Who's paying rent for Priory Hall evictees?

Slideshowbob

They're in NAMA properties now?!?

HeidiHeidi

Took me a few minutes, but I suspect you mean Priory Hall?

No idea, but I'd be interested to hear!

Richard571

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Took me a few minutes, but I suspect you mean Priory Hall?

No idea, but I'd be interested to hear!

We are - aka Dublin city council

Slideshowbob

Richard571 wrote: »

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

Took me a few minutes, but I suspect you mean Priory Hall?

No idea, but I'd be interested to hear!

We are - aka Dublin city council

So it's like temporary social housing?

Unfortunate cases n all but were they means tested?

Wertz

Means tested for what?
They bought property in good faith and have subsequently been forced from that property for their own safety by council officials who were supposedly tasked with oversight of building regulations, those same officials paid out of stamp duty and development levies generated from sale of the properties.
It's none of the owners' faults that they need to be re-homed... why should they now pay rent and a mortgage (assuming that that's what you mean by having people means tested)...

hmmm

The position of the evictees is very sad, I wish one of our endless quangos and government departments could sort them out. These people bought their own houses, without relying on social housing, they relied on fire certs that our taxes are supposed to pay for, they paid massive stamp duty and now they are almost on the street due to no fault of their own.

We seem to have no end to money spent on long term unemployed layabouts, endless money to spend on junkies and convicts, yet DCC is fighting to try and stop supporting the people in Priory Hall.

It could happen to any of us.

Floppybits

I feel for those people who bought in Priory hall. I know there are people on here who think they are at fault because they may have bought from plans or whatever? But I firmly believe that the faults in this development would never have been noticed unless you were there to observe every part of the construction of the property.

The first issue here should be to sort out the residents of the Priory Hall who bought their property in good faith. I cant see why the owners cannot do a swap for similar property that is currently owned by NAMA. Then NAMA could take over Priory Hall and take this developer for all they are worth and the property owners in Priory Hall can then go on living in their new property and continue to pay their mortgages.

But it seems that the officials are more concerned about getting out of their obligations to the these people and chucking them out on the street. I wonder if Phil Hogan would let this carry on if it was in his constituency?

gurramok

How do we know that the NAMA properties that they were moved to were built according to the regulations?

This fire-cert business of what happened in the bubble which affected Priory Hall probably happened in lots of new developments.

thebman

Why is the developer not liable for these rents given he built the shoddy buildings?

Dr Galen

thebman wrote: »

Why is the developer not liable for these rents given he built the shoddy buildings?

Well he has been in the courts and claimed that he doesn't have the money to do so. He is awaiting an appel against a prison sentence that was passed down last month if I remember correctly.

Slideshowbob

Wertz wrote: »

Means tested for what?
They bought property in good faith and have subsequently been forced from that property for their own safety by council officials who were supposedly tasked with oversight of building regulations, those same officials paid out of stamp duty and development levies generated from sale of the properties.
It's none of the owners' faults that they need to be re-homed... why should they now pay rent and a mortgage (assuming that that's what you mean by having people means tested)...

Just to be clear I have sympathies for the apartment owners here, I just don't see why rental costs should fall instantly to the taxpayer ie DCC.

Wertz, I mean are people not means tested for entitlement to social housing, which is what I see the council providing the properties as unless I have something wrong?

Wertz, are local authorities responsible if any properties prove to have defects where building regs were not met? Can you please point me to the law / regulations on this?

Does a property buyer not take on some responsibilities when they decide to buy a property and in the first instance doesn't it fall to the builder and / or the building guarantee scheme eg Homebond?

Slideshowbob

Floppybits wrote: »

Then NAMA could take over Priory Hall and take this developer for all they are worth

So what you reckon this developer is worth now???

Slideshowbob

thebman wrote: »

Why is the developer not liable for these rents given he built the shoddy buildings?

Well he should be but has he got assets? I'm wondering why DCC (the taxpayer) is instantly obligied to pay out.

I also presume a guarantee scheme like Homebond or Premier Guarantee would have been in place - could that not be relied on also?!

NinjaTruncs

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Does a property buyer not take on some responsibilities when they decide to buy a property and in the first instance doesn't it fall to the builder and / or the building guarantee scheme eg Homebond?

