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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

1…1112141617…32

Comments

  • #652
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    I think the point may be missed here. Quite a lot of self builders would not attempt rewiring or doing any of the build- really a self builder occupies the role of main contractor co ordinating sub contractors such as electrician, blockie etc. THere are plenty of farmers all over the country with enough building experience to undertake these main contractor duties. By occupying this role a minimum doscount should be expected on final build costs of around 10% for someone with an aptitude or ability to do this.

    It is not an easy task and very time consuming- no one is saying a main contractors wage is for nothing. However for electricians, tradesmen or even "competent professionals" who want to make their money go further and are well able to build their homes si9 would appear to preclude them from doing so

    Regarding skills to achieve airtightness and a1 ratings i think an audit of existing established builders and professionals would demonstrate significant upskilling is required. A recent european wide survey of architects the ace survey showed that around 50% of professionals only considered themselves competent to undertake ultra low energy projects.

    Si9 is not a set of enhanced performance- led standards, nor is it a new form of independently regulating the construction industry. It is a self declared reinforcement of the existing system of self regulation with particular concentration in the "for sale" speculative market which has yielded the poster children of si9: priory hall and the pyrite scandal. It is all the more remarkable that the recommendations of the government commissioned and endorsed pyrite report and the requests by the priory hall residents were ignored in the design of si9. Their call for an independen system of local authority building inspections. Ultimately what little enhancements given by si9 to our current problematic system will be little return on such a vast cost. Owners still will be left trudging through the high court pursueing redress with no guarantee of success.

    A missed opportunity.


  • #653
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    You are so far off the mark that I am not sure if this point is serious?

    Welcome back , moderator. But you are the joker here.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    A farmer should stick to the day job just as with any other trade/ profession.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    You don't let a self builder wire their own house so why would you let them manage the whole project with an ever increasing level of complexity such as air tightness or some of the new detailed junction requirements to reduce cold bridging.

    You should listen to your pal strongback , he's been writing certs for 20+ years see
    strongback wrote: »
    Very few houses require anything other than standard details that comply with the minimum standards of the regs as set out in the guidance documents.

    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    An improvement is sought in building standards and getting more experienced people involved in a project is a good way of making this improvement. It is certainly an improvement than having someone encounter these types of detailing issues for the first time.

    The mandatory involvement of Designer at commencement and Certifier at completion will help address these valid points.

    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    With due respect to people who are building their own house

    You say that with your tongue in or out of your cheek ?
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    it is only natural that if they are not experienced in an area then they are more likely to make an error. Thus their built house will contain more errors than if they were to employ an experienced builder who is registered as competent.

    Many errors can be seen off at design stage as provided for by SI 9 . Errors arising during the build can be addressed by the Certifier carrying out inspections. So why in your own considered opinion - should like in the case of the radio interview - a middle aged electrician not be trusted to be his own contractor .


  • #654
    4Sticks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    We have local elections this May. My crystal ball tells me this might just be an issue with jonnies "farmers" ....


  • #655
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    4Sticks wrote: »
    We have local elections this May. My crystal ball tells me this might just be an issue with jonnies "farmers" ....


    I agree completely the only reason this hasnt kicked off in the media is no one knows about it. From what i have read most td's don know what si9 is let alone what the issues are for self builders or even government capital spend budgets.

    The lack of preparedness for this is breathtaking. Watch this space. Fdi investment will slow, capital projects will be delayed etc.

    I agree with poster when the penny drops on this it will he a polical disaster far worde than irish water. Euro elections in 15 weeks tic tock...


  • #656
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    At a certain point all stakeholders, professionals, minister and the department need to read this article, the considered words of our president, and honestly ask will si9 stop this from happening again.

    President honours 'tenacity' of Priory Hall residents - Independent.ie
    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/president-honours-tenacity-of-priory-hall-residents-29837576.html

    We are all in agreement, professionals, contractors and consumers, that out current system of self regulation is defective. Why not fix it properly. The last time we did a comprehensive redesign of building control was in 1992. We have the benefit now of 20years experience of self regulation. Why blindly commit ourselves to another 20 years of the same?


