Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

mandy gall

There is no 'trade' as a builder- no school for builders. Anyone can set up a building company and hire the trades in. Self builders,too, have the right to hire these trades in. These regs are just so contradictory that they are set to fail.

DOCARCH

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

That is more of a political point you are making which I am sure many would agree with.

It may well be...but I believe it to be true.

If 'they' really wanted to protect the consumer, truly, they would have gone about this in a completely different manner.

There was a perfectly good Building Control Act in place...just not used and/or enforced properly.

Small measures/tweaking of the existing Act could have made a huge difference.

jonniebgood1

mandy gall wrote: »

There is no 'trade' as a builder- no school for builders. Anyone can set up a building company and hire the trades in. Self builders,too, have the right to hire these trades in. These regs are just so contradictory that they are set to fail.

You need to refer to the CIRI website to try and get a better understanding of the role you are incorrectly summarising in quote.

jonniebgood1

DOCARCH wrote: »

It may well be...but I believe it to be true.

If 'they' really wanted to protect the consumer, truly, they would have gone about this in a completely different manner.

There was a perfectly good Building Control Act in place...just not used and/or enforced properly.

Small measures/tweaking of the existing Act could have made a huge difference.

Most alternatives to this would have involved extra costs on government resources. For example a system similar to the UK would require extra resources which just aren't there, no matter how little it would have cost. The extra costs on the taxpayer from a change like that would also have kept Joe Duffy's phone busy.

mandy gall

Have checked the ciri website throughly and still dont see the school for builders. Just experience, tax compliant etc...are the requirements for registration. Check code of practice it says those listed on the ciri MAY be competent not they DEFINITELY are competent.

jonniebgood1

mandy gall wrote: »

Have checked the ciri website throughly and still dont see the school for builders. Just experience, tax compliant etc...are the requirements for registration. Check code of practice it says those listed on the ciri MAY be competent not they DEFINITELY are competent.

I'm sorry- I don't see what point you are making???

4Sticks

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

With respect that is not the aim of the regulations-

How naive . The express purpose of the regs is to protect the state. Be gone with with your pyrite infected houses and fire trap apartments now.

4Sticks

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Most alternatives to this would have involved extra costs on government resources. For example a system similar to the UK would require extra resources which just aren't there, no matter how little it would have cost.

No extra costs had to accrue to the state.

Like the BER system an BC system could be set up to "wash it's own face" . Set up "training" , registration, annual licence fee for individuals to practice as BCO's would be income strand 1. Then charge a m2/fee for all developments from applicants and voila - income strand 2.

A BCO UK style regime works on the principle that they do not have to be omni present to catch all like Irish Certifiers will have to be. The point about the UK BCO is that s/he has real teeth - all know this - clients / architects / builders that you better do as they ask because they have and are prepared to use pretty draconian enforcement measures. The UK BCO is both effective and time efficient. I fear many Irish certifiers will spend much time affecting very little.


As a practicing architect in the UK it was simply amazing when in a dispute with a builder to mutter " I wonder what building control would say ? " Brought the conversation to an ubrupt end every time.

jonniebgood1

4Sticks wrote: »

How naive . The express purpose of the regs is to protect the state. Be gone with with your pyrite infected houses and fire trap apartments now.

Do you think the current system is a better situation to the proposed one?

Poor Uncle Tom

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you think the current system is a better situation to the proposed one?

Regardless of the current system the 'proposed' one is a complete knee jerk reaction and evidence of a wasted opportunity, resulting in very poorly introduced legislation.

jonniebgood1

4Sticks wrote: »

No extra costs had to accrue to the state.

Like the BER system an BC system could be set up to "wash it's own face" . Set up "training" , registration, annual licence fee for individuals to practice as BCO's would be income strand 1. Then charge a m2/fee for all developments from applicants and voila - income strand 2.
.

lol. Do you realise the similarities between your suggestion and the Ministers current legislation (which you are criticising)
""training" , registration, annual licence fee for individuals to practice " maybe call them certifiers?

jonniebgood1

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1

Do you think the current system is a better situation to the proposed one?

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Regardless of the current system the 'proposed' one is a complete knee jerk reaction and evidence of a wasted opportunity, resulting in very poorly introduced legislation.

Ah Tom- that was a politicians (non) answer to the question!!!

Poor Uncle Tom

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Ah Tom- that was a politicians (non) answer to the question!!!

.....as is your avoidance of the point I made....

sydthebeat

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

lol. Do you realise the similarities between your suggestion and the Ministers current legislation (which you are criticising)
""training" , registration, annual licence fee for individuals to practice " maybe call them certifiers?

