Boards.ie

Farmer Pudsey · 28-04-2012, 11:58

Minster Hogan has stated that the Priory Hall situtation is 'appalling' so there is more than likly a financial package will be put in place to rectify the issues. Is this opening a can of worms with the pyrite issue and other poorly build/finished property during the boom.

Why should we as taxpayer's pick up the cost and if the banks defray the mortgages we as taxpayers have to pick up the cost. These property owners can surely sue the professional engineers and their firms who signed off on the orginal building works. After all it was up to them the owner's as buyer's to make sure that the apartments were up to building standards.

Should they not be compelled to completly pay in full the loans they took out to the banks and if they cannot follow the personel insolvency route or bankrupty and even then if they have the means be pursued for the orginal loan ?????

RichardAnd · 28-04-2012, 12:37

Those people in Priory Hall bought apartments under the assumption that Dublin City Council had properly inspected the building. The council failed to properly regulate thee activity of cowboy developers and Priory Hall is simply one badly built apartment block, it's likely that there are many, many more.

I see no reason why those people, who are taxpayers themselves, should be forced into bankruptcy simply because they bought apartments that were not properly built. The state failed to properly regulate what was being built here and whilst no one was made take out a mortgage on anything, anyone that did so would have acted in good faith that what they were buying conformed to building regulations.

Allowing all those shoddy shoe-boxes to be built created a problem that now needs to be addressed. The problem was caused by the state, bad regulators and dodgy builders and you're suggesting that the ones to pay for it are, once again, the ordinary saps at the bottom. To be honest, I've seen more than enough of that.

Tigerandahalf · 28-04-2012, 12:46

The people in Priory have been treated apallingly. I am surprised a case hasnt been taken against the state. These people would be entitled to a big settlement. Whether engineers or builders are sued or the state, the taxpayer will pick up the cost either directly or through increases in insurance or fees.
The generation to come wont judge us too kindly. We have robbed them of a future.

starbelgrade · 28-04-2012, 12:49

A couple of misnomers already here. Firstly, the signing off of buildings by an architect or engineer essentially means nothing - it is an opinion that the building complies with building standards & is not a guarantee.

Secondly, it's not up to Building Control (ie the Local Authority) to inspect every build & ensure it complies. Maybe it should be, but the simple fact is that it would be impossible to police every build in this manner.

As such, the onus falls on the developer to ensure that what he builds is up to standard & that includes the requirement for him to either know what the standards are or employ people who can advise on this.

I'm not sure of the details in this case, but I see no reason why the people who bought these properties should be compensated by the State. Doing so would be akin to the State compensating me for the engine failing on a dodgy car I bought - it makes no sense whatsoever.

Tigerandahalf · 28-04-2012, 12:56

If the car had an NCT I think you would look for compensation dont you think? Many homes are built by developers under the Home Bond guarantee.
In buying a home a person should be guaranteed that the house is upto scratch. Yes it is difficult to ensure this but the gov is also placing trust in the developer. If it fails then the person is absolutely entitled to compensation. A buyer cant be expected to know if pyrite has been used or the right gauge of concrete. The buyer has to have that protection.

starbelgrade · 28-04-2012, 13:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tigerandahalf

If the car had an NCT I think you would look for compensation dont you think? .

An NCT doesn't guarantee your car no more than inspection report from an engineer guarantees your building.

Phil Hogan is right - what happened here is appalling, but there is no reason why the taxpayer should be left to pick up the tab on this.

Tigerandahalf · 28-04-2012, 13:15

We will agree to disagree.

Keith186 · 28-04-2012, 13:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by starbelgrade

A couple of misnomers already here. Firstly, the signing off of buildings by an architect or engineer essentially means nothing - it is an opinion that the building complies with building standards & is not a guarantee.

It is a professional opinion which the people have paid for. I believe this is the road they should take in suing these people over professional negligence.

