Longboat quay- Another priory hall

PolaroidPizza

Are there or are there not building inspectors employed by the state.....Answer - Yes (even though they are vastly under-resourced)
Do they have a mandate to inspect all construction in the country.....answer - Yes (even though they could never be expected to cover more than 1-2% of sites)

so what do we do, blame no-one and say this is how things are, or demand accountability?

Someone is over this department and gets a nice fat salary and a nice fat pension, and is sue an increment at the end of the year. ....accountability should lie with them.
As a department head either they scream from the rafters that this is an unworkable situation and get more resources, or they resign from the position. what they should not do is stay there and let the situation continue as normal.
This is basic management. As a manager of this department, you must accept accountability, whether or not funds were available to you or not.

riclad

There has to be political will for change to happen.
Around 3 per cent of buildings are inspected,
councils would have to get the money to employ building inspectors .
The government have promised new projects ,
social housing, and the new metro line to the airport.
Do they care about this problem.
will they bring in new rules for inspections of new buildings .
maybe it depends on, is there any votes in this,
does the general public care about this.
Theres an election coming up ,so suddenly they have loads of money to spend
on building projects .

P. Breathnach

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

Are there or are there not building inspectors employed by the state.....Answer - Yes (even though they are vastly under-resourced)
Do they have a mandate to inspect all construction in the country.....answer - Yes (even though they could never be expected to cover more than 1-2% of sites)

so what do we do, blame no-one and say this is how things are, or demand accountability?

Someone is over this department and gets a nice fat salary and a nice fat pension, and is sue an increment at the end of the year. ....accountability should lie with them.
As a department head either they scream from the rafters that this is an unworkable situation and get more resources, or they resign from the position. what they should not do is stay there and let the situation continue as normal.
This is basic management. As a manager of this department, you must accept accountability, whether or not funds were available to you or not.

If every public servant who believed that his or her section was under-resourced were to resign, we would have no public servants.

Staffing levels are essentially set by the politicians in charge. The politicians also control or influence deployment of staff. Most of those who were in charge during the years of madness have been fired by the electorate (unless they chose to slide away at the last election).

brooke 2

According to NAMA's Mr. McDonagh at the PAC today, they had to spend millions on another of the Longboat Quay developer's projects - carrying out remedial work! He did not mention where it was. I doubt it was the €70m upgrade which Mr. McNamara has just completed at the K Club!!

jmayo

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Is the council expected to drill through walls?

Simply put we should make non-compliance with regulations a criminal or civil offence with one person or persons with ultimate sign off, preferably the developer or architect. Negligence would be a civil offence. Deliberate bad practice should be criminal.

Shure we couldn't be having that.
There might be a chance the ex politicans, Galway tent visitors, K club party fundrasiers might actually have to cough up some of their own money or God forbid spent time in a low security prison.

This falls into that favourite get out of jail or responsibility description i.e. a systemic failure.
No one is too blame. :rolleyes:

take everything wrote: »

Lol at the two stupid fcukers (one from the architects body and one from construction) on primetime tonight pretending to give a damn about one of the residents who was being interviewed by Miriam O' Callaghan.

"Nuffin' to do wiv' us guvnor" was the extent of their contribution all the while making sure to be seen to give a ****e about your man.

Morons.

Did they tell us how great the developers past developments were and how wonderful he was ? :rolleyes:

The best suggestion I have seen was here which advised the residents/owners to go down and close the developers current site down.
Then do the same with the next one if he doesn't cough up for the mess left by HIS company.

selous

Now imagine Volkswagen said that, Tough, you didn't check it out properly before you bought it!!

PolaroidPizza

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If every public servant who believed that his or her section was under-resourced were to resign, we would have no public servants.

Staffing levels are essentially set by the politicians in charge. The politicians also control or influence deployment of staff. Most of those who were in charge during the years of madness have been fired by the electorate (unless they chose to slide away at the last election).

I don't want every civil servant to resign...just the managers who claim no responsibility for their departments. they earn a lot of money and get a huge pension yet are completely unaccountable. in particular, the manager of all these local authority building inspectors. they get through less than 1% of the building sites in the country...completely unacceptable. in most other reputable societies, someone responsible for such a department would find it impossible to manage such a non-performing department and justify collecting a huge salary.
why do Irish people feel its ok to stay responsible for such poor performance and think its ok to remain earning big money and big benefits?

