Flat Roof Insulation
Comments
-
Glad to hear you go sorted.
Crazy that council are paying the guy, and don't confirm the work. As I said, pure laziness.1 -
The walls didn't comply. The roof didn't comply. The roof span didn't comply. Ventilation didn't comply. Door widths were not wide enough. All radiators were grossly undersized. There were no safety handles in the shower or at the toilet and the sink was not wheelchair accessible.
And this was a disabled grant signed off as acceptable and paid.
1 -
Edit- never mind....
Post edited by [Deleted User] on0 -
Whatever about the hidden stuff. How they thought they'd get away with non accessible grab rails and sanitary-ware. SMH.
Probably for the best. 😏
Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on0 -
Yes, probably for the best!
You give the impression of being diligent and to hold yourself to high standards. And fair dues to you. Unfortunately not everyone in the industry is like you- I'm sure you can easily think of many in your own professional who fall short (and whose messes you've had to clear up).
Punters don't have the knowledge to know what best practice is, and they certainly can't differentiate between you and your less competent colleagues. Effective redress is in practice available only to those with deep pockets, which doesn't include the owner of the 3 bed semi d getting an extension etc.
The system transfers all responsibility to the homeowner who lacks the appropriate knowledge. And there's no checks by local authorities to help. This is unfair.
By contrast I got a BER assessment recently for solar panels- about 2 hours of detailed measurements, photos etc. Which is subject to random audit by seai and- possibly- revocation and (worst case) delisting of the assessor.
In a multibillion euro industry employing a huge number of people which is literally vital to the country, the state and its emanations are bystanders in terms of quality control- reactive at best.
0 -
Advertisement
-
That's a fair assessment. I do hold myself to a high standard, and I expect that of the profession, and professionals generally.
I know many do not, unfortunately there's are many out there offering professional services without relevant qualifications, but the backing of their industry society/group. It's borderline whether I consider them part of the profession, probably not if I'm honest.The punter may not not how to tell the difference, but when a guy is saying he'll do it for a 1/4 the cost of the rest, that should be a red flag. Importantly, those guys still have PI Insurance. That should be the punters redress. Claim off the insurance of the guy who didn't do his job. If everyone did that, it would be a lot harder got the chancers
Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on0 -
I fully agree with your comment and the unfairness of the system which is wide open for abuse.
In our case we believed that we had done everything right and when we found out we had been conned we went to a legal firm to be told it would cost 50k and take 5 years, time i just did not have and I also couldn't be with uninhabitable accommodation for that long.
When the builder got legal notice he handed a guy a hand drawn sketch of the extension. The guy who has never set foot on our property said he was happy with compliance even though the details on the sketch did not match what was built. The builder was banking on me passing or us not having the funds to go legal.
We went public with our story which added more unfairness as the builder wasn't named although word locally spread like wildfire. The story was also read in the Dail.
The builder simply made a comment through a solicitor and said all work done was to their usual high standard and complied with all regulations
Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on0 -
I take your point on the guy offering to do the job for for 25% of the others, but i recall getting a pile of tenders ranging from 200k to 1 million for the same job. That's an extreme example, but not unique.
You'd not be surprised to see the top bid being well over 50% higher than the lowest. If you're a professional assessing bids, you'll look at quality, minimum qualifications, and previous jobs, and not just price. If you're a big client with repeat business you can rely to an extent on the size of your wallet (and your solicitors office) to keep the contractor honest.
But those tools aren't available to non-professionals. A quality submission for a tender might as well be written in swahili when I'm reading it- i just don't speak the language well enough.
The punter has no way to differentiate between the guy who's cheap because they're a cowboy and the guy who's cheap because he's efficient. They both exist.
And the system doesn't help. As Ginger83 says, €50k and 5 years to get satisfaction at best.
BTW, part of the reason I do as much of my own work as possible is because I've seen them awful standard of work others have done in my home (before my time)- like not tanking or sealing a shower area or taping plasterboard joints, and ignoring insulation and draught proofing for example, really basic stuff. My craftsmanship is not wonderful and my walls look awful, but my shower doesn't leak and my house isn't cold. I'll own my mistakes at a fraction of the price I'd pay someone else to make them for me!
