Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

Initial quotes are showing as much as 8% for this "service".

Syd, is this just for acting as assigned certifier?

sydthebeat

DOCARCH wrote: »

Syd, is this just for acting as assigned certifier?

post tender services.

strongback

sydthebeat wrote: »

As long as you expect to pay that professional proportionally more for this extra work involved, then alls good.

Initial quotes are showing as much as 8% for this "service".

And remember, the pool of professional you can choose from is extremely small.

So up to 15% for inception to completion?

jonniebgood1

sydthebeat wrote: »

As long as you expect to pay that professional proportionally more for this extra work involved, then alls good.

Initial quotes are showing as much as 8% for this "service".

And remember, the pool of professional you can choose from is extremely small.

I wonder will people vary the % charge depending on who builds the builder. For example the percentage would be lower if a builder who is up to date and has a good track record is going to construct a building. If a self builder is managing their own build and learn by their mistakes on the job it means that the certifier is going to have both (a) more risk in the certification and also (b) they will probably be contacted more often during project with queries on how to do certain tasks.

4Sticks

I think so and thereby a paradox arises. The self build direct labour types , poor mouth and all , will be the ones who need the Certifiers services most and will be the ones prepared to pay for it the least.

strongback

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I wonder will people vary the % charge depending on who builds the builder. For example the percentage would be lower if a builder who is up to date and has a good track record is going to construct a building. If a self builder is managing their own build and learn by their mistakes on the job it means that the certifier is going to have both (a) more risk in the certification and also (b) they will probably be contacted more often during project with queries on how to do certain tasks.

I am generally nervous about builders I don't know and even more so about a certain few I have seen in action!

Some small builders do not consider the BRegs too much or paperwork in general. These builders need to be brought in line. It should not be the certifiers job to police builders who do not follow drawings or know the BRegs fully.

Given the new certs require that builders must verify their work is in compliance with the BRegs it will be interesting to see how small builders will approach their new responsibility of having to sign the SI9 certs.

DOCARCH

strongback wrote: »

I am generally nervous about builders I don't know and even more so about a certain few I have seen in action!

+1 to this!

Fees for acting as assigned certifier, from my point of view at least, will very much be weighted in relation to the experience of the builder.

There are some builders I have come across in the past, who would have a pretty good reputation (for an end product) I simply would not work with under SI 9 (or without double fees at least!) and there are some other builders I have come across in the past (only a couple!) that I would have no issue with working with them under SI 9.

sydthebeat

DOCARCH wrote: »

+1 to this!

Fees for acting as assigned certifier, from my point of view at least, will very much be weighted in relation to the experience of the builder.

There are some builders I have come across in the past, who would have a pretty good reputation (for an end product) I simply would not work with under SI 9 (or without double fees at least!) and there are some other builders I have come across in the past (only a couple!) that I would have no issue with working with them under SI 9.

agreed

i could count on one finger the amount of builders id have full confidence to do a job with minimal intervention from me....

one one hand the amount of builders id tell clients that their work is 'good'

to all the rest i would tell clients that i do not recommend builders...

make of that what you will after 14 years in the industry.

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

to all the rest i would tell clients that i do not recommend builders...

I am in that same boat, and under SI 9 I will be even less likely to even suggest builders. If a client asks 'is the builder competent'...I will just point them towards CIRI.

4Sticks

From the mouths of those in a service industry. What has Hogan done to us ?

4Sticks

The panic gains momentum in Wicklow ...

DOCARCH

4Sticks wrote: »

The panic gains momentum in Wicklow ...

It's amazing that the penny is only starting to drop 10 days before this comes into effect!

jonniebgood1

The reported comments of the councillors in the Wicklow article reinforce the need for tighter regulations.

E.g.
"Building regulations have to be updated, but this is a step too far,"
Maybe abandon all building regs???


and
"A small few have dreamt this up to make it difficult for the vast majority." The purpose is actually a better built environment...