If you cannot see the difference between a system where those with the responsibility have the power, compared to SI 9 where those that have the responsibility have none of the power. ... then I'm afraid you haven't grasped the regs at all.

jonniebgood1

sydthebeat wrote: »

If you cannot see the difference between a system where those with the responsibility have the power, compared to SI 9 where those that have the responsibility have none of the power. ... then I'm afraid you haven't grasped the regs at all.

I highlighted the similarities, not the differences. Clearly.

jonniebgood1

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Regardless of the current system the 'proposed' one is a complete knee jerk reaction and evidence of a wasted opportunity, resulting in very poorly introduced legislation.

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

.....as is your avoidance of the point I made....

Fair cop- I agree completely with your first point. This smells of a missed opportunity and I fear it will be watered down even more in the coming months as 'guidelines' interpret the legislation in the least confrontational manner possible in view of upcoming elections. It doesn't mean that the old system is better though, so:

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you think the current system is a better situation to the proposed one?

DOCARCH

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you think the current system is a better situation to the proposed one?

The current system could work fine (better than the proposed system)...if...the 1990 Building Control Act was implemented as written/as intended.

Poor Uncle Tom

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Fair cop- I agree completely with your first point. This smells of a missed opportunity and I fear it will be watered down even more in the coming months as 'guidelines' interpret the legislation in the least confrontational manner possible in view of upcoming elections. It doesn't mean that the old system is better though, so:

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Do you think the current system is a better situation to the proposed one?

I believe they are both unfit for purpose and serve the wrong element in the equation. I believe the 'old' system is seriously due a complete overhaul, but I don't see the 'new' system as being in any way that overhaul.

Rather than being watered down I think there will be a complete softly softly approach to the new Act until the local elections are done with. In any event, any job where the commencement notice is lodged on or after 1st March is unlikely to be completed before the local elections and I see most problems at the completion stage. If forms are found to be filled wrongly or have incorrect information, there may not be any completion certificate and no means of getting one retrospectively.

What will that mean for property sales?

jonniebgood1

DOCARCH wrote: »

The current system could work fine (better than the proposed system)...if...the 1990 Building Control Act was implemented as written/as intended.

Essentially the implementation of the 1990 act is what the proposed measures involving certifiers and a registration of builders seem to be aimed at.

Go into more detail on what you mean. What role of cross checking or insurability did the 1990 act envisage. And who was the proposed arbiter?

4Sticks

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

lol. Do you realise the similarities between your suggestion and the Ministers current legislation (which you are criticising)
""training" , registration, annual licence fee for individuals to practice " maybe call them certifiers?

SEAI charges assessors registration fees payable annually. So could a similar Building Control Authority of Ireland. An income stream to the state ( together with m2 based fees for applicants could mean that the system does not have to cost he state as you suggested it would.

4Sticks

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Essentially the implementation of the 1990 act is what the proposed measures involving certifiers and a registration of builders seem to be aimed at.

No it is not.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Go into more detail on what you mean. What role of cross checking or insurability did the 1990 act envisage. And who was the proposed arbiter?

Why not educate yourself ?

BryanF

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I highlighted the similarities, not the differences. Clearly.

No you didn't

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Essentially the implementation of the 1990 act is what the proposed measures involving certifiers and a registration of builders seem to be aimed at.

johnny what are you on about?

Hairy mellon

Due to the late introduction of the final drafts of both the amendment and the code of practice the industry would appear to be not ready for SI.9. Delays that already have started happening in public and private sector projects (design team appointments etc) will create expensive delays and also pressurise an already difficult situation for many contractors. Incomplete and ill-conceived wording in the legislation may extend "untenable liability" on new roles and "vague and loose" language used in legislation may end up being proven in the courts. Various key stakeholders (for example the representative body for architects the RIAI) have made requests for SI.9 to be deferred on these and other grounds. Based on industry estimates the bottom line number of €600m equates to 6,000 jobs lost: the cost to the industry, government and taxpayer for 2014 . By 2020, in 6 years, SI.9 may cost the country close to €3bn, or 30,000 construction jobs.

Hairy mellon

BC(A)R SI.9 discussion on joe duffy today

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_liveline.xml

jonniebgood1

4Sticks wrote: »

Why not educate yourself ?

I asked docarch to elaborate on his point. I have no interest in engaging in bickering with you.

jonniebgood1

BryanF wrote: »

No you didn't
johnny what are you on about?

I think i did but opinion differs. My post suggested that both training and registration were similarities. I crossed out fees as I had referred to certifiers fulfilling the role proposed. I did not wish to elaborate as it was getting away from the thread subject.

Hairy mellon

some serious implementation questions asked in this post!

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/self-builder-confusion-bcar-si-9-2/

At a CPD event attended by over 500 architects in the Aviva yesterday an RIAI speaker confirmed that under the Code of Practice definition self-bulding would no longer be possible after 1st March 2014.

This view supports the recent legal opinion received by the IASOB. No more self-building in 5 days.