P. Breathnach

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

I don't want every civil servant to resign...just the managers who claim no responsibility for their departments. they earn a lot of money and get a huge pension yet are completely unaccountable. in particular, the manager of all these local authority building inspectors. they get through less than 1% of the building sites in the country...completely unacceptable. in most other reputable societies, someone responsible for such a department would find it impossible to manage such a non-performing department and justify collecting a huge salary.
why do Irish people feel its ok to stay responsible for such poor performance and think its ok to remain earning big money and big benefits?

And what if a manager has only two inspectors available where it might require fifteen to cover all the building activity? The manager argues the case with the City/County Manager, who agrees, and makes the case to the Department of the Environment for an increase in the number of inspectors. The DoE agrees, and takes the case to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. the DPE also recognises the need, but replies that due to cabinet decisions on public service recruitment, the positions can not be authorised.

Should the manager in the local authority be required to resign because of a cabinet decision?

PolaroidPizza

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And what if a manager has only two inspectors available where it might require fifteen to cover all the building activity? The manager argues the case with the City/County Manager, who agrees, and makes the case to the Department of the Environment for an increase in the number of inspectors. The DoE agrees, and takes the case to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. the DPE also recognises the need, but replies that due to cabinet decisions on public service recruitment, the positions can not be authorised.

Should the manager in the local authority be required to resign because of a cabinet decision?

the manager shouldn't be receiving a manager salary and managers pension of he/she isn't managing their department.
cuts/budget limitations affect the private sector too, but middle management don't sit on their arses and expect the CEO to take all the flak. middle management get fired/demoted/penalised if they are unable to work within the constraints.
I don't see how these managers can warrant a managers salary with such a non-functioning department? what have they done to justify them? these people are on salaries well above 80K a year, but I don't see anyone asking why?

tayto lover

How can the person responsible for building this nightmare be allowed back into the game to do the same again.
Only in Ireland. BUT of course he's connected.

P. Breathnach

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

the manager shouldn't be receiving a manager salary and managers pension of he/she isn't managing their department.
cuts/budget limitations affect the private sector too, but middle management don't sit on their arses and expect the CEO to take all the flak. middle management get fired/demoted/penalised if they are unable to work within the constraints.
I don't see how these managers can warrant a managers salary with such a non-functioning department? what have they done to justify them? these people are on salaries well above 80K a year, but I don't see anyone asking why?

You are making the assumption that "the manager" has nothing else to do other than oversee an overworked undersized team. Chances are that he or she has to deal with other responsibilities.

You also seem to think that if somebody has only two staff to handle a workload that would require fifteen staff, it is a failure of the manager if not all the work gets done. No, it's a failure of those who decide not to assign sufficient staff.

michael999999

tayto lover wrote: »

How can the person responsible for building this nightmare be allowed back into the game to do the same again.
Only in Ireland. BUT of course he's connected.

Because he's a life long fianna failer, Bertie aherns best friend, and Denis o Brien is now bank rolling him.

Some people are untouchable!

PolaroidPizza

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You are making the assumption that "the manager" has nothing else to do other than oversee an overworked undersized team. Chances are that he or she has to deal with other responsibilities.

You also seem to think that if somebody has only two staff to handle a workload that would require fifteen staff, it is a failure of the manager if not all the work gets done. No, it's a failure of those who decide not to assign sufficient staff.

Leaving the blame with a politicial means no-one is accountable. Each council/fire department has a budget. The decision not to assign that budget to building inspectors came from someone with a pension and a salary that isnt a politician. Because you want to state that decision was a politician, that means no-one will be ever accountable. Politicians do politics...county and departmental managers make these decisions...they need to be made accountable for them

P. Breathnach

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

Leaving the blame with a politicial means no-one is accountable. Each council/fire department has a budget. The decision not to assign that budget to building inspectors came from someone with a pension and a salary that isnt a politician. Because you want to state that decision was a politician, that means no-one will be ever accountable. Politicians do politics...county and departmental managers make these decisions...they need to be made accountable for them

The budgets are submitted to politicians, who decide on therm. So you want to make executive and administrative staff responsible for decisions that they do not have the power to make.

This week we are seeing reports of local authorities (the politicians) voting for lower rates of LPT than proposed in budgets drawn up by their own executive.

Recognise this: politicians have power, and they use it. Often unwisely.

PolaroidPizza

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The budgets are submitted to politicians, who decide on therm. So you want to make executive and administrative staff responsible for decisions that they do not have the power to make.

This week we are seeing reports of local authorities (the politicians) voting for lower rates of LPT than proposed in budgets drawn up by their own executive.

Recognise this: politicians have power, and they use it. Often unwisely.

