Who's paying rent for Priory Hall evictees?

Floppybits

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

They are paying because they are the ones that were asleep at the wheel when this was being built. If the DCC had of done their job and inspected more than 8% of properties being built, especially properties being built by a builder who was already found guilty of disregarding safety then this issue would not have arisen and the unfortunate folks that have been paying their mortgages and getting on with their lives would not have found themselves through no fault of their own turfed out on the streets.

Infact it is was due to government policy due to being in the pockets of the builders and developers that this happened so to me they should pay. Government and Local authorities are responsible for creating the environment that let this happen and therefore should pay, along with the builder.

Paulzx

Floppybits wrote: »

They are paying because they are the ones that were asleep at the wheel when this was being built. If the DCC had of done their job and inspected more than 8% of properties being built, especially properties being built by a builder who was already found guilty of disregarding safety then this issue would not have arisen and the unfortunate folks that have been paying their mortgages and getting on with their lives would not have found themselves through no fault of their own turfed out on the streets.

Infact it is was due to government policy due to being in the pockets of the builders and developers that this happened so to me they should pay. Government and Local authorities are responsible for creating the environment that let this happen and therefore should pay, along with the builder.

You are completely incorrect here. DCC bears no legal responsability to inspect bulidings during construction after Fire Certs have been granted.

From what i can see the Building Control Act specifically states this. Maybe a legal boffin can clarify it

4) Where a certificate of compliance, or a notice to which subsection (2) (k) relates, is submitted to a building control authority, the building control authority shall not be under a duty to any person to—


(a) ensure that the building or works to which the certificate or notice relates will, either during the course of the work or when completed, comply with the requirements of building regulations or be free from any defect,


(b) ensure that the certificate complies with the requirements of this Act or of regulations or orders made under this Act, or


(c) verify that the facts stated in the certificate are true and accurate.

The fact that the Legislation is ridiculous has nothing got to do with DCC. They carried out there statuatory function. The fact the law was changed obviously to appease the Developer lobby back in 1990 and to allow self regulation is outside their control.


Is it wrong that no inspection occurs after plans are approved? Absolutely.

Is it DCC fault that this occurs?.....No

Slideshowbob

so why are DCC paying for their accommodation now???????????????????????????????????????

Paulzx

Slideshowbob wrote: »

so why are DCC paying for their accommodation now???????????????????????????????????????

Because you dont ignore the order of a judge of the High Court.

As far as i'm aware its under appeal

TurkeyBurger

Paulzx wrote: »

Because you dont ignore the order of a judge of the High Court.

As far as i'm aware its under appeal

Exactly. All of the comments on this thread made by Paulzx are accurate.

DCC are paying for the accommodation of Priory Hall residents because they were ordered to by the President of the High Court. He made that judgement against DCC as they were the ones who came to him asking for an evacuation order on the Priory Hall building.

Rather than render 200 or so people homeless, he instructed a Fire crew to remain on site for a number of days until DCC had sourced alternative accommodation for the people rendered homeless. It was anticipated that people would be in alternative accommodation for 5 weeks until remedial works were completed on Priory Hall. That work has never been completed so people remain in alternative accommodation.

DCC have asked the President of the High Court to free them of ongoing costs which they are incurring for housing residents of Priory Hall. This was refused.

DCC are now appealing that decision to the Supreme Court. I believe that they are looking at the Fire Safety Act 1981 - Section 23 as the basis for their appeal. That was due to happen this week but seems to have been postponed until January.

NAMA come into the picture as the providers of some of the alternative accommodation. My understanding is that there were a number of families who had children in schools local to Priory Hall and it was difficult for children to travel from the temporary hotel accommodation to the local schools so NAMA were in a position to provide housing which was more suitable for people who needed to get access to schools. DCC are paying NAMA for this accommodation. I have heard that some of that money goes to the developer but you'd have to check that out with NAMA.

tara73

kceire, right, thanks, just saw your answer that the fire cert is checked by the fire station. so the plans should be checked from them, if they signed them correctly. otherwise they must be held responsible in court.

and you misunderstand, the 'astonished' smily and 'ridiculous' was not aimed at you personally, it meant the circumstances. no offence meant!

