Who's paying rent for Priory Hall evictees?

Gumbo

markpb wrote: »

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!?

Ive explained the system many times on this thread, it gets lost on some people.

MadsL

The Priory Hall Residents Committee accuses Dublin City Council of failing to take responsibility over the development of the complex without its compliance with building control regulations. Usher says that residents aren’t looking for a handout, but want the government to take responsibility for its oversights.

http://www.thejournal.ie/priory-hall-residents-protest-over-ongoing-issues-at-complex-352808-Feb2012/

APARTMENT blocks similar to the unsafe Priory Hall development in Dublin were never inspected by fire officers, the Irish Independent has learned. Instead, architects 'signed off' on apartments for developers based on a visual inspection and on letters from contractors confirming the work was above board.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priory-hall-apartments-never-checked-by-fire-inspectors-2908482.html


Regime of incompetence. The City Manager has no position 'defending budgets' as the slackness and incompetence of his planning department are to blame.

Wait for the sh.tstorm that comes down over the next set of apartments.

Also don't forget the other mess that Tierney presided over...http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0812/1224302301789.html

Oh, and that other mess...
http://www.herald.ie/news/incinerator-wont-be-stopped-in-spite-of-review-council-2327784.html

And this mess
http://www.herald.ie/news/delight-in-clontarf-as-council-scraps-plan-for-9ft-sea-wall-2954766.html

And that one
http://www.herald.ie/news/we-cant-afford-to-pay-for-fire-service-city-manager-1930987.html

And this
http://www.herald.ie/news/bitter-row-on-temple-bar-trust-revealed-2979114.html

And..
http://www.herald.ie/news/why-i-backed-dunne-by-citys-top-planner-1651106.html

and..
http://www.rteco.ie/news/2012/0124/dublin.html

Will i go on? Time he was sacked.

MadsL

kceire wrote: »

Ive explained the system many times on this thread, it gets lost on some people.

Except....when you buy a property standard practice is to conduct an inspection. DCC bought 27 of these properties..and had given the building specs to the developer. You would think that they would at that point conduct an proper inspection...

The Housing and Residential Services Department purchased 27 units (16 social units and 11 affordable units) at Priory Hall from Coalport Building Company Limited. The units were acquired to comply with Part V of the Planning and Development Acts. The Executive Manager, Housing and Residential Services Department approved the purchase of the units
by Order No HAV 67/2006.
Standard Law Society of Ireland practice was followed and following a snagging inspection normal conveyancing documentation was taken up on closing.

http://www.seankenny.ie/news/docs/northcentralareacommittee.pdf

Nope. They only snagged them.

Vizzy

MadsL wrote: »

Except....when you buy a property standard practice is to conduct an inspection. DCC bought 26 of these properties..and had given the building specs to the developer. You would think that they would at that point conduct an proper inspection...

The Housing and Residential Services Department purchased 27 units (16 social units and 11 affordable units) at Priory Hall from Coalport Building Company Limited. The units were acquired to comply with Part V of the Planning and Development Acts. The Executive Manager, Housing and Residential Services Department approved the purchase of the units
by Order No HAV 67/2006.
Standard Law Society of Ireland practice was followed and following a snagging inspection normal conveyancing documentation was taken up on closing.

http://www.seankenny.ie/news/docs/northcentralareacommittee.pdf

Nope. They only snagged them.

If we accept that John Tierney(as chief executive of DCC) should resign due to the fact that he and his officials took the word of the developer or his architect in relation to the building standards that existed at Priory Hall,then we must also accept that the Chief executive of every architectural firm employed by the other purchasers at Priory Hall should also resign.
Or am i missing something ?

MadsL

Vizzy wrote: »

If we accept that John Tierney(as chief executive of DCC) should resign due to the fact that he and his officials took the word of the developer or his architect in relation to the building standards that existed at Priory Hall,then we must also accept that the Chief executive of every architectural firm employed by the other purchasers at Priory Hall should also resign.
Or am i missing something ?

Ratespayers don't pay Chief Executives salaries, they do pay Tierney's.

K-9

markpb wrote: »

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!?

Vizzy wrote: »

If we accept that John Tierney(as chief executive of DCC) should resign due to the fact that he and his officials took the word of the developer or his architect in relation to the building standards that existed at Priory Hall,then we must also accept that the Chief executive of every architectural firm employed by the other purchasers at Priory Hall should also resign.
Or am i missing something ?

The problem seems to be that Architect certificates were accepted to close a sale, not actual fire certs after a building was finished. I suppose the rush was on to get buyers into apartments and not actually finish buildings.

Now you've fire officers putting orders on loads of building around the country and plenty of builders with no funds to fulfill the requirements.

As for suing the Architect, most would have had exceptions put into their certs that probably cover most of this.

markpb

K-9 wrote: »

The problem seems to be that Architect certificates were accepted to close a sale, not actual fire certs after a building was finished. I suppose the rush was on to get buyers into apartments and not actually finish buildings.

I don't think the fire authority ever issue fire certs on completion, they just examine the plans and issue a cert to say that if the building is built according to those plans, it should be safe. To the best of my knowledge, nothing was rushed or skipped, the fire authority did exactly what the legislation (which is totally inadequate) requires and allows them to do.

As for suing the Architect, most would have had exceptions put into their certs that probably cover most of this.