I also don't see how they are suggesting that this will cause mass unemployment and emigration? Its just standard council talk. The regulations may actually see more work for legitimate registered tradesmen with cash merchants finding things harder as invoiced work for VAT compliant builders would be required.

DOCARCH

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The reported comments of the councillors in the Wicklow article reinforce the need for tighter regulations.

Yes...everybody agrees with tighter regulations...but all the new building control regulations are doing is reinforcing self regulation and certification and extending the arms length of the powers that be.

DOCARCH

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I also don't see how they are suggesting that this will cause mass unemployment and emigration? Its just standard council talk. The regulations may actually see more work for legitimate registered tradesmen with cash merchants finding things harder as invoiced work for VAT compliant builders would be required.

What if you can't get...never mind afford...an assigned certifier? You cannot build?

I have yet to come across any professional willing to take on the role of assigned certifier for other peoples projects.

The bar has been set way to high with and unacceptable level of risk.

To quote an earlier post, it's a clusterfcuk!

sydthebeat

It's as simple as this. ...

Those with all the power bare no responsibility.

Those with all the responsibility bare no power.

Under these conditions no system can work properly.

ml100

All this talk of double fees and big increases in the cost of building will result in one thing, less houses being built and that means less work for most of the people posting in this thread. A lot of self build houses are built on the builders own land in locations that suit them but not every one else, the extra cost introduced by all this will mean that these self builders will not be able to get a mortgage as the value of the house will end up being less than the build costs.
What will SI 9 mean to me the consumer?, if I have problems with a build 5 years down the road am I going to have to sue a builder who will have a limited company with very little assets?

jonniebgood1

DOCARCH wrote: »

What if you can't get...never mind afford...an assigned certifier? You cannot build?

I have yet to come across any professional willing to take on the role of assigned certifier for other peoples projects.

The bar has been set way to high with and unacceptable level of risk.

To quote an earlier post, it's a clusterfcuk!

There are going to be plenty who will perform this role. In the current system there are lots of engineers and architects who sign off on payment in stages for bank loans on projects they haven't designed. To do this they need pi insurance. This is a clear indication tthat there should not be any shortage of prospective certifiers.

RORY O CONNOR

DOCARCH wrote: »

What if you can't get...never mind afford...an assigned certifier? You cannot build?

I have yet to come across any professional willing to take on the role of assigned certifier for other peoples projects.

The bar has been set way to high with and unacceptable level of risk.

To quote an earlier post, it's a clusterfcuk!

I will only ever certify works that I have designed and inspected during construction. The fundamental issue is that people don't want to pay the required fees-I am being asked to take on a risk and then that risk is not being recognised nor accepted that it needs to be be compensated for! My PI insurance costs me a lot of money and I still have to pay the first €5000 euro for any claim should one arise. People will happily pay lots of money out to service their Audi or pay out a lot for a fancy holiday but not professional fees.

DOCARCH

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

There are going to be plenty who will perform this role..

I think you are wrong. The figures (no. of professionals) who can sign off vs. the volume of building work that is out there simply does not stack up?

There are lots of people who legitimately sign off building works now who will not be permitted to sign off under SI 9.

In addition, SI 9 sign off will involve a significant increase in time input by the professional per build so there will only be so in theory less sign offs per year.

mullingar

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

People will happily pay lots of money out to service their Audi or pay out a lot for a fancy holiday but not professional fees.

That will always be the case as average people can see what their very hard earned money buys.

In my opinion professional fees will always seem far too expensive by ordinary people as it never appears to represent value for money as ordinary people would not appreciate the amount of time involved by the professional in once-off projects.

It will be a lot worse with the new regs!

strongback

mullingar wrote: »

That will always be the case as average people can see what their very hard earned money buys.

In my opinion professional fees will always seem far too expensive by ordinary people as it never appears to represent value for money as ordinary people would not appreciate the amount of time involved by the professional in once-off projects.

It will be a lot worse with the new regs!

That's the reason why commercial work is always better than dealing with the public.

