Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Gumbo

jython98 wrote: »

Can you give more details there please? thanks.

http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Publications_and_Forms/Publications/Construction/homeowners_guidance.pdf

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

I am looking at S.I. No 9 of 2014 and it states:



Signature.............................................Date....................

Persons name.......................................Registration No......

On behalf of.........................................(Company name were relevant)


I expect it will be signing on behalf of Ltd companies as opposed to an individual taking all the risk. No individual is going to put their head on the block with a chance of losing their family home etc..

Pretend you are a solicitor acting on behalf of 25 firetrap apartment owners.
You have to hand a document signed as above. Pretend too the company is no more. Who do you chase ?

Pretend now you are the "person" above. How do feel now ? Are you insured by the policy of a company that now does not exist ? Will that stop the legal action ?

con1982

4Sticks wrote: »

Pretend you are a solicitor acting on behalf of 25 firetrap apartment owners.
You have to hand a document signed as above. Pretend too the company is no more. Who do you chase ?

Pretend now you are the "person" above. How do feel now ? Are you insured by the policy of a company that now does not exist ? Will that stop the legal action ?

Yeah. This is what I was thinking.

Litigative nature or Ireland. . . . .

DvB

Out of interest, where do you stand if registered with the RIBA & not the RIAI?

As a Technician member back in the day i had a difference of opinion with the institute & for that reason feel less than excited about having to register now as an Architect. All the literature I've read & the seminar i attended (through Engineers Ireland) made reference to RIAI registered Architects only being able to fulfil the role as assigned certifier. Or have I taken that up incorrectly?

archtech

DvB wrote: »

Out of interest, where do you stand if registered with the RIBA & not the RIAI?

As a Technician member back in the day i had a difference of opinion with the institute & for that reason feel less than excited about having to register now as an Architect. All the literature I've read & the seminar i attended (through Engineers Ireland) made reference to RIAI registered Architects only being able to fulfil the role as assigned certifier. Or have I taken that up incorrectly?

One has to Register with the Statutory Registration Authority which is administrated by the RIAI but one doesn't have to be a member of the RIAI as far as I understand (ie two separate memberships with 2 separate fees)

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

Pretend you are a solicitor acting on behalf of 25 firetrap apartment owners.
You have to hand a document signed as above. Pretend too the company is no more. Who do you chase ?

Pretend now you are the "person" above. How do feel now ? Are you insured by the policy of a company that now does not exist ? Will that stop the legal action ?

I have signed many many certs in the past. What's the difference between the new legislation than when I signed a cert in the past?

If I signed a cert 5 years ago and there is a problem today of course I am going to be questioned on it if there is a legal case to answer. In legal terms though, and this is agreed with the Law Society of Ireland, I am not personally liable for an insurance claim if I have signed on behalf of a company. If I did something knowingly illegal or grossly negligent that led to a death, serious injury or fraud of course I as an individual will have to answer for that. That has always been the way and any experienced professional signing certs knows that.

The first wording that came out as part of the new legislation was all wrong but the new wording provides as much protection to the individual as signing a cert in the past. Now you don't sign off on other professions work and you can sign on behalf of a company. The new wording has been agreed by the institutions and the insurance companies say they will provide insurance.

There is scaremongering going on in this thread that is ill informed or worse still malicious.

There is no such thing as signing a cert with impunity and there never was.


The big big issue is that in the past it was,

Architects
Engineers
Specialists
Builders
And the Local Authorities

These groups shared the responsibility between them.

Now the local authorities have taken a step back in their responsibility to regulate the industry. Personally I think that's a very bad thing. We should all be in it together carrying the responsibility to ensure the best quality product is delivered to the consumer.

sydthebeat

strongback wrote: »

Architects
Engineers
Specialists
Builders
And the Local Authorities
.

Architects
Engineers
Specialists not required to hold PI insurance so company dies, responsibility dies
Builders same as above, once company winds up , no recourse for action
And the Local Authorities enough said here


The "1% rule" we have in litigation Ireland means last man standing carrys the can.... which always tends to be the professional as:

(a) their current insurance covers them for all previous work, and not work done during the lifespan of the policy
(b) they are required to hold 'run off' insurance until statute of limitations has expired.

These new certificates place a very real cross hair on the signer whom, and im in agreement with 4sticks here, will be in line for legal action notwithstanding the insurance held by the company on whos behalf its signed. Expect to found in a witness box trying to explain the reason for non compliance which has lead to a day in court.