You must be right since whoever signed off on PH has gotten away scott free so far, however they managed it.

MadsL

Do you consider the fact that DCC only snagged the 27 they bought troublesome at all?

AlekSmart

markpb wrote: »

I don't think the fire authority ever issue fire certs on completion, they just examine the plans and issue a cert to say that if the building is built according to those plans, it should be safe. To the best of my knowledge, nothing was rushed or skipped, the fire authority did exactly what the legislation (which is totally inadequate) requires and allows them to do.

You must be right since whoever signed off on PH has gotten away scott free so far, however they managed it.

The reality here,as with the majority of the associated skullduggery in the Irish Financial Sector is that NO LAWS WERE BROKEN because Government loose regulation policy extended to making sure the high level risk-takers chose our wee island ahead of more ...erm....Protestant leaning neighbours.

Irish Government policy revolved around getting as many young people on the Property Ladder as soon as possible after the Leaving Cert,thus as we now find,depriving them of a life....as we once knew it.

NO LAWS WERE BROKEN DURING THE MAKING OF THIS ECONOMIC SUCCESS STORY !

K-9

markpb wrote: »

I don't think the fire authority ever issue fire certs on completion, they just examine the plans and issue a cert to say that if the building is built according to those plans, it should be safe. To the best of my knowledge, nothing was rushed or skipped, the fire authority did exactly what the legislation (which is totally inadequate) requires and allows them to do.



You must be right since whoever signed off on PH has gotten away scott free so far, however they managed it.

Exactly my point and I think you do see it. Fire Certs were rather redundant as we are finding out, a preliminary cert is rather pointless, as indeed were Architect or for that matter Accountant Certs.

Paulzx

MadsL wrote: »

Do you consider the fact that DCC only snagged the 27 they bought troublesome at all?

Exactly the same as every other buyer.

The bulidings were certified by the architect that they were built to the plans and to the specs on the Fire Cert's.

If the buildings had been properly built and inspected by the people legally responsible for it (the devolper and his architects) none of this would have happened.

Due to the ridiculously lax inspection laws the local authority has no legal obligation after approval of the plans.

Self certification does not work and has played into the hands of the money grabbers.

The sooner the law changes the better

MadsL

Paulzx wrote: »

Exactly the same as every other buyer.

Except they had full access to the planning documents and planning department...

Vizzy

MadsL wrote: »

Do you consider the fact that DCC only snagged the 27 they bought troublesome at all?

No.
If ypu were buying a house in an estate would you expect your technical representative( i.e engineer/architect etc) to snag the house next door as well ?

MadsL wrote: »

Except they had full access to the planning documents and planning department...

As did architects acting on behalf of the other buyers.

The whole problem here is the existance of self certification.
Basically the developer/builder submitted plans and specs that the appartments were to be built to.
They weren't built to this standard so surely the developers are liable for breach of contract at the very least.

Paulzx

MadsL wrote: »

Except they had full access to the planning documents and planning department...

Everybody has access to the planning documents.

Does this mean we blame the unfortunate householders who bought there?

I certainly don't.


Yet again, as has been repeated numerous times on this thread, I will point the finger at the unscrupulous buliders who didn't give a **** about the people who were going to live in the apartments they built.

The system that allowed them to do this was wrong and was in place from the early ninties in order to appease the buliding lobby.

Builders were able to circumvent the local authorities once the planning was granted.

It has to stop

MadsL

Explain to me then why PH homeowners are pointing the finger at DCC.

My understanding of the Fire Safety cert is that it says "hereby certify that the works or building to which the application relates, will, if constructed in accordance with the plans, calculations, specifications and particulars submitted, comply with the requirements of Part B of the Second Schedule to the Building Regulations 1997 to 2008.

Who, if not the planning authority, is responsible for ensuring that a major multi-occupancy building is "constructed in accordance with the plans, calculations, specifications and particulars submitted"?

Astonishing that the 'system' didn't force planners to do a basic walkthrough signoff. Even more astonishing post-Stardust.

Vizzy

MadsL wrote: »

Explain to me then why PH homeowners are pointing the finger at DCC.

My understanding of the Fire Safety cert is that it says "hereby certify that the works or building to which the application relates, will, if constructed in accordance with the plans, calculations, specifications and particulars submitted, comply with the requirements of Part B of the Second Schedule to the Building Regulations 1997 to 2008.

Who, if not the planning authority, is responsible for ensuring that a major multi-occupancy building is "constructed in accordance with the plans, calculations, specifications and particulars submitted"?

Astonishing that the 'system' didn't force planners to do a basic walkthrough signoff. Even more astonishing post-Stardust.

Agreed but this is the system that we have as a result of the previous lobbying of the "building trade"

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

Except....when you buy a property standard practice is to conduct an inspection. DCC bought 27 of these properties..and had given the building specs to the developer. You would think that they would at that point conduct an proper inspection...

The Housing and Residential Services Department purchased 27 units (16 social units and 11 affordable units) at Priory Hall from Coalport Building Company Limited. The units were acquired to comply with Part V of the Planning and Development Acts. The Executive Manager, Housing and Residential Services Department approved the purchase of the units
by Order No HAV 67/2006.
Standard Law Society of Ireland practice was followed and following a snagging inspection normal conveyancing documentation was taken up on closing.

http://www.seankenny.ie/news/docs/northcentralareacommittee.pdf

Nope. They only snagged them.