There isn't really anything particularly positive about domestic jobs. Low fees, potentially annoying unknowledgeable clients and many times the lowest standard of builders in the industry. I'd be happy to just do planning permissions and then walk away.

BryanF

this is not a discussion about clients v professionals or professionals v contractors!

back on topic please BCA 2014

dathi

from the ciri webpage questions and answers quote "I’ve just set up a new construction company, does that mean I won’t be able to join the register?

If the individual making the application on their own behalf or on behalf of a company has gained experience working for another company, these projects can be used as examples when applying to join the register. "

from ciri website does that mean that paddy joe who has been a laborer for 3 years can now proclaim himself a builder and register with ciri?

sydthebeat

dathi wrote: »

I’ve just set up a new construction company, does that mean I won’t be able to join the register?

If the individual making the application on their own behalf or on behalf of a company has gained experience working for another company, these projects can be used as examples when applying to join the register.

from ciri website does that mean that paddy joe who has been a laborer for 3 years can now proclaim himself a builder and register with ciri?

please put that question to CIRI and come back to us with the answer?

at the moment everything is up in the air and NO ONE seems to know how its going to be implemented.

The ministers contradicting what the regs say.
CIF contradicts what the minister says
The 'guidance leaflet' contradicts the regs
The code of practice contradicts the leaflet....

If it wasnt so serious it would be hilarious.

4Sticks

Get ready for Hogan to blame the architects . I can see him now sat in front of Miriam .....

DOCARCH

4Sticks wrote: »

Get ready for Hogan to blame the architects . I can see him now sat in front of Miriam .....

Whingers!

4Sticks

I see they are all prepared and ready in the kingdom

DOCARCH

DOCARCH wrote: »

SI 9 sign off will involve a significant increase in time input by the professional per build so there will only be so in theory less sign offs per year.

There has been ongoing calls, from various bodies (e.g. the ESRI) that Dublin (alone) needs at least 8000 housing units built, per year, for the next 5 years.

What sort of additional time input will each house require in terms of inspection and certification under SI 9? 50 hours per house, maybe, depending on the size of development? Probably less time for larger developments (due efficiences/economies of scale).

If it was, say, 25 hours per housing unit, for a larger development, for 8000 housing units per year, you would need approx. 100 professionals working full time, 9 to 5 every day, for 48 weeks per year, just working on admin and inspection in connection with SI 9.

I just do not believe there are enough professionals/potential assigned certifiers to go around!

Either construction will come to a halt or something will have to give with SI 9.

4Sticks

The minister could
confer upon Certifiers , under a licence system , all of the stringent powers of enforcement that the BCA 1990 confers upon LABCO's.
mandate that Certifiers must be a stand alone appointment from the Architect. Payment upfront. Certifier not "biddable" to client in any shape of form. Severe penalties for Certifiers for not being honest.

That would work nicely.

jonniebgood1

dathi wrote: »

I’ve just set up a new construction company, does that mean I won’t be able to join the register?

If the individual making the application on their own behalf or on behalf of a company has gained experience working for another company, these projects can be used as examples when applying to join the register.

from ciri website does that mean that paddy joe who has been a laborer for 3 years can now proclaim himself a builder and register with ciri?

You can apply to join CIRI. There are a number of requirements such as proper insurance, a strong grasp of safety related issues and a tax clearance certificate. As it is a new register it is not possible for anyone to accurately tell you your chances of success. The information which you submit gives ample opportunity for you to demonstrate previous experience.

dathi

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You can apply to join CIRI. There are a number of requirements such as proper insurance, a strong grasp of safety related issues and a tax clearance certificate. As it is a new register it is not possible for anyone to accurately tell you your chances of success. The information which you submit gives ample opportunity for you to demonstrate previous experience.

sorry if i wasnt clear jonnie i was not talking about myself the first half of my post was lifted directly from the ciri webpage just pointing out the farce that anyone can still call them selves a builder without any minimum qualifications other than a tax cert

sydthebeat

dathi wrote: »

sorry if i wasnt clear jonnie i was not talking about myself the first half of my post was lifted directly from the ciri webpage just pointing out the farce that anyone can still call them selves a builder without any minimum qualifications other than a tax cert