Andrew_Doran

Hairy mellon wrote: »

unfortunately no one has debated concerns of consumers. At the end of the day all professionals risks center on professional indemnity insurances. For consumers and self-builders, their houses are on the line.

Industry issues aside, the home is a central part of the human experience, hell even the animal experience. For something so fundamental in life to to be handled in such a rushed and ignorant way by the law makers is.. jaw dropping.

Hairy mellon

Andrew_Doran wrote: »

Industry issues aside, the home is a central part of the human experience, hell even the animal experience. For something so fundamental in life to to be handled in such a rushed and ignorant way by the law makers is.. jaw dropping.

Agreed

jiminho

Woho, this thread has come along the last month. I've tbh only really flicked thru the regulations and my first thought of them is that they aren't very definitive and almost seem like a work in progress.

Quick qs tho. I'm a civil engineer, is there anything stopping me from designing, certifying and subcontracting my one off home? Certifying is the tricky part I guess but do these three items need to be completed by a third party? What's stopping me from getting certified in the different denominations like a BER assessor. I see the big one and that is to hire a competent builder (with at least 3 years experience). My goal in life has always been to build my own home with me being heavily involved in the process, i.e being contractor and PM, buying own materials, etc. These regulations seem to suck the fun out of it. Is there any leeway for certain professions? I mean I do this for a living after all.

4Sticks

jiminho wrote: »

Quick qs tho. I'm a civil engineer, is there anything stopping me from designing, certifying and subcontracting my one off home? Certifying is the tricky part I guess but do these three items need to be completed by a third party? What's stopping me from getting certified in the different denominations like a BER assessor.

Interesting - a BER assessor would be barred by the SEAI Code of Practice from issuing a BER cert on their own home and morally too so should you ( sorry not what you wish to hear - I wouldn't ).

But I cannot see anything in SI 9 that would stop you doing the cetifying

shane6977

jiminho wrote: »

Woho, this thread has come along the last month. I've tbh only really flicked thru the regulations and my first thought of them is that they aren't very definitive and almost seem like a work in progress.

Quick qs tho. I'm a civil engineer, is there anything stopping me from designing, certifying and subcontracting my one off home? Certifying is the tricky part I guess but do these three items need to be completed by a third party? What's stopping me from getting certified in the different denominations like a BER assessor. I see the big one and that is to hire a competent builder (with at least 3 years experience). My goal in life has always been to build my own home with me being heavily involved in the process, i.e being contractor and PM, buying own materials, etc. These regulations seem to suck the fun out of it. Is there any leeway for certain professions? I mean I do this for a living after all.

If you are a chartered engineer there is nothing in SI 9 or the Code of Practise AFAIK to stop you from nominating yourself as Design Certifier and Assigned Certifier. You will however, have to appoint a competent builder.

Hairy mellon

shane6977 wrote: »

If you are a chartered engineer there is nothing in SI 9 or the Code of Practise AFAIK to stop you from nominating yourself as Design Certifier and Assigned Certifier. You will however, have to appoint a competent builder.

+1

recent minister's statement in dail confirms this


Political Q+A: Mister Hogan suggests Builder separate appointment: BC(A)R SI.9 | BRegs Blog
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/political-qa-mister-hogan-suggests-builder-is-now-owner-bcar-si-9/

4Sticks

Well it does clarify the matter. Not in the way a self builder would wish granted but no doubt remains at least.

sydthebeat

Just to amplify what hairy mellon says above


straight from the horses mouth... so to speak....

phil hogan wrote:

The owner will be responsible for ensuring that they appoint a competent builder – a register of builders, contractors and tradespersons known as the Construction Industry Register Ireland (CIRI) will be established on a voluntary basis for this purpose on or before 1 March 2014 and placed on a statutory footing by 2015 – and that they employ a competent registered professional to undertake the roles of designer and assigned certifier.

jiminho

Thank you Hairy Lemon for that. So could i go to my Local Council with the following:

Foundation contractor: Foundation Ltd.
Blockwork contractor: Blockwork Ltd.
Electrical contractor: Electrical Ltd.
etc..

So i may not have a "General" contractor/builder but the above are all reputable and have the 3 years experience required. Is the one liner presented in the regulations all encompassing, in that Joe Blogs the owner can design it but all construction responsibilities have to be handed over to the builder in a similar style to the American/Canadian development lots/estates?

4Sticks

No . You have to appoint a competent builder. Singular.

sydthebeat

jiminho wrote: »

Thank you Hairy Lemon for that. So could i go to my Local Council with the following:

Foundation contractor: Foundation Ltd.
Blockwork contractor: Blockwork Ltd.
Electrical contractor: Electrical Ltd.
etc..

