Apartments - fire safety & structural issues

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mellor

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Most were probably built prior to the current building certification system. Which was more lax.

Just because something is designed in accordance with structural requirements. Doesn't ensure it's built in accordance with them. The nature of these issues means they are usually hidden behind finishes by the time the building is finished.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mellor

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's exactky the period I referred to above. I'm not talking about buildings from the 80s.

So again my question is - who signed off on it and why were they not held responsible when it turned out that corners had been cut and standards not met?

You just said that everyone went bust. That's why they couldn't be held responsible. Nothing to do with certification. It would have been certified by the 3 people you mention (and covered by their insurance).
Plenty of people trading are held responsible in those spots.

Surely the local councils should be inspecting new builds for build quality before signing off on them?

In an ideal world that would be great. But how many buildings went up each year during the boom. I don't know the number but it's a lot. To inspect every building, at every key stage would require massive staffing resources from the council (which don't come from free).
The council don't sign off on buildings. They do have the power to do spot checks (building control) but for certification they rely on the "construction professionals".

During the boom, all the professional could do was offer an opinion on compliance after the fact. But there's no way to see if the builder installed steel in a concrete floor after it's poured. Draw your own conclusions what happen.
The system was updated in recent years. If it's working or not, well who knows.

Maya1

Mellor wrote: »

What kind of survey?

You are suggesting that every building with a structural or regulation issue to alerts every surveyor in the country. Do you really think that's manageable?

The estate agents are a professional employed by the vendor. It would actually be unprofessional from the vendors point of view if they were to actively work against the sale. As you said, the information wasn't a secret. It's up to you to do your checks.

It is basic structural survey that everyone does before buying house or apartment. It can find many issues, but fire/safety regulations are not in their scope.
I thought if there are issues with fire/safety (or structural issues) it is found and should be recorded somewhere (database?), so structural companies should have a list of these buildings.
I don't believe it is unsafe to live there ... just something is not up to rules/standards. For example, I rent an apartment in the house which is 100 or more years old. The low does not require that these houses are up to standards for fire/safety. It is only for new houses/apartments.

Victor

Maya1 wrote: »

I don't believe it is unsafe to live there ... just something is not up to rules/standards. For example, I rent an apartment in the house which is 100 or more years old. The low does not require that these houses are up to standards for fire/safety. It is only for new houses/apartments.

Those apartments still need to follow some standards.

Maya1

Victor wrote: »

Those apartments still need to follow some standards.

Yes of course, but I think the "standards" for older houses/apartments are different (not as high).

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mellor

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They don't have insurance anymore after they cease to exist.
If your argument is that insurance companies should stand by policies that were in place at the time work was carried out. I complete agree. But it's not as simple as that. It varies based on the policy in place, and company.
(Professionals are often advised to maintain indemnity insurance for 10 years after retirement)

Its a lot but they dont go up overnight. The development I own in was built over 2 years.

But showing up once or twice randomly during those two years* is going to be enough to inspect maybe 2% of the build. Which is exactly the issue facing the architects signing off of these development. They personally witness only a small amount of what actually happens.
They inspect as mush as possible, and verify the plans and documents. But if the builder cuts a corner when nobody is around, how could anybody know?

*council do actual inspect randomly like that btw, not enough imo. But they aren't the certifiers either

The councils (or someone) should definitely be checking these multi unit builds - even more so given your earlier point that because the guys went bust there was no comeback - that makes it even more vital that someone independent who cant go bust is signing off on it.

The certification process is better now that it was 10 years ago.
But even if the council where to to put a man on every site, and inspect constantly. There's no way they'd assume liability for everyone else involved.