  • #657
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    strongback wrote: »
    To be honest I don't think you know what you're talking about most of the time probably based on having limited experience in the construction industry. By the way, as if it matters on a forum, but I have certified work in all sectors of the construction industry for the better part of 20 years. I understand what a reasonable approach means in the construction industry, you don't appear to have any grasp on...
    Strongback No more personnal digs. Your opinion on the BCA is welcome, but your not welcome here if you attack any other poster. Take this as your warning


  • #658
    atech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 195 ✭✭atech


    BryanF wrote: »
    Interesting, please report back on this!!
    Where was this and what were the circumstances.

    Don't have any more info I'm afraid apart from what was said in that radio interview.

    4 sticks linked to the Wednesday interview about the man who had to cancel his self-build; on the Thursday a councillor was on (@ 35mins in) to refute what the man on Wednedsay said. The woman @ 41mins put him right about the director/principal section on the form but he said @ 44.50mins approx that it was discussed in the chamber yesterday and that it was clarified that you could still appoint yourself as builder.

    http://www.oceanfm.ie/nwt

    Probably just a case of another councillor with only half the facts.


  • #659
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    Excellent point. So for €250m extra cost to consumer, industry and taxpayer will si9 deliver the promised protections to the consumer and improvements in building standards? From our current system of self regulation where will we move to?


    Btw the official riai position is that they do not believe si9 will achieve the purpose for which it was intended and si9 should be deferred as a matter of urgency

    They have posted the official letter requesting deferral sent to minister hogan on their website dated 15th january and also his 3 line refusal on 16th. I dont believe i am allowed to link into the riai website but it is also ip on the breg blog post. I can likn to that if allowed by mods?

    The riai, cif, surveyors and engineers were the stakeholder groups involved with department inrefining si9. If the riai are firmally requesting this legislation to be deferred it should be of great concern to all (whatever ones opinion of the riai is)


  • #660
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    Links to RIAI & bRegs forum are fine


  • Advertisement
  • #661
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    BryanF wrote: »
    Links to RIAI & bRegs forum are fine

    Earlier this month the President of the Architects organisation the RIAI wrote to the Department of the Environment requesting a deferral of SI9.

    Below is the RIAI letter sent on 15th January 2014 to Minister Hogan. Minster Hogan’s refusal is attached dated 16th January 2014. The new SI9 was subsequently signed by the Minister. The RIAI are a key stakeholder in the formation and implementation of SI9.

    http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/01/24/title-riai-president-call-to-defer-si9-ignored-by-minister/

    _____


  • #662
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    interesting opinion piece by 7 past presidents of riai on effectiveness of new regulations

    New or same old building regulations? | BRegs Blog
    http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/new-or-same-old-building-regulations-bregs/


  • #663
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    Interesting angle on overview

    I wonder what private group stands to benefit most from regs?

    Winners and Losers: Building Regulations (Amendment) Regulation 2014 (SI.9 of 2014) | BRegs Blog
    http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/winners-and-losers-building-regulations-amendment-regulation-2014-si-9-of-2014/


  • #664
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,150 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    Below is the RIAI letter sent on 15th January 2014 to Minister Hogan. Minster Hogan’s refusal is attached dated 16th January 2014.

    Obviously the Minister does not consider the RIAI a key stakeholder. :rolleyes:


  • #665
    archtech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,046 ✭✭✭archtech


    Code of practice for inspecting and certifying buildings and works has been published. I seen a copy this afternoon and will post a copy once I'm on my PC again.


  • #666
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    apparently still vague between company and individual- need to see it but on previous version it was suggested that employees would need to take out separate professional indemnity insurance to cover themselves personally in addition to companies. Would be interesting to see final version.