Dathi, there are no qualifications in Ireland to become a builder, that's part of the problem.

jonniebgood1

dathi wrote: »

sorry if i wasnt clear jonnie i was not talking about myself the first half of my post was lifted directly from the ciri webpage just pointing out the farce that anyone can still call them selves a builder without any minimum qualifications other than a tax cert

Fair enough- I agree by the way. CIRI could be a step in the right direction although according to the guidance document issued to councils and linked here in the last few pages any person who wishes to build can just assign themselves to the role!!!

4Sticks

sydthebeat wrote: »

please put that question to CIRI and come back to us with the answer?

at the moment everything is up in the air and NO ONE seems to know how its going to be implemented.

The ministers contradicting what the regs say.
CIF contradicts what the minister says
The 'guidance leaflet' contradicts the regs
The code of practice contradicts the leaflet....

If it wasnt so serious it would be hilarious.

This letter summarizes nicely

Source

The representative body for self-builder’s in Ireland the IASOB have recently written to every local authority and to the Department of the Environment asking for recent inaccurate public guidance to be retracted. The public guidance document is attached after the letter below. Letter from Iaosb to Building Control Department’s regarding Building Control (Amendment) S.I 9 of 2014 to follow (extract off IASOB website):

________________________

Dear Building Control Section,

RE: Self- Builder status under Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 of 2014)

I am writing to you on behalf of the Irish Association of Self Builders regarding the status of self-builders from 1st March onwards. Despite numerous written from Minster Phil Hogan to questions asked on our behalf by other TD’s the status of our members remains vague.

We have been informed by attendees that at an Engineer’s briefing on January 17th 2014 the consensus view of the Construction Industry Federation (CIF), Department of the Environment (DOE) and Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI) representatives was that self-building would no longer be possible from 1st March onwards. Hubert Fitzpartick of the Construction Industry Federation (CIF Director of Housing) confirmed this position that self-building would end on 1st march (interview on January 23rd 2014).

Contrary to this in numerous written answers to TD’s you have stated that self-building can continue as before under SI.9. John Graby, the Director of the RIAI stated that self-building was possible under BC(A)R SI.9 in an interview on 6th February 2014.

We have read with dismay recent Local Authority public guidance on BC(A)R SI.9. It is unfortunate that a recent local authority guidance to the public on Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 of 2014) would appear to be inaccurate and contradictory. Given that we have less than 2 weeks before the implementation date of 1st March, incorrect information is of no assistance to members of the public and professionals who are scrambling to adapt to the new regulation.

Reading item 22 together with 11 and 12 it would appear that Local Authorities may deem owners that undertake the role of builder on commencement compliant, provided the completion certificate is signed by a “Builder”- a “Director of Principal of a building company”. This could indicate that a completion certificate provided by a competent “builder”(someone not involved in the build or inspection during construction) could be satisfactory compliance with SI.9. So we now have the unacceptable situation where we have the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government at odds with his Department with different interpretations of the regulation, the CIF and the RIAI also with different opinions (two key stakeholders) and finally local authorities who issued different guidelines again on the status of the self-builder under BC(A)R SI.9.

Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 OF 2014) of course has not changed and the completion certificate for a builder states “to be signed by a Principal or Director or of a building company only”.

We the Irish Association of Self Builders, have sought independent legal advice on the status of self-builders under Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 of 2014). Our legal advisor confirmed that the sentence “to be signed by a Principal or Director or of a building company only” is the applicable section that has been signed into law. If that sentence is not removed or changed to include building owner, then the building owner may find themselves with legal actions taken by or against them should they go ahead and sign the certificate as the builder. The document Building Control (Amendment) Regulation SI.9 of 2014 was passed in to law by the Minister on the 15th of January 2014 and it can not be changed for individual cases.