0 -
What you posted is awful. Well done for standing your ground. Whoever siged off the work in the council is part of a massive problem with building controls in this country. Whoever did this should not be allowed work on any grant funded work going forward but thats impossible to enforce
I am with you on the quality of workmanship in this country. For many in construction or trades, it's about cutting corners and charging the most for the least input. Many won't even clean up after themselves. They don't care and they are making a fortune at the moment.
Even on big jobs there are problems with finish. Specs are changed or details not finished to design to maximise profit. The whole system of self-certification is not fit for purpose. If the state establishes building regulations, it should also, through its local authorities, have a robust system of regulation and random inspections of works, whether it's a small extension or a large development. Instead it throws it back on the owner or purchaser to seek redress from insurance or not fit for purpose legal avenue. When you rely on either to ensure compliance with building regulations, you will get low quality builds, works that is not compliant etc.
I live in a top floor apartment on an exposed site with no ceiling insulation. I have 18mm foil backed plaster board, a void of approx 200mm, and then an insulated concrete slab. This is not compliant with building regulations at the time. It gets worse, the main livingroom window deflects in moderate wind. It is now warped from water ingress. Two reports have condemned it and said it's not compliant with building regulations. When I purchased this property, I was provided with architects opinion on compliance with building regulations. In Ireland, this is what lax building controls and self-certification leads to.
Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on0 -
I have heard that the building control authority where I am have never prosecuted anyone. They told me that they would have to prosecute me and I said come on out and I will have the kettle on for you.
If my photo is attached you will see the balls up the cowboy made of ours and then reslabbed all the ceilings again instead of insulating the roof correctly. All the insulation on top of the roof was serving no purpose
Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on1 -
Advertisement
-
The scenario backs up exactly what I’m saying. That’s the system when you opt out of building control and supervision. You to take them to court, and prove negligence. Its difficult. It’s was not the only option.
The pathway I outlined is the full process, where means somebody verifies work, signs a document and put their PI on the line. It’s much easier to pursue negligence in that case, and as a result it’s less common.
I don’t know the terms of the grant. But the council should have went with the latter to protect you and themselves (and tax payers money).
Of course a punter can’t be expected the read and understand a tender submission. That’s why I’m saying to engage a professional (as in an architectural technologist, architect or a suitably qualified engineer) to supervise and certify the build.
And the system doesn't help. As Ginger83 says, €50k and 5 years to get satisfaction at best. No
That's the system when you opt of certification, and building control. It would have been a cost to do it right, but not €50k. That's it in a nutshell. You can't opt out and decide to self supervise to save money, then complain that you were not qualified to do so.
As you said you own your mistakes for a fraction of the price. Meaning, you save money and take on more risk. Sometimes that works out. It does not always.Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on0 -
You realise that the point I'm trying to make is that most people don't know enough to "opt out" or "self supervise" etc? Myself included- i haven't opted out of or self supervised anything- i just did stuff, paid what I was asked and signed a couple of times where asked.
People don't know what they don't know. It doesn't make them stupid or negligent.
0 -
Yes, of course there will always be defective work. My current man project is a "big project". It's close to completion so I'm spending a significant part of my time on site right now flagging defects, and making the contractor rectify them. I'm doing that on behalf of the client, and under the contract they must be fixed.
The contractor can't change material simply to maximise profit. There is very detailed set of drawings and specifications. Those changes would have to be approved by the client, and often they are. (of "the builder is the client").
I know the certification system is not perfect. But an element of self-certification is required for liability. Overwise people can simply deny responsibility.
If the state establishes building regulations, it should also, through its local authorities, have a robust system of regulation and random inspections of works, whether it's a small extension or a large development.
Building control do inspect works. It would be great if they did a lot more, but are the public going to pay levies to fund it? Probably not. So much should a person building an extension pay for the council to supervise?
And there's no way they could inspect enough work in order to certify it. How do you propose that works?
How do the council certify the foundations, the electrical works, the compliance with part M accessibility? etcInstead it throws it back on the owner or purchaser to seek redress from insurance or not fit for purpose legal avenue. When you rely on either to ensure compliance with building regulations, you will get low quality builds, works that is not compliant etc.
You don't rely on insurance you rely on professional certification. Insurance is to cover the times that mistakes happen.
If you have a better system, I'd love to hear it. We've probably veering into a whole new thread.I live in a top floor apartment on an exposed site with no ceiling insulation. I have 18mm foil backed plaster board, a void of approx 200mm, and then an insulated concrete slab. This is not compliant with building regulations at the time. It gets worse, the main livingroom window deflects in moderate wind. It is now warped from water ingress. Two reports have condemned it and said it's not compliant with building regulations. When I purchased this property, I was provided with architects opinion on compliance with building regulations. In Ireland, this is what lax building controls and self-certification leads to.