So a private sector Architect signed off on a Certificate of Compliance with planning and building regulations and its DCC's fault?

I bought a house from the plans in 2006, it was built and signed off by private sector companies, if its not built to scratch its their fault, not fingal county councils?

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

Do you consider the fact that DCC only snagged the 27 they bought troublesome at all?

No, i bought one house, why should i have to snag the other 73 houses in my estate?

you obviously have no idea of the construction stages of a residential development or have never bought a house privately.

MadsL wrote: »

Except they had full access to the planning documents and planning department...

so does every private buyer in the country. its all part of the legal pack sent from the builders solicitors to your personal solicitor when going through the purchase of a house. as above, you obviously have no idea of the construction stages of a residential development or have never bought a house privately.

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

Explain to me then why PH homeowners are pointing the finger at DCC.

My understanding of the Fire Safety cert is that it says "hereby certify that the works or building to which the application relates, will, if constructed in accordance with the plans, calculations, specifications and particulars submitted, comply with the requirements of Part B of the Second Schedule to the Building Regulations 1997 to 2008.

Who, if not the planning authority, is responsible for ensuring that a major multi-occupancy building is "constructed in accordance with the plans, calculations, specifications and particulars submitted"?

Astonishing that the 'system' didn't force planners to do a basic walkthrough signoff. Even more astonishing post-Stardust.

and the private sectore building didnt build the plans in accordance with the granted planning permission and he also didnt build the apartments in accordance with the submitted fire certificate application drawings, by adding inner rooms, rooms within rooms and also not building outer leaf's of the building in accordance with Irish Fire Regulation, never mind the fire cert application.

And then, all of this was certified and signed off by the Architects who were supposed to be supervising the construction.

The pack i have from purchasing my home includes :
planning drawings
planning reference numbers
fire drawings
drainage drawings
watermain drawings
homebond cetification
architect certifications
manual and registration for every appliance fitted in my home.

All of this issued to my solicitor when i bought in a residential estate from a private sector builder.....the difference, i wasnt buying from a builder trying to scam people.

MadsL

kceire wrote: »

No, i bought one house, why should i have to snag the other 73 houses in my estate?

You are missing my point entirely, I'm saying that DCC bought 27 units and just snagged them, that they didn't compare them with the planning docs. Not that they didn't snag the other units. How easy would it have been to have put the planner who passed the plans in a taxi and asked them if it was kosher.

kceire wrote: »

you obviously have no idea of the construction stages of a residential development or have never bought a house privately.

On the contrary, whilst I declined to do the Tiger Waltz, I just bought a house in the US. It was professionally inspected for soundness, structural integrity, ducting integrity and safety. I paid good money for that inspection, but despite whatever legal requirements are in place - common sense means you get a proper independent warrantied inspection done. Not just snagging.

kceire wrote: »

so does every private buyer in the country. its all part of the legal pack sent from the builders solicitors to your personal solicitor when going through the purchase of a house. as above, you obviously have no idea of the construction stages of a residential development or have never bought a house privately.

Again you are missing the point, as I explained above, DCC has unsurpassed access to the planning team that passed the plans, for example they can bring a planner who passed the plans onsite when doing an inspection; i would hold them to that higher responsibility when purchasing property for social housing. they have a duty of care for the people they house, especially when it comes to Fire Safety. Saying they followed the bare legal process doesn't cut it in my book.

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

You are missing my point entirely, I'm saying that DCC bought 27 units and just snagged them, that they didn't compare them with the planning docs. Not that they didn't snag the other units. How easy would it have been to have put the planner who passed the plans in a taxi and asked them if it was kosher.

Have you any proof they just snagged them? When you buy a home in Ireland you must appoint your own independant surveyor to ensure they are built in accordance with regulations etc

The planning docs are totally separate to the Fire Cert drawings, a DCC planner would not of been able to do anything in this case as it is due to the incorrect build up of the buildings structure that is the problem, rightly or wrongly self regulation is in effect in Ireland (i believe it should be ended and give the power back to local authorithies but im sure the RIAI would be up in arms)

DCC, like all the other private buyers would of received certificates of compliance and they cannot open a hole in the wall to inspect structural build up of the building, they must assume it is ok as per drawings issued and approved and then after the fact, certified by the private sector architect.

MadsL wrote: »

On the contrary, whilst I declined to do the Tiger Waltz, I just bought a house in the US. It was professionally inspected for soundness, structural integrity, ducting integrity and safety. I paid good money for that inspection, but despite whatever legal requirements are in place - common sense means you get a proper independent warrantied inspection done. Not just snagging.

exactly, same thing happens in Ireland, the banks insiste on independant surveyors inspecting the propertied for proposed motgage holders, but like everything else in the Tiger Days, people rushed in and out of site in order to get to the next job, in order to get to the next pay check, and that includes builders, architects, engineers etc etc ive seen it happen with my own eys, architects certifiying extensions over the bloody phone :eek:

MadsL wrote: »

Again you are missing the point, as I explained above, DCC has unsurpassed access to the planning team that passed the plans, for example they can bring a planner who passed the plans onsite when doing an inspection; i would hold them to that higher responsibility when purchasing property for social housing. they have a duty of care for the people they house, especially when it comes to Fire Safety. Saying they followed the bare legal process doesn't cut it in my book.