Gumbo

tara73 wrote: »

kceire, right, thanks, just saw your answer that the fire cert is checked by the fire station. so the plans should be checked from them, if they signed them correctly. otherwise they must be held responsible in court.

no, you still dont understand the proceedure. the fire cert would od been approved by DCC but the builder then built the building differently not using the correct fire proofing precautions.

the building was then signed off by a private sector architect not DCC.

tara73

kceire wrote: »

no, you still dont understand the proceedure. the fire cert would od been approved by DCC but the builder then built the building differently not using the correct fire proofing precautions.

boah, is this whaffling around to confuse? sentence as well not understandable:the fire cert would od? been approved by DCC...??

kceire wrote: »

the building was then signed off by a private sector architect not DCC.

this isn't relevant to the initial question how, or if dcc is responsible for signing off the fire cert adhering to the regs.

Paulzx

tara73 wrote: »

boah, is this whaffling around to confuse? sentence as well not understandable:the fire cert would od? been approved by DCC...??




this isn't relevant to the initial question how, or if dcc is responsible for signing off the fire cert adhering to the regs.

Have you read any of the previous posts on this page. There are posts backed up by quotes from the relevant legislation to explain the situation.

Here it is simply.....

-Builder applies for planning permission to DCC planning department. Planning is granted taking into account all relevant planning laws.

-Builder must apply for Fire Certification to the local Fire Authority which is Dublin Fire Brigade. A fire cert is needed as the buliding is a multi occupancy building under the Fire Services Act. All drawings with the buildings fire protection measures are submitted to Dublin Fire Brigade. If they are up to scratch a Fire Cert is issued. There is no legal obligation under Building Control Act 1990 to inspect the building as it is constructed.

-The builder constructs the building and has it certified by an architect.

-If the builder has diverted from his submitted fire plans he has broken the law but it can easily be concealed (unless there's a fire)

Now, there's no waffling there.........do you get what is being said?

Gumbo

tara73 wrote: »

boah, is this whaffling around to confuse? sentence as well not understandable:the fire cert would od? been approved by DCC...??

OK, now you have simply proven yourself to be bordering on a troll (although i'll leave that judgement to the mods).

If you dont understand the legislation, then do some homework and read up on it, read up on how planning permission is applied for and then how a developer applies for a fire safety cert.

Then read up on how that builder constructs his development and pays an architect/engineer to sign off on the building regs (which include part B - Fire)

tara73 wrote: »

this isn't relevant to the initial question how, or if dcc is responsible for signing off the fire cert adhering to the regs.

If you cant grasp that this is relevant then you dont deserve to comment on the matter. DCC do not sign off on the fire cert adhering to the regs, a private sector acrhitect/engineer does this :rolleyes:

DCC approves the developer to construct his development based on the plans submitted, and if built in accordanced with the plans submitted, it will be deemed safe and in accordance with the regs.

The architect/engineer that is employed by the developer then signs off on the work on site.

Looking at Prime Time this evening, the presenter has just asked former RIAI president why architects simply dont say to the developers "your not getting the cert until the building is built in accordance with the regs".

Slideshowbob

kceire wrote: »

OK, now you have simply proven yourself to be bordering on a troll (although i'll leave that judgement to the mods).

............

you dont deserve to comment on the matter.

How arrogant of you. Since when is Boards.ie eliteist?

Although I do suppose most contributors are taxpayers (inter DCC), hence have been deemed by a judge somewhere to be able to cover the rent costs of the unfortunates of Priory Hall (while the developer/his backers/consultants and insurers wipe their hands) and that would make them elitist, although the term is lost if it applies to the common man!!

Are the judges of that poor mind to make such decisions? oh wait hold on: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/1215/1224309098598.html

Floppybits

Just a bit of topic kinda, Would the folks who have apartments in Priory Hall wont have to pay this household tax when it comes in or would this be classed as an unfinished estate?