In my opinion only the company directors should sign certs on behalf of the company.

strongback wrote: »

The first wording that came out as part of the new legislation was all wrong but the new wording provides as much protection to the individual as signing a cert in the past.

If you believe that then im afraid you could be in a small minority

see here

while i agree that there is a 'watering down' of responsibility in the final wording, it still amounts to the certifiers certifying work carried out by others.

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

There is scaremongering going on in this thread that is ill informed or worse still malicious.

For my own part , I bear malice to no one and have gone to considerable lengths to inform myself. ( Just in case you were spreading the tar liberally)

I do see things in a less benign light then you do. Perhaps to avoid tedium we may leave it at that.

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

I spoke to the insurer and asked about the new legislation. They had nothing concrete on whether the wording of the statements was going to change, they said negotiating were ongoing. .....
They said they will be proving guidance on the how the changes effect insurance when the wordings are finalised.

Any update on this strongback ?

strongback

sydthebeat wrote: »

Architects
Engineers
Specialists not required to hold PI insurance so company dies, responsibility dies
Builders same as above, once company winds up , no recourse for action
And the Local Authorities enough said here


The "1% rule" we have in litigation Ireland means last man standing carrys the can.... which always tends to be the professional as:

(a) their current insurance covers them for all previous work, and not work done during the lifespan of the policy
(b) they are required to hold 'run off' insurance until statute of limitations has expired.

These new certificates place a very real cross hair on the signer whom, and im in agreement with 4sticks here, will be in line for legal action notwithstanding the insurance held by the company on whos behalf its signed. Expect to found in a witness box trying to explain the reason for non compliance which has lead to a day in court.

In my opinion only the company directors should sign certs on behalf of the company.





If you believe that then im afraid you could be in a small minority

see here

while i agree that there is a 'watering down' of responsibility in the final wording, it still amounts to the certifiers certifying work carried out by others.

In terms of 'last man standing' this is what we currently have. I am last man on a project at present as are a number of my friends in their practices. I don't see how that can be avoided and to me seems a different issue to the signing of compliance certs. In other words the new legislation changes nothing.

In terms of being the last man there is the potential my PI insurance could be used to cover faulty design work by others who no longer exist. A big issue with being last man is the very time consuming paper chase that happens.


In terms of being in a small minority I think you will find my view is that of the ACEI and Engineers Ireland. The new wording is very much in place to appease the insurers and the new language is very reminiscent of the way insurers speak and write.

I agree with the solicitor in that the wording is too vague in places and is open to legal scrutiny but I sincerely believe the intention of the wording is to protect the professionals involved. How the words are interpreted legally may only be decided in a test case. That is always the way with new legislation. Remember the law generally takes a fair and reasonable approach.

The fact that the wording allows that certificates and insurance of other professions involved in the project are valid and can be drawn on I don't believe the lead consult will be fully responsible for sub consultants unless they go bust which is exactly the situation we have now.

My belief is there was a shift in thinking by the DOE away from a completely blunt approach using absolute statements. What I am reading on the new cert is familiar to me as it is very similar in wording to the existing Engineers Ireland cert.

The solicitor is nit picking the wording of the certs from a legal perspective and I welcome that.

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

Any update on this strongback ?

The insurance I use, who is probably the biggest insurance broker to the construction industry in Ireland and the UK, said they would be continuing to provide PPI in light of the new legislation and they renewed my cover. They were advising on the new wordings to the certs.

The insurance industry they told me told will act retrospectively in relation to the new changes in the legislation. If in say two years time claims go up significantly then the insurers will react to that by putting up premiums or potentially not providing insurance to certain practices or to the country as a whole.

We know there are less insurers in Ireland providing PI but this is because the market crashed and one of the results was insurance claims increased massively. If the insurers aren't making money or worse losing money they won't hang around.

sydthebeat

theres a HUGE problem with the current status quo regarding certification.
see priory hall.

Im saying that the current situation where the last man standing is the professional isnt good enough, and should not be accepted. I dont think home purchasers should find any solace in saying these regulations will lead to situations

which is exactly the situation we have now.

The purpose of these regs is to provide a robust building control system for the protection of consumers, which i think it has failed utterly at.

Personally i dont agree that the situation will be the same, i think these regulations give insurance companies MUCH MORE of a reason to pay out on spurious claims without letting claims get to court. The wording is a lot narrower and absolute than the wording im used to seeing (RIAI opinions). So if they are quick about paying out now, they will be even quicker after 1st march.

strongback

sydthebeat wrote: »

theres a HUGE problem with the current status quo regarding certification.
see priory hall.