I've been involved in selling Social Housing to Dublin City Council (from within the architects/engineers/developers environment). DCC would be treated just like a private buyer in these cases. The are sold the units just like anybody else, they inspect them just like anybody else and their legal team request plans, sections, and certificates just like private buyers solicitors do.

It is possible that the developer held back the dodgy inner room apartments for private sale, which would mean DCC would never see them unti after this whle fiasco occured.

It doesnt matter what way you cut it on this site, basic rules were broken, and it all started with self Regulation (which as above, i believe should be done away with).

Private sector builder built incorrectly
private sector architect rushed certification/didnt inspect properly (in my employment Priory Hall would be a large development, and we would be on site every day for an hour or so inspecting).

MadsL

kceire wrote:

Have you any proof they just snagged them? When you buy a home in Ireland you must appoint your own independant surveyor to ensure they are built in accordance with regulations etc

COUNCILLOR SEAN KENNY
To ask the Manager to say what inspections were carried out by Dublin City Council before the Part V social and affordable units constructed by Coleport Limited at Priory Hall, D 13, were handed over to Dublin City Council. Can the Manager make a statement on the alarming defects that have been identified by the occupants of these units since the hand over and to say what steps can now be taken to resolve these issues?
CITY MANAGER’S REPLY:
Dublin City Council carried out a full snag and electrical test on the social and affordable apartments located in Priory Hall, Dublin 13. A number of issues have occurred following the handover of the dwellings to the City Council, including issues relating to latent defects and compliance. Dublin City Council is considering a number of options to resolve the problems in this development.

MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 6th APRIL 2009

Now I find that statement interesting, because under pressure the city manager doesn't rely on inspections - only a snag list and an electrical test.

I suspect, and I accept I may be wrong, but we have not heard the full story on DCC's role in this fiasco.

I also found this motion, North Central Area Committee Minutes 20th FEBRUARY 2012

That the Manager request that a claim be made on the Priory Hall Apartment Complex, apartments purchased by the council against the Architects Professional Indemnity Insurance. The normal sale closing procedures for these Apartments were followed and 2 items were handed over by the vendor at sale closing a) An Architects Certificate of compliance with the current building regulation b) An Architects Fire Certificate for the property. We now know that the building does not comply with either the building regulations or the Fire Regulation prevailing at the time and this now gives rise that a claim can be made against the Architects Professional Indemnity Insurance as this is what the insurance is for.

I wonder why this (to my knowledge) has not been done previously?

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

I suspect, and I accept I may be wrong, but we have not heard the full story on DCC's role in this fiasco.

I also found this motion, North Central Area Committee Minutes 20th FEBRUARY 2012

There you go, you have now proved mine and other posters point that this private sector architect is responible for certifiying the apartments.

That the Manager request that a claim be made on the Priory Hall Apartment Complex, apartments purchased by the council against the Architects Professional Indemnity Insurance. The normal sale closing procedures for these Apartments were followed and 2 items were handed over by the vendor at sale closing a) An Architects Certificate of compliance with the current building regulation b) An Architects Fire Certificate for the property. We now know that the building does not comply with either the building regulations or the Fire Regulation prevailing at the time and this now gives rise that a claim can be made against the Architects Professional Indemnity Insurance as this is what the insurance is for.

Mr. Presentable

I am

MadsL

kceire wrote: »

There you go, you have now proved mine and other posters point that this private sector architect is responible for certifiying the apartments.

Again you are missing my point, whilst I'll concede that currently that it is legally correct that the Architect (or whoever signed the Fire Safety cert) is liable, I hold that DCC have a higher duty in failing to spot that Priory Hall was such a clusterfk particularly when they purchased 27 units in there. The 'higher duty' is the duty of care that they hold for social housing - failing to spot the issues and then housing people anyway is grossly negligent. I maintain that all they did was snag the apartments and apparently did an electrical test, as they had no lending institution, no proper inspection was made. If they did an inspection, then why did the City Manager no mention that in 2009 when questioned?

If legal opinion is that the Architect is liable - then why do we have no legal action from DCC against the Architect? A motion from a Councillor doesn't prove anything.

To use some other recent DCC housing examples, they recently had to go begging for grants €2.9 million to make Crampton Buildings compliant after DCC has housed people there for years with no Fire Safety Certs whatsoever. Equally they seem incapable of learning a lesson about not getting into bed with dodgy builders after they awarded contracts worth 7.3m to Helm Housing, roundly criticised by a Stormont report

Helm Housing fell foul of the authorities in the North last year after it was found to have built a £1m (€1.2m) apartment complex without being granted planning permission.

http://www.herald.ie/news/council-uses-firm-behind-illegal-homes-in-north-2996738.html

Finally we have the O'Devaney Gardens fiasco, just don't get me started on that.

gurramok

gurramok wrote: »

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.

Told ya so! The RTE video says some residents were rehoused in Belmayne despite what it says below.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0222/belmayne.html

Around 240 householders in Belmayne in Dublin may have to move out of their homes because of fire safety defects.

A layer of fire stop was found to be missing in the floor compartment in one apartment and it is estimated that around 25% of the 960 units could be affected.

A number of residents evacuated from nearby Priory Hall were given temporary homes in Belmayne but is it not known if any of these are affected.

