snag lists were completed and, in some cases, banks also had the properties checked by their engineers/surveyors. It is likely that Dublin City Council conducted checks similar to the steps taken by private purchasers.

When everything was deemed to be in compliance, people moved in and picked out their curtains, roughly around the middle of 2007.

The problems which are coming to light now were hinted at in a report conducted in 2009 by Dublin City Council but the serious problems were not confirmed until a subsequent report in September/October 2011 at which point the City Council made the contents of that report available to the High Court which took steps to evacuate the building.

miss no stars wrote: »

So, if the council's engineers picked it up in their inspections when they went to buy, how in hell did all those residents buy pads there WITHOUT the problems coming to their attention? Did they just not have their apartment inspected before signing on the dotted line?? Did none of them get the place inspected?

No, the City Council and all other purchasers had the above checks done and then went ahead and bought the properties. The problems arose a number of years later. Identifying the types of problems which have been uncovered involved removing/opening walls and other structural elements of the apartments which would not normally be undertaken as part of a snag list, however detailed that snag list would be.

In essence, all purchasers, the City Council and private purchasers, went into the deal very much relying on the existence of certificates of compliance. What has happened over the last few weeks has highlighted that these certificates are worthless as there was no regulation and the certificates don't actually certify anything, they are just an 'opinion of compliance'.

miss no stars wrote: »

See, I have sympathy for the residents in that they're in a bad situation right now. But they kinda put themselves there - or they should be looking to the person who did their inspection for them and sueing them! Like, nobody forced them to buy there, nobody forced them to move in. It's up to people to be adults and to go into contracts with their eyes open. Yeah it stings when this happens, but it's not the public purse's fault. Private contracts are private contracts so the residents should take a class action against whomever their legal representation reckons is liable. With all the publicity there'd probably be a couple of big firms willing to do it pro-bono or to team up to do a pro-bono.

There is no such thing as class action in Ireland.

miss no stars

TurkeyBurger wrote: »

You are largely correct, you just have some of the time-frame a bit confused.



Of course people took all reasonable steps to inspect what they were buying into. Solicitors were engaged to check that all certificates of compliance were in order, snag lists were completed and, in some cases, banks also had the properties checked by their engineers/surveyors. It is likely that Dublin City Council conducted checks similar to the steps taken by private purchasers.

When everything was deemed to be in compliance, people moved in and picked out their curtains, roughly around the middle of 2007.

The problems which are coming to light now were hinted at in a report conducted in 2009 by Dublin City Council but the serious problems were not confirmed until a subsequent report in September/October 2011 at which point the City Council made the contents of that report available to the High Court which took steps to evacuate the building.



No, the City Council and all other purchasers had the above checks done and then went ahead and bought the properties. The problems arose a number of years later. Identifying the types of problems which have been uncovered involved removing/opening walls and other structural elements of the apartments which would not normally be undertaken as part of a snag list, however detailed that snag list would be.

In essence, all purchasers, the City Council and private purchasers, went into the deal very much relying on the existence of certificates of compliance. What has happened over the last few weeks has highlighted that these certificates are worthless as there was no regulation and the certificates don't actually certify anything, they are just an 'opinion of compliance'.



There is no such thing as class action in Ireland.

Boo-urns to the bolded bit.

Fair enough, I obviously got my wires crossed about which report uncovered the problems.

Notwithstanding that, I still don't think it's a problem for the public purse to fix. I still don't get the anger at the council for finding the problem - when I first heard about it I thought the residents would be overwhelmingly relieved that it had been brought to light, and would then seek a remedy for the situation.

Someone's public indemnity insurance, or homebond, should be made to pay for this, yes. Just not the taxpayer.

TurkeyBurger

miss no stars wrote: »

I still don't get the anger at the council for finding the problem - when I first heard about it I thought the residents would be overwhelmingly relieved that it had been brought to light, and would then seek a remedy for the situation.

Someone's public indemnity insurance, or homebond, should be made to pay for this, yes. Just not the taxpayer.

The Council are the Planning Authority and are responsible for Building Control within their areas. This building doesn't appear to have satisfied all of the conditions of the Planning Application. I would guess that is why many people believe that the City Council are not completely blameless in any of this.

Residents, including Dublin City Council, have sought a remedy to the situation. The remedy is that the problems be repaired and this is exactly what the High Court has directed the builder to do.

Although the Court have ordered Dublin City Council to pay the costs of the emergency accommodation for people who have been moved out of their homes, I would have thought it would be likely that Dublin City Council will seek an order to have that money recovered from the builder.

Tom McFeely has proven to the Court that he has the means to complete the work and the Court has unfrozen his assets to allow him to proceed so in that regard the substantial costs (i.e. fixing the problems) are a matter for the builder, not the taxpayer.

maude6868

My house has been condemned by an engineer because the roof will collapse, the weight of tiles on the roof has caused roof spread. Myself, my husband and 5 children have to relocate. This was our dream home, self build. I paid an engineer to supervise building, his company dissolved in 2005, built house in 2004. Our roof is very big and was never designed to carry the weight of tiles, a slate roof was in the plans submitted to the Council but the Council insisted as one of their conditions of planning that we erect a tiled roof. We are now in an unsafe house because they forced us to tile the roof. I just don't know where to turn.

A Dub in Glasgo

I think you are meant to change the roof design to accomodate not just put a tile onto a structure designed for slates.

maude6868

But I wanted to put on slates, the drawings stipulated slates but the council enforced tiles to be in keeping with neighbours tiles, however tiles proved unsafe as roof is now collapsing

A Dub in Glasgo

You did not get planning permission for slates though therefore your building design should have been changed to accommodate tiles as directed by the council. I cannot believe you went ahead with tiles on a strucutre that was not designed for it.

Nate--IRL--

Not sure where you go to next. The Engineer should have redesigned the structure to account for additional weight due to the design change if requested. Was he instructed to do so?

Nate

maude6868

Obviously not. I have no clue about house building, neither has my husband. I paid an engineer, he signed off on tiles, turns out house was designed for slates only, how was I to know. Looks like I now have to be culpable, relocate my family on my own expense, still pay my mortgage and then re-mortage to finance house repairs which are extensive, is that fair. Should council or bank or engineer somewhere along the line not have said this wouldn't work, why am I culpable.

Nate--IRL--

maude6868 wrote: »

Obviously not. I have no clue about house building, neither has my husband. I paid an engineer, he signed off on tiles, turns out house was designed for slates only, how was I to know. Looks like I now have to be culpable, relocate my family on my own expense, still pay my mortgage and then re-mortage to finance house repairs which are extensive, is that fair. Should council or bank or engineer somewhere along the line not have said this wouldn't work, why am I culpable.

If he signed off on tiles being used and it can be shown the structure he approved for use with the tiles wasn't up to it, it is his fault, in my non expert opinion.

Nate

maude6868

That's no good to me now though as his company dissolved in 2005, this is the problem these days. I am gutted because I have to suffer through no fault of my own. I have 2 kids doing State exams and the upheaval is tremendous for us, I never thought I would be forced to leave this house.