I try to comply with mod direction but still get banned from construction forum

lampshadelucy

Mod directed me to the charter after locking thread and I pointed out to him by PM that he was the one who dragged the thread off-topic and off-charter by intimating that building regulations aren't enforced. I self-censored myself and immediately deleted a post not in line with charter and the thread still was closed.
I opened two threads with genuine questions regarding construction and planning in line with charter. The mod locked both and banned me.

I honestly don't know how I can post to this forum as when I heed moderation and take direction my thread is locked anyhow and when I post in compliance with charter elsewhere I get banned.

I don't so much object to moderating with a rod of iron as moderating completely irrationally.

BTW the post I deleted mentioned was in response to grave warning about punishments if building regs weren't complied with where I commented that McFeeley of H Block and Priory Hall fame doesn't appear to be too concerned but this was off topic so I deleted it within seconds of posting it as I was pursuing answers to my planning queries.

Penn

Hi lampshadelucy,

Have you contacted the moderator via PM to discuss the ban with them? If not, please do so, as it is the first step of the Dispute Resolution Process. If an agreement between you and the mod cannot be reached, one of the Rec CMods will look into this and get back to you.

lampshadelucy

I had contacted the moderator prior to disputing ban in line with procedures above.

In reviewing this complaint one should note the following:
I didn't drag the thread off charter, the moderator did.
The moderator should be able to provide a link to the deleted posting where I said McFeely doesn't seem too worried about compliance. I don't have it archived anywhere. It's ommission would lead others to believe that it was a grossly offensive posting directed at other forum users.
Note the time of posting this comment about mcfeely and the time of it's deletion being within seconds of each other.
There is nothing particularly objectionable in my few threads and the obvious intent which was to figure out how to construct a compliant building at least possible expense.
The moderator planted the seeds of illegality there, not I and I was still discussing how I could possibly get it built legally without having to go down the route of disregarding regs when I was banned.
At post 11 to the thread I was still within charter but the moderator is not able to distinguish between the terms avoidance and evasion and jumped to a conclusion that I was looking to get advice on building a non-compliant house.

The other moderator poor uncle tom opened up the other two locked threads I started added nothing helpful and scolded me for asking very reasonable questions then locked them again which i see as a rearguard action now that I've disputed the banning.

They're not very friendly folk over there in construction yet they cite incivility as the reason for my banning. I shan't be posting there again but would still like the ban lifted and the threads re-opened.

lampshadelucy

Mod communicated by PM

I did explain my position and I wont be engaging in any further debate on the matter.

so I have no means of resolving the dispute without triggering dispute resolution process.

Penn

No problem, lampshadelucy. We'll look into this for you. We'll also be able to see any posts you made which were deleted. Please allow us a bit of time to review everything and talk to the mods. We'll be back to you as soon as we can.

Penn

Hi lampshadelucy.

I've taken a look at the posts and threads in question, including the deleted post. I've also talked with the mod who issued the ban.

From my point of view, the key sequence of events are as follows:
You asked the question "Are all building regs enforced for small cottage/holiday homes?" to which two posters responded with yes. Muffler posted to say that he generally agreed, but that they're not necessarily "enforced". You still have to comply with them and the responsibility for doing so is on the homeowner. It's usually done by whoever is signing off the house for mortgage or certificate of compliance purposes. To not comply with planning and building regulations is against the law, even if they are not enforced. Muffler was not "planting the seeds of illegality", nor taking the thread off-topic. He was merely clarifying things and giving additional information.

You then posted:
"So basically based on what is said above by other posters I can specify plans to meet building regs and then forget about the building regs once the permission has been granted until it comes time to sell..."

This could imply that you were asking if you could pretend you were going to comply with building regulations to get planning permission, which when someone then pointed out that you'd still be breaking the law, you replied:
"I'm not seeing anything morally wrong with avoiding expensive building regulations with regard to septic tank for a tiny cottage where I know that locally septic tanks work well so might not even be an issue and where wood from the adjacent wood is used to heat.
What are the consequences of non-compliance from a legal perspective?
I'd expect they'd be no more than to bring the building in to compliance."