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    back on topic: Olivia Mitchell TD & Tommy Broughan TD to Minister Hogan: The Self-Builder Question?
    http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/the-self-builder-question/


  • #668
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    4Sticks wrote: »
    We have local elections this May. My crystal ball tells me this might just be an issue with jonnies "farmers" ....


    Mod

    Don't post on this thread anymore. We have had enough of your insights.


  • #669
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,822 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Micky Dolenz wrote: »

    Mod

    Don't post on this thread anymore. We have had enough of your insights.

    Has there been a rule breach somewhere or is it simply a case of a moderator not liking their opinion challenged?

    This is an extremely pertinent thread with good debate going on in it, please allow all sides to debate their opinions fully.... and should moderator action be necessary for a rule breach, so be it... but censorship because "we have had enough of your insights" is a frankly embarrassing way to try to censor a poster.

    very poor in my opinion.....


  • #670
    Micky Dolenz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 44,080 ✭✭✭✭Micky Dolenz


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Has there been a rule breach somewhere or is it simply a case of a moderator not liking their opinion challenged?

    This is an extremely pertinent thread with good debate going on in it, please allow all sides to debate their opinions fully.... and should moderator action be necessary for a rule breach, so be it... but censorship because "we have had enough of your insights" is a frankly embarrassing way to try to censor a poster.

    very poor in my opinion.....

    Mod

    Please don't question mod action on thread. Do so by PM.


  • #671
    mullingar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,340 ✭✭✭mullingar


    but curious to how

    for enquiries on this see here


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    strongback
    Registered Users Posts: 474 ✭✭strongback


    Forum Moderation

    If you are not happy for any reason with the moderation of the forum then you may send a Private Message to one of the modeartors and if this does not address your concerns you should then follow the Dispute Resolution Procedure.

    Do not argue with a mod or dispute his/her instructions on thread. If you have an issue send a Private Message to the moderator .


  • #673
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    back on topic: Olivia Mitchell TD & Tommy Broughan TD to Minister Hogan: The Self-Builder Question?
    http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/the-self-builder-question/

    There is a worrying contradiction well highlighted in link. What is your opinion on this Hairy mellon?

    My view is that if self-builders are allowed nominate themselves (as suggested in the ministers reply) as builders then the whole system as proposed is almost identical to the current system.


  • #674
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    My view is that if self-builders are allowed nominate themselves (as suggested in the ministers reply) as builders then the whole system as proposed is almost identical to the current system.
    the BCA & subsequent COP are at odds with Mr hogans reply

    from the BCA 2014 act
    homeowner:
    As the building owner, I have assigned the following person as Builder of the building or works and I am satisfied that they are competent to undertake the works so assigned on my behalf

    builder:
    I confirm that I have been commissioned by the building owner to undertake the works described above and that I am competent to undertake the works concerned. I further under-take to ensure that any persons employed or engaged by me to undertake any of the works involved will be competent to undertake such works.

    I undertake to construct the building or works in accordance with the plans, calculations,specifications, ancillary certificates and particulars

    Having regard to the Code of Practice for Inspecting and Certifying Buildings and Works, or equivalent, I further undertake to cooperate with the inspections set out in the inspection plan prepared by the Assigned Certifier and to take all reasonable steps so as to ensure that I shall certify that the building or works is in compliance with the requirements of the Second Schedule to the Building Regulations insofar as they apply to the building or works
    Building-Control-(Amendment)-Regulations-2014-–-SI-No-9-of-2014


    below from the newly published Code of Practice (COP)
    “Builder” means a competent builder appointed, for purposes of the Building Control Regulations, by the building owner, to build and supervise the works;
    .............
    Building Owners, Designers and Builders are bound by this legal requirement. In undertaking building works, appropriate measures should be taken so that the work is in accordance with the Building Regulations. Designers, Builders and certifiers should exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the exercise of their duties. They and persons assigned by them should be competent for the work they undertake.