Are you trolling? These properties were supposed to be signed off by DCC, there are regulations that the developer is supposed to follow and that DCC are supposed to verify. DCC have since said they only inspect 8% (I believe) of properties build. They then came out and said they regulate via the honour system, so basically a developer can do whatever they want when building and have a very small chance of getting caught.

These issues, which the DCC are now so concerned about, should have been found before this, or any, development was signed off and before owners or rents are allowed to move in. This is a prime example, and in my opinion won't be the last, of how councils just wanted to pull in as much money as possible during the building boom without providing anything for their fees.

DCC should be ultimately responsible for resolving this matter. They should have the recourse to follow the developer for all expenses in resolving this matter.

Slideshowbob

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Does a property buyer not take on some responsibilities when they decide to buy a property and in the first instance doesn't it fall to the builder and / or the building guarantee scheme eg Homebond?

Are you trolling? These properties were supposed to be signed off by DCC, there are regulations that the developer is supposed to follow and that DCC are supposed to verify. DCC have since said they only inspect 8% (I believe) of properties build. They then came out and said they regulate via the honour system, so basically a developer can do whatever they want when building and have a very small chance of getting caught.

These issues, which the DCC are now so concerned about, should have been found before this, or any, development was signed off and before owners or rents are allowed to move in. This is a prime example, and in my opinion won't be the last, of how councils just wanted to pull in as much money as possible during the building boom without providing anything for their fees.

DCC should be ultimately responsible for resolving this matter. They should have the recourse to follow the developer for all expenses in resolving this matter.

Do you accuse all who have differing opinion to be trolling? Gas!!!

Any references to the laws / regs on this would be most welcome

So essentially a local authority rep should stand over every brick laid? - get real!

Wertz

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Just to be clear I have sympathies for the apartment owners here, I just don't see why rental costs should fall instantly to the taxpayer ie DCC.

Wertz, I mean are people not means tested for entitlement to social housing, which is what I see the council providing the properties as unless I have something wrong?

Wertz, are local authorities responsible if any properties prove to have defects where building regs were not met? Can you please point me to the law / regulations on this?

Does a property buyer not take on some responsibilities when they decide to buy a property and in the first instance doesn't it fall to the builder and / or the building guarantee scheme eg Homebond?

Is it social housing they've been provided with? Last I heard it was temporary accommodation, some in hotels and some in other vacant council property but most had been moved to NAMA vacant property..
Regardless of their means, they are homeless through no fault of their own...whether they have the means to rent privately or not shouldn't be an issue, it is not their choice to rent privately, they had the wherewithall to provide for themselves but the property is declared unsafe. Now if they were to leave of their own accord until remedial work was complete then fine, they should obviously pay, but they've effectively been evicted.
The council aren't all at fault here, but really it is partially up to them to enforce building regs ...obviously the builder/developer has a lot more blame to bear. Self regulation however is no regulation...personally I think that lenders like banks should have been looking at what they were financing, but I also think that those tasked with enforcing regs should have seen these faults before a single flat was occupied and called the builder on it. That seemingly didn't happen.
I can't point you to laws or byelaws regarding where the blame lies or who bears ultimate responsibility, but if things like development levies are being charged I have to think that they're being paid for some reason, like paying officials to oversee development. That didn't happen, or it's happened after the fact, so now they must bear some of that cost.

The mods saw fit to remove my other post regarding this developer, which was fair enough, seeing as I used bad language...
However I said that Coalport and it's developer had form on this stuff:
http://www.dundalkdemocrat.ie/news/local/dundalk_town_council_steps_in_to_find_home_for_residents_of_apartment_block_1_1980395

Slideshowbob

Wertz wrote: »

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Just to be clear I have sympathies for the apartment owners here, I just don't see why rental costs should fall instantly to the taxpayer ie DCC.

Wertz, I mean are people not means tested for entitlement to social housing, which is what I see the council providing the properties as unless I have something wrong?

Wertz, are local authorities responsible if any properties prove to have defects where building regs were not met? Can you please point me to the law / regulations on this?