Gumbo

Slideshowbob wrote: »

How arrogant of you. Since when is Boards.ie eliteist?

Tara73 asked for advice, it was given by no less than 3 different posters and she still pressed ahead and made comments disregarding the posts directed at her, now if thats not arrogant, then i dont know what is

How arrogant of you to assume that no less than 3 different posters are being arrogant towards tara73, if she is not prepared to listen to the facts on a subject then why should she contimue to post her opinion as facts in relation to the subject.

BTW, none of these problems are the residents fault, they are completely innocent here and fell into the property bubble, and even more unforyuneate, through this developer.

TurkeyBurger

Floppybits wrote: »

Just a bit of topic kinda, Would the folks who have apartments in Priory Hall wont have to pay this household tax when it comes in or would this be classed as an unfinished estate?

They have been told that they are liable for the Household Tax and the Minister with responsibility for that area (Phil Hogan) will not meet with them to discuss that or any other issue.

tara73

kceire wrote: »

Tara73 asked for advice, it was given by no less than 3 different posters and she still pressed ahead and made comments disregarding the posts directed at her, now if thats not arrogant, then i dont know what is

How arrogant of you to assume that no less than 3 different posters are being arrogant towards tara73, if she is not prepared to listen to the facts on a subject then why should she contimue to post her opinion as facts in relation to the subject.

BTW, none of these problems are the residents fault, they are completely innocent here and fell into the property bubble, and even more unforyuneate, through this developer.

jesus, you guy are without words, arrogant as anything. you're obviously not able to have a discussion in a matured way, so you might want to do some homework on that before posting, eh?

do you have a link to prove your fire safety office whatever story please?

what ever nebulous fire station office you mean, it's probably anyway under the obligation of the councils.
this is a link which tells it's the council who's signing the plans.
but I'm sure you'll know it better again anyway.

http://www.consumerproperty.ie/downloads/guide_page17.html
qoute:
article 17.2 fire safety certificates
Local authorities in their function as building control authorities are responsible for sanctioning and issuing fire safety certificates for developments in their area.
A certificate is granted where the local authority is satisfied with the proposed layout and planned build of a building from a fire safety point of view.



paulzx: for your information, I work in the field, so better save your time to explain the general procedures to me.
what you guys are doing here is silly hairsplitting.if you call it local authority fire brigade or dcc, it is a form of council, not?



if you read my initial post I was trying to figure out if the councils are liable for the approving of the fire cert, not figuring out the official names of the different departments where the plans will be approved.


boah, that's tiring

Sponge Bob

I hear from sources that the judge will not hear the case until early January and will likely find for the council...but does not want to do it this side of christmas.

Maybe DCC will get a different judge ?

Black Swan

MOD COMMENT:
Please be advised that some posters on this thread are getting a bit too personal. This must stop. Please focus on the content of the discussion and not each other.

Floppybits

TurkeyBurger wrote: »

They have been told that they are liable for the Household Tax and the Minister with responsibility for that area (Phil Hogan) will not meet with them to discuss that or any other issue.

I have to say that is shocking behavior from the minister. I wonder if he would behave like that if it was in his constituency? How can they be asked to pay a household tax on property that should actually be condemned is beyond me?

I know I shouldn't be shocked because this involves Phil I cant afford to take a paycut Hogan but I am. Animals are treated better than the way these people have been treated. Absolutely disgusted.:mad:

AlekSmart

Floppybits wrote: »

I have to say that is shocking behavior from the minister. I wonder if he would behave like that if it was in his constituency? How can they be asked to pay a household tax on property that should actually be condemned is beyond me?

I know I shouldn't be shocked because this involves Phil I cant afford to take a paycut Hogan but I am. Animals are treated better than the way these people have been treated. Absolutely disgusted.:mad:

It just SO modern Ireland.....a very serious issue,loads of interaction from the Plain People,some for it,some agin it....a skip full of blatant shortcomings in so many different areas of administration and enforcement...and,as ever the first issue is....The Split

Lats get back to basics here,cos Priory Hall and it's unfortunate occupants are today's Ireland and it's people in microcosm.