They paid the money to get it inspected, what's the point in doing that if the engineers aren't going to do their job properly?

mjth2004 · 28-04-2012, 13:19

Just to echo what starbelgrade has said, the Building Contol Act has been set up as follows:

1. Developer / Builder - Is the first on the list to carry the can for defaults.
2. Home Owner - Next up it is up to him/her to insure they are buying a product that is built in accordance with the building regulations, done so by hiring a "professional".
3. Professionals - Good look chasing them in court with the wording of their certs of compliance.
4. Local Government

Is this fair or correct? No. But these have been the rules in which everyone was/is playing within, unknown to most!

starbelgrade · 28-04-2012, 15:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith186

It is a professional opinion which the people have paid for. I believe this is the road they should take in suing these people over professional negligence.

They paid the money to get it inspected, what's the point in doing that if the engineers aren't going to do their job properly?

There is no way an engineer or architect can give a personal or professional guarantee that a building was constructed in compliance with Building Regulations or best practice standards.

The only way they could possibly do this is by attending site & watching every single building element being put into place.

That, of course is an impossibility. Therefore, they can only give an opinion on compliance, which is based on their experience & their interpretation & understanding of building codes & practices.

The problem here isn't that the architect isn't doing his job properly - it's that people often don't understand what an inspection entails and is limited to.

If a building fails to comply with building standards & the architect notices this, but fails to point it out, then he is guilty of professional negligence. However, as often is the case - the problems in a build are not visible & are due to poor construction methods by the developer & the responsibility for that lies, as it should do, with the developer.

mjth2004 · 28-04-2012, 15:45

True it is a professional 'opinion' in many cases only for conveyances purposes & the level of detail solely comes down to 'substantial compliance' on one particular day of final inspection.

This is something the government is now trying to rectify from my readings but unfortunately for those in substandard housing now it's a hard one to chase as they under law (building control act) the owner carries the can some what. Plus in most cases on buying new only a snag list of finishes was done & not a structural report, that was the norm as most thought a 10 year guarantee would look after them.

hmmm · 28-04-2012, 16:19

I'm all for helping the residents of priory hall. This is different to those who took out bank loans they no longer want to repay, construction standards are something the government was regulating and didn't regulate adequately - a reasonable person can be expected to borrow sensibly and take responsibility for not, a reasonable person can't be expected to know that there are structural defects in a property they buy.

Of course, the first place they should look for compensation is after the developers, architects, engineers, whoever. But then the State should step in if nothing else can be done.

Farmer Pudsey · 28-04-2012, 19:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmmm

I'm all for helping the residents of priory hall. This is different to those who took out bank loans they no longer want to repay, construction standards are something the government was regulating and didn't regulate adequately - a reasonable person can be expected to borrow sensibly and take responsibility for not, a reasonable person can't be expected to know that there are structural defects in a property they buy.

Of course, the first place they should look for compensation is after the developers, architects, engineers, whoever. But then the State should step in if nothing else can be done.

Why should the state step in. In the first place the state also regulates banks. In the last ten years most people that took out morgtages went through a broker in my time we did not. The state also regulated the brokers and the banks used them to effectivly give mortages.

Surly it was up to the people themselves to make sure that the builders build the house to a satisfactory standard and if the builders did not why should they be able to fall back on the state just because they were incapable of supervising a building's construction themselves. Also why employ engineers to get a building cert if it is no use 'money for jam'

rodento · 28-04-2012, 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardAnd

Those people in Priory Hall bought apartments under the assumption that Dublin City Council had properly inspected the building. The council failed to properly regulate thee activity of cowboy developers and Priory Hall is simply one badly built apartment block, it's likely that there are many, many more.

I see no reason why those people, who are taxpayers themselves, should be forced into bankruptcy simply because they bought apartments that were not properly built. The state failed to properly regulate what was being built here and whilst no one was made take out a mortgage on anything, anyone that did so would have acted in good faith that what they were buying conformed to building regulations.