Does a property buyer not take on some responsibilities when they decide to buy a property and in the first instance doesn't it fall to the builder and / or the building guarantee scheme eg Homebond?

Is it social housing they've been provided with? Last I heard it was temporary accommodation, some in hotels and some in other vacant council property but most had been moved to NAMA vacant property..
Regardless of their means, they are homeless through no fault of their own...whether they have the means to rent privately or not shouldn't be an issue, it is not their choice to rent privately, they had the wherewithall to provide for themselves but the property is declared unsafe. Now if they were to leave of their own accord until remedial work was complete then fine, they should obviously pay, but they've effectively been evicted.
The council aren't all at fault here, but really it is partially up to them to enforce building regs ...obviously the builder/developer has a lot more blame to bear. Self regulation however is no regulation...personally I think that lenders like banks should have been looking at what they were financing, but I also think that those tasked with enforcing regs should have seen these faults before a single flat was occupied and called the builder on it. That seemingly didn't happen.
I can't point you to laws or byelaws regarding where the blame lies or who bears ultimate responsibility, but if things like development levies are being charged I have to think that they're being paid for some reason, like paying officials to oversee development. That didn't happen, or it's happened after the fact, so now they must bear some of that cost.

The mods saw fit to remove my other post regarding this developer, which was fair enough, seeing as I used bad language...
However I said that Coalport and it's developer had form on this stuff:
http://www.dundalkdemocrat.ie/news/local/dundalk_town_council_steps_in_to_find_home_for_residents_of_apartment_block_1_1980395

I understand DCC paying NAMA here?!? Yes no?

If this is the case it's ddefacto social housing!!

Banks lending would normally engage a bank monitor for a project, usually a quantity surveyor. Wonder who the bank was here ....

This QS should have competency to ensure the bank have an asset as they invest....

How was project financed? ....

Brings me to another point, should property developers be licences?

There's a thread for that:

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056082089?page=1#post_68887463

So you can't point me to the laws etc ....... Hmmmm .........

tara73

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Any references to the laws / regs on this would be most welcome

So essentially a local authority rep should stand over every brick laid? - get real!

there are regulations regarding fire safety (look on the internet for: tgd-technical guidelines/part b- fire regulations) which the responsible architect has to follow in the planning permission/the drawn up plans which then have to be controlled and signed off by the council in charge.

if the developer or the builder then decides to build to his own wishes for whatever reasons disregarding the guidelines, then he is fully liable for it.

sure the council can't observe every development during building time, but that's no excuse to disregard the regs.

and that inspections in the boomtime after the completion of a building weren't taken to serious isn't made up out of thin air....

Wertz

DCC are paying rent to NAMA landlords from what I can make out.

It would not be social housing as it's a temporary tenancy...most local authority housing would be a permanent conditional tenancy. Priory hall is expceted to be brought up to regs at some stage (don't know who's paying for that either).

No idea on bank or financing...the usual suspects probably.

Floppybits

Wertz wrote: »

DCC are paying rent to NAMA landlords from what I can make out.

It would not be social housing as it's a temporary tenancy...most local authority housing would be a permanent conditional tenancy. Priory hall is expceted to be brought up to regs at some stage (don't know who's paying for that either).

No idea on bank or financing...the usual suspects probably.

Wertz, the developer was ordered off the site by the courts last month and since then no work has taken place on fixing the problems with priory hall. So everything is in limbo at the moment including the people who bought property there. On top of that there was report in the irish independant that had a whole list of other problems with Priory Hall other than the fire safety such as pirite in the walls and other problems with the gas and electricity.

Someone said should the council be there when every brick is laid and the answer is no but they should be there at different stages of the development to ensure the building standards are being adhered to. The council should have a program of when works are taking place and they should be there to sign off on different stages of the builds, this happens in the UK and is common sense but then this is Ireland and when it comes to common sense we are sadly lacking that in our political classes.

thebman

Floppybits wrote: »

Wertz, the developer was ordered off the site by the courts last month and since then no work has taken place on fixing the problems with priory hall. So everything is in limbo at the moment including the people who bought property there. On top of that there was report in the irish independant that had a whole list of other problems with Priory Hall other than the fire safety such as pirite in the walls and other problems with the gas and electricity.

