Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Building Control Regulations Amendment Draft 2012

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,141 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    fclauson wrote: »
    .... an arch for signing a "compliance cert" which was not compliant ?

    the RIAIs code of practice actively encourages the architect limiting their liability where possible.


  • Options
    #33
    fclauson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭fclauson


    My representation is in an acknowleged - PLEASE ALSO SEND IN YOURS - even if you agree with all the proposed changes :D


  • Options
    #34
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    Nobody has mentioned the builders!

    Why not have registration of builders (who reach a certain level of competance), have them also carry professional indemnity insurance and have them co-sign any opinion/certificate of compliance (as the person who actually carried out the works) in conjunction with the 'professional' certifier.


  • Options
    #35
    RockyTwoArms
    Registered Users Posts: 43 ✭RockyTwoArms


    The HSA is not an ideal structure as their inspectors are very poorly regulated and can give very different advice on each job.

    In the current climate I am totally against adding to LA or public sector staff as they have proved their incompetence wrt. fire inspections, services monitoring and installation etc.

    While I would in theory be in favour of registered builders I imagine it would end up as a money making scheme for a registration body (ala IEI RIA) and ultimately push up building costs (think back to the cost of laying blocks during the good times - due to unions)

    The overall proposal is very similar to the requirements of the fire act in terms of professionals being asked to sign a pointless document before works begin; a complete waste of time. The real issue is that the client must sign said document and submit details of number of inspections he will purchase from a professional - this would force professionals to commit to inspections and also if the client hires a cowboy or doesn't hire a professional it's his own fault. At the end of the day unfortunately money is power not knowledge.


  • Options
    #36
    Will23
    Registered Users Posts: 265 ✭✭Will23


    DOCARCH wrote: »
    Nobody has mentioned the builders!

    Why not have registration of builders (who reach a certain level of competance), have them also carry professional indemnity insurance and have them co-sign any opinion/certificate of compliance (as the person who actually carried out the works) in conjunction with the 'professional' certifier.

    as far as i know the architects opinion of compliance must be accompanied by opinions of compliance from the contractor, engineers (M+E and Civil/Structural) and other consultants where required? this is the only way i have ever known it to be.

    The wording of what is required from the contractor should included in the tender package (sample letter to be put on his letter head and signed) and brought to the attention of the contractor in a post tender meeting and prior to handover; no Cert of completion without his opinion on compliance.

    however, you cannot underestimate the value of a good clerk of works on site..

    Will.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    Will23 wrote: »
    as far as i know the architects opinion of compliance must be accompanied by opinions of compliance from the contractor, engineers (M+E and Civil/Structural) and other consultants where required? this is the only way i have ever known it to be.

    Not trying to trip you up - but have you read the draft changes ? Would be interested in what you think of the changes.


  • Options
    #38
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    Will23 wrote: »
    as far as i know the architects opinion of compliance must be accompanied by opinions of compliance from the contractor, engineers (M+E and Civil/Structural) and other consultants where required?

    They are called 'Letters of Confirmation'. They are not Opinions on Compliance (as such). The contractor, etc., does not have PI insurnace. At the end of the day it as the certifier (architect or whoever) who is solely issuing the Opinion on Compliance and signing off.

    What I am suggesting is that contractors should also have PI insurance and jointly prepare/sign the Opinion on Compliance with the certifier.

    That my help the person who actually carries out the work think a little more (carefully) about what they are doing.


  • Options
    #39
    Will23
    Registered Users Posts: 265 ✭✭Will23


    DOCARCH wrote: »
    They are called 'Letters of Confirmation'. They are not Opinions on Compliance (as such). The contractor, etc., does not have PI insurnace. At the end of the day it as the certifier (architect or whoever) who is solely issuing the Opinion on Compliance and signing off.

    What I am suggesting is that contractors should also have PI insurance and jointly prepare/sign the Opinion on Compliance with the certifier.

    That my help the person who actually carries out the work think a little more (carefully) about what they are doing.

    I fully agree. I was not aware that appendices to the Opinion of Compliance carried little or no weight in law! thanks for the heads up on that.