Im saying that the current situation where the last man standing is the professional isnt good enough, and should not be accepted. I dont think home purchasers should find any solace in saying these regulations will lead to situations
The purpose of these regs is to provide a robust building control system for the protection of consumers, which i think it has failed utterly at.

Personally i dont agree that the situation will be the same, i think these regulations give insurance companies MUCH MORE of a reason to pay out on spurious claims without letting claims get to court. The wording is a lot narrower and absolute than the wording im used to seeing (RIAI opinions). So if they are quick about paying out now, they will be even quicker after 1st march.

There was rogue play at Priory Hall and this is not typical of the majority of projects. People can get things wrong or take short cuts they regret but it falls short of fraud. Priory Hall appears to me to be grossly fraudulent negligence.

The last man standing issue is a legal one. Should this be addressed by Building Control? Can the building legislation include for changes to the law in terms of last man standing? Seems like two different issues to me.

I would equate the words reasonable care etc with substantial compliance. We can only do what's practical in other words. Nobody can sit on site watching every nail being hammered in. Of course these words are familiar to insurance companies and collateral warranties etc so that is why from a legal viewpoint solicitors are calling them vague.


I agree the legislation falls way short. The Local Authorities will be largely allowed to abdicate themselves from responsibility when they are in fact the best body to police building control. They are independent and there remit is essentially to protecting the consumers interest.

A proper regulated building control as in the UK was what should have been the goal but Smiling Phil just wanted building control shoved off his table.

The reality is that we are going to have to make the most of what is now law. The focus in my view should be on educating ourselves on how to avoid the pot holes instead of the alternative of protest which to me is little short of pissing in the wind at this stage. I don't want to appear that I'm whistling past the graveyard but this thing is not stopping.

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

The last man standing issue is a legal one. Should this be addressed by Building Control? Can the building legislation include for changes to the law in terms of last man standing? Seems like two different issues to me.

Well yes but the context that the last man standing finds himself in can be dramatically impacted by building control. I have found through direct experience of working in the UK that an active local authority resourced building control inspectorate creates a culture of compliance on building sites.
One is less likely to be a last man standing there. In that respect building control can address the last man standing scenario.

strongback wrote: »

I would equate the words reasonable care etc with substantial compliance. We can only do what's practical in other words. Nobody can sit on site watching every nail being hammered in. Of course these words are familiar to insurance companies and collateral warranties etc so that is why from a legal viewpoint solicitors are calling them vague.

I can only hope you are right.

strongback wrote: »

I agree the legislation falls way short. The Local Authorities will be largely allowed to abdicate themselves from responsibility when they are in fact the best body to police building control. They are independent and there remit is essentially to protecting the consumers interest.

A proper regulated building control as in the UK was what should have been the goal but Smiling Phil just wanted building control shoved off his table.

Snap !

strongback wrote: »

The reality is that we are going to have to make the most of what is now law. The focus in my view should be on educating ourselves on how to avoid the pot holes instead of the alternative of protest which to me is little short of pissing in the wind at this stage. I don't want to appear that I'm whistling past the graveyard but this thing is not stopping.

Well that's ok if the "we" you mean is the "the gang of 3" professions allowed by law to participate. AT's and others have disenfranchised. But worse than that the consumer is now funneled by law towards only the "the gang of 3 " .
They will I am sure find ways to adjust to the new realities whilst the standard of building continues not to improve. The end user will lose out in future just as at present - even more so as it will be easier for a future govt not to do a Priory Hall / Pyrtite Remediation Scheme settlement or arrangement

4Sticks

And was not this

strongback wrote: »

My belief is there was a shift in thinking by the DOE away from a completely blunt approach using absolute statements. What I am reading on the new cert is familiar to me as it is very similar in wording to the existing Engineers Ireland cert.

derived from

strongback wrote: »

protest which to me is little short of pissing in the wind at this stage

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

Well yes but the context that the last man standing finds himself in can be dramatically impacted by building control. I have found through direct experience of working in the UK that an active local authority resourced building control inspectorate creates a culture of compliance on building sites.
One is less likely to be a last man standing there. In that respect building control can address the last man standing scenario.



I can only hope you are right.




Snap !