A group of powerful Politicians,administrators,and assorted hangers-on decided that the old fashioned,time-consuming attention to detail presented a threat to their pursuit of ever more profitable pursuits so they had the due-process overturned and thus placed hundreds,if not thousands of lives in jeopardy,and thus far,have gotten away with it as there appears to be no mechanism to apportion blame and/or punish these shysters...:mad:

It's a sobering thought that Priory Hall represents the first and most well-known of such stories,but I think most reasonable folk will aghree that there are a hell of a lot more Priory Hall's just waiting the inevitable conflagration which will eventually force some definitive action,but only after the multiple deaths of innocents.

Gumbo

tara73 wrote: »

jesus, you guy are without words, arrogant as anything. you're obviously not able to have a discussion in a matured way, so you might want to do some homework on that before posting, eh?

This is not a discussion, you have been shown how the proceedure works, but you ignore the facts. thats fair enough, thats your outlook, but to ignore the bare facts put in front of you and then call other people arrogant without understanding the facts is in its definition, arrogant.

tara73 wrote: »

do you have a link to prove your fire safety office whatever story please?

what ever nebulous fire station office you mean, it's probably anyway under the obligation of the councils.
this is a link which tells it's the council who's signing the plans.
but I'm sure you'll know it better again anyway.

heres how to apply for a fire safety certificate, but considering you already work in the field, you should know this

http://www.dublincity.ie/WaterWasteEnvironment/DublinFireBrigade/FirePrevention/Pages/BuildingControlFireSafetyCertificatesFAQ.aspx#how does the fire safety certificate process work

tara73 wrote: »

http://www.consumerproperty.ie/downloads/guide_page17.html
qoute:
article 17.2 fire safety certificates
Local authorities in their function as building control authorities are responsible for sanctioning and issuing fire safety certificates for developments in their area.
A certificate is granted where the local authority is satisfied with the proposed layout and planned build of a building from a fire safety point of view.

Now, you have actually prooved my point in the text that you posted, i have highlighted it for ease of reading. The PROPOSED development, hence prior to any construction goes to site, bear in mind you cannot submit a Commencement Notice until your fire cert has been approved so thereby the fire cert is granted at a minimum of 2 weeks prior to construction, but the developer can lodge th commencement notice at his leisure, he can wait a week or lodge it the same day or wait a year, up to him.

tara73 wrote: »

paulzx: for your information, I work in the field, so better save your time to explain the general procedures to me.
what you guys are doing here is silly hairsplitting.if you call it local authority fire brigade or dcc, it is a form of council, not?

If you work in the field, then how come you dont understand the proceedure involved in Planning application, fir cert application, construction works, and the signing off of a building by a private sector architect, not the Council?

tara73 wrote: »

if you read my initial post I was trying to figure out if the councils are liable for the approving of the fire cert, not figuring out the official names of the different departments where the plans will be approved.

No, they are not as the plans that would having to be submitted either passed or didnt pass the fire cert requirements. if they didnt, then DCC would not of issued a cert, if they did then DCC will approve the plans PRIOR to construction, that means BEFORE the building is even started, the builder then went ahead and built the building DIFFERENT to the plans submitted, and an architect signed off on the building saying it conforms with all building regulations, which Part B is part of.

The developer is liable for building the building differently to the lodged plans and the architect is liable for signing off a building that doesnt pass building regulations.

On Primetime last night, the presenter asked the former president of the RIAI why architects didnt hold off on issuing their cert until the building was constructed properly, this is what should be done.

Now if you worked in the field as you say you do, how come you dont grasp that?

If you dont understand or English is not your first language, then dont hesitate to ask questions, its how we all learn, but dont call people arogant because their view is different to yours.

Paulzx

tara73 wrote: »

paulzx: for your information, I work in the field, so better save your time to explain the general procedures to me.
what you guys are doing here is silly hairsplitting.if you call it local authority fire brigade or dcc, it is a form of council, not?