    I have not gone through the proposed amendments yet but plan on doing so in the coming days!

    Will.


  • Options
    #40
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    I think it's important to read this as well as the Draft SI .

    The Undertaking to Inspect cert will be signed by Builders for the most part I belive. Or if by Architects then ( unless they are really foolish) by those who effectively act as an old fashioned clerk of works. Same goes for the completion cert ( which must be signed by the same individual.)

    I believe that for most Architects who continue to provide a "traditional" service will furnish no more than the designers certificate i.e. tightened up to be an actual cert , no longer an opinion.

    The huge change I see is for the one off house client. Getting the builder to work off planning permission drawings and hoping for the best will no longer be an option under the law.

    At commencement

    They will have to sign ( explicitly them - no longer an agent ) and lodge to the LA

    (I am using my own short hand with these titles)

    1. A commencement notice form which includes
    2. Plans and documents demonstrating compliance.
    3. Designers cert of compliance ( and PI cover details ) warranting 2. above
    4. Appointment of Undertaking-to-Inspect-Cert person ( including that persons PI cover).
    5. Undertaking to Inspect cert .

    At completion

    "before .... a building is opened occupied or used" the client must lodge with the LA

    6. As built docs , highlighting differences with 1. above and still demonstrating compliance
    7. Cert of Completion produced by the guy/girl at item 4 above.

    These are only some salient points i choose to highlight here , as I say it is worth reading all 60 or so pages for oneself .

    The option of following the UK route is considered and discounted.

    Another point of interest is the DOE intention to publish a Code of Practice for the guy/girl at 4 above , which may offer guidance as to the obtaining of supporting documentation. So , similar to now , gather RECI cert , gas installer cert , MVHR installers cert, Str. Eng's cert etc. So in a case like fclausons , the issuer of the final cert is likely to seek and retain supporting documentation from all he appointed.

    "Informal" talks have commenced with the DOE/CIF with a view to compiling a register of builders.

    And more - download and read ....


  • Options
    #41
    oraiste
    Registered Users Posts: 82 ✭✭oraiste


    Eoin O Cofaigh, architect and ex RIAI president, has drafted his response to the proposed new regulations........

    Architects will be certainly interested in his view on the impact of practice and the profession.

    In my opinion, the UK Building Control model is a tried and tested system for regulating building works - we should adopt it as we have with many other UK standards.

    It would be interesting to know what level of civil service resourcing would be required to implement their system.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    All interested parties please note Meeting with DOE on Tuesday next


  • Options
    #43
    martinn123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭martinn123


    Over the top reaction??

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0514/1224316065469.html?goback=%2Egde_2448687_member_115192929
    Irish Times wrote:
    DRAFT BUILDING control regulations being introduced in the wake of the Priory Hall debacle have been branded as an attempt to “criminalise” architects for the failure by local authorities to inspect construction sites.


  • Options
    #44
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    then you'll love the attachment at post # 41


  • Options
    #45
    martinn123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭martinn123


    As most of you know I am not of the Architectural Profession but have an interest in Building, am a home owner, self-built, have a mortgage, so I hope I can comment on this thread.
    I have read all the posts, and while the Title of the thread is obvious, what is totally missing from all comments is any thought for the guy/gal who pays for all this, the Homeowner.
    I am reading complaints of what you will have to Certify, ( or express an opinion on ) the difficulties therin, the additional costs, the competition issues, but nothing about the end-user.

    sinnerboy wrote:
    From the point of view of clients
    How do you feel about the pool of professionals being made available to issue certifications is proposed to shrink ?

    You probably don't need to care that Architectural Technicians are proposed to be excluded by the current draft. Why would you ?

    Except that it will reduce competition for fees to you.

    This was perhaps an attempt to address the customer, but a weak attempt, in my view.

    The letter from Mr O'Cofaigh, is a joke, in my view, threats of legal action, producing the letter in court, damage to business, down 90% etc, etc, if posted here would be classified as a rant, and the poster banned for a month.
    More importantly it does nothing to further his cause, because of the manner in which it is written.