    Specifically, the Building Owner should:
    .......
    (c) sign the notice for the assignment of:
    1) a competent, registered professional (the Assigned Certifier) who will
    inspect the building works during Construction and provide a certificate
    of compliance on completion, and
    2) a competent Builder to construct in accordance with the plans,
    specifications and Building Regulations and to sign the Certificate of
    Compliance on completion; Builders included on the Construction
    Industry Register Ireland or equivalent may be regarded as competent
    for projects consistent with their registration profile.
    .........
    The Builder, appointed by the Building Owner, gives an undertaking to construct, to
    cooperate with the Assigned Certifier and to sign the Certificate of Compliance on
    Completion as required under the Building Control Regulations.
    until someone provides a case example of where a client has managed to act as builder under the BCA 2014, this is case closed.


  • #675
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    I agree Bryan but I would fear from the ministers reply that he is edging towards some kind of U-turn even at this stage (transitional arrangements would be the phrase)- elections are near. I wonder has any direction been given to planning authorities on what constitutes an invalid commencement notice, and how this should be followed up if/ when it happens?


  • #676
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I would fear.........I wonder has any ....... and how this should be followed up if/ when it happens?.....
    the BCA & COP are clear as highlighted in the previous post
    until someone provides a case example of where a client has managed to act as builder under the BCA 2014, this is case closed.
    no more speculation on this matter


  • #677
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    At the engineers ireland seminar on the 17th january representatives of department and cif consensus view was that a competent builder was soneone with 3 years relevant building experience with tax affairs in order. Anyone not fulfilling these criteria would trigger an inspection by BCA under their risk based analysis software and possible follow up. The risks for owners is that due to inadequate resources this may not happen. The point at which the BCA may intervene may then be on completion, when the completion certification is deemed invalid.

    This should be of great concern as currently there appears to be no retrospective means of obtaining certification and validating submissions if this situation arises.

    Anyone old enough will remember a similar mess after introduction if the fire certificate legislation after stardust. It took anout 10 years to Sort out and regularise the system we have at the moment.

    Previous posters are correct imho and the cop recently released and si9 would appear to quite clear on the matter, irrespective of recent interpretaions by he minister.

    Here is the cop

    http://societyofcharteredsurveyorsireland.newsweaver.com/files/1/39665/69025/4683135/ce9e36ede87a32ec9c2e5c0d/Code%20of%20Practice%20Building%20Control%20Regulations%202014.pdf


  • #678
    dathi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭dathi


    i wonder will the role of arch technicians and other disenfranchised professionals going forward be to "lend" technical expertise to builders to enable them to comply with the code of practice, builders role parts c,d,e,f.


  • #679
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    dathi wrote: »
    i wonder will the role of arch technicians and other disenfranchised professionals going forward be to "lend" technical expertise to builders to enable them to comply with the code of practice, builders role parts c,d,e,f.

    The restriction of profession on register for roles of design and assigned certifier would not appear to apply to all other procurement roles. The cop specifically mentions professions that "may" include enoneers, at's and other designers in roles of ancillary certifiers. There would also appear to be no mandatory requirement for pi insurance. Typically the "build for sale" sector frequently employed non formally educated persons to complete planing applications, fire certs and dac's where required, and participate in tenders. Owner/developers frequently managed contracts employing subcontractors directly. This model should be unaffected. The only change would be the requirement to engage suitably qualified competent persons (surveyor, engineer, architect) to do roles of design and assigned certifier only. Planning is totally separate and does not have the same restrictions. Si9 does not mean registration of title as a lot of professiomals believe. The recently cop confirms this.