I find it hard to believe you work in this area. If you did you are showing an ignorance of the building and planning process that borders on incompetance.

You just don't seem to get it. It's pointless trying to explain it again to you.

I think when you say you work in "the field" you must actually mean a field. Are you a farmer by any chance?:pac:

Head The Wall

Well actually it wouldn't surprise me that someone working in the planning area in the councils doesn't know what they are on about. But don't let that stop them getting paid a great wage

Gumbo

Head The Wall wrote: »

Well actually it wouldn't surprise me that someone working in the planning area in the councils doesn't know what they are on about. But don't let that stop them getting paid a great wage

what has a planning department got to do with the Fire Safety Certificate application???????????? your simply off on one of your rants again :rolleyes:

Paulzx

Head The Wall wrote: »

Well actually it wouldn't surprise me that someone working in the planning area in the councils doesn't know what they are on about. But don't let that stop them getting paid a great wage

This has absolutely nothing got to do with the topic in question.

Have you actually got something valid to add or are you just going to use this thread as a platform for an off topic rant?

Gumbo

Paulzx wrote: »

This has absolutely nothing got to do with the topic in question.

Have you actually got something valid to add or are you just going to use this thread as a platform for an off topic rant?

i wouldnt expect anything different from that woman/fella tbh.

Slideshowbob

To be fair to all posters and given the case is to be in court after Xmas, as op can I say we will keep it on topic and tone it down accordlingly til then?!?

Gumbo

Slideshowbob wrote: »

To be fair to all posters and given the case is to be in court after Xmas, as op can I say we will keep it on topic and tone it down accordlingly til then?!?

Ehh, you my friend were the first person to personally atack another poster....................

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76029506&postcount=62

Slideshowbob

kceire wrote: »

Slideshowbob wrote: »

To be fair to all posters and given the case is to be in court after Xmas, as op can I say we will keep it on topic and tone it down accordlingly til then?!?

Ehh, you my friend were the first person to personally atack another poster....................

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76029506&postcount=62

You liar

Sure I was personally attacked when called a troll. Please

Black Swan

MOD COMMENT:
Please be advised that this thread has been reported and is temporarily locked while it is being reviewed for compliance with the earlier in-thread mod warning about posters getting too personal. It will be reopened shortly after that review has been conducted.

EDIT: Official warnings/infractions issued for violations occurring after below quoted in-thread mod warning. Thread re-opened.

REMINDER:

Black Swan wrote: »

MOD COMMENT:
Please be advised that some posters on this thread are getting a bit too personal. This must stop. Please focus on the content of the discussion and not each other.

deandean

I have a horrible feeling that DCC is going to win its Supreme Court appeal 'cos the High Court judge exceeded his authority, and then there'll be no one to pay rent for the Priory Hall evictees...

Gumbo

deandean wrote: »

I have a horrible feeling that DCC is going to win its Supreme Court appeal 'cos the High Court judge exceeded his authority, and then there'll be no one to pay rent for the Priory Hall evictees...

All because of the greed of a private sector developer and private sector architect who was afraid to withdraw the certificate of compliance. The cert should not of been issued by the architect if he/she didnt feel the building passed the regulations.

Slideshowbob

Could action be taken against this architects professional indemnity insurance to cover costs?

Paulzx

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Could action be taken against this architects professional indemnity insurance to cover costs?

I presume we would be into another prolonged legal action in order to do this. That's allowing there is actually any legal liability to go after.

Slideshowbob

Decision of the Supreme Court due on the 19th of January 2012

monkeypants

The evicted Priory Hall residents should be receiving their household charge bills any day now.

Gumbo

monkeypants wrote: »

The evicted Priory Hall residents should be receiving their household charge bills any day now.

Only if they own the home. Will people receive a bill r are you required to register at the website or council?

Slideshowbob

http://www.thejournal.ie/priory-hall-residents-ours-will-just-be-the-first-case-of-many-321478-Jan2012/?utm_source=shortlink

Priory Hall residents now want the situation treated akin to a natural disaster? but was it not entirely man made?

