Steps in self building

Cooper85 · 17-07-2014 12:58pm #1

Hi there,

I am in the very early stages of initiating a self build. I have had a meeting with the bank in regard to securing a mortgage and they have given me a prospective figure of 150k. I will also have a deposit of 15k.

I have an idea of what I would like to build but how do I obtain an estimated cost for my prospective build? I have been gifted a site and wish to build an energy efficient 4bed dormer/storey and half. Is my budget even realistic? (I realise every house is different in terms of quality,finish etc)

I have talked to numerous people about this but I am unclear in the steps to follow. Some people have suggested taking my ideas to an engineer, others have suggested an architect.

I do not want to design a house massively exceeding my budget. Is the initial step to meet an architect/engineer and ask them to design with your budget in mind?

Is it then necessary to meet with a QS before applying for the mortgage for an exact breakdown of costs?

I have done extensive research online in establishing the steps I need to take but much of the advice is conflicting!

I am also aware of the new building regs and their implementation on the self build process.

I would appreciate any advice you can give.
Thanks in advance.

galwaytt · 17-07-2014 1:59pm

I think you should visit an architect for at least an initial consultation, and go with a shopping list.

As you say, energy efficient, 4-beds etc etc, but also make your budget part of that conversation. I think a preliminary consultation with an architect would be a good investment. Worse case scenario that you're better informed for a fee, rather than stumped after barrelling off spending 1000's........

What works from a design perspective will also be informed by what part of the country you're in.

893bet · 17-07-2014 2:41pm

A year ago I would have said had a good chance.

A year later now I would say that will bring you barely to builders finish for your average 4 bed 1800 sq ft house.

Material are dear and getting dearer daily.

BryanF · 17-07-2014 2:51pm

Cooper85 wrote: »

how do I obtain an estimated cost for my prospective build?

wish to build an energy efficient 4bed dormer/storey and half?Is my budget even realistic?

Some people have suggested taking my ideas to an engineer, others have suggested an architect.

I do not want to design a house massively exceeding my budget. Is the initial step to meet an architect/engineer and ask them to design with your budget in mind?

Is it then necessary to meet with a QS before applying for the mortgage for an exact breakdown of costs?

I am also aware of the new building regs and their implementation on the self build process..

start with a ball park costing of €1500m2
100m2 house to fit all you require in will be very tight
an architect at this stage
talk to the arch about the budget, consider the guide of 1500mer m2 above (considering all the fees from planning to services to professional, builders overheads to insurances etc etc.. VAT is a killer )
a QS cannot give you an exact costing until post planning when the drawings are all worked out and a detailed spec is available. that said on such a tight budget why not meet with a QS early on and ask for their advice on whats realistic
the problem you will face here is working out how aware the general person you'll be speaking too("sure i built my whole gaff for 80€'s") .... will they know about the new building control regs & the current part L renewable energy requirements ?? this goes for the bank too!

Cooper85 · 17-07-2014 3:04pm

Thank you all for your inputs so far. I appreciate what you are saying about hearsay. A lot of people have thrown about very low figures. We were reluctant to think such a low figure would cut it. Your posts have given us a better insight.

Thanks again

kkelliher · 17-07-2014 3:10pm

Cooper85 wrote: »

Hi there,

I am in the very early stages of initiating a self build. I have had a meeting with the bank in regard to securing a mortgage and they have given me a prospective figure of 150k. I will also have a deposit of 15k.

I have an idea of what I would like to build but how do I obtain an estimated cost for my prospective build? I have been gifted a site and wish to build an energy efficient 4bed dormer/storey and half. Is my budget even realistic? (I realise every house is different in terms of quality,finish etc)

I have talked to numerous people about this but I am unclear in the steps to follow. Some people have suggested taking my ideas to an engineer, others have suggested an architect.

I do not want to design a house massively exceeding my budget. Is the initial step to meet an architect/engineer and ask them to design with your budget in mind?

Is it then necessary to meet with a QS before applying for the mortgage for an exact breakdown of costs?

I have done extensive research online in establishing the steps I need to take but much of the advice is conflicting!

I am also aware of the new building regs and their implementation on the self build process.