Someone said should the council be there when every brick is laid and the answer is no but they should be there at different stages of the development to ensure the building standards are being adhered to. The council should have a program of when works are taking place and they should be there to sign off on different stages of the builds, this happens in the UK and is common sense but then this is Ireland and when it comes to common sense we are sadly lacking that in our political classes.

It is amazing what a political donation or two can do to common sense. Don't think our politicians lack common sense, I believe it is bought out of them through donations and lobbying.

NinjaTruncs

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Do you accuse all who have differing opinion to be trolling? Gas!!!

I accused you of trolling as most of your replies just ignored what previous people had said and you just went off on another tangent, asking why these residents should be supported or if they were means tested. How would you like it if your council came into your home and evicted you and told you that you'd need to apply for housing and you would be means tested to determine if you were worthy of getting financial support.

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Any references to the laws / regs on this would be most welcome

There are obviously regulations, otherwise DCC wouldn't be able to force the developer to fix these issues, I don't have them to hand nor am i going to search the web for them but they do exist,

Slideshowbob wrote: »

So essentially a local authority rep should stand over every brick laid? - get real!

Don't be flippant, buildings are built in stages, and these stages get signed off, as each stage is finished the council should be inspecting and signing off. They were able to determine the fire proofing for these properties was substandard now, they could have surely done this before signing off on the developement, and if they did they would have saved themselves a lot of money.

They were either inept or lazy, it's obviously the latter as they were able to determine there were issues they just never bothered to look, and it's not as if they weren't getting paid enough to do this.

I have a huge amount of sympathy for these people, they are now burdened with these properties which they will probably never be able to sell, whatever about selling at a loss and moving on, I doubt they have any hope of that, they are stuck with these forever unless they walk away from them.

Raskolnikov

Floppybits wrote: »

Then NAMA could take over Priory Hall

Priory Hall is already in NAMA. Their inspectors estimated that the cost of repairs exceeds the value of the loans outstanding on the building.

Floppybits

Raskolnikov wrote: »

Priory Hall is already in NAMA. Their inspectors estimated that the cost of repairs exceeds the value of the loans outstanding on the building.

If this is the case then why don't they just swap the properties with the residents. Then the residents can continue to pay their mortgage and the authorities who didn't do their job properly in the first play try sort of the mess in Priory hall. Why cause all this hassle for the residents?

Raskolnikov

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

I have a huge amount of sympathy for these people, they are now durdened with these properties which they will probably never be able to sell, whatever about selling at a loss and moving on, I doubt they have any hope of that, they are stuck with these forever unless they walk away from them.

+1

What is the point of even having building regulations if you're not going to enforce them. What annoys me most of all about this is that nothing is being put in place to protect future home buyers. Are we not interesting in learning anything from this mess?

AlekSmart

Raskolnikov wrote: »

+1

What is the point of even having building regulations if you're not going to enforce them. What annoys me most of all about this is that nothing is being put in place to protect future home buyers. Are we not interesting in learning anything from this mess?

Perhaps I read it wrong,but I took the core issue regarding Priory Hall and other developments of the era to be one of the relevant authority (in this case DCC) not having enough physical resouces to carry out the required Stage Based inspections.

Rather than address this core deficiency,a mechanism was devised whereby some form of "declaration" by the developer was deemed to fulfill the requirements which formerly required a physical inspection.

Coalport,and it's principals,presumably knew full well that the relevant statutory bodies were incapable of meeting their statutory requirements and took full advantage of this uniquely Irish lacuna in reality.......:(

The sad reality remains that in this and many other scenarios around the Republic,dubious and downright crooked developers ruled the roost,but only with the active connivance of the established mainstream Irish Political Parties....(ALL of them) :mad:

mistermouse

Has anyone who Ok'd the building or its fire certs been fired. Surely the residents should be entitled to some justice there. If it was an Architect his company insurance should be sued and he barred from working.

If it was a DCC Council employee, then I would hope he is dismissed, or is that protected by unions etc

The Tax Payers and Residents should be getting answers and heads

Slideshowbob

Raskolnikov wrote: »

Floppybits wrote: »

Then NAMA could take over Priory Hall

Priory Hall is already in NAMA. Their inspectors estimated that the cost of repairs exceeds the value of the loans outstanding on the building.