Gumbo

Slideshowbob wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/priory-hall-residents-ours-will-just-be-the-first-case-of-many-321478-Jan2012/?utm_source=shortlink

Priory Hall residents now want the situation treated akin to a natural disaster? but was it not entirely man made?

Definately not a one of development, this site is one of many that were threw together by profit hungry developers, and not inspected properly by ill experienced architects/engineers that just wanted payment rarther than seeing the safety of the structures to be first priorty.

IMO, legislation should be brought in to allow Councils to have poer on sites, and make them inspect every site/building being constructed, we should never of abandoned LA certification to allow for Self Certification.

Seth Brundle

Dublin City Council made an offer to buy the apartments of 50k each. While it isn't much, it might be as much as they will ever be offered!

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/priory-hall-residents-refuse-laughable-council-offer-535051.html

Slideshowbob

that was reported in the SBP today also - also noted in SBP it was a confidential offer - obviously some PH owners felt the need to publicise it!

Gumbo

kbannon wrote: »

Dublin City Council made an offer to buy the apartments of 50k each. While it isn't much, it might be as much as they will ever be offered!

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/priory-hall-residents-refuse-laughable-council-offer-535051.html

DCC have replied to the story by stating try did not make any such offer at all.

Trotter

kbannon wrote: »

Dublin City Council made an offer to buy the apartments of 50k each. While it isn't much, it might be as much as they will ever be offered!

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/priory-hall-residents-refuse-laughable-council-offer-535051.html

God its a disaster for the people involved. 50k leaves them with the same problem. They might knock the 50k off the mortgage but how do they buy/rent another place and still pay the mortgage?

The priory hall farce sums up for me why my 80+ year old grandfather thinks that the country is now socially rotten to the core.

Ogham

monkeypants wrote: »

The evicted Priory Hall residents should be receiving their household charge bills any day now.

No one in the country will be getting a bill for the household charge -

Anyway - Priory Hall is confirmed as being on the list of "unfinished estates" that get a waiver from the charge for 2012.
Dublin List Unfinished Estates

Slideshowbob

When is the DCC v whoever back in court?

MadsL

Supreme Court will fix a date January 19.

Has the City Manager resigned yet??

Slideshowbob

MadsL wrote: »

Supreme Court will fix a date January 19.

Has the City Manager resigned yet??

Why would he resign?

It's back in court this Thurs

MadsL

Why would he resign?

Sorry, forgot. This is Ireland. He'll get a massive pension instead.

markpb

MadsL wrote: »

Sorry, forgot. This is Ireland. He'll get a massive pension instead.

I know this point has been made before, possibly on this thread. The law changed many decades ago to remove the local authority from certifying that buildings were built properly. The city manager has as much responsibility for checking the fire safety of new builds as you do. It's not right, its not the way it should be but it's the way it is.

The architect submits a plan, the fire authority certify it, it's built and then it's an architect checks it. The local authority or fire authority don't recheck it because that's what the architect is for, that's why they have a really expensive insurance policy.

What I don't understand is why the architect that signed off on Priory Hall hasn't been sued? He might be able to say that he didn't know about the gas mains cladding or the inter-unit fire protection but he signed off on a room that he was told to remove from the plans! How can you claim not to have seen an entire bedroom!?

Paulzx

MadsL wrote: »

Supreme Court will fix a date January 19.

Has the City Manager resigned yet??

Have you resigned yet?

It's about as relevant a question as you've just asked.

Slideshowbob

MadsL wrote: »

Sorry, forgot. This is Ireland. He'll get a massive pension instead.

He's defending his budget - ie the taxpayer!

Why does everyone assume these people deserve a handout from the taxpayer?

Where was the bank monitor during the build and his prof indemnity insurances? Where was the Architect and Engineers insurances? Where's homebond / premier guarantee? The banks valuers insurances for the mortgages? They should be the first port of call before the state!!