Well that's ok if the "we" you mean is the "the gang of 3" professions allowed by law to participate. AT's and others have disenfranchised. But worse than that the consumer is now funneled by law towards only the "the gang of 3 " .
They will I am sure find ways to adjust to the new realities whilst the standard of building continues not to improve. The end user will lose out in future just as at present - even more so as it will be easier for a future govt not to do a Priory Hall / Pyrtite Remediation Scheme settlement or arrangement

The last man standing situation is the same in the UK as it is here. I agree that the more stringent application of Building Control in the UK makes it much less likely that errors or bad building will occur but it doesn't stop companies from going bust.

One argument I have heard is that the professionals and builders will now be upping their game. Due to the increased level of self regulation individuals and companies will be more vigilant and careful about how they do their work. I think this will probably happen but it could create a more negative environment that paralyses people, initially anyway.

My view is I have to work and to do so I will have to adapt a bit but hopefully not a lot to the new legislation. I certainly won't be fearful of signing my name to a cert. I am a company director I should add. I won't expect staff to sign certs and never have. If I have a day in court I would expect the judge to listen to the arguments and weigh things up. In a case between a member of the public versus a company though I feel the member of the public may be favoured particularly if it involves the persons home.


"The Gang of Three"...........sounds like that band from Leeds when one of the members dies. Maybe it should be "Free the Gang of One"

I don't know why architectural technologists were excluded, that seems wrong to me as AT's are more familiar with the Regs than architects, engineers and especially building surveyors. Architects in this country in my view have been very good at protecting their position and keeping other disciplines down as much as possible. It's not like this in France, Italy or Spain.

I do think though that anybody doing architectural work in this day and age should have some qualifications. My feeling looking forward at new entrants coming into the industry is that an appropriate degree or maybe even a masters along with chartership should be required to sign certs.

It was too easy for a person with no training to call themselves an architect in this country, it's good in my opinion that this changed.

I fully agree there should also be a route for proven experienced technicians to become certifiers.

How much have architects helped AT's and technicians in their cause to be included as certifiers??

4Sticks

I concur with all you've posted just then strongback .

I believe that the non domestic market will be far less impacted by SI 9 2014 than the discussions here have suggested. My experience of that sector is that it is characterized by diligent professionals - designers , contractors , sub contractors and specialists who aspire to and maintain the very highest standards. That sector will adjust reasonably well and with relatively little to fear from the new legislation.

The context of this particular forum must be borne in mind when reading this thread. This forum is characterized by the domestic self build market. By a very long mile it will be the sector most impacted notwithstanding the ministers weezil words that there is to nothing stop self builders deeming themselves actual builders , provided that their certifier is ok with that ( signal to certifiers - - you will carry then can here guys big time so watch out ) . In this context SI 9 2014 is a game changer. For what it's worth to you - my opinion - is that one must fear the changes the new burdens of certification in this context.

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

How much have architects helped AT's and technicians in their cause to be included as certifiers??

archtech

An important thing for any certifier will be the paper trail and having enough evidence to demonstrate that the building was designed in compliance and that the relevant information was provided to a building contractor in a meaningful way to allow the building be built. And then to maintain a record that what was supposed to be done was done.

IMO from a design perspective a certifier is looking at having to prepare (either by themselves or an ancillary certifier) a report/statement with supporting calculations/drawings etc for every element ( from drainage falls to u-values to required areas for roof ventilation and everything in between)of the building relating to demonstrating compliance. It will no longer be safe to make assumptions or use rules of thumb. This level of information will really impact of the domestic situation, whereby for so long, a good builder, with a good set of GA drawings and a spec was more than sufficient.

No6

strongback wrote: »

How much have architects helped AT's and technicians in their cause to be included as certifiers??

Et Tu Brutus



http://mlddesign.net/index.php?/project/private-collection/

see the image on the top right!!

About that much i reckon from the RIAI council!!

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

The reality is that we are going to have to make the most of what is now law. The focus in my view should be on educating ourselves on how to avoid the pot holes instead of the alternative of protest which to me is little short of pissing in the wind at this stage. I don't want to appear that I'm whistling past the graveyard but this thing is not stopping.

some have more protesting left in them

The Irish Association of Self Builders of Ireland (IASOB) are currently campaigning against the introduction of Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 of 2014). They have contacted local TDs nationwide to express the strongly held views of their members. Self-builders currently build over 60% of all homes completed in the state and are one of the largest consumer groups negatively affected by the introduction of SI.9 in March. Below is a letter sent recently by the IASOB to Minister Phil Hogan TD. It has been circulated as part of their public campaign to have SI.9 deferred and amended.