Sure about that? Any links to confirmation? Thanks

rodento

Hard to say but the people who bought really should have done some research

Taken from askaboutmoney in 2006:eek:

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=27536

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]A building site in north Dublin has been temporarily closed by the High Court after complaints by the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) of "systemic" breaches of regulations.
<IMGSRC="http://ads.eircom.net/accipiter/nserver/key=/site=eircom/area=news/aamsz=250x250/pos=14">The court heard a safety inspector had described the site at Donaghmede as "one of the most unsafe" he had ever inspected.
The Authority also alleged there have been two near fatal accidents relating to the operation of the site, including one where a woman had to be cut out of her car after a large quantity of mesh fell on it.
Ms Justice Mary Laffoy made the order prohibiting Coalport Building Co Ltd, which is building an apartment complex, from using the site until measures have been taken in relation to alleged breaches of health and safety regulations.
The order in relation to the site at Priory Hall, Hole In the Wall Road, Donaghmede, Dublin is to stay in place until next Monday.
Declan McGrath BL, for the HSA, earlier told the court there have been problems on the site going back to June 2004.
He said of particular concern was two near fatal accidents.
He referred to the incident in March 2005 in which mesh weighing one ton fell on a car which was driving past.
And last week, a part of the scaffolding board fell on a passing car which was being driven by an elderly lady. In both cases the drivers were shocked but not injured.
Counsel said the problems with safety on the site are so systemic the HSA was compelled to make the application to the court for a closure order.
In an affidavit, a health and safety officer, Mr David O'Connell, who inspected the site last week after the accident with the scaffolding, said it was only good fortune that the driver of the passing car was not seriously injured.
He said the site was one of the most unsafe sites he had ever inspected and its use as a place of work should be immediately prohibited.
Mr McGrath said the HSA would normally seek to agree the voluntary closure of the site but it has no faith that such a closure would bring about the desired changes.[/FONT]

Head The Wall

Slideshowbob wrote: »

So essentially a local authority rep should stand over every brick laid? - get real!

They manage this fine in other countries, In the US there are usually 2 or 3 inspections at different stages by plumbing, electrical and building inspectors and the fire chief also does an inspection. It doesn't cost a lot either, electrical permit for 4 condos used to cost around $350 dollars which included three electrical inspections. I don't see why it couldn't be done here

tara73

are there not investigations going on regarding the work of dcc? it shouldn't be very complicated either:

dcc got the planning permission folders with the plans and they have to archive them.
first step would be to look them up and identify if they signed the plans adhering to regs or not.
if yes, it's the builder who was messing.
question is, if by law in ireland there have to be inspections from dcc during building, I actually don't think so, but not sure.
anybody knows here?

this article says, the authorities inspect once during building period.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfqlkfojmhmh/rss2/

stovelid

It seems that the wrongful scapegoat culture reaches a new nadir every time I browse boards.

Slideshowbob

tara73 wrote: »

are there not investigations going on regarding the work of dcc? it shouldn't be very complicated either:

dcc got the planning permission folders with the plans and they have to archive them.
first step would be to look them up and identify if they signed the plans adhering to regs or not.
if yes, it's the builder who was messing.
question is, if by law in ireland there have to be inspections from dcc during building, I actually don't think so, but not sure.
anybody knows here?

this article says, the authorities inspect once during building period.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfqlkfojmhmh/rss2/

That's a very pertinent question!!

AlekSmart

Slideshowbob wrote: »

That's a very pertinent question!!

I suspect Slideshowbob that this is the Builers/Developers version of "Soft-Touch Regulation",a somewhat uniquely Irish response to the direction such matters were actually progressing in other civilized parts of the EU.

However despite Mrmouses attempt to include a bit of PS bashing....

If it was a DCC Council employee, then I would hope he is dismissed, or is that protected by unions etc

The 2004 records show that at least one PS man was doing his duty ....

In an affidavit, a health and safety officer, Mr David O'Connell, who inspected the site last week after the accident with the scaffolding, said it was only good fortune that the driver of the passing car was not seriously injured.
He said the site was one of the most unsafe sites he had ever inspected and its use as a place of work should be immediately prohibited.