  • #680
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,822 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    The restriction of profession on register for roles of design and assigned certifier would not appear to apply to all other procurement roles. The cop specifically mentions professions that "may" include enoneers, at's and other designers in roles of ancillary certifiers. There would also appear to be no mandatory requirement for pi insurance. Typically the "build for sale" sector frequently employed non formally educated persons to complete planing applications, fire certs and dac's where required, and participate in tenders. Owner/developers frequently managed contracts employing subcontractors directly. This model should be unaffected. The only change would be the requirement to engage suitably qualified competent persons (surveyor, engineer, architect) to do roles of design and assigned certifier only. Planning is totally separate and does not have the same restrictions. Si9 does not mean registration of title as a lot of professiomals believe. The recently cop confirms this.

    obviously this model is directly affected if the regulations AND code of practise are to be implemented as they are read.

    as bryanf has posted above:
    the code of practise states:
    Specifically, the Building Owner should:
    (a) ensure that a Fire Safety Certificate and a Disability Access Certificate are
    obtained where required;
    (b) sign a Commencement Notice (or 7 day notice) that is lodged;
    (c) sign the notice for the assignment of:
    1) a competent, registered professional (the Assigned Certifier) who will
    inspect the building works during Construction and provide a certificate
    of compliance on completion, and
    2) a competent Builder to construct in accordance with the plans,
    specifications and Building Regulations and to sign the Certificate of
    Compliance on completion; Builders included on the Construction
    Industry Register Ireland or equivalent may be regarded as competent
    for projects consistent with their registration profile.

    now, irregardless of what the minister is saying. The regulation and code of practise have it in black and white that a building contractor must be assigned.


  • #681
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,822 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I agree Bryan but I would fear from the ministers reply that he is edging towards some kind of U-turn even at this stage (transitional arrangements would be the phrase)- elections are near. I wonder has any direction been given to planning authorities on what constitutes an invalid commencement notice, and how this should be followed up if/ when it happens?


    you do realise this is minister Hogan we are talking about..... he will most probably be sent to pasture in Europe by the time elections come around,.

    the phrase "the lady's not for turning" comes to mind.


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    I tend to agree with both previous posters

    It is pretty clear to me that a building company must he appointed under si9 as previous poster notes

    Also i think its pretty unlikely hogan will do a u-turn as following poster mentions.

    The conundrum for hogan is that si9 is portrayed as a fix to stop cowboy builders. The register of contractors may fix this. This register requires primary legislation and may be unlikely within 3 years as there is a general election in interim, despite being widely predicted to be introduced in 2015.

    Si9 without some form of visible builders regulation is a joke, a nonsense. Everyine else is regulated except for builders etc. This is Hogan's conundrum.

    That is where the completion cert fudge comes in- it has the same effect as a register- ensuring only tax compliant existing builders can validate builds (restricting citizen's rights in addition). Without this si9 does not do what it set out to do.

    Also not installing comprehensive independen local authority inspections saves the department a few euros. Local authority inspections would allow self-builders to undertake projects like in the UK


  • #683
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    Owner/developers frequently managed contracts employing subcontractors directly. This model should be unaffected.
    this has been determined above and until we have proof from a client who has done this there'll be no more chat about, thanks
    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    The cop specifically mentions professions that "may" include enoneers, at's and other designers in roles of ancillary certifiers. There would also appear to be no mandatory requirement for pi insurance.
    this is worrying. how would a certifier have confidence of say M&E packages...


  • #684
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,822 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    I tend to agree with both previous posters

    It is pretty clear to me that a building company must he appointed under si9 as previous poster notes

    Also i think its pretty inlikely hogan will do a uturn as following poster mentions.

    Ths conundrum for hogan is har si9 is portrayed as a fix to stop cowboy builders. The register of contractors will fix this. This register requires primary legislation and is unlikely within 3 years as there is a general election in interim.

    Si9 without some form of visible builders regulation is a joke, a nonsense. Everyine else is regulated except for builders etc.

    That is where the completion cert fudge comes in- it has e same effect as a register- ensuring only tax compliant existing builders can validate builds. Without his si9 does not do what it set out to do.

    Also not installing comprehensive independen local authority inspections saves the department a few euros.

    http://cif.ie/news-events/current-news/ciri/

    the CIf have already started consultation with the DOE with the view of having a voluntary registry up and running asap.