I would appreciate any advice you can give.
Thanks in advance.

Take VAt off the €150,000 (leaving aside your deposit to pay for the professional fees etc) and your down to 132,158.59. Take account of contributions, connections, and the like and another €10k minimum is gone. €5k for a kitchen, €5k for sanitary ware and you are now down to €122k and you still have no house.

I would urge you strongly to meet with a quantity surveyor before you go any further and work out a cost plan based on what you want in the house. A simple sketch on a piece of paper can be costed and budgets set based on this. If you can get it to work financially then move forward to an architect but at least you will have cost guidelines set. The cost plan can also be easily updated once arch drawings are completed and it can also be used for bank finance.

kkelliher · 17-07-2014 3:11pm

PS you cant self build anymore you will need to appoint a registered contractor to do the work for you.

kilmurry35 · 30-07-2014 9:10pm

Can you not nominate yourself as a the contract Builder up till 1st March 2015? and have architect certify work ?

DOCARCH · 30-07-2014 10:16pm

kilmurry35 wrote: »

....and have architect certify work ?

Have you found one who is willing to certify?

lanod2407 · 30-07-2014 11:37pm

If you're engaging an architect make sure you stipulate your max spend and document your instruction that the cost is not to exceed that amount - they're hoors for taking budgets as a vague estimate with scope for expansion!!

Charlie19 · 30-07-2014 11:41pm

lanod2407 wrote: »

If you're engaging an architect make sure you stipulate your max spend and document your instruction that the cost is not to exceed that amount - they're hoors for taking budgets as a vague estimate with scope for expansion!!

Have you being watching room to improve; )

Johnnyhpipe · 31-07-2014 12:26am

Others have already clarified the steps required above. Well worth an initial chat with an architect but realistically 165k won't get you too far - just my opinion. Do you also need to pay a gift tax for the site? If you encounter bad ground on the site then tyere's an extra chunk of cash.. Also, can you simply connect to public sewers or do you need to build (and test for) soakaways and percolation areas? (Early days I know but all dollar!)

€1500/m sq sounds about right as stated above (this includes fees) so you're down to a circa 100m sq house. I recommend looking on daft for a 100m sq house and going to see it just to help you visualise the scale of that before you commit.

ronnick · 31-07-2014 12:15pm

kilmurry35 wrote: »

Can you not nominate yourself as a the contract Builder up till 1st March 2015? and have architect certify work ?

Correct you can nominate yourself. Just something else to note - going with a builder you will only pay him 13.5% VAT but you will pay 23.5% VAT on all materials you purchase yourself.

BryanF · 31-07-2014 12:19pm

ronnick wrote: »

Correct you can nominate yourself..

Show me where in the legislation it says this?

ronnick · 31-07-2014 12:26pm

kilmurry35 wrote: »

Can you not nominate yourself as a the contract Builder up till 1st March 2015? and have architect certify work ?

BryanF wrote: »

Show me where in the legislation it says this?

I read it somewhere and I will try and find the link for you. I spoke my architect who is registered and up-to-date with legislation and he informed me that I can nominate myself as the builder. I was thinking of nominating myself but the extra VAT is turning me off it

ronnick · 31-07-2014 12:31pm

kilmurry35 wrote: »

Can you not nominate yourself as a the contract Builder up till 1st March 2015? and have architect certify work ?

BryanF wrote: »

Show me where in the legislation it says this?

I read it somewhere and I will try and find the link for you. I spoke my architect who is registered and up-to-date with legislation and he informed me that I can nominate myself as the builder. I was thinking of nominating myself but the extra VAT is turning me off it

check out Irish Assoc of Self Builders website

BryanF · 31-07-2014 1:41pm

ronnick wrote: »

I read it somewhere and I will try and find the link for you. I spoke my architect who is registered and up-to-date with legislation and he informed me that I can nominate myself as the builder. I was thinking of nominating myself but the extra VAT is turning me off it

check out Irish Assoc of Self Builders website

so your architect will be the assigned certifer for your project and is willing to certify you work (as a self-self builder). Have you set up a limited company? have you agreed costs for certification?