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

some have more protesting left in them

I've see the figure that 60% of homes are constructed by self builders. That surprised me.

Do self build houses extend to beyond one off houses built by owner occupiers?

As to the issue is it not possible for a self builder to set themselves up as a contractor?

For what its worth from my experience self builds can get built off a planning drawing by a lay person who has little knowledge of the building regs or why some aspects of minimum standards should be achieved to produce a good house.

Lots of people fancy themselves as a builder but how many of these jobs are poorly organised and run well beyond the time they should take to build. There is also the issue of coordinating the trades who can take a standoffish approach when there is a problem at an interface etc.

For me, and it would just be my way of doing things not the only way, I would hire a contractor. I would find working and doing a self build just too stressful but that's just me based on my experience.


I don't have an issue with self builds happening but I think there construction should be better regulated. It's not something I like to say but there certainly have been individuals who signed off on sub-standard self-builds. The idea behind "substantial compliance" got abused.

4Sticks

Indeed so. The gap between how things should be and how they are opens up. All self builders should only do things correctly and ceriifiers should not sign off unless they do.

Hogans New controls wont alter this.

strongback

archtech wrote: »

An important thing for any certifier will be the paper trail and having enough evidence to demonstrate that the building was designed in compliance and that the relevant information was provided to a building contractor in a meaningful way to allow the building be built. And then to maintain a record that what was supposed to be done was done.

IMO from a design perspective a certifier is looking at having to prepare (either by themselves or an ancillary certifier) a report/statement with supporting calculations/drawings etc for every element ( from drainage falls to u-values to required areas for roof ventilation and everything in between)of the building relating to demonstrating compliance. It will no longer be safe to make assumptions or use rules of thumb. This level of information will really impact of the domestic situation, whereby for so long, a good builder, with a good set of GA drawings and a spec was more than sufficient.

I missed this post earlier. I have to say I think the more information that is produced for a job the better. When builders are left with sketchy drawings they have to make decisions sometimes not being fully informed about why certain things need to be done. Most of the details will be standard details and a lot of these already appear on a decent set of drawings.

I hope the days of builders working on houses off planning level drawings is over.

Can't AT's and technicians out on their own do the work and hire in a register certifier? It's not ideal but it keeps things going. (People might be surprised about how many of the established older "architects" have to this ). In the meantime AT's and technicians can then gather themselves under one umbrella either within the RIAI or outside it and build up a power base from which to lobby the government/DOE.

Architectural Technologists in particular need to work hard to make it understood what they do and the value they bring particularly in the area of regulation compliance. Is there a way to become a chartered technologist?

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

Is there a way to become a chartered technologist?

Yes and no. One can become chartered by virtue of becoming a member of and meeting particular requirements of CIAT. . But that has no meaning in the context of the BCA 20007 ( Registration of titles part )

newbie2013

Will these changes effect selling a house that was built prior to these changes

BryanF

newbie2013 wrote: »

Will these changes effect selling a house that was built prior to these changes

No

4Sticks

Question No. 124

Chun an Aire Comhshaoil, Pobail agus Rialtais Áitiúil:
To the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government:

To ask the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government further to Parliamentary Question No. 544 of 28 January 2014, if persons who self-build their homes will be required to take on full responsibility for ensuring that the properties concerned are in compliance with the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations (SI No 9 of 2014).

Thomas P. Broughan.

For WRITTEN answer on Wednesday, 5th February, 2014.

Ref No: 5852/14

REPLY

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Mr. P. Hogan)

The Building Control Act 1990 places a legal obligation on owners, designers and builders to ensure that their building complies with the relevant requirements of the building regulations. These obligations apply to all sectors of the housing and construction market, including the self-build sector.

Local building control authorities have powers to inspect and enforce compliance and where concerns exist in relation to a particular building, the authority may serve an enforcement notice on both the owner and the builder. In a self-build situation the owner and the builder will be one and the same.

The Building Control (Amendment) Regulations do not change or vary the legal position set out in the Act of 1990. It will, however, greatly strengthen the arrangements currently in place for the control of building activity by requiring greater accountability in relation to compliance with Building Regulations in the form of statutory certification of design and construction, lodgement of compliance documentation, mandatory inspections during construction and validation and registration of certificates.