    The joining of this registry will become statutory in the future. I think thats where you may be misunderstanding the above. There is no legislation required to set up the registry on a voluntary basis.
    The Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 provides for the appointment of competent contractors and builders. Provision will be made for including a member’s CIRI registered number on statutory Commencement Notices for lodgment with Building Control Authorities on and after 1 March 2014.


  • #685
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    you do realise this is minister Hogan we are talking about..... he will most probably be sent to pasture in Europe by the time elections come around,.

    the phrase "the lady's not for turning" comes to mind.
    Syd, Johnny and anyone else from now on we're tightening up the discussion on this thread. to the BCA 2014as written into law. and we're ignoring how much of .... Mr Hogan is. thanks


  • #686
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,822 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    BryanF wrote: »
    Syd, Johnny and anyone else from now on we're tightening up the discussion on this thread. to the BCA 2014as written into law. and we're ignoring how much of .... Mr Hogan is. thanks

    ok can i just clarify bryan, should a prospective self builder come on and ask if they have to appoint a building contractor..... what do we do?

    point taken on the minister.


  • #687
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    http://cif.ie/news-events/current-news/ciri/

    the CIf have already started consultation with the DOE with the view of having a voluntary registry up and running asap.

    The joining of this registry will become statutory in the future. I think thats where you may be misunderstanding the above. There is no legislation required to set up the registry on a voluntary basis.

    apologies the intended register will be mandatory and will require primary legislation.


  • #688
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,822 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    apologies the intended register will be mandatory and will require primary legislation.

    perhaps you can link to your source of information which contradicts mine?
    CIRI will operate on a voluntary basis initially but the Government has said they will look to put it on a statutory footing next year.


  • #689
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    BryanF wrote: »
    this is worrying. how would a certifier have confidence of say M&E packages...

    This has always been the worry in the wording of SI.9 (previously SI.80) from the professionals looking at the detailed wording of the legislation.

    At the RIAI Egm last october the issue of certifiers essentially guaranteeing other consultants work (M&E engineers in particular) was highlighted from the floor.

    The wording of the legislation passed is of concern to anyone willing to undertake new roles. By certifying the works with the current wordings the certifiers would appear to be providing an unqualified guarantee for other consultants work, including design work. This covers structural design calculations, mechanical and electrical designs etc. There is a big legal question as to whether the registered professionals have the specific competence to stand over the multitude of detailed professional inputs required for compliance.

    In addition the recent revision to Part D of the regulations means that in order to comply with Part D, which now includes the Construction Products Regulation 2103, that certifiers need to maintain a record of all materials being used on site. This record is quite onerous- confirmation that all materials used have a CE mark and a "declaration of performance"- this is for all materials from aggregate down to nails used on a project.

    How this can effectively be done by a anyone outside the normal supply chain (ie. no the contractor) is something as far as i am aware none of the professional bodies have addressed to date.

    The legislation would appear to have a number of problems and issues that only will become more visible to all as its implementation is rolled out....


  • #690
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    "CIRI will operate on a voluntary basis initially but the Government has said they will look to put it on a statutory footing next year."

    statutory footing means mandatory register with COP like professionals have at the moment, stricter entrance criteria and restriction from others in undertaking role.

    a mandatory register has been referred to by minister and department as being the target for si9


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,822 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    "CIRI will operate on a voluntary basis initially but the Government has said they will look to put it on a statutory footing next year."

    statutory footing means mandatory register with COP like professionals have at the moment, stricter entrance criteria and restriction from others in undertaking role.

    i agree what it means...

    however the planning is well on the way to having the CIRI register up and running on a voluntary basis for 1st march for the implementation of SI 9, and not three years time as you posted earlier.

    therefore builders will still be required to provide a CIRI reg number on appointment (as i see it anyway)
    anything else which allows the current status quo to continue would just undermine the whole point of SI9.