Kitara Ltd trading as Stanely Holdings engaged LM Developments to build the units but that company is in liquidation.

Kitara said in a statement that residents may have to move out of their homes for three or four days for the repair works to be carried out.

It is estimated that in total the works will take three months in a plan that has been agreed with Dublin City Council.

Gumbo

gurramok wrote: »

Told ya so! The RTE video says some residents were rehoused in Belmayne despite what it says below.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0222/belmayne.html

LM Developments built that estate, didn't they?
Could be a case of get them up as quick as possible as we won't be around for much longer?

MadsL

Around 240 householders in Belmayne in Dublin may have to move out of their homes because of fire safety defects.

MadsL wrote: »

Wait for the sh.tstorm that comes down over the next set of apartments.

Ahem. Who is paying for this set? And the next set?


Wasn't the ad slogan "Somethings cooking at Belmayne"

Floppybits

This whole north fringe area that includes priory hall and Belmayne is a disaster. If its not building regulations not being followed or ignored, it is pyrite. Expect to see more horror stories from this area.

At least the developer in the Belmayne area is taking responsibility and fixing the problems there.

Slideshowbob

Any developments on this one?

Did Enda mention it to Angela?

Slideshowbob

The debacle continues ...

I came across this today:

The Property Services Regulatory Authority's Guide for Users of Property Services Providers in Ireland

http://www.psr.ie/website/npsra/npsraweb.nsf/0/ED846C5C2981B0F2802575DD003B9C84/$File/aguideforusersofpsps.pdf

It states:

"“Caveat Emptor” – Buyer Beware
A term, which is often heard in connection with the purchase or sale of property,
is “Caveat Emptor”. It is a Latin term meaning, "let the buyer beware." It is a
legal maxim stating that the buyer takes the risk regarding the quality or
condition of the property purchased, unless protected by warranty (i.e. he has a
separate guarantee that the property is free from defects). This puts the burden
onto the buyer to be satisfied as to the suitability and condition of the property
before purchasing. Consequently, the buyer should make sure to carefully
inspect the property, or engage a professional to do it on his behalf, and satisfy
himself as to its suitability before entering a contract. The buyer is responsible
for finding out the condition of the property and should use a competent
professional to undertake the necessary surveys. Any matters affecting the legal
title to the property should be undertaken by a solicitor.
A buyer should be aware that the seller is usually under no obligation to
disclose defects. However, if asked, he may not deny a known defect or lie
about it. The Buyer should question the seller, or his Auctioneer/Estate
Agent, about defects before deciding on a property. If the Auctioneer/Estate
Agent does not have the necessary information the buyer should make sure
to ask him to obtain it from the seller.
DO NOT become rushed, pushed or persuaded by either the seller or his PSP.
A buyer should take time, ask questions and, if he considers it necessary he
should not hesitate to ask to look at the property for a second or third time.
As the seller is under no obligation to disclose defects in the property, the
buyer should, through legal requisitions and surveys, establish what defects,
if any, exist before finalizing the purchase of the property."

So - begs the questions;

Are the owners on the hook for their purchases?
Why should any exception be made for them?
Did people who examined their properties before purchase have professional indemnity insurance?
Would recompensing them open the floodgates for everyone?
Why is DCC paying their rent in other properties?

goz83

Slideshowbob wrote: »

The debacle continues ...

I came across this today:

The Property Services Regulatory Authority's Guide for Users of Property Services Providers in Ireland

http://www.psr.ie/website/npsra/npsraweb.nsf/0/ED846C5C2981B0F2802575DD003B9C84/$File/aguideforusersofpsps.pdf

It states:

"“Caveat Emptor” – Buyer Beware
A term, which is often heard in connection with the purchase or sale of property,
is “Caveat Emptor”. It is a Latin term meaning, "let the buyer beware." It is a
legal maxim stating that the buyer takes the risk regarding the quality or
condition of the property purchased, unless protected by warranty (i.e. he has a
separate guarantee that the property is free from defects). This puts the burden
onto the buyer to be satisfied as to the suitability and condition of the property
before purchasing. Consequently, the buyer should make sure to carefully
inspect the property, or engage a professional to do it on his behalf, and satisfy
himself as to its suitability before entering a contract. The buyer is responsible
for finding out the condition of the property and should use a competent
professional to undertake the necessary surveys. Any matters affecting the legal
title to the property should be undertaken by a solicitor.
A buyer should be aware that the seller is usually under no obligation to
disclose defects. However, if asked, he may not deny a known defect or lie
about it. The Buyer should question the seller, or his Auctioneer/Estate
Agent, about defects before deciding on a property. If the Auctioneer/Estate
Agent does not have the necessary information the buyer should make sure
to ask him to obtain it from the seller.
DO NOT become rushed, pushed or persuaded by either the seller or his PSP.
A buyer should take time, ask questions and, if he considers it necessary he
should not hesitate to ask to look at the property for a second or third time.
As the seller is under no obligation to disclose defects in the property, the
buyer should, through legal requisitions and surveys, establish what defects,
if any, exist before finalizing the purchase of the property."

So - begs the questions;

Are the owners on the hook for their purchases?
Why should any exception be made for them?
Did people who examined their properties before purchase have professional indemnity insurance?
Would recompensing them open the floodgates for everyone?
Why is DCC paying their rent in other properties?