Drift · 31-07-2014 1:46pm

If you are setting up as a builder you should not ignore the costs of taking out adequate insurance.

Professional indemnity insurance, product liability insurance, employers liability insurance and public liability insurance.

Also insurance for the site/house during construction.

ronnick · 31-07-2014 1:48pm

No haven't agreed figures for certification yet. Why do I need to set up a limited company? Yes my architect is willing to sign off the work. As part of the assigned certifier he has to make numerous visits to site to view the work. I have a construction back ground. If I go down the self build route I will be hiring competent subcontractors to carry out the work.

BryanF · 31-07-2014 2:19pm

ronnick wrote: »

No haven't agreed figures for certification yet.

Why do I need to set up a limited company?

Yes my architect is willing to sign off the work. As part of the assigned certifier he has to make numerous visits to site to view the work.

I have a construction back ground.

If I go down the self build route I will be hiring competent subcontractors to carry out the work.

ask will this figure be impacted by your 'self-build' route
the commencement application looks for directors signature of ltd
your one of the lucky ones so. what if the architect refuses to certify compliance due to something you construct? have you talked this through with the architect, as in how would you as the client but also the main contractor will deal with this type of non-compliance ?
you see that changes things a little from the average wanna be self-builder. and something that was worth nothing in the original post
you as the main contractor sign that works are compliant with building regs. as highlighted above, its your insurance and company that will be liable if something goes wrong.

what kind of contracts will you put in place with your sub-contractors?

ronnick · 31-07-2014 2:40pm

BryanF wrote: »

[/LIST]
ask will this figure be impacted by your 'self-build route

the commencement application looks for directors signature of ltd

your one of the lucky ones so. what if the architect refuses to certify compliance due to something you construct? have you talked this through with the architect, as in how would you as the client but also the main contractor will deal with this type of non-compliance ?

you see that changes things a little from the average wanna be self-builder. and something that was worth nothing in the original post

you as the main contractor sign that works are compliant with building regs. as highlighted above, its your insurance and company that will be liable if there if something goes wrong.

(1) no figure wont increase if I go down self build route. He quoted me a figure, I just haven't agreed to it yet.
(2) sole trader signature will suffice.
(3) The whole thing about changing the regs is to ensure that buildings are built to the drawings so if the house is built as it should be then I don't see any issue. Why is this any different from appointing a main contractor and he doesn't build the house to the drawings? I intend on building the house to the spec
(4)
(5) Obviously its my insurance would be affected. But as I stated earlier I would only hire competent subcontractors to ensure the work is carried out to meet the regs. If its not then they wont get paid. Whatever route you go, either you or the main contractor should only hire competent tradesmen. If you appoint a MC and you realise you have problems with the house in few months time, but the MC is gone out of business who's insurance do you claim off?? It all goes back to the architect whereas the MC walks away!

Generally speaking anyone building a one off house will do a hell of a lot better job than many main contractors in the country. I know lots of housing estates with very poorly build houses because of the boom rush.

kkelliher · 31-07-2014 2:43pm

BryanF wrote: »

[/LIST]
you see that changes things a little from the average wanna be self-builder. and something that was worth nothing in the original post

i think this needs a bit of further clarity. The building industry is a massive industry made up of alot of trades. Does an electrician for example know the construction detail for the connection of a roof to a wall or for the air tightness details etc. I have extensive experience as a quantity surveyor in most aspects of this but I don't believe I would be "qualified" or "competent" enough to build my own home in the true meaning of the legislation. Would I be able, yes. Would I do a good job, yes but thats not the same as being a competent builder.

4Sticks · 31-07-2014 3:06pm

Experienced builders find building difficult and challenging.
But fools rush in....

BryanF · 31-07-2014 3:34pm

ronnick wrote: »

(1) no figure wont increase if I go down self build route. He quoted me a figure, I just haven't agreed to it yet.
(2) sole trader signature will suffice.
(3) The whole thing about changing the regs is to ensure that buildings are built to the drawings so if the house is built as it should be then I don't see any issue. Why is this any different from appointing a main contractor and he doesn't build the house to the drawings? I intend on building the house to the spec
(4)
(5) Obviously its my insurance would be affected. But as I stated earlier I would only hire competent subcontractors to ensure the work is carried out to meet the regs. If its not then they wont get paid. Whatever route you go, either you or the main contractor should only hire competent tradesmen. If you appoint a MC and you realise you have problems with the house in few months time, but the MC is gone out of business who's insurance do you claim off?? It all goes back to the architect whereas the MC walks away!