If county and departmental managers are not un the business of making decisions...then what the sweet jesus ate we paying them decision maker salaries for.
My entire argument here is that there are civil servant management being paid a lot of money in management positions. If we follow your logic then...we can remove this layer altogether as its politicians that decide everything

P. Breathnach

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

If county and departmental managers are not un the business of making decisions...then what the sweet jesus ate we paying them decision maker salaries for.
My entire argument here is that there are civil servant management being paid a lot of money in management positions. If we follow your logic then...we can remove this layer altogether as its politicians that decide everything

It is for managers to implement the decisions made by others - and that applies equally to private and public sectors.

Coping with the vagaries of politicians is itself a big task, one that adds to the burden of management in the public service.

Uncle Ben

It really is a pity that the building regulations weren't enforced but not just for the reasons that the buildings would have been safer.
We live in a country here where if the regulations are enforced but don't suit the individual there are cries of victimisation and nit picking.
Take for instance the proposed Garth Brooks concerts last year. When the co. manager enforced the conditions of planning we had uproar on a national and international stage with representations going right to the top of politics and seeking changes and the blind eye and cute hoorism to take place so as the concert could take place.
Take for instance the building regs which also took place post recession re safety etc. We now have Alan Kelly changing that on self builds and one off housing because it doesn't suit.
Take for instance the mortgage legislation re lending and savings. We have seen that the prices of housing isn't increasing because this is having the required effect. However, there are now calls on Noonan and the Central Bank to relax same legislation because it doesn't suit or is politically correct at present.
And finally take the recent case with DCC and the woman with the satellite. Because of a person's age there was vitriol directed at DCC not only online but also in mainstream media. They were proven in Court to have acted correctly however even Kenny stated that he would prefer not to see a repeat to paraphrase same.
I'n in no doubt that Priory Hall, Longboat Quay and I'm sure there will be others were totally constructed wrongly and that inspections should have been carried out.
However Im also well aware that when inspections are being or proposed to be carried out that widespread outrage takes place and if building sites in the country were being slowed down or closed down people would still be up in arms.
Just a contarian view.

FalconGirl

tayto lover wrote: »

How can the person responsible for building this nightmare be allowed back into the game to do the same again.
Only in Ireland. BUT of course he's connected.

Ain't that the truth. He should be looking at a prison sentence. No accountability in our society.

cowboyBuilder

test post

riclad

Loads of people break the rules on satellite dish,s ,
she got a letter to take down the dish.
She could have taken it down ,
and avoided the fine.
The problem in dublin is its very expensive to build house,s ,
builders say theres little profit to be made.
Maybe they could reduce the taxes,council levys on new houses .
Nama has found problems in half the house,s it owns.
This could effect our economy as new companys like intel won,t
come here if theres no rental units for workers avaidable at a reasonable price .
There was not a lot of building going on before the deposit rule came into force .
I think the building regs on self build are now voluntary ,
you can choose to get the house inspected if you wish.
We need 20 thousand homes built every year in dublin,
at teh moment its around 3k units being built .

PolaroidPizza

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It is for managers to implement the decisions made by others - and that applies equally to private and public sectors.

that's where we disagree.
I tend to go by the job descriptions of council managers...where the words 'responsible for' tends to be written... and responsible for 'implementation of actions decided by others' is definitely not written in any of these job specs.

according to their job descriptions they're supposed to be 'responsible for' a whole rake of activities in their respective departments..
so, if we go by your logic, none of these managers are actually living up to their job descriptions, as the only people responsible for anything are politicians.

brooke 2

Niamh Brennan, former Chairman of the DDDA, was on Marian Finucane today. Left no one in any doubt as to what she thought of Bernard McNamara, as she had had numerous dealings with him. According to her, he had 'the cheek, the CHEEK' to sue the DDDA, ie, the taxpayer, for €1,000,000, as he maintained he was 'enticed' into the Irish Glass Bottle site deal!! Niamh and Co. employed excellent lawyers as she was determined McNamara was not going to get another 'penny' from them. He lost the court case and had to go on his merry way.

It was very interesting to hear the number of times MF interrupted NB as she was raging about McNamara - and she was apoplectic! No one else on the panel, apart from The Mail's Sebastian? seemed to care about the Longboat Quay fiasco.