    So in effect, changes are overdue, recent horriffic cases point to how the system failed. The changes proposed will not suit everyone, but it seems they follow one principal, Someone needs to CERTIFY that works are correct, or Joe Public ends up with a 25 year Bill, for something that was not his fault.


  • Options
    #46
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,141 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    martinn123 wrote: »
    .....Someone needs to CERTIFY that works are correct, or Joe Public ends up with a 25 year Bill, for something that was not his fault.

    exactly martin.

    Unfortunately the proposed legislation is designed not to protect the consumer, or the end user, but squarely and obviously to protect the government / local authority.

    It is a complete absolution of the statutory responsibility of the local authority to be held accountable for the standard of construction.

    The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG) issued guideline to the Building Control Authorities in the early 1990s for an inspection level of between 12% and 15% of new developments, but this was later changed to 12% to 15% of Commencement Notices. This means in effect, that up to 85% of newly constructed homes are not required to be inspected under the issued guidelines.

    (from National Consumer Agency: Building Regulations and their Enforcement)


  • Options
    #47
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    martinn123 wrote: »
    So in effect, changes are overdue, recent horriffic cases point to how the system failed. The changes proposed will not suit everyone, but it seems they follow one principal, Someone needs to CERTIFY that works are correct, or Joe Public ends up with a 25 year Bill, for something that was not his fault.

    Everybody agrees with this. the problem with the wording of the proposed changes ( have you read them ? ) is that the literal meaning is that one person is expected to take absolute responsibility alone for any defect , no matter who caused the defect.

    Now you may say "so what" but consider that such a warranty would have no practical value. No , and I mean , NO one individual could obtain insurance to give give financial meaning to such a warranty.

    Read what the proposed regulations actually say , not what others say about them , not what you think they should say , or should address .

    There are better , effective ways to achieve the end result we all want .

    The current proposals will not achieve what you seem to think they will.


  • Options
    #48
    martinn123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭martinn123


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    exactly martin.

    Unfortunately the proposed legislation is designed not to protect the consumer, or the end user, but squarely and obviously to protect the government / local authority.

    It is a complete absolution of the statutory responsibility of the local authority to be held accountable for the standard of construction.

    I accept that point, but show me draft legislation which does not protect, The Minister, Civil Servants, or Local Authotities, first, and joe public last.
    sydthebeat wrote:
    The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG) issued guideline to the Building Control Authorities in the early 1990s for an inspection level of between 12% and 15% of new developments, but this was later changed to 12% to 15% of Commencement Notices. This means in effect, that up to 85% of newly constructed homes are not required to be inspected under the issued guidelines.

    (from National Consumer Agency: Building Regulations and their Enforcement)

    Well what was relied on was a flawed system where, lets call them Professional Certyfers, were expected to do a job.
    They colluded with Banks, Law Socy, and their own Associations, to provide '' Opinions'' which when accepted by the Banks, tied the Purchaser into a Mortgage, with what now turns out to be a useless ''Opinion'' in many cases.
    Who issued the Certs/Opinions, in North Dublin, which leaves people living in a hotel.
    I do not tar all such professionals with the same brush, but these changes are being made because the system failed, and some of the comments on this thread, are from members of the same professions who were part of that failure to protect consumers.
    Failure in regulation by the Law Socy, led to the rogue Solr's who ripped off millions.
    failure in this area, led to what may be thousands of consumers being ripped off again.
    So you obviously don't like what is being proposed, thats fair enough, but you argue from a weak position, given what has happened.


  • Options
    #49
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,140 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    I think we can all agree things need to change, and self-certification hasn't worked. but will you or your clients be prepared to pay for an architect to visit a site daily to ensure everything is constructed as per the building regulations? and how much will their indemnity insurance premium be to take legal responsibility for the entire process? surely the way to approach this is to have adequate building control, just like the UK, Canada etc?


  • Options
    #50
    martinn123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭martinn123


    sinnerboy wrote: »
    Everybody agrees with this. the problem with the wording of the proposed changes ( have you read them ? ) is that the literal meaning is that one person is expected to take absolute responsibility alone for any defect , no matter who caused the defect.