Generally speaking anyone building a one off house will do a hell of a lot better job than many main contractors in the country. I know lots of housing estates with very poorly build houses because of the boom rush.

2. will it? where in the commencement does it indicate?
3. i though it was to ensure compliance with building regulations?
4. may i ask what is your profession/ construction area
5. 'It all goes back to the architect' excuse my earlier skepticism prehaps your architect trusts/ has confidence in your skill as apposed to most architects confidence in a self-builder

the standard of housing estates is not questioned here - this is about nominating yourself as a main contractor. you have explained that your architect is willing to certify compliance with you as the MC, given that you have a construction background
I'd be very keen to follow your build and compliance/sign-off matters upon completion.

BryanF · 31-07-2014 3:37pm

kkelliher wrote: »

i think this needs a bit of further clarity. The building industry is a massive industry made up of alot of trades. Does an electrician for example know the construction detail for the connection of a roof to a wall or for the air tightness details etc. I have extensive experience as a quantity surveyor in most aspects of this but I don't believe I would be "qualified" or "competent" enough to build my own home in the true meaning of the legislation. Would I be able, yes. Would I do a good job, yes but thats not the same as being a competent builder.

until such time as the contractors register & chartered membership of something similar to the CIOB is compulsory. how does an architect/client determine if a builder/MC is really competent?

ronnick · 31-07-2014 3:47pm

BryanF wrote: »

2. will it? where in the commencement does it indicate?
3. i though it was to ensure compliance with building regulations?
4. may i ask what is your profession/ construction area
5. 'It all goes back to the architect' excuse my earlier skepticism prehaps your architect trusts/ has confidence in your skill as apposed to most architects confidence in a self-builder

the standard of housing estates is not questioned here - this is about nominating yourself as a main contractor. you have explained that your architect is willing to certify compliance with you as the MC, given that you have a construction background
I'd be very keen to follow your build and compliance/sign-off matters upon completion.

(2) again I had this conversation with my architect and he confirmed it will suffice
(3) ya and drawings are drawn to meet the regs
(4) My qualification is irrelevant here. I've built numerous houses so I know how to connect the wall plate to the wall
(5) whats your point????

I was merely stating on a earlier post that it was possible to nominate yourself as the builder. I didn't state I was going down this route as I see benefits of appointing a MC

kkelliher · 31-07-2014 3:55pm

BryanF wrote: »

until such time as the contractors register & chartered membership of something similar to the CIOB is compulsory. how does an architect/client determine if a builder/MC is really competent?

agreed fully bryan that is all up in the air but I dont agree that anyone with any type of association to the building industry could ever be classed as competent to build based solely on this association. The previous experience is key to me at present as there is no other indicator.

Johnnyhpipe · 31-07-2014 7:53pm

BryanF wrote: »

until such time as the contractors register & chartered membership of something similar to the CIOB is compulsory. how does an architect/client determine if a builder/MC is really competent?

Fully agreed! It's absolute nonsense that in this country my granny could set herself up as a contractor tomorrow morning and start work..if she could get it!

Hopefully the amended regs will be a small stepping stone to further weeding out the cowboys.

ronnick · 31-07-2014 9:08pm

kkelliher wrote: »

agreed fully bryan that is all up in the air but I dont agree that anyone with any type of association to the building industry could ever be classed as competent to build based solely on this association. The previous experience is key to me at present as there is no other indicator.

kkelliher and byran f - since ye are the experts answer this scenario for us all please - I decide to go down the MC route and appoint one. The MC comes to me and says hey we have an in-house assigned certifier and we can look after that for you also. Sounds good. The builder takes some short cuts during the build and neither the architect or I notice these and they are covered up. Job complete and a year later we pay the retention to the MC and the following week the MC goes burst. Then the problems with the house start to arise. Who's insurance do I claim off??

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

Fully agreed! It's absolute nonsense that in this country my granny could set herself up as a contractor tomorrow morning and start work..if she could get it!

Hopefully the amended regs will be a small stepping stone to further weeding out the cowboys.

Johnnyhpipe - thanks for your contribution but that's a rubbish statement! how many people reading this thread know of poorly built and poorly insulated housing estates. I'm sure none of us are very far from one of these estates. It wasn't the small sole trader or the self build person who build these houses, it was supposedly competent builders who took loads of short cuts, used inferior products and didn't insulate houses to a good standard. Most of these so called competent builders are still on the go and now have the opportunity to self assess their ****e work and sign it off. They'll go burst and then set up another company and do same thing again. A housing estate built near me by two qualified competent builders who are still trading (just not around here) and doing ok for themselves but 30houses with no insulation in any of the attics. On a frosty morning when the ground/cars are all snow white the slates on these roofs are black due to the heat passing out the roof.

Johnnyhpipe · 31-07-2014 11:21pm

Exactly. You're proving my point - we need qualified contractors in this country! There are some big name cowboys and there are some small name cowboys.

Nonetheless, people need to leave the building to builders and I'm suggesting that builders need to meet a minimum recognised requirement. Surely you wouldn't disagree with this?

I often wonder if these "self builders" cut their own hair, perform their own root canals and service their own cars too? A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

shamu2new · 31-07-2014 11:29pm

Don't forget to factor in the costs of the Architect and engineer if needed and also make sure you have your planning covered (prob stating the obvious but just in case!). Interesting about the VAT rate being different didn't realise that.

Johnnyhpipe · 01-08-2014 12:06am

ronnick wrote: »

kkelliher and byran f - since ye are the experts answer this scenario for us all please - I decide to go down the MC route and appoint one. The MC comes to me and says hey we have an in-house assigned certifier and we can look after that for you also. Sounds good. The builder takes some short cuts during the build and neither the architect or I notice these and they are covered up. Job complete and a year later we pay the retention to the MC and the following week the MC goes /quote]

I recall a UK case in the past where there was a competent main contractor, competent subbies, an architect, civil/struct eng and mechanical eng. There were problems with the M&E side of things after a year or so and in the meantime the contractor, the M&E subbie, the architect and M&E engineer went bust. The client took it to court and the judge decided that the civil/struct engineer's insurance should foot the bill because he's the only remaining member of the design team left standing, he has insurance and the client should not be put out of pocket..

I don't expect that any judge would have the same sympathy for someone who takes a fundamental shortcut by appointing themselves as the main contractor...

4Sticks · 01-08-2014 8:17am

ronnick wrote: »

I decide to go down the MC route and appoint one. The MC comes to me and says hey we have an in-house assigned certifier and we can look after that for you also. Sounds good. The builder takes some short cuts during the build and neither the architect or I notice these and they are covered up. Job complete and a year later we pay the retention to the MC and the following week the MC goes burst. Then the problems with the house start to arise. Who's insurance do I claim off??

The architect. Always the architect.
plus ça change

4Sticks · 01-08-2014 8:26am

ronnick wrote: »

Why do I need to set up a limited company? Yes my architect is willing to sign off the work. As part of the assigned certifier he has to make numerous visits to site to view the work. I have a construction back ground. If I go down the self build route I will be hiring competent subcontractors to carry out the work.

Fast foward 10 years. The architect now lives in Canada or Australia or for other reasons is simply not around.

You have the house sold. The new owner encounters defects. He has building regulations certifications signed by you as builder - and further your signature as owner declaring your self competent.

Who will the new guy sue ?

Drift · 01-08-2014 8:31am

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

I recall a UK case in the past where there was a competent main contractor, competent subbies, an architect, civil/struct eng and mechanical eng. There were problems with the M&E side of things after a year or so and in the meantime the contractor, the M&E subbie, the architect and M&E engineer went bust. The client took it to court and the judge decided that the civil/struct engineer's insurance should foot the bill because he's the only remaining member of the design team left standing, he has insurance and the client should not be put out of pocket..

