Flat Roof Insulation

In a new build, it's obviously important than airtightness layers are continuous. It's less importing in an extension, how much less depends of the airtightness of the existing. There is little point building an super airtight extension, on leaky old house, as an extreme example.

To say there is no law when it comes to building is simply not true. There is a clear legal mechanism, how do you think multi-million dollar projects get managed if builders could do what they like. I understand why you are saying that based on what happened to you - buts that's really just down to your inexperience as a layperson. I vaguely remember you mentioned it here before.

What building control told you is correct. It is the responsibility of the building owner. Same way that a car is the responsibility of the car owner, not the mechanic. The mechanic/builder is employed by the owner. Going to build control was not the correct way to deal with it. They are not there to supervise construction.
Obviously they recognised that it wasn't your fault so they didn't want to prosecute. They have that discretion, but they can't make up their own laws.

I'm aware you are speaking from your experience. But that was a layperson dealing with a cowboy builder, without a professional involved to administer. Cowboys exist, as many self builders will tell you. But it's a bit foolish to think that a professionals dealing with large projects daily screwed over the same.

As I said above, there is a really simply legal framework for administering building contracts. And I'm saying this from my experience, as somebody who deals with the builder on behalf of my clients.

Who supervised the work? Who certified the works. What happened when you claimed off their insurance?

You could pay a builder money to start a job in the morning and if he never turns up you have no recourse unless you have the money to go legal and even then it might not be worth it.

The small claims courts only costs €25. Pretty clear case. But the actual mistake there is paying in advance. That's not a good way to ensure work is carried out to the require standard. In your case, if the work wasn't completed to standard, the builder should have been paid. No IFs or BUTs.

I'm genuinely speaking from experience and that's without mentioning that it took two and a half years to get a vat invoice because we were being told we didn't pay vat…. on a council grant job

Did the council pay directly? Or did you pay (and be reimbursed)? A lot of people will ask to pay cash, builders are happy to take it. But makes it harder to get the paperwork in order after the wink wink cash payment.

Anyway, glad it worked out, and the council footed the bill for their laziness.

The framework is what you have allude to at the end.

Building control are there to regulate development, not supervise the builder for you. But it's easy to do that. Firstly the work should be under a contract that details that the builder gets paid in stages, the defect liability period, the builders insurance. Then you also engage a professional to administer that contract. In a nutshell, the the builder simply doesn't get paid until it's complete and the job certified.
If the builder is found to have been negligent after completion, then they have an opportunity to fix, then you do to their insurance.

If the professional who certifies or supervises the wok is negligent (and it sounds in your case that somebody from the council was) then you also have legal recourse from their insurance. People often try to undertake large projects on the home without professional help, and i'm sure it saves them money. But it also opens the door on all that risk and a dodgy builder.

Which building control authority refuse to do their job?
As mentioned above, Building control is not there to be a site supervisor for contractors.

If they after the project, the work is majorly noncompliant, the building owner is liable (eg mechanic and car example). The contract I mentioned above is to ensure if that there to happen, the owner has a clear and easy pathway to pass that liability to the builder and/or professionals who certified the work and caused the liability. That is a really fundamental principle of design and construction contracts.

For large very projects, the it could be required for professionals to have cover for 10s of millions.

Glad to hear you go sorted.
Crazy that council are paying the guy, and don't confirm the work. As I said, pure laziness.

@Ginger83

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

@[Deleted User]

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.

@Mellor

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.

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.

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? etc

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.

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?

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.

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

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.