In practice, even in a self-build situation, the owner-builder may contract out certain construction tasks. Under the new Regulations the owner-builder will also be required to engage competent registered professionals to undertake the design and to perform the role of the Assigned Certifier who will prepare an inspection plan, ensure this plan is implemented by himself and others and, in conjunction with the self-builder, sign the Certificate of Compliance on Completion. The resolution of problems arising between the owner-builder and any of the parties engaged by them as Designer, Contractor or Assigned Certifier is a matter between the owner, the relevant parties and their insurers, subject to the terms of any contracts in place. Where contractual issues cannot be resolved through dialogue and negotiation they can be enforced by civil action through the courts.

I have emphasized certain texts above


With respect to the implications for many who post here with queries ( self builders ) we will all have to see how this pans out and wait for several years of legal actions and their resolutions to really see what this means.

To me and with my crystal ball shining , it seems that the self builder direct labour who "signs as" builder under the new control regulations , becomes as the minister freshly terms it above an owner-builder. See whats happened here

The Building Control Act 1990 places a legal obligation on owners, designers and builders

The self builder merges into 2 of the 3 parties principally burdened the building control laws. One sometimes sees posts from self build direct labour along the lines of and I paraphrase "my plumber/tiler/sparks has failed me in some way during the works - aren't they supposed to build to regs / do things right" . As "owner-builder" I believe you will be you will be held in law to account for the works of others by signing documents declaring both your competence and preparedness for you to do what is required to make the works comply.

I expect the vast majority of would be self builders will simply conclude so be it - needs must. I don't have the funds to house myself any other way and so roll that dice.

which raises another question only to clearly answered over time . Will lenders allow self builders to be a Hogan's "owner-builder" ?

DOCARCH

4Sticks wrote: »

Which raises another question only to clearly answered over time . Will lenders allow self builders to be a Hogan's "owner-builder" ?

...and will certifiers take the risk? Not sure...without a hefty fee!

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

I have emphasized certain texts above


With respect to the implications for many who post here with queries ( self builders ) we will all have to see how this pans out and wait for several years of legal actions and their resolutions to really see what this means.

To me and with my crystal ball shining , it seems that the self builder direct labour who "signs as" builder under the new control regulations , becomes as the minister freshly terms it above an owner-builder. See whats happened here



The self builder merges into 2 of the 3 parties principally burdened the building control laws. One sometimes sees posts from self build direct labour along the lines of and I paraphrase "my plumber/tiler/sparks has failed me in some way during the works - aren't they supposed to build to regs / do things right" . As "owner-builder" I believe you will be you will be held in law to account for the works of others by signing documents declaring both your competence and preparedness for you to do what is required to make the works comply.

I expect the vast majority of would be self builders will simply conclude so be it - needs must. I don't have the funds to house myself any other way and so roll that dice.

which raises another question only to clearly answered over time . Will lenders allow self builders to be a Hogan's "owner-builder" ?

I would say that the fact Hogan has said that the Act includes self builds strengthens the self builder in any legal case. Hogan has legitimized self building in terms of the new Act in other words.

I then don't see what more a self builder can do if he follows the guidelines set out in Hogan's response and employs a competent designer to produce drawing in line with the Regs and then uses an assigned certifier. To me that is a comprehensive approach and in any law case were a self builder does this he will be in a strong position.

Up to now the bank generally required at least 4 sign offs by an architect or engineer to release stage payments during self builds. The assigned certifier is not much different although checking has become more formalized.

In reality from my experience self builds up to now have been carried out at the self builders risk. If they make a mistake or even hire rogue tradesmen/builders who rip them off they have little recourse outside going to court.

Are there any situations were the council have stepped into a self build project and bailed the self builder out due to bad drawings or rogue builders? It can't have happened too many times.

My read of things is that Hogan did not make changes to the legislation to bring self builders into line. He is far more concerned with housing estates, apartment blocks, pyrite and fire proofing. It is the big projects that are costing the state millions due to previous negligence and bad luck. Designers, builders and Building Control were overwhelmed by the boom and standards on some projects slipped, a lot of people are now feeling the effects of that.


The part of the Hogan statement I really don't like is this:

The resolution of problems arising between the owner-builder and any of the parties engaged by them as Designer, Contractor or Assigned Certifier is a matter between the owner, the relevant parties and their insurers, subject to the terms of any contracts in place. Where contractual issues cannot be resolved through dialogue and negotiation they can be enforced by civil action through the courts.