    Now you may say "so what" but consider that such a warranty would have no practical value. No , and I mean , NO one individual could obtain insurance to give give financial meaning to such a warranty.

    Well then surely pointing this simple fact out will bring a change to what is proposed.
    Otherwise the system grinds to a halt, with no one Insured to provide a Cert, no Certs will issue, or am I missing something.
    sinnerboy wrote:
    Read what the proposed regulations actually say , not what others say about them , not what you think they should say , or should address .

    There are better , effective ways to achieve the end result we all want .
    I have read all that has been posted here, and there are many good synopsis of what is proposed, to be honest wading through pages of Civil Service speak is not my thing, but I know I can rely on this thread to give me a good insight.
    sinnerboy wrote:
    The current proposals will not achieve what you seem to think they will.

    Fair enough, lets hope all the submissions made have the required effect, protection of the Consumer,


  • Options
    #51
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    martinn123 wrote: »
    Well then surely pointing this simple fact out will bring a change to what is proposed.Otherwise the system grinds to a halt, with no one Insured to provide a Cert, no Certs will issue, or am I missing something.

    You understand perfectly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,141 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    All that is needed is that the "threat" of a site inspection is a viable and realistic premise.

    While we would all love 100% of site inspections by building control officers, thats not practical.. but even a 50% inspection coverage would, in my opinion, be frequent enough for the threat to be viable.

    This is just typical civil servants writing up legislation which "passes the buck" away from them. They have made it an art form at this stage.


  • Options
    #53
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    martinn123 wrote: »
    I have read all that has been posted here, and there are many good synopsis of what is proposed, to be honest wading through pages of Civil Service speak is not my thing, but I know I can rely on this thread to give me a good insight.

    Fair enough, lets hope all the submissions made have the required effect, protection of the Consumer,

    I am sad to see this Martin. You have posted often on this subject so it is important to you.

    Why leave it up to others to affect change that you want ?

    Post your concerns to the DOE now if you want to be taken seriously here - by me anyhow.


  • Options
    #54
    martinn123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭martinn123


    sinnerboy wrote: »
    I am sad to see this Martin. You have posted often on this subject so it is important to you.

    Why leave it up to others to affect change that you want ?

    Post your concerns to the DOE now if you want to be taken seriously here - by me anyhow.

    fair point, and I hate to see you sad;)

    Submission sent, via the links in Post#1


  • Options
    #55
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    All that is needed is that the "threat" of a site inspection is a viable and realistic premise.

    While we would all love 100% of site inspections by building control officers, thats not practical.. but even a 50% inspection coverage would, in my opinion, be frequent enough for the threat to be viable.

    This is just typical civil servants writing up legislation which "passes the buck" away from them. They have made it an art form at this stage.

    Ok imagine this scenario

    DOE , or Minister for , Establishes a Body lets call it BCAI ( Like SEAI )

    It
    • Administers the process including who may / may not be an assessor Inspector/Certifier , ensuring they Adhere to the BER Assessors Inspectors/Certifiers Code Of Conduct
    • Ensures BER Assessors Inspectors/Certifiers maintain appropriate insurances
    • Maintains a register of assessors Inspectors/Certifiers
    • Maintains a public register of BER Cert Inspections/Certificates
    • Is not responsible for Certs but regularly audits Inspectors/Certifiers

    Regulations are passed making it offence
    • to mislead an assessor Inspector/Certifier * ( who may rely on supporting documentation from other parties )
    • fails to co operate with reasonable requests of an assessors Inspector/Certifier
    • Use a building without a Cert from an assessor Inspector/Certifier


    ...... begins to write itself


  • Options
    #56
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,141 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Yes, but we are already seeing the constant changing of the goal posts in such a specific area as BER's..... imagine the fun civil servants would have making such a process convoluted for such a large body of work as enforsing building regulations.

    But still the premise is a million times better than the proposed.


  • Options
    #57
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    Oh yes , subject to Civil Service bungling alright but if liablities were spread logically and sensibly i.e. it would function.

    Structural engineer - Certs the structure
    BER assessor - Certs for Part L
    Electrician - RECI cert and so on

    Not the lunatic proposal which expects some poor fool to sign
    Notwithstanding the responsibilities of other person/s or firms/s in relation to the works, I accept responsibility and legal liability for the inspection of all works as necessary to ensure that they are neither defective nor contravene any requirements of the Second Schedule of the Building Regulations, as applicable to the building works concerned.

    If liabilities are laid off to parties who are actually competent to accept those liabilities then those risks are insurable.


  • Options
    #58
    martinn123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭martinn123


    Have you not argued here before, that it is the home-owner who is ultimately responsible for ensuring, say, that the building is constructed in compliance with the Reg's, or that it complies with Planning permission.

    If so is the problem that the architect now has to take on some responsibility, such as
    I accept responsibility and legal liability for the inspection of all works as necessary to ensure that they are neither defective nor contravene any requirements of the Second Schedule of the Building Regulations, as applicable to the building works concerned.

    which is actually causing the anxiety, I can understand the Insurance issue, but to me it appears, you may be reluctant to put your signature to a Document, where in the past, you had designed the Document with so many if's and but's so as to defray liability.
    Bye the way, I have no issue with sufficient fees to justify any additional work involved.


  • Options
    #59
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,141 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    no martin, previous to this we could relay on an electricians certificate, a plumbers certificate, even a builders certificate.. .each holding individual insurance to certify their own speciality.

    now what is being asked is that NO OTHER professional is expected to certify that their work is up to scratch and that the 'certifier' is the sole carrier of all liability. So if the electrician wires the MCB incorrectly and the house burns down.. the architects insurance is expected to pay up... YEAH RIGHT!!! no right minded insurer will under write such a ludicrous situation.

    Imagine you are building a conservatory and you know you are supposed to install toughen glass at less than 800mm above floor level... but you know that theres NO come back onto you if you dont, so you use cheap sheet glazing instead. The architect is supposed to take responsibility for know that every sheet of the glass isnt toughened... regardless of the fact that thats what was specified, set to the building control as a reg compliant drawing, and alos what you tendered for.......


  • Options
    #60
    martinn123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭martinn123


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    no martin, previous to this we could relay on an electricians certificate, a plumbers certificate, even a builders certificate.. .each holding individual insurance to certify their own speciality.

    O.K hold that thought
    now what is being asked is that NO OTHER professional is expected to certify that their work is up to scratch and that the 'certifier' is the sole carrier of all liability. So if the electrician wires the MCB incorrectly and the house burns down.. the architects insurance is expected to pay up... YEAH RIGHT!!! no right minded insurer will under write such a ludicrous situation.

    I doubt if your insurer will allow this to happen

    So I want a house built, i employ an Architect, who carries the Lead Insurance, he makes sure all contractors carry Insurance, and they certify to the Architect, at every stage, subject to Inspection, be it random or by arrangment.
    On completion the Arhitect issues an Overall Cert, and in the event of a claim, his Insurance Co will trickle down the claim to the Insurance carried by the offending tradesman.
    So cowboys are kept off site, self builders will have to use registered tradesmen, and we all get back to making a reasonable profit on work, without being undercut by '' man with a van''.

    The draft Reg's may be poorly written at present, but if we arrive at a situation such as above we all win.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,141 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    martinn123 wrote: »

    I doubt if your insurer will allow this to happen

    .

    EXACTLY!!!!

    martinn123 wrote: »
    So I want a house built, i employ an Architect, who carries the Lead Insurance, he makes sure all contractors carry Insurance, and they certify to the Architect, at every stage, subject to Inspection, be it random or by arrangment.
    On completion the Arhitect issues an Overall Cert, and in the event of a claim, his Insurance Co will trickle down the claim to the Insurance carried by the offending tradesman.
    So cowboys are kept off site, self builders will have to use registered tradesmen, and we all get back to making a reasonable profit on work, without being undercut by '' man with a van''.
    .

    unfortunate, as the regs are written, this isn't what will happen. There is one sole certifier expected to certify everything.


Advertisement