....but,of course Mr O Connell was only doing what many thousands of his type do each and every day...his job.

I have little doubt but that IF similar stage-based inspections were actually carried out on Priory Hall,as should be the norm,then this 2011 Grecian tragedy would not be happening.

It's also worth asking how the various private-sector checks were progressed in rfelation to Priory Hall,in particular the Home-Bond guarantee scheme (if applicable) and,of course,the various surveyors reports etc required by the lending agencies.

So what we have here is very clear evidence that SEVEN years ago this Developer was identified as being of dubious repute,yet nobody in authority,save a few good Inspectors and a Judge took any action......The Galway Tent was still in full flight back then !!!!

Slideshowbob

Galway tent?? wasn't the developer an ex IRA man?

http://theirishobserver.blogspot.com/2011/11/priory-hall-mcfeely-sinn-fein.html

AlekSmart

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Galway tent?? wasn't the developer an ex IRA man?

http://theirishobserver.blogspot.com/2011/11/priory-hall-mcfeely-sinn-fein.html

Is there such a thing as an EX IRA man ?

This particular issue is all about personal aggrandisment and the accumulation of enough money to buy A gaff on Shrewsbury Road,a Bentley and whatever brand of caviar could be flown in for an oul hooley...it has sweet FA to do with dedication to a cause or principle except Mé Féin.

Even then,no matter who was the principal behind Coalport Developments,it's systematic refusal to trade within the boundaries of the Law should have ensured that not a square foot of Priory Hall ever made it onto a purchase contract...THAT was the failure of IRELAND Inc,and it was'nt accidental either !

hmmm

If the developer has no money, then it falls to the residents to pay to complete any repairs. I'm not normally a supporter of giving public money to bail out private people, but in this case I think the Irish state has a responsibility to help these people who through no fault of their own are in this situation. They had no way of knowing in advance the condition of these buildings, and they did rely on the work of state bodies to certify the construction and fire safety.

This is different to purchasers of ghost estates and the like, who bought in what they knew were unfinished estates on the assumption that the builder would complete.

Gumbo

hmmm wrote: »

If the developer has no money, then it falls to the residents to pay to complete any repairs. I'm not normally a supporter of giving public money to bail out private people, but in this case I think the Irish state has a responsibility to help these people who through no fault of their own are in this situation. They had no way of knowing in advance the condition of these buildings, and they did rely on the work of state bodies to certify the construction and fire safety.

This is different to purchasers of ghost estates and the like, who bought in what they knew were unfinished estates on the assumption that the builder would complete.

Private Sector architects certified these not state bodies.
DCC approved the plans for planning and then approved the fire certificate, but it wouldnt be responible for the private sector builder building the actual apartments differently.

gurramok

kceire wrote: »

Private Sector architects certified these not state bodies.
DCC approved the plans for planning and then approved the fire certificate, but it wouldnt be responible for the private sector builder building the actual apartments differently.

How did they approve the fire cert? Did they actually approve it once the building was completed?

You will probably find the answer to that is a no.

Gumbo

gurramok wrote: »

How did they approve the fire cert? Did they actually approve it once the building was completed?

You will probably find the answer to that is a no.

How did who approve the fire cert?
DCC approve the plans in principle based on an application prior to construction. it must be inclusive of plans, and a fire safety report from a fire consultant hired by the developer, which outlines building construction and materials. the drawings will show fire compartments, escape distances to fire protected compartments, 30minute walls and doors, 60 minute doors and walls.

This is all approved PRIOR to construction.
This country moved to self certification many many years ago, which put the responsibility of building to current building regulations onto the builder and certifing architect/engineer.

The architects sole responsibility is to design the building, outline materials and to certify that the materials are being used in the building.

The architect then issues a certificate of compliance with building regulations (which includes Part B (Fire)) so if this building was built differently to the plans lodged to DCC then the Architect is responible for the changes and to ensure the dont constitute a material change to the planning permission or fire certifcate.

I believe we should go back to council certification but thats a different argument here as it is not how it is done at this present time in this country.

gurramok

kceire wrote: »

I believe we should go back to council certification but thats a different argument here as it is not how it is done at this present time in this country.