  • #692
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    BryanF wrote: »
    Specifically, the Building Owner should:
    (a) ensure that a Fire Safety Certificate and a Disability Access Certificate are
    obtained where required;
    (b) sign a Commencement Notice (or 7 day notice) that is lodged;
    (c) sign the notice for the assignment of:
    1) a competent, registered professional (the Assigned Certifier) who will
    inspect the building works during Construction and provide a certificate
    of compliance on completion, and
    2) a competent Builder to construct in accordance with the plans,
    specifications and Building Regulations and to sign the Certificate of
    Compliance on completion; Builders included on the Construction
    Industry Register Ireland or equivalent may be regarded as competent
    for projects consistent with their registration profile.

    until someone provides a case example of where a client has managed to act as builder under the BCA 2014, this is case closed.
    sydthebeat wrote: »
    as bryanf has posted above:
    ..........
    now, irregardless of what the minister is saying. The regulation and code of practise have it in black and white that a building contractor must be assigned.
    that's it
    sydthebeat wrote: »
    ok can i just clarify bryan, should a prospective self builder come on and ask if they have to appoint a building contractor..... what do we do?
    we take it that
    sydthebeat wrote: »
    the regulations AND code of practise are to be implemented as they are read.
    so unless said self-builder can provide written documentation from local building control authority stating otherwise,

    Yes

    they must appoint a main contractor.

    that is my reading of the BCA act 7 guidlines (anyone who provides a different opinion backed up by quotes from the legislation is welcome to post)


  • #693
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,822 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    This has always been the worry in the wording of SI.9 (previously SI.80) from the professionals looking at the detailed wording of the legislation.

    At the RIAI Egm last october the issue of certifiers essentially guaranteeing other consultants work (M&E engineers in particular) was highlighted from the floor.

    The wording of the legislation passed is of concern to anyone willing to undertake new roles. By certifying the works with the current wordings the certifiers would appear to be providing an unqualified guarantee for other consultants work, including design work. This covers structural design calculations, mechanical and electrical designs etc. There is a big legal question as to whether the registered professionals have the specific competence to stand over the multitude of detailed professional inputs required for compliance.

    In addition the recent revision to Part D of the regulations means that in order to comply with Part D, which now includes the Construction Products Regulation 2103, that certifiers need to maintain a record of all materials being used on site. This record is quite onerous- confirmation that all materials used have a CE mark and a "declaration of performance"- this is for all materials from aggregate down to nails used on a project.

    How this can effectively be done by a anyone outside the normal supply chain (ie. no the contractor) is something as far as i am aware none of the professional bodies have addressed to date.

    The legislation would appear to have a number of problems and issues that only will become more visible to all as its implementation is rolled out....


    on the bolded part, the revised wording has allowed for specialised contractors such as M+E to provide their own certification and thus indemnify the assigned certifier from accepting responsibility. this is a major alteration from the previous SI.

    i agree on Part D but it isnt clear yet whether provision of materials on site is / should be the responsibility of the builders certificate or the assigned certifiers. As its the builder providing the materials, and at the same time certifying they built in accordance with the regs, it is a stretch to see a judge applying the onus for these record son the assigned certifier and not the builder. I do agree that clarification is needed on this issue.

    personally i would be of the opinion that if i was the designer, and i provided teh builder with a fully digital copy of the current TGDs as part of the design documents, then its the builders responsibility to read those documents and build as instructed.


  • #694
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    personally i would be of the opinion that if i was the designer, and i provided teh builder with a fully digital copy of the current TGDs as part of the design documents, then its the builders responsibility to read those documents and build as instructed.
    judge to certifier: 'did you certify the buidling complied with Bregs?'
    certifier: 'yes, but i couldn't be on site everyday, and in the design documentation, it states 'all work to comply with current Bregs'... '


  • #695
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,822 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    BryanF wrote: »
    judge to certifier: 'did you certify the buidling complied with Bregs?'
    certifier: 'yes, but i couldn't be on site everyday, and in the design documentation, it states 'all work to comply with current Bregs'... '

    accepted... but:

    Judge: ACME builder, you signed a piece of paper to say you build in according to instructions and regulations

    ACME builder: yes judge, but sure i didnt have the time to read all that, i was organising muck for the foundations.....