There’s probably a whole separate thread. But the ceiling doesn’t require insulation. The roof does. An opinion on compliance is a visual inspection, it’s not a certification.
The windows are usually common property. Repairs should be done via the OMC (if the funds are there).
How long ago was it built?
Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on0 -
It took me about 20 seconds of googling to find a clear outline a better system than we have here. It's literally taking me longer to type this post than it took me to find this link.
0 -
I haven’t called anyone stupid. The fact they know enough about design and construction to opt out and supervise themselves is exactly why they shouldn’t do it, unless they are happy with the risk and have faith in the builder.
You do realise If you’ve opt’d to not have a professional supervise and certify. Then what you are doing is self-supervising? nobody is doing for you. Fine for small jobs. And people are free to make that choice. But if they choose to do something themselves, they can’t turn around and complain they didn’t know what they were doing.
Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on0 -
You say building control do inspect work?
I contacted them directly and stated that a builder had breached multiple building regulations during construction and again during repairs. It wasn't oversights or a mistake. It was very clear that it was a con job.
Building Control asked me for evidence so I sent them detailed reports and they came back and said if you would like the work inspected we will have to prosecute you for the breaches but we will leave this for you to decide.
After considering the consequences I invited them out to inspect the work. The reply was "With the best of intentions we must decline to inspect as it would be unpalatable to all concerned"
It's no wonder building is a joke when the governing body won't do their job
0 -
You post that above, and I explained already. But to reiterate.
Building control have limited resources, they inspect some projects. To inspect all projects would require significant fees to be charged* (like that charge to the owner in London). The building owner is liable for their property**. They choose not to pursue you, as that would have been obviously unfair. Prior to prosecution, you'd be issued a notice to fixed the work. It's still up to you chase the builder back - this is where a contract, sign-off, without holding payments benefits you.
You keep saying they didn't do their job. It is not their job to supervise construction or provide professional services for free. If somebody wants those services, they need to pay for them*. Or they can choose to ignore and take the risk.
Given the nature of the project (Accessibility) a professional should have been involved to some degree imo. Whether they should have been from the council, engaged by the council, or engaged by the owner depends entirely on the nature of the grant.* I believe being able to pay the council to preform services would be a good idea. But it can't be a free service. Many people would still opt out, but the option should be more available imo.
** Imagine a public building that did have compliant facilities, breeching the regs. The owners would be liable, they can blame the builder and walk away. If the owner has a contract with the designer and they can absolutely seek damages
0 -
Who was suggesting that local authorities inspect various stages of construction for free? I wasn't, and it'd be anyway impossible- not like the council staff work for free so there'd be a cost whether direct or indirect.
Inspection should be compulsory- with payment of a reasonable fee- at the key stages. But it's not even optional- instead of an independent third party the only option is to hire a architect or whatever in private practice and hope they've no concerns about being blacklisted by contractors if theydo their job properly. The private construction industry isn't so large, especially outside Dublin, that that won't happen. That's not something a local government employee in permanent employment needs to worry about- they can do their job without fear or favour.
The state and local government has relegated itself to bystander status, leaving the citizens they're supposed to work for wide open to being shafted. Which is insane- the response to the banking crisis was a huge amount of regulation etc, but the response to priory hall, pyrite, mica, and who knows what else was....nothing....
0 -
That post wasn't responding to you. It was in response to the claim that the council did not do their job. I was pointing out they were not paid to be on site. So unfair to claim they should have been.
You seem to agree that there would need to a charge for that. Charging the owner/developer makes sense. I'd already said I'd like that option, pay a charge for council to inspect.But people would have to agree for that. Big ask imo. People are currently opting out of building control, and choosing to not pay for professional to inspect. What makes you think they'll pay the council? Look at how many threads get posted here by people looking to get around planning.
Architects are not employed by contractors, so do real danger in them being blacklisted. If anything the contractor has more risk of being blacklisted. If the architect designs the details, then their neck is on the line too.
The response to priory hall, etc was the Building Control Amendment Regulations (BCAR). Where there is a much more robust system of certification (again, mentioned this above). Its pretty clear that people will opt out to save money on domestic construction.Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on0