Good post. Shouldn't DCC in this case be suing the architects who issued a cert of compliance then?

Gumbo

gurramok wrote: »

Good post. Shouldn't DCC in this case be suing the architects who issued a cert of compliance then?

i dont think thats possible tbh (i may be wrong).
DCC have used all their power through the enforcement action in this case but it would become a civil matter between the home owners and the long list of people employed during the construction hand over phase.

builder builds.
architect signs off.
buyer employs surveyor to inspect, surveyor signs off.
bank is happy.
bank issues mortgage.
buyer moves in.

where would you start.....?
the blame imo lies with the builder and maybe the architect for signing off as he/she should be inspecting it more closely. when i worked in an engineers office, we inspeced projects every second day, we photographed it on every visit, i find it very hard to believe that the signing off architect was not aware of the material changes to the building if im completely honest here.

tara73

kceire wrote: »

How did who approve the fire cert?
DCC approve the plans in principle based on an application prior to construction. it must be inclusive of plans, and a fire safety report from a fire consultant hired by the developer, which outlines building construction and materials. the drawings will show fire compartments, escape distances to fire protected compartments, 30minute walls and doors, 60 minute doors and walls.

This is all approved PRIOR to construction.
This country moved to self certification many many years ago, which put the responsibility of building to current building regulations onto the builder and certifing architect/engineer.

The architects sole responsibility is to design the building, outline materials and to certify that the materials are being used in the building.

The architect then issues a certificate of compliance with building regulations (which includes Part B (Fire)) so if this building was built differently to the plans lodged to DCC then the Architect is responible for the changes and to ensure the dont constitute a material change to the planning permission or fire certifcate.

I believe we should go back to council certification but thats a different argument here as it is not how it is done at this present time in this country.

:eek: so what is the responsibility of the councils? nothing?

why do they get the plans including the fire cert at all? just for checking materials if they are appealling to the one person who's looking on the plans?
that's more than ridiculous and I'm not sure if it's true.

Gumbo

tara73 wrote: »

:eek: so what is the responsibility of the councils? nothing?

why do they get the plans including the fire cert at all? just for checking materials if they are appealling to the one person who's looking on the plans?
that's more than ridiculous and I'm not sure if it's true.

If your not sure that it's true why post it? Do a little homework on it and you will see it is true. I've worked long enough in the building game at the planning and design stage to know.

The council get the plans in order to determine whether or not to grant planning permission in the first place. The fire safety certificate application is a totally separte applications and goes to a different office after planning is granted. It's to set down a design that passes all fire regulations (part b of the building regulations).

If the building is built in accordance with the planning drawings and the fire very drawings then there should t be an issue but the problem here is either the builder built it differently to the submitted plans or did t use the fire proofing materials as specified by the architect/engineers.

avalon68

Just a quick question - having never been in the position to be able to afford to buy I dont know this - but are you not supposed to have an inspection done on a property before buying? Would a home inspection not have picked up on these safety issues? I mean, you wouldnt buy a car without having it checked over - an apartment costs a lot more.....wouldnt most people have an inspection? Honest question - as I said Ive never had any house related experience.

tara73

kceire wrote: »

If your not sure that it's true why post it? Do a little homework on it and you will see it is true. I've worked long enough in the building game at the planning and design stage to know.

right, no need to get personal, or recommendations for doing 'homework' ok? I question what I want to question, as what is written in your post is not clear:

kceire wrote: »

The council get the plans in order to determine whether or not to grant planning permission in the first place. The fire safety certificate application is a totally separte applications and goes to a different office after planning is granted. It's to set down a design that passes all fire regulations (part b of the building regulations).

so you say the fire cert goes to 'a different office'. what kind of an office is this?
so no council sees the fire cert?

kceire: don't bother answering if you feel personally attacked by this questions, but would be good not to and see it as what it is, a discussion.

Will give dcc a ring anyway and try figuring it out directly from them. would be interesting to hear what they tell me:)

Floppybits

tara73 wrote: »

right, no need to get personal, or recommendations for doing 'homework' ok? I question what I want to question, as what is written in your post is not clear:



so you say the fire cert goes to 'a different office'. what kind of an office is this?
so no council sees the fire cert?

kceire: don't bother answering if you feel personally attacked by this questions, but would be good not to and see it as what it is, a discussion.