It's scary - We've been warned many times that once you are part of a design team a court will find you just as responsible as any other member of the team regardless of your part in any error. It's a very "pro-consumer" approach and if I spent too long considering the implications it would keep me awake at night.

Also in recent public jobs in which we've been involved it has been further emphasised by each consultant's contract having a "Joint and Several" liability clause. We've had to provide a letter from our insurers confirming they cover this.

Drift · 01-08-2014 8:36am

4Sticks wrote: »

Who will the new guy sue ?

1. The consumer's solicitor will recommend that he sue everybody.

2. All the sued parties' solicitors will then recommend that they individually sue each other.

3. Then all the parties without insurance will claim inability to pay (and declare bankruptcy if necessary).

4. Then the remaining sued parties, who have insurance, will share the liability via some ratio worked out by the insurers representatives.

5. The whole thing will probably be sorted before it gets in front of a judge. The consumer will almost certainly get some money and costs. The insured parties will have to pay an excess and their premium will increase. The uninsured parties may declare bankruptcy (or may not even have to!). The people who make the most money will be the legal representatives of all sides.

4Sticks · 01-08-2014 8:43am

True Drift but to ronnick who is positing that there will simply be him as self builder and the architect , I was asking him to reflect on that.
( in terms of certification it will only be him and the architect)

I am not knocking ronnick here or anyone else. Just trying to draw attention to one vital thing - the govt have set citizen against citizen here with this new legislation.

In future when faced with new pyrites / Priory Hall hogans new law simply make it much easier for the state not to invlolve itself.

Drift · 01-08-2014 8:45am

4Sticks wrote: »

In future when faced with new pyrites / Priory Hall hogans new law simply make it much easier for the state not to invlolve itself.

That's the whole reason the new legislation was written. Total scam.

4Sticks · 01-08-2014 9:11am

Drift wrote: »

It's a very "pro-consumer" approach

Only superficailly. Without a warranty fund for consumers to access in compensation they only get to bankrupt others whilst in all probability not even obtaining adequate compensation for themselves.

It would be better described as "a very pro Official Ireland" approach as that is what is protected most.

Drift · 01-08-2014 9:25am

4Sticks wrote: »

Only superficailly. Without a warranty fund for consumers to access in compensation they only get to bankrupt others whilst in all probability not even obtaining adequate compensation for themselves

True, but for those of us who keep and maintain adequate insurance it means we end up paying out even when the fault lies elsewhere. So essentially the insurance companies are acting as the fund and our insurance premia are financing said fund.

I'd have no problem at all with this system if it wasn't for the number of "cowboys" who don't have insurance and hit for the hills the second there is a claim.

calum22 · 01-08-2014 1:52pm

One of the SelfBuild shows would be perfect for you. Every question answered in one place. There is one coming up in Dublin in September. I have my ticket already, free consultation is hard to beat really

ronnick · 05-08-2014 7:31am

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

ronnick wrote: »

kkelliher and byran f - since ye are the experts answer this scenario for us all please - I decide to go down the MC route and appoint one. The MC comes to me and says hey we have an in-house assigned certifier and we can look after that for you also. Sounds good. The builder takes some short cuts during the build and neither the architect or I notice these and they are covered up. Job complete and a year later we pay the retention to the MC and the following week the MC goes /quote]

I recall a UK case in the past where there was a competent main contractor, competent subbies, an architect, civil/struct eng and mechanical eng. There were problems with the M&E side of things after a year or so and in the meantime the contractor, the M&E subbie, the architect and M&E engineer went bust. The client took it to court and the judge decided that the civil/struct engineer's insurance should foot the bill because he's the only remaining member of the design team left standing, he has insurance and the client should not be put out of pocket..

I don't expect that any judge would have the same sympathy for someone who takes a fundamental shortcut by appointing themselves as the main contractor...

Johnnyhpipe if the architect goes burst then he is still personally liable and the court can go after his personal assists!

ronnick · 05-08-2014 7:38am

4Sticks wrote: »

True Drift but to ronnick who is positing that there will simply be him as self builder and the architect , I was asking him to reflect on that.
( in terms of certification it will only be him and the architect)

I am not knocking ronnick here or anyone else. Just trying to draw attention to one vital thing - the govt have set citizen against citizen here with this new legislation.