Removing building control's legal responsibility undermines some of the better aspects of the new legislation. It now really is complete self-regulation and that is open to more abuse than the original 1990 Act in a legal sense. What Hogan and the DOE have done will help the self regulation process but I doubt it will stop another Priory Hall or pyrite estate. In the future obviously it will be at the discretion of the State whether or not they step in to help innocent home owners should they purchase a faulty new home.

mikeymouse

Ok,
I've read through most of this thread, but I would like some clarification.
( I know you will say it was covered in the first few posts)
I plan on selfbuilding an extension; 30 sq mtrs (garage and bedroom.)
single storey
I will employ an engineer.
In terms I can understand please,
What involvement will the county council building control have post Mar.1st?
Thanks

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

I would say that the fact Hogan has said that the Act includes self builds strengthens the self builder in any legal case. Hogan has legitimized self building in terms of the new Act in other words.

It clearly defines the self builders responsibilities in a way that - based on some posts you read here - many have never appreciated. In other words one sometimes reads posts which seek or expect something like

the council have stepped into a self build project and bailed the self builder out due to bad drawings or rogue builders

Can you expand on why you see the self builder strengthened ?

4Sticks

mikeymouse wrote: »

Ok,
I've read through most of this thread, but I would like some clarification.
( I know you will say it was covered in the first few posts)
I plan on selfbuilding an extension; 30 sq mtrs (garage and bedroom.)
single storey
I will employ an engineer.
In terms I can understand please,
What involvement will the county council building control have post Mar.1st?
Thanks

None , due to the 40m2 limit which you are not exceeding

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

Up to now the bank generally required at least 4 sign offs by an architect or engineer to release stage payments during self builds. The assigned certifier is not much different although checking has become more formalized.

Have you known banks place stage payment documentation on public record ?

mikeymouse

4Sticks wrote: »

None , due to the 40m2 limit which you are not exceeding

Thanks 4sticks,
I had read sinnerboy and bullseye from a year back ,but was confused.

4Sticks

mikeymouse wrote: »

Thanks 4sticks,
I had read sinnerboy and bullseye from a year back ,but was confused.

sinnerboy repents

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

It clearly defines the self builders responsibilities in a way that - based on some posts you read here - many have never appreciated. In other words one sometimes reads posts which seek or expect something like



Can you expand on why you see the self builder strengthened ?

The main point is Hogan has legitimised self building. He has said it is included for in the Act. Some people had felt when the changes were announced that the new rules would make it very difficult if not impossible to self build.

The Act has a set of procedures that when followed should protect the the self builder in any insurance claim or legal dispute. Self building was so unregulated in the past that if things went wrong and there was no contracts in place or few written down agreements it made it easy for insurance companies to dismiss claims and left judges adjudicating on messes with nothing recorded.

Regulations are there to protect people who are trying to do things right and are fair and reasonable in their approach. They should help to weed out rogues in the construction business.

We will have to see what this costs the self builder in terms of getting compliant detailed drawings and having site visits carried out. I'm guessing fees will decrease over time as people become more comfortable with the changes. There is an attitude in Ireland that good design and inspection is a waste of money, a necessary evil. Ireland can be a bit backward sometimes. Good design should save money and maximize the potential of a new house helping the end user build a home they can really enjoy.

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

Have you known banks place stage payment documentation on public record ?

We already put planning applications on public record. Designers are pretty careful about what they put out in the public domain and the councils/planners respect that.

From reading the new certs there doesn't appear to be any sensitive information that has to be included on the cert.

I would be surprised if any certifier submits a cert stating there are non-compliant issues unless they have exhausted every avenue in trying to resolve the problems. We already know a cert that makes too many exemptions isn't worth the paper it is written on.

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

None , due to the 40m2 limit which you are not exceeding

Something crossed my mind reading this but it is probably nothing.

I know the Act has an exemption for extension under 40m2 but I wonder about extensions less than 40m2 that require planning. Could they get dragged in or is it a black and white 40m2 rule?

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

The main point is Hogan has legitimised self building. He has said it is included for in the Act. Some people had felt when the changes were announced that the new rules would make it very difficult if not impossible to self build.

They will. Hogan is playing politics here that's all. It won't be his fault self builders will find things so difficult it will be those intransigent professionals.

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

The Act has a set of procedures that when followed should protect the the self builder

No. The self builder will now become clearly liable as former-owner-but-forevermore-builder together with the designer to all future owners of the house.

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

Regulations are there to protect people who are trying to do things right and are fair and reasonable in their approach. They should help to weed out rogues in the construction business.