On behalf of our members we request that you formally retract this guidance document and correct any public statements regarding concerning the status of the self-builder; we believe your public guidance is misleading and bring local authorities into disrepute. We will also be writing requesting a formal correction from Minister Hogan and the RIAI that have issued conflicting and misrepresentative advice on this matter also. Why we are not afforded the courtesy of a correct and legally accurate response and guidance to our one simple question “can self-building continue after 1st March”? What has been given up to now is not acceptable to our members and to the citizens of this country affected by this legislation.

Look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours Sincerely,

Shane McCloud

Irish Association of self Builders

www.iaosb.com

dathi

sydthebeat wrote: »

Dathi, there are no qualifications in Ireland to become a builder, that's part of the problem.

thats exactly the point i was making anyone can still call them selves a builder without any technical knowledge or minimum qualification ,I am not expecting builders to have the same level of knowledge as arch /engs or even lowly techs but as the regs get more complex to comply with, there should have been a minimum education standard set for the principle of building firm to achieve. with a lead in time for them to achieve it. whether this was a level 5,6,or 7 is another debate, what we have at the moment is a tax cert which while i am sure will please revenue no end, will not improve building control compliance.

mickdw

It seems like a no brainer that there should be a builders licence system like some countries operate.
This ties together the required knowledge, tax clearance and insurances and the information is then placed on a public file.

4Sticks

Co Clare councilor gears up for local elections

DOCARCH

DOCARCH wrote: »

Joooooooe Dufffffffy!

Just hitting the airwaves now...tune in!

DOCARCH

DOCARCH wrote: »

Just hitting the airwaves now...tune in!

I would expect to hear more about this (on Joe Duffy) during the week. At the end of the programme, Joe said he would come back to it as 'the switch board had light up'.

topcatcbr

I only just caught the end of it. I thought there would be more discussion on here about the "Duffy" segment.

mandy gall

Look at code of practice page 6" building owners role:...ultimately responsible for the works etc.." to me ultimately is the key word. The building owner is the one who will be liable for anything that goes wrong in the future.

BryanF

mandy gall wrote: »

Look at code of practice page 6" building owners role:...ultimately responsible for the works etc.." to me ultimately is the key word. The building owner is the one who will be liable for anything that goes wrong in the future.

whats your point?

mandy gall

My point is whats the point in these whole regs? Supposedly to protect the consumer?? How is the consumer protected if something goes wrong with the building in the future?

DOCARCH

mandy gall wrote: »

Supposedly to protect the consumer?? How is the consumer protected if something goes wrong with the building in the future?

They are not...if anything the consumer is worse off (and more out of pocket from the outset)...'protecting the consumer' was just the political spin on the new regs.

The powers that be seem to think that professional indemnity insurance (PII) = latent defects insurance, i.e. if something goes wrong PII will pay out. It is not. PII is there to protect the professional (in theory) and the only redress the consumer has is to engage in a potentially lengthy legal battle.

4Sticks

mandy gall wrote: »

My point is whats the point in these whole regs? Supposedly to protect the consumer?? How is the consumer protected if something goes wrong with the building in the future?

Wont happen with self builders according to lots around here.

jonniebgood1

mandy gall wrote: »

How is the consumer protected if something goes wrong with the building in the future?

The building is built by an experienced builder who is bound by a high level of standards (they sign a commitment to this). As this is their trade they are less likely to make mistakes than someone unfamiliar in the role of managing a building project, including health and safety on site. A certifier backed up by PI insurance will also sign that building is in compliance with building regulations -this was not previously always the case and is a clearly better position.

mandy gall

So what is the point of these regs then when the building owner is ultimately responsible?

DOCARCH

mandy gall wrote: »

So what is the point of these regs then when the building owner is ultimately responsible?

To get the government and local authorities completely off the hook with anything to do with construction and associated problems that may arise in the future. Black and white...nothing to do with them.

jonniebgood1

DOCARCH wrote: »

To get the government and local authorities completely off the hook with anything to do with construction and associated problems that may arise in the future. Black and white...nothing to do with them.

With respect that is not the aim of the regulations- That is more of a political point you are making which I am sure many would agree with.