In future when faced with new pyrites / Priory Hall hogans new law simply make it much easier for the state not to invlolve itself.

Look you are all assuming that there will be a major feck up on site. I'm building this house for my family and whoever gets it once I'm gone to live in for the next 100years so why would I not ensure that the house is built properly. If I go down the self build route then I will build the house to the regs and drawings. I do understand the regs and I know how to read drawings! I'm not a "cowboy" like some of the main contractors who built these problem estates and I have no intention of taking short cuts. Its only a two storey house and not a 44 storey apartment block!

kkelliher · 05-08-2014 9:13am

ronnick wrote: »

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

Johnnyhpipe if the architect goes burst then he is still personally liable and the court can go after his personal assists!

only if he is a sole trader. you will find most are now companies and therefore its unlikely there would be anything to go after.

sydthebeat · 05-08-2014 10:04am

ronnick wrote: »

Its only a two storey house and not a 44 storey apartment block!

in a lot of cases, there is more co-ordination of trades in a two storey one off dwelling than there is in a modular 44 apartment block.
Apartment blocks are simple repetition.

one off dwellings need site specific decisions to be made daily, with the resultant knock on effects to be considered.

if you believe house building is not difficult, then you do not have sufficient experience.

ronnick · 05-08-2014 10:11am

sydthebeat wrote: »

in a lot of cases, there is more co-ordination of trades in a two storey one off dwelling than there is in a modular 44 apartment block.
Apartment blocks are simple repetition.

one off dwellings need site specific decisions to be made daily, with the resultant knock on effects to be considered.

if you believe house building is not difficult, then you do not have sufficient experience.

I'm not questioning anyone else's experience here so DONT question mine! I know all about coordination between the trades as I do it on a daily basis. You must be building very complicated houses that you need to make site specific decisions on a daily basis.

sydthebeat · 05-08-2014 10:26am

ronnick wrote: »

I'm not questioning anyone else's experience here so DONT question mine! I know all about coordination between the trades as I do it on a daily basis. You must be building very complicated houses that you need to make site specific decisions on a daily basis.

unless you are a building contractor, dont claim to be something your not, and dont assume things.

youve already inferred that your not a contractor.

and yes, decisions are made on a daily basis on a building site which have knock on effects.

ronnick · 05-08-2014 11:09am

sydthebeat wrote: »

unless you are a building contractor, dont claim to be something your not, and dont assume things.

youve already inferred that your not a contractor.

and yes, decisions are made on a daily basis on a building site which have knock on effects.

I'm not a building contractor. You don't have to be a building contractor to be involved in the construction of dwellings from start to finish. What did I assume?

I suggest you hire a competent architect who will discuss the project in detail with you pre tender stage, make your decisions then and draw construction drawings to suit and then there should be very little DAILY decisions to be made on site. If you fail to prepare then prepare to fail!

sydthebeat · 05-08-2014 11:15am

ronnick wrote: »

I'm not a building contractor. You don't have to be a building contractor to be involved in the construction of dwellings from start to finish. What did I assume?

well when you sign the builders certificate, nomimating yourself as the builder, and state your the principle of a building company....

you ARE assuming your a building contractor..... or have you missed the whole point ???

ronnick · 05-08-2014 11:44am

sydthebeat wrote: »

well when you sign the builders certificate, nomimating yourself as the builder, and state your the principle of a building company....

you ARE assuming your a building contractor..... or have you missed the whole point ???

who got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning? in actual fact I think it is you who have missed the whole point! If you read the thread from the start you will see that I confirmed that you can actually nominate yourself as the builder which another person queried. I didn't say that I was nominating myself. I stated in another thread that there are benefits for appointing a MC.

sydthebeat · 05-08-2014 11:46am

ronnick wrote: »

who got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning? in actual fact I think it is you who have missed the whole point! If you read the thread from the start you will see that I confirmed that you can actually nominate yourself as the builder which another person queried. I didn't say that I was nominating myself. I stated in another thread that there are benefits for appointing a MC.

you cannot confirm that.

legal advise to the contrary is available.

Steps in self building

Comments