  • #696
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    BryanF wrote: »
    judge to certifier: 'did you certify the buidling complied with Bregs?'
    certifier: 'yes, but i couldn't be on site everyday, and in the design documentation, it states 'all work to comply with current Bregs'... '

    a friend of mine, an experienced architect who is in his final year of barristers course, was in the supreme court looking in at some cases last week.

    he sat in on a pyrite case- contractor vs quarry. He was amazed at the level of technical knowledge senior council had on the smallest detail of not only procurement process and the contracts, but of the building process itself.

    he has a very pessimistic take on how this legislation will be interpreted in the courts, and the extraordinary level of professional service required under strict interpretation of SI9. Your quote is very close to his own version...


  • Advertisement
  • #697
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,822 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    BryanF wrote: »
    judge to certifier: 'did you certify the buidling complied with Bregs?'
    certifier: 'yes, but i couldn't be on site everyday, and in the design documentation, it states 'all work to comply with current Bregs'... '

    just to clarify, im not saying provide the TGDs as a replacement for design documents, but as an addition, in order to act as an additional indemnification measure.


  • #698
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    The layout and wording of the legislation would seem to me to be aimed at indemnifying the state of any end responsibility, thus it does not matter if the certifier or designer has given a copy of the regs in the tender package. A knowledge of the building regulations should be taken for granted if a builder is a member of CIRI as a builder will have signed a declaration stating this as part of their application for membership. Rather the status of the certifiers PI policy will be the Judges main concern.

    Also with regards to the earlier discussion about CIRI the early responsibility for ensuring builders competency (through registration) also falls on the certifier. They must be happy to be involved with the builder in question as they will be certifying their work. The CIRI registration is based on payment of an annual fee, with no qualification necessary although there is mention of the need to attend CPD on an ongoing basis to renew membership. They have a website www.ciri.ie which gives information on what is required with insurance details and tax clearance certificate the 2 required submissions (better than nothing).


  • #699
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    This is a pretty powerful and simple post here by the iasob, the irish association of self builders website. Non technical, clear and passionate:

    http://www.iaosb.com/people%20of%20ireland,%20stand%20up%20for%20your%20right.html


  • #700
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,822 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    This is a pretty powerful and simple post here by the iasob, the irish association of self builders website. Non technical, clear and passionate:

    And full of hyperbole and inaccuracies.


  • #701
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    their sentiments seem pretty accurate and heartfelt

    For the self-builder we have previously discussed the extraordinary cost of SI.9 to individual builds. Self-builders would appear to be precluded from the role of builder from 1st March 2014. Consequently the increase costs for a typical self-build house could increase by €23,000 (for a typical €180,000 self-build). The current estimate of additional cost due to SI.9 for this self-build sector alone could be almost €150m per annum.

    Some self-builders can absorb additional costs of SI.9, some will reduce the scope of their build to accommodate these additional costs (i.e. build smaller or part- complete areas etc). The reality is that others, at lower cost end, will simply not be able to afford to construct their own houses.

    By industry estimates up to 1,800 self-builders (28%) will not construct their own houses due to the increased costs of SI.9 (source IASOB). This may cost the construction industry and economy €324m 2014 alone. In a recent radio interview Tom Parlon of the CIF suggested an estimate of estimate of 10,000 extra jobs per €1Bn of additional construction spend. If this is correct then SI.9 may cost 3,200 jobs in a typical year. By 2020 SI.9, in the self-build domestic sector, 6 years of SI.9 will have cost almost 20,000 construction jobs with a loss to the domestic economy of €1.94Bn. That's a big number for little or no additionaL consumer protection...


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement