Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

4Sticks

kkelliher wrote: »

I dont think anyone stated it was the right or wrong thing to do but to champion what is going on in the UK in comparison to Ireland is not comparing apples with apples. They have a far more developed control syste than we do so we cant simply wish ourselves into a position we are not in.

...and ?

mandy gall

4Sticks wrote: »

source

Just blame the architects

The audacity of Hogan..coward

4Sticks

sydthebeat wrote: »

I can only imagine the out cry from the Building Control sections if they are ultimately found to have responsibility to go along with their statutory power.

Not if they were morphed into an SEAI style of overseeing body to a swathe of private certifiers.

Hogan held the "I sign this document and I alone am soley responsible for everything" over the professions for 20 of the last 24 months and so criticial thinking and clear leadership was abandoned by the rabbits in the Hogan headlamps. Survival was the order of the day ( with the RIAI stuffing AT's in that process) not the best possible building control system for Ireland.

That debate was never had.

Why not now ?

DOCARCH

4Sticks wrote: »

source

Just blame the architects

That was inevitable! If the DoECLG had carried out a proper RIA (Regulatory Impact Assesment) they wouldn't have the Minister spouting that sh**e.

sydthebeat

4Sticks wrote: »

Not if they were morphed into an SEAI style of overseeing body to a swathe of private certifiers.

Hogan held the "I sign this document and I alone am soley responsible for everything" over the professions for 20 of the last 24 months and so criticial thinking and clear leadership was abandoned by the rabbits in the Hogan headlamps. Survival was the order of the day ( with the RIAI stuffing AT's in that process) not the best possible building control system for Ireland.

That debate was never had.

Why not now ?

I can clearly see the merits of such a system. However, statutory powers MUST be afforded to the private certifiers in order for such a system to work.

As with the BER system, it would have to be self financing. The costs of same can be graded depending on build type ie if using a registered indemnified building contractor then the statutory fee should be, let's say, €1500. But if going 'direct Labour' the fee should be a multiple to reflect the extra 'hand holding' that is inevitable in such build ... so say €4500 for individual one offs.

Any engineering or architectural engagement would be separate and independent of the certifier.

And obviously a latent defects insurance scheme should go hand in hand with the above.

4Sticks

DOCARCH wrote: »

That was inevitable! If the DoECLG had carried out a proper RIA (Regulatory Impact Assesment) they wouldn't have the Minister spouting that sh**e.

And when people start complaining that their extension works are being made more expensive because banks are "making them" comply with SI 9 watch Hogan allege collusion between banks and architects ....

4Sticks

sydthebeat wrote: »

I can clearly see the merits of such a system. However, statutory powers MUST be afforded to the private certifiers in order for such a system to work.

As with the BER system, it would have to be self financing. The costs of same can be graded depending on build type ie if using a registered indemnified building contractor then the statutory fee should be, let's say, €1500. But if going 'direct Labour' the fee should be a multiple to reflect the extra 'hand holding' that is inevitable in such build ... so say €4500 for individual one offs.

Any engineering or architectural engagement would be separate and independent of the certifier.

And obviously a latent defects insurance scheme should go hand in hand with the above.

Exactly - even the grades of building / grades of certifier model could be transferred over. For those not familiar , the more complex the building type the higher grade of qualification one needs to be a BER Assessor. That kind of arrangement could be re used.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

As with the BER system, it would have to be self financing. The costs of same can be graded depending on build type ie if using a registered indemnified building contractor then the statutory fee should be, let's say, €1500. But if going 'direct Labour' the fee should be a multiple to reflect the extra 'hand holding' that is inevitable in such build ... so say €4500 for individual one offs.

Any engineering or architectural engagement would be separate and independent of the certifier.

And obviously a latent defects insurance scheme should go hand in hand with the above.

1.what's a registered indemnified building contractor, does such a beast exist.

2.Does the multiplyer effect on fees from 1500 to 4500. Lessen your objection to these regulations, are we seeing a way forward I.e pay me more?

3.you want latent defects insurance, fair enough, so what are you actually taking responsibility for ? For these increased fees.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

1.what's a registered indemnified building contractor, does such a beast exist.

2.Does the multiplyer effect on fees from 1500 to 4500. Lessen your objection to these regulations, are we seeing a way forward I.e pay me more?

3.you want latent defects insurance, fair enough, so what are you actually taking responsibility for ? For these increased fees.

1. when builder realise they have to sign certificates of compliance, they will quickly learn the necessity for PI insurance. i would actually go so far as to say any tradesman who is providing certification for their work should be indemnified.

2. Not at all. They fees involved with these regulations are open ended and risk based. What is being proposed here is a fixed sliding scale based on build method, so that every prospective client knows at the outset what the fee will be for building regulation compliance inspection. See the UK system for example.

3. You should research what "latent defects" actually are and come back and see how silly that question is.

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

1. when builder realise they have to sign certificates of compliance, they will quickly learn the necessity for PI insurance. i would actually go so far as to say any tradesman who is providing certification for their work should be indemnified.

For government contracts, the state will be looking for contractors to hold PI insurance pretty much from now going forward.

As I mentioned before, in this thread, if the state is looking for contractors to have PI insurance, you can bet that it will not be long before the private sector looks for same...contractors take note.

martinn123

DOCARCH wrote: »

For government contracts, the state will be looking for contractors to hold PI insurance pretty much from now going forward.

As I mentioned before, in this thread, if the state is looking for contractors to have PI insurance, you can bet that it will not be long before the private sector looks for same...contractors take note.

I may have missed that, in the new reg's perhaps you can quote the section.

Assuming you are right, is such a product available, to purchase, at this time, perhaps a contractor who has sourced this Insurance will enlighten us.

wirehairmax

4Sticks wrote: »

source

Just blame the architects

I wish I had been getting 3-4k and not €150 as he says for the ber's. I'd be still doing them! What a big ignorant bullying arrogant prick.
On the other hand €18k is fairly saucy for a one off dwelling. Hard to justify that.

sydthebeat

wirehairmax wrote: »

I wish I had been getting 3-4k and not €150 as he says for the ber's. I'd be still doing them! What a big ignorant bullying arrogant prick.
On the other hand €18k is fairly saucy for a one off dwelling. Hard to justify that.

But really for full service post planning ona bespoke 300 sq m house.

I have seen quotes for 8% on a 200k build

4Sticks

wirehairmax wrote: »

On the other hand €18k is fairly saucy for a one off dwelling. Hard to justify that.

For a planning to
tender to
services during construction to
certification to
12 months defects service
- the architect will earn every cent.

4Sticks

martinn123 wrote: »

I may have missed that, in the new reg's perhaps you can quote the section.

Assuming you are right, is such a product available, to purchase, at this time, perhaps a contractor who has sourced this Insurance will enlighten us.

Not in regs but in Govt procurement procedures ( don't have link sorry )

Expect this to seep out to the industry gradually and not too quickly here. Apologies if I offend anyone ( don't mean to ) but I don't think that contractors who tender for govt works post here.

4Sticks

The war on architects continues.
Reward for Merrion Squares craven capitulation.

DOCARCH

martinn123 wrote: »

I may have missed that, in the new reg's perhaps you can quote the section.

Not in the new regs, but, this is from a documnet entitled 'Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 Procurement Implications for Contracting Authorities' published by the Office of Government Procurement.

It says...Whilst it is acknowledged that building contractors should carry Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII) to insure their liabilities under the Regulations, most contractors tendering in the mid and lower contract value bands do not currently have PII cover.

...and goes on to say...It is envisaged that PII cover that is appropriate to all construction companies will be more widely available in the medium term and it would be reasonable for contracting authorities to seek PII from main contractors for contract notices published after 1 January 2015.

martinn123 wrote: »

Assuming you are right, is such a product available, to purchase, at this time, perhaps a contractor who has sourced this Insurance will enlighten us.

Dunno...

I'd be very surprised if the private sector does not latch on to this and insist on same.

mandy gall

4Sticks wrote: »

The war on architects continues.
Reward for Merrion Squares craven capitulation.

Hes heading for a meltdown...

BryanF

4Sticks wrote: »

The war on architects continues.
Reward for Merrion Squares craven capitulation.

"I expect the regulations will dramatically improve the end result for many customers. The people in Priory Hall and similar buildings around the country deserve no better than to have a proper system in place that will be policed and enforced. I am determined to do that.” hogan

what is he on about. he can 'expect' whatever he wants. the reality from where im sitting looks quiet different.

• less certfiers & more responsibility means higher costs
• no light touch for self-builders means higher costs
• nothing to stop prior hall happening again. accept no LA will be charged with paying.

but what really has my confused is where does hogan think the 'policed and enforce'ment will come form?


he'll be no doubt 'determined' to head for Europe next year and leave the rest of us to deal with the fall out of this legislation.

4Sticks

One architect fights back

hexosan

4Sticks wrote: »

One architect fights back

Link isn't working

4Sticks

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/architect-writes-to-td-bcar-si-9/

4Sticks

Finally, given the view of the National Consumer Association, the report of the Pyrites panel, and the views of the RIAI that self-certification is not an appropriate method of consumer protection, why did the Government proceed to bring just such a system into force and not introduce a self-funded system of independent inspectors such as has been in operation for many years in England and Wales

source

Penn

New Building Regulations & Legislation sub-forum has been created. Please read the forum charter before posting there.

As such, this thread is locked.