Apparently, there is an article in today's Sunday Times by the Dutch architect, now living in Ghana, who was employed by McNamara on the Longboat Quay project. Marian let us know, as she interrupted Niamh Brennan, that he was defending McNamara's position, to which Niamh
replied: 'well, he would, wouldn't he??!!'

brooke 2

Longboat Quay 'victims' were on SundayAM with Ivan Yates and Anna Daly yesterday. They really are bandjaxed!

riclad

I heard on a radio program this week , that nama has spent millions improving
buildings to bring them up to standard ,re fire safety and building standards .
Things like fire doors need to be replaced,
service ducts need to be sealed to stop smoke spreading from 1 room to another .

michael999999

Was Bernard Mc Namara employed by NAMA after the crash?

And how much a year were they paying him?

suicide_circus

Criminal negligence. There simply is no other way to describe the actions of the people who built and signed off on these buildings.

Slideshowbob

What about caveat emptor?

Is every local authority responsible for every defect? Where is the line drawn??

kippy

Slideshowbob wrote: »

What about caveat emptor?

Is every local authority responsible for every defect? Where is the line drawn??

Caveat Emptor?
Really?

While the local authority may not be fully to blame, they have a least a portion of the blame.

The builder should have built the building to the specifications required within the planning.
The architects and engineers that signed of what was build should have ensured this was done.
The LA should have inspected the buildings at difference stages of the build and signed off the build.
The banks engineer and indeed the buyer assume all of the above is done and above board as one would expect in any functioning system and they can only check for visible defects.

The line is drawn using planning and building regulations that the LA have a responsibility and legal obligation to police.

Pretty much the last person who can be given any blame in these cases are the buyers.

michael999999

suicide_circus wrote: »

Criminal negligence. There simply is no other way to describe the actions of the people who built and signed off on these buildings.

And still not a sign of any action from the Gardai or fraud bureau!

riclad

Most apartments built after 2000 were never inspected,by anyone
the builder employed someone to write this building is built as per current building regulations.
So those certs are almost worthless .
It,s buyer beware if you buy a private apartment .
or its russian roulette .
I know someone bought 2 apartments in 2004.
There,s are fine ,there,s nothing wrong with them.
Its hard to sue anyone as most irish builders went bankrupt or were taken over by nama .
Only a tiny percentage of buildings are currently inspected .
Its up to the government to bring in a proper building inspection system
and to provide money to employ inspectors as they do in the uk.
Things like fire doors could be checked by a builder ,
Then walls have to opened and checked ,is the fire proofing system
built as per current fire regulations .
Before the crash the accounts of the banks were checked and signed
off as ok by big accounting firms.

PolaroidPizza

Slideshowbob wrote: »

What about caveat emptor?

Is every local authority responsible for every defect? Where is the line drawn??

caveat emptor doesn't apply in this case.
when buying a microwave or a buggy, the buyer has a CE mark on it so they know it meets minimum European safety requirements. buyer beware comes when there is a suspicion that the CE marking is fraudulent, or if the product isn't new and the marking might not still apply. this not only applies to CE marking, but also certificates of authenticity, fuel efficiency ratings etc.

there are no CE marks for apartments, but there is a local authority/fire dept with responsibility for inspecting them. if a new apartment is put up on the market without an inspection, then the responsibility lies with the regulator for not enforcing the inspection.

this is no different to the Volkswagen emission situation where there is a regulator responsible for checking the claims of the seller. the regulator found out the manufacturer was lying and thereby responsibility goes back to the manufacturer to remedy the situation.

in this case, we have a regulator not doing their job, and trying to put the responsibility back on the buyer.

michael999999

Where are the Gardai and Fraud Squad?

asherbassad

Supercell wrote: »

I feel sorry for them, but why should the government have to foot the bill, surely that's between the owners and the developers or Homebond if it exists for apartments?

Well the government i thought was dutybound to impose standards and regulations upon buildings before, during and after construction. The problem was that these regulations were often sidestepped by cowboy builders because they greased the palms of councillors/inspectors. So if anything it's the fault of the developer AND the government but not the purchaser.

brooke 2

Slideshowbob wrote: »

What about caveat emptor?

Is every local authority responsible for every defect? Where is the line drawn??

Very little publicity given to his appearance before the Oireachtas Inquiry earlier this week. Nothing about it on Oireachtas report. He basically did a Patrick Neary - could not remember any details as Nama had taken over his businesses very promptly. As for the rest, he did not think the inquiry (us) had any right to know how his businesses worked! It seems to have escaped him that we are paying off his debts, so, would have every right to find out how he conducted his affairs!!

Edit: ????? This was not the post to which I replied. I was referring to another post in which NAMA and Bernard McNamara were mentioned.