I have highlighted one relevant line of text for you. To explain why; the "guarantee" is in the fire cert issued by DCC in this case. The buyer cannot be expected to examine if fire proofing has been installed, as this is a hidden portion of the build. The certificate (required by building regulations) stated that the fire proofing was up to, or exceeded building standards.

*So NO, the buyers are not "on the hook".
*An exception should be made for all in a similar situation. If the council signed off, the council is responsible and then needs to go after the developer/archtect/insurance company.
*Indemnity Insurance? That's an aside, as the problem is with the fire proofing, which was non-existant, but was still signed off by DCC. Laziness and greed being the problems.
*It might open the floodgates. But does that make it the wrong thing to do? Was it wrong to compensate the first victim of clerical abuse?
*DCC are paying their rent, because DCC evicted them, due to the properties being unsafe. The properties are unsafe, because DCC FAILED to do the job they were getting paid lots of money to do.

I have a question for you Slideshowbob. If you were a Priory Hall resident, would you be alright with paying rent AND the mortgage on the property?

I am not a Priory Hall resident, but I do live nearby and I would hate to be in their position. They should be allowed to hand the keys back, no questions asked.

Gumbo

goz83 wrote: »

I have highlighted one relevant line of text for you. To explain why; the "guarantee" is in the fire cert issued by DCC in this case. The buyer cannot be expected to examine if fire proofing has been installed, as this is a hidden portion of the build. The certificate (required by building regulations) stated that the fire proofing was up to, or exceeded building standards.

*So NO, the buyers are not "on the hook".
*An exception should be made for all in a similar situation. If the council signed off, the council is responsible and then needs to go after the developer/archtect/insurance company.
*Indemnity Insurance? That's an aside, as the problem is with the fire proofing, which was non-existant, but was still signed off by DCC. Laziness and greed being the problems.
*It might open the floodgates. But does that make it the wrong thing to do? Was it wrong to compensate the first victim of clerical abuse?
*DCC are paying their rent, because DCC evicted them, due to the properties being unsafe. The properties are unsafe, because DCC FAILED to do the job they were getting paid lots of money to do.

I have a question for you Slideshowbob. If you were a Priory Hall resident, would you be alright with paying rent AND the mortgage on the property?

I am not a Priory Hall resident, but I do live nearby and I would hate to be in their position. They should be allowed to hand the keys back, no questions asked.

Do you understand construction and/or building/planning regulations?

DCC did not sign off on the fire proofing. DCC sign off on the fire certificate drawings as lodged before constructions. If the builder builds it differently then it is the private sector architect/engineer that signed it off that should have to explain themselves here.

The law doesnt help the councils here, and i believe the councils should have more control over building in the country, with similar inspections as the UK/Scotland as opposed to the 15% inspections we have here at present, but i believe that is changing.

Bottom of the line here is that a private sector builder deviated from the approved plans and a private sector architect/engineer signed them off, which should not of happened. Its not right that the builder that employs the architect/engineer, gets the same architect/engineer to sign off their work, it should be independent certification as opposed to self certification.

Paulzx

kceire wrote: »

Do you understand construction and/or building/planning regulations?

DCC did not sign off on the fire proofing. DCC sign off on the fire certificate drawings as lodged before constructions. If the builder builds it differently then it is the private sector architect/engineer that signed it off that should have to explain themselves here.

The law doesnt help the councils here, and i believe the councils should have more control over building in the country, with similar inspections as the UK/Scotland as opposed to the 15% inspections we have here at present, but i believe that is changing.

Bottom of the line here is that a private sector builder deviated from the approved plans and a private sector architect/engineer signed them off, which should not of happened. Its not right that the builder that employs the architect/engineer, gets the same architect/engineer to sign off their work, it should be independent certification as opposed to self certification.

Everything he needs to know is already in this thread. If he can't be bothered reading it you might as well not bother reposting it.

Farmer Pudsey

During the boom what went on by some developers/builders/tradespeople was a disgrace. From washing up liquid in plaster/morter instead of plastciser to wiring/plumbing to firesafty issue's. The priory hall debacle is only the tip of the iceberg. Engineers/architect's were often more intrested in the comestic finish than the actual structrual intergity of a building. Big consulting firms priced compliance jobs very cheaply and then did not put the manpower on tthe job.

One heating contractor told me of an instance where flue's were not joined up and where mains gas pipes which were copnnected to nothing were sealed by plastic bags and cableties. In this instance they had to get there own solicitor to contact the developer to get it sorted. The developer's professional engineers was annoyed about this.

But at the end of the day the Councils and the NHBGS have a lot to answer for. They are after all the supervisory bodies in charge. They often choose to turn a blind eye as long as fees were paid.

goz83

kceire wrote: »

Do you understand construction and/or building/planning regulations?

DCC did not sign off on the fire proofing. DCC sign off on the fire certificate drawings as lodged before constructions. If the builder builds it differently then it is the private sector architect/engineer that signed it off that should have to explain themselves here.

The law doesnt help the councils here, and i believe the councils should have more control over building in the country, with similar inspections as the UK/Scotland as opposed to the 15% inspections we have here at present, but i believe that is changing.