Will give dcc a ring anyway and try figuring it out directly from them. would be interesting to hear what they tell me:)

Tara, it works something like this, the architects submit the plans for the proposed development to the council, in the plans it includes all the standard fire prevention requirements and then based on these plans the council give the planning permission and then pass the details onto the office within the council to approve the fire safety aspect and a fire safety certificate is given based on the plans submitted.

Now in a normal country you would expect the council to maybe pop out to the site from time to time a different phases of the build to inspect the building to ensure that was has been submitted is what is being built but not here in Ireland as legislation was passed for self regulation, so this meant that it was up to the builder to ensure that everything in the plans was met and DCC have admitted that they only inspected 8% of properties. This was done by the government of the day at the behest of property developers to speed things up.

In the case of Priory Hall the developer in question decided not to follow the fire safety standards or for that matter a lot of other safety standards, so much so that the ESB and Bord Gais would not go near the place, to save some money and this is the mess that has now been left.

I have noticed that there is no plan for the current government to change the legislation removing self regulation from the developers. It is amazing to think in this country we have banking and building scandals and the government of the country and producing legislation to tighten up the regulations.:mad:

Floppybits

avalon68 wrote: »

Just a quick question - having never been in the position to be able to afford to buy I dont know this - but are you not supposed to have an inspection done on a property before buying? Would a home inspection not have picked up on these safety issues? I mean, you wouldnt buy a car without having it checked over - an apartment costs a lot more.....wouldnt most people have an inspection? Honest question - as I said Ive never had any house related experience.

Avalon, the fire safety measures are actually built into the building structure. To see them you would need to start cutting holes in the walls to see if they are there and I don't know of any estate agent who would let people start cutting holes in the wall. The only reason these fire safety issues came to light was due to a fire in one of the apartments that had spread to another apartment.

Now you may ask did the banks not have a someone checking that their investment was being built to standard or that maybe the council might have done inspections? If they did, then this whole mess would have been adverted.

Gumbo

tara73 wrote: »

right, no need to get personal, or recommendations for doing 'homework' ok? I question what I want to question, as what is written in your post is not clear:

i did not get personal, and sorry if it came across that way, but you posted stuff like ":eek:" and "ridiculious" without fully understanding the process involved in planning and fire application proceedures.

tara73 wrote: »

so you say the fire cert goes to 'a different office'. what kind of an office is this?
so no council sees the fire cert?

Planning applications for the development are lodged with DCC in Wood Quay.
Fire cert applications are lodged in the offices of Pearce Street fire station.

Floppybits wrote: »

Tara, it works something like this, the architects submit the plans for the proposed development to the council, in the plans it includes all the standard fire prevention requirements and then based on these plans the council give the planning permission and then pass the details onto the office within the council to approve the fire safety aspect and a fire safety certificate is given based on the plans submitted.

while your not far off, the fir safety cert is applied for completely separate o the planning application. you cannot apply for a fire cert until your planning application has been granted and after the 4 week appeal time frame has passed.

the fire office will not get a copy of the planning application documents but they get their own set of differnt plans outlining the fire proofing methods to be put in place.

the planning application contains no structural, fire or build up details as these are currently not required at the planning stage.

Slideshowbob

Thanks for all the contributions, but it is diverging off topic IMHO.

I'm still vexed as to why the onus is on DCC to pay rents for these unfortunate people - can anyone point me to the legislation that permits this?

Thankss

Paulzx

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Thanks for all the contributions, but it is diverging off topic IMHO.

I'm still vexed as to why the onus is on DCC to pay rents for these unfortunate people - can anyone point me to the legislation that permits this?

Thankss

The buildings were closed down under the Fire Services Act 1981

DCC are arguing that under this act there is no provision compelling them to pay to house people that have been moved out of unsafe buildings.

That seems to be the grounds for their appealing the court order.

I have no idea under what legal grounds or legislation the judge made the ruling against them.

Either way, its a disaster for the people affected