We will have to see what this costs the self builder in terms of getting compliant detailed drawings and having site visits carried out. I'm guessing fees will decrease over time as people become more comfortable with the changes. There is an attitude in Ireland that good design and inspection is a waste of money, a necessary evil. Ireland can be a bit backward sometimes. Good design should save money and maximize the potential of a new house helping the end user build a home they can really enjoy.

Your second point here will tend to undermine your first. Many , many clients will see certifiers as a gross imposition , will want to pay them as little as possible and will want them do as little as possible save for sign the damns certs - "which as what I , the client , am paying for you after all" .....

My opinion - the only thing that will affect a change in culture and raise building standards is a well resourced detached and impartial local authority inspectorate. But we are going in circles now .

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

Could they get dragged in or is it a black and white 40m2 rule?

By lenders. Yes ( my opinion only )

archtech

4Sticks wrote: »

Many , many clients will see certifiers as a gross imposition , will want to pay them as little as possible and will want them do as little as possible save for sign the damns certs - "which as what I , the client , am paying for you after all" .... .

To be honest I can see many disputes between certifiers and clients ending up in court on this one. It will be interesting to see if the professional institutes of the chosen 3, will in their standard forms of appointment include for a "get out of jail clause" whereby non compliance with an instruction regarding building regulations will allow the certifier terminate the agreement.

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

They will. Hogan is playing politics here that's all. It won't be his fault self builders will find things so difficult it will be those intransigent professionals.

I don't see how self builders will find the procedures difficult to understand.

They set themselves up as a sole trader which will involve a small accountants fee to make a return.

They get planning drawings done, there's also nothing stopping them doing the drawings themselves if they want to take that on.

They can familiarize themselves with the building regs, use guidance documents and the Homebond book to ensure they build in accordance with the regs. They then submit as built drawings.


The only time they explicitly need a professional is to to do inspections and sign off which is the way it has always been with bank.


I can see small builders who have very little knowledge of the regs being concerned with the changes but they shouldn't be. They should go out and educate themselves considering they are spending serious amounts of peoples cash.


The DOE in terms of potential costs to the State are not worried about self-building. A self builder takes on the risks himself, that has always been the way. If somebody takes on a house build and makes a balls of it themselves then nobody is going to bail them out. The government are more interested in consumers who have bought a house or apartment from a developer.

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

Your second point here will tend to undermine your first. Many , many clients will see certifiers as a gross imposition , will want to pay them as little as possible and will want them do as little as possible save for sign the damns certs - "which as what I , the client , am paying for you after all" .....

My opinion - the only thing that will affect a change in culture and raise building standards is a well resourced detached and impartial local authority inspectorate. But we are going in circles now .

I think we agree that the local authority should be in control of policing building regulations. I have yet to hear an engineer or architect that doesn't believe the same. The "Gang of Three" are worried too especially about having to take on more risk and potentially more insurance claims against them but is that a bad thing? I believe people need to take more responsibility for ensuring things don't go wrong.

strongback

archtech wrote: »

To be honest I can see many disputes between certifiers and clients ending up in court on this one. It will be interesting to see if the professional institutes of the chosen 3, will in their standard forms of appointment include for a "get out of jail clause" whereby non compliance with an instruction regarding building regulations will allow the certifier terminate the agreement.

I see it as more black and white. The building either complies with the regs or it doesn't. If it doesn't comply a cert isn't signed or it is written into the cert that non-compliant work exists.

If there is a dispute that cannot be resolved an independent third party can be brought in to do a review. It's not that difficult to interrupt the regs.

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

No. The self builder will now become clearly liable as former-owner-but-forevermore-builder together with the designer to all future owners of the house.

For that to happen collateral warranties would have to be signed. These are never used on houses in my experience. There is a defects liability period with most construction work, generally after 6 years the designer is no longer liable to claims, I think it is much less for builders but I'm not sure what it is exactly.

Speedsie

Hi, I'm about to start renovating an existing 19th century house. The roof needs work amongst other items, but basically the works are renovation, not building. There will be no extension.

I've been told time & time again that the works will need to comply with the new Building Control regulations.

But looking here, it seems it it for:
a) New Builds
b) Extension over 40 sq m

Am I being made adhere to more than I need to (bearing in mind that I'm already having to comply with a protected structure & all that entails).

Thanks!

Speeds

dathi

you are now arguing about "the ministers" opinion .how much weight will "the ministers" opinion hold in a court? if and when there is a legal challenge or dispute over this legislation . it will be solely based on the wording in si 9 of 2014 if it not in there it not going to happen