Bottom of the line here is that a private sector builder deviated from the approved plans and a private sector architect/engineer signed them off, which should not of happened. Its not right that the builder that employs the architect/engineer, gets the same architect/engineer to sign off their work, it should be independent certification as opposed to self certification.

DCC did sign off on the fire proofing and on other aspects. The fact that they never actually checked at the various stages is their fault, but is unfortunately the proplem of the residents. I know that the councils sign off on a set of plans, but it is their duty to check that the plans are being followed and to intervene when they are not.

I understand that the developer deviated from the plans and built unsafe dwellings. I also understand that it is the responsibility of the councils to routinely inspect properties that are being built in their constituency. They were getting paid to do this and they failed t do this. So, the body responsible is DCC in this case. DCC can then take it up with the private bodies that falsified documents and told blatant lies (supposedly) to the council.

I agree with you that independent inspection should be carried out and the architect on the books should not be able to declare works to be completed to standard on projects of this scale. Wasn't DCC supposed to be that independent inspecor?

goz83

Paulzx wrote: »

Everything he needs to know is already in this thread. If he can't be bothered reading it you might as well not bother reposting it.

Most threads are filled with senseless s***e and comments about other peoples posts (like your one) and so I don't read every thread, especially when they can be tens of pages long and/or months old, with the older information often being irrelevant. I responded to a post with a relevant answer. It didn't require me to read the whole thread. Sorry if that doesn't satisfy your preference. If you spot an inconsistency, or an error with my post, please do point it out, which would be a time saving exercise for everyone.

MadsL

goz83 wrote: »

DCC did sign off on the fire proofing and on other aspects. The fact that they never actually checked at the various stages is their fault, but is unfortunately the proplem of the residents. I know that the councils sign off on a set of plans, but it is their duty to check that the plans are being followed and to intervene when they are not.

I notice that you didn't mention that DCC also were the purchaser of some of these apartments and also failed to do their due diligence as purchasers, even more shocking.

goz83

MadsL wrote: »

I notice that you didn't mention that DCC also were the purchaser of some of these apartments and also failed to do their due diligence as purchasers, even more shocking.

That actually slipped my mind completely. I forgot they had purchased a number of units there.

Gumbo

goz83 wrote: »

DCC did sign off on the fire proofing and on other aspects. The fact that they never actually checked at the various stages is their fault, but is unfortunately the proplem of the residents. I know that the councils sign off on a set of plans, but it is their duty to check that the plans are being followed and to intervene when they are not.

I understand that the developer deviated from the plans and built unsafe dwellings. I also understand that it is the responsibility of the councils to routinely inspect properties that are being built in their constituency. They were getting paid to do this and they failed t do this. So, the body responsible is DCC in this case. DCC can then take it up with the private bodies that falsified documents and told blatant lies (supposedly) to the council.

I agree with you that independent inspection should be carried out and the architect on the books should not be able to declare works to be completed to standard on projects of this scale. Wasn't DCC supposed to be that independent inspecor?

You are still wrong I'm afraid.
DCC did not sign off on the building, a private sector architect/engineer did. DCC did not sign off on the fire proofing either.

You say you have a property nearby yeah. When you were signing on the dotted line did you check for certificates of compliance with building and planning regulations? My guess is no, as you would,understand then that these are checked and certified by a private sector architect/engineer.

It is not the job of DCC or any other council to check all building in their area at all, you have this wrong. Although this is where I do believe that the law should change. The councils only have to check 15% of builds and I believe this should change to 100%.

I feel bad for the people and hope something gets sorted for them but this constant blame somebody else game fools nobody IMHO. People are responsible for buying their own properties, they employ values to ensure the property is valued correctly and they buy with the trust of professionals that have signed off on a building as in compliance with building and planning regulations, and this includes part B of the building regulations(fire). Unfortunely in this case, the buyers were let down by these said professionals.

Paulzx

goz83 wrote: »

Most threads are filled with senseless s***e and comments about other peoples posts (like your one) and so I don't read every thread, especially when they can be tens of pages long and/or months old, with the older information often being irrelevant. I responded to a post with a relevant answer. It didn't require me to read the whole thread. Sorry if that doesn't satisfy your preference. If you spot an inconsistency, or an error with my post, please do point it out, which would be a time saving exercise for everyone.

The "senseless s***e you speak off is actually accurate comment on the law and regulations that apply. If you had bothered reading this you wouldn't have made inaccurate and wrong assertions. All this has been debated and covered in this thread.

To not inform yourself of the previous debate in a thread in a serious Forum like Irish Economy whilst responding to a single post (which you have admitted to) does not lend itself to informed debate. Attacking me for pointing this out doesn't change this.

This is going off topic now so I'm going to leave it at that

Paulzx

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

. They often choose to turn a blind eye as long as fees were paid.

That's a pretty serious allegation to make as it alleges wrongdoing.

Bad law, bad regulations and being allowed legally abdicate reponsability for supervision of building projects was completely wrong.

The local authorities should be obliged by law to have complete responsability for full and proper supervision and inspection of building projects...........but they don't at present have this obligation.


To say that there was actual illegality is another thing all together

Farmer Pudsey

Paulzx wrote: »

That's a pretty serious allegation to make as it alleges wrongdoing.

Bad law, bad regulations and being allowed legally abdicate reponsability for supervision of building projects was completely wrong.