So i may not have a "General" contractor/builder but the above are all reputable and have the 3 years experience required. Is the one liner presented in the regulations all encompassing, in that Joe Blogs the owner can design it but all construction responsibilities have to be handed over to the builder in a similar style to the American/Canadian development lots/estates?

joe bloggs the owner CANNOT design compliance with building regs.

Joe bloggs owner MUST engage a competent builder to undertake the responsibilities and sign certification.

Once said builder is happy to let Joe Bloggs owner project manage the build... so be it.

jiminho

4Sticks wrote: »

No . You have to appoint a competent builder. Singular.

So for people like myself who wanted to sub-contract out the work, buy own materials etc. now face more than the 10% increase being suggested and more like up to 30% when general contractor and material mark-up come into play. That's a bit depressing.

jiminho

sydthebeat wrote: »

joe bloggs the owner CANNOT design compliance with building regs.

Joe bloggs owner MUST engage a competent builder to undertake the responsibilities and sign certification.

Once said builder is happy to let Joe Bloggs owner project manage the build... so be it.

Well i meant Joe "Engineer" Bloggs. Are we still bound by the same restrictions?

4Sticks

jiminho wrote: »

So for people like myself who wanted to sub-contract out the work, buy own materials etc. now face more than the 10% increase being suggested and more like up to 30% when general contractor and material mark-up come into play. That's a bit depressing.

We have local elections this May.
Don't get depressed.
Get evil.

4Sticks

jiminho wrote: »

Woho, this thread has come along the last month. I've tbh only really flicked thru

Please do more than flick through before posting any more queries. Out of courtesy to others.

Hairy mellon

4Sticks wrote: »

We have local elections this May.
Don't get depressed.
Get evil.

98 days to local elections tic toc

This whole issue only kicks off on 1st march

Watch the wheels come off

Riai cpd reckon 95% architects mot ready for si9

75% expect significant disruption

Let the implementation fun begin

Happyman42

Anybody hear the guy on Joe Duffy today, couldn't listen to it properly, but he seemed to be saying that the Dept.(that's the bit I'm unsure of, it it was the dept he was talking to.) told him to appoint himself as builder?

4Sticks

you can listen to it here ( I have not done so myself)

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A20532911%3A53%3A25%2D02%2D2014%3A

Gumbo

jiminho wrote: »

So for people like myself who wanted to sub-contract out the work, buy own materials etc. now face more than the 10% increase being suggested and more like up to 30% when general contractor and material mark-up come into play. That's a bit depressing.

They are by their very nature sub contractors. You need to appoint a parent contractor who is responsible for the collection of these sub contractors.

mandy gall

Happyman42 wrote: »

Anybody hear the guy on Joe Duffy today, couldn't listen to it properly, but he seemed to be saying that the Dept.(that's the bit I'm unsure of, it it was the dept he was talking to.) told him to appoint himself as builder?

Yes he was given more misinformation! More on rte this week coming

jiminho

Happyman42 wrote: »

Anybody hear the guy on Joe Duffy today, couldn't listen to it properly, but he seemed to be saying that the Dept.(that's the bit I'm unsure of, it it was the dept he was talking to.) told him to appoint himself as builder?

Wish i was living in Ireland to listen to some of these radio conversations, sound very interesting. I may sound kinda liberal but it should be our rite to build our own home. Most self build homes i can imagine are above standard. I can understand certifications and compliance's, we all want to be safe and for our homes to last forever but why not just submit your drawings to a certifier at pre-construction stage, make any necessary changes, and then get the certifier to come out post-construction to make sure everything's ok, and if not, it's the owners responsibility.

mandy gall

jiminho wrote: »

Wish i was living in Ireland to listen to some of these radio conversations, sound very interesting. I may sound kinda liberal but it should be our rite to build our own home. Most self build homes i can imagine are above standard. I can understand certifications and compliance's, we all want to be safe and for our homes to last forever but why not just submit your drawings to a certifier at pre-construction stage, make any necessary changes, and then get the certifier to come out post-construction to make sure everything's ok, and if not, it's the owners responsibility.

Available on rte radio website joe duffy show podcast. You are on the button - it is a right to build whether its a self build or contractor route - no government can stop this.

Hairy mellon

Happyman42 wrote: »

Anybody hear the guy on Joe Duffy today, couldn't listen to it properly, but he seemed to be saying that the Dept.(that's the bit I'm unsure of, it it was the dept he was talking to.) told him to appoint himself as builder?

The department is contradicting itself and si9

The completion cert for the builder states "must be signed by a principal or director of a building firm"

In addition minister hogan has recently done a 180degree uturn on this and now is stating a separate builder must be appointed

Keynote speaker at riai cpd on monday (500 present) stated self building mo longermpossible after 1st march

Read code of practice is very clear. Separate appointment of competent builder. No mention of owner doing role.

Joe duffy asked "will department go down to high court with you?" to caller

In uk last week incentives were introduced for self builders....lol