This further implies that you were asking what would happen if you didn't comply with building regulations. When muffler replies again that you would still be breaking the law, you replied (in your post which you deleted):
"I don't think McFeely has seen the inside of a prison for not paying attention to building regs. Tax avoidance maybe.
I won't be building a firetrap."

Once again, you are implying that you would still be willing to break the law with regards building regulations. Once or maybe twice, I may have written it off as bad phrasing on your part, but over those three posts (and another which I'll get to below), it is clear what you were implying, and implying such is against the forum charter:
"6.1 Any thread/post that is looking for ways to get around the planning process, or building regulations, or any other statutory legislation, or advising somebody to ignore these legislations and regulations, will be deleted and the poster will be banned indefinitely."

Muffler then closed the thread and gave a warning that you were not to use the forum to try and find ways around the building regulations.

Half an hour later, you started a new thread:
"I was thinking of building a small cottage of less than 60 sq. m. in a rural location. I think a septic tank would work well there due to the good drainage at the site. In fact I know percolation tests have been successful adjacent to the site.

What is the minimum distance typically required for a septic tank to/from boundaries/other septic tanks/etc......"

In the first thread, it was made clear to you that your opinion on whether a septic tank would work or not was irrelevant, as a site characterisation test to EPA standards would be required, and even though septic tanks may be used locally by others, they may not be in compliance with the current building regulations you would have to comply with but which wouldn't have been applicable to other people at the time. Based on your previous posts, it looks like you are again trying to find out if you could bypass what is required by the planning and building regulations and just build anyway. It was then that muffler closed your thread and issued a one week ban.

In summary, it could be taken by your posts that you were trying to find out if you could bypass some aspects of the planning and building regulations. Although you were told this was illegal, you persisted with that line of questioning. As such, the moderator issued a ban based on the Construction & Planning Forum Charter (Item 6.1).

I recommend that the ban stands.

lampshadelucy

I did not imply that I willingly wanted to evade planning regulations; The moderator inferred it and took an incorrect knee-jerk decision to lock my threads and ban me.
I am not to blame for this.

As for the other two threads I started they were phrased carefully not to bypass the charter but to adhere to it and should never have been locked.

In the thread about the septic tank I asked about a specific element of the approval process in the hope that others would have prior experience. I asked because I know that a site directly adjacent easily passed a percolation test so that is not something I have fear about but rather about distance to boundaries/etc... because I know of a neighbour who had to measure distances to the boundary and wells in the vicinity.

The other thread was basically asking for suggestions regarding an inexpensive renewable heat source for a cottage and that is as on-charter as a thread can possibly be in that particular forum.

There is a dearth of knowledge with regard to how to inexpensively comply with the latest building regulations and it is no wonder that people would be tempted to evade the planning regulations through ignorance when if the information was well known they would be able to comply with the regulations for only a few thousand euro.

The moderator should be helping rather than hindering people here, moulding threads into useful repositories of information rather than snapping at genuinely inquisitive people, chasitising them and locking their threads.

So, please review again:
1) locking of thread no1 concerning generalities
2) locking of thread no. 2 concerning renewables
3) locking of thread no. 3 concerning typical allowed distances for septic tanks to boundaries.

Penn

From what I can see, your first general thread was locked as it seemed you were implying you would not comply with building regulations (may not have been your intention, but that's how it came across). Your thread about just the septic tank was locked as it seemed like you were trying to continue on the same line of discussion, and your thread about renewables was locked off the basis of your other two threads.

If you're still unhappy with the ban, you can request that an admin look over it for you.

lampshadelucy

I am unhappy with the ban.

I am unhappy with the two later threads created in line with charter were locked and when viewed in isolation, as they should be, are not at all objectionable.

I'm unhappy that the moderator of the board is pre-disposed to think that everybody is trying to evade rules of the land rather than avoid them and can't appreciate the difference between the two.

lampshadelucy

Admin escalate.