The local authorities should be obliged by law to have complete responsability for full and proper supervision and inspection of building projects...........but they don't at present have this obligation.


To say that there was actual illegality is another thing all together

Public service regulation has a history of being very poor and expensive over the last twenty years. We also have a history of Councils and public service bodies washing there hands and use the excuse of ''not my baby''.

There seems to always be an excuse. It always seems that there is a loophole. In the case of Priory Hall and other such developments it seems that there was an onus on the councils to certify the Fire Safty. It may weel have been the Building Engineer of the developer job but it was the councils responsibility.

The NHBGS was another culprid they seem to be well able to take money to certify the structural integrity of houses but when the pyrite and other issues arose they were very fast to wash there hands.

It seem that regulators always want to take money ( add the farm plastics to this as well) pay top wages to staff but not do the job. It always seems that they do not have enough staff or else they laways seem to have the ability to abicate responsibility to another body or invidual.

Paulzx

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Public service regulation has a history of being very poor and expensive over the last twenty years. We also have a history of Councils and public service bodies washing there hands and use the excuse of ''not my baby''.

There seems to always be an excuse. It always seems that there is a loophole. In the case of Priory Hall and other such developments it seems that there was an onus on the councils to certify the Fire Safty. It may weel have been the Building Engineer of the developer job but it was the councils responsibility.

The NHBGS was another culprid they seem to be well able to take money to certify the structural integrity of houses but when the pyrite and other issues arose they were very fast to wash there hands.

It seem that regulators always want to take money ( add the farm plastics to this as well) pay top wages to staff but not do the job. It always seems that they do not have enough staff or else they laways seem to have the ability to abicate responsibility to another body or invidual.

The lax regulations are as a result of changes in legislation in the early ninties at the behest of the building and developer lobby.

Why would any organisation be it a local authority or a company go to the expense of stepping outside its legally mandated remit? I'm not saying i agree with the situation. I'm on record here as argueing vehemently against the present status quo.

Local authorities have not washed their hands off this. The legislation took the responsability away................and it should never have happened. As far as i'm aware the DOE are writing up new legislation for building enforcement and it can't come too soon.

Hopefully local authorities will be strictly mandated to plan, inspect and rigidly enforce all building control. Leave them no wriggle room on this and we might prevent the Priory Hall situation happening in the future

Lantus

Asking local authorities to manage the quaity control and safety process in construction is a bit like asking the military to oversee world peace.

Even with bloated budgets problems would still arise because the root cause remains unaddressed.

For example, you could 'solve' speeding by employing thousands of traffic police to enforce a law. But, we could use technology to just limit the speed of cars so we dont allow individuals to act stupidly or dangerously.

I would advocate that we build all buildings in a controlled manufactured envirnoment which are then put together as needed on site in modules. They come with all the wiring and systems pre installed and diagnostic systems to verify its working.

The system of employing gangs of people where there is an incentive to do poor work in order to make more money is just too tempting and is an environment conduice to failures which is so complex it cannot be corrected. Attempting to 'force' that environment to change is not really viable. You would need 1 'inspector' to watch every worker at all times to make sure they didn't do sub standard work or cover it up.

Just design out the problem at source and change the environment.

Gumbo

Lantus wrote: »

Asking local authorities to manage the quaity control and safety process in construction is a bit like asking the military to oversee world peace.

Even with bloated budgets problems would still arise because the root cause remains unaddressed.

For example, you could 'solve' speeding by employing thousands of traffic police to enforce a law. But, we could use technology to just limit the speed of cars so we dont allow individuals to act stupidly or dangerously.

I would advocate that we build all buildings in a controlled manufactured envirnoment which are then put together as needed on site in modules. They come with all the wiring and systems pre installed and diagnostic systems to verify its working.

The system of employing gangs of people where there is an incentive to do poor work in order to make more money is just too tempting and is an environment conduice to failures which is so complex it cannot be corrected. Attempting to 'force' that environment to change is not really viable. You would need 1 'inspector' to watch every worker at all times to make sure they didn't do sub standard work or cover it up.

Just design out the problem at source and change the environment.

How do you integrate wiring and pipes into a pre fabricated building while allowing access to them for future upgrade or repair?

You will always need people on site to join them together, connect plumbing and connect the house to the outside services etc

Construction is a process of building, it has to be put together somewhere, and mostly thats on a site.

We dont currently have tyhe laws to allow councils to enforce compliance, thats currently up to the builder and the architect/engineer he employes. There should be more punishment for people that sign off buildings which are later deemed to be at fault from construction.

I think Building Enforcement needs to get more control over sites and to be given the necessary powers to enforce building regulations properly.

Slideshowbob

Priory Hall enters reluctant Nama's hands
by Sunday Business Post- 24.03.13

http://societyofcharteredsurveyorsireland.newsweaver.com/1eg0un6ik9z83c5xij1sqb?email=true&a=1&p=33656375&t=19701345

Gumbo

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Priory Hall enters reluctant Nama's hands
by Sunday Business Post- 24.03.13

http://societyofcharteredsurveyorsireland.newsweaver.com/1eg0un6ik9z83c5xij1sqb?email=true&a=1&p=33656375&t=19701345

I think this could be a good move for the home owners.
If NAMA decide to give the home owners a swap to some other housing type that suits them then they could benefit from it, the home owners that is.

just depends on NAMA's intentions with the block.