Allowing all those shoddy shoe-boxes to be built created a problem that now needs to be addressed. The problem was caused by the state, bad regulators and dodgy builders and you're suggesting that the ones to pay for it are, once again, the ordinary saps at the bottom. To be honest, I've seen more than enough of that.

These people bought cheap apartments without doing any research on the development whats so ever, if they hadn't they wouldn't have gone near it with a barge pole

mjth2004 · 28-04-2012, 21:09

'Money for jam' equates to certs of compliance!

My understanding of it is that when the government looked at bringing in certification it was the professional bodies who put forward self-certification by their professional members with PI insurance. But the problem occurred when the professional bodies used the law society to draw up the cert of compliance along with advising them on the wording to be used by their professional members.

28-04-2012, 11:58	#1
Farmer Pudsey Registered User Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 2,148 Adverts \| Friends	Priory Hall Minster Hogan has stated that the Priory Hall situtation is 'appalling' so there is more than likly a financial package will be put in place to rectify the issues. Is this opening a can of worms with the pyrite issue and other poorly build/finished property during the boom. Why should we as taxpayer's pick up the cost and if the banks defray the mortgages we as taxpayers have to pick up the cost. These property owners can surely sue the professional engineers and their firms who signed off on the orginal building works. After all it was up to them the owner's as buyer's to make sure that the apartments were up to building standards. Should they not be compelled to completly pay in full the loans they took out to the banks and if they cannot follow the personel insolvency route or bankrupty and even then if they have the means be pursued for the orginal loan ?????

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

28-04-2012, 12:37	#2
RichardAnd Registered User Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 2,330 Adverts \| Friends	Those people in Priory Hall bought apartments under the assumption that Dublin City Council had properly inspected the building. The council failed to properly regulate thee activity of cowboy developers and Priory Hall is simply one badly built apartment block, it's likely that there are many, many more. I see no reason why those people, who are taxpayers themselves, should be forced into bankruptcy simply because they bought apartments that were not properly built. The state failed to properly regulate what was being built here and whilst no one was made take out a mortgage on anything, anyone that did so would have acted in good faith that what they were buying conformed to building regulations. Allowing all those shoddy shoe-boxes to be built created a problem that now needs to be addressed. The problem was caused by the state, bad regulators and dodgy builders and you're suggesting that the ones to pay for it are, once again, the ordinary saps at the bottom. To be honest, I've seen more than enough of that.

28-04-2012, 12:46	#3
Tigerandahalf Registered User Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 1,833 Adverts \| Friends	The people in Priory have been treated apallingly. I am surprised a case hasnt been taken against the state. These people would be entitled to a big settlement. Whether engineers or builders are sued or the state, the taxpayer will pick up the cost either directly or through increases in insurance or fees. The generation to come wont judge us too kindly. We have robbed them of a future.

28-04-2012, 12:49	#4
starbelgrade Registered User Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,360 Adverts \| Friends	A couple of misnomers already here. Firstly, the signing off of buildings by an architect or engineer essentially means nothing - it is an opinion that the building complies with building standards & is not a guarantee. Secondly, it's not up to Building Control (ie the Local Authority) to inspect every build & ensure it complies. Maybe it should be, but the simple fact is that it would be impossible to police every build in this manner. As such, the onus falls on the developer to ensure that what he builds is up to standard & that includes the requirement for him to either know what the standards are or employ people who can advise on this. I'm not sure of the details in this case, but I see no reason why the people who bought these properties should be compensated by the State. Doing so would be akin to the State compensating me for the engine failing on a dodgy car I bought - it makes no sense whatsoever.

28-04-2012, 12:56	#5
Tigerandahalf Registered User Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 1,833 Adverts \| Friends	If the car had an NCT I think you would look for compensation dont you think? Many homes are built by developers under the Home Bond guarantee. In buying a home a person should be guaranteed that the house is upto scratch. Yes it is difficult to ensure this but the gov is also placing trust in the developer. If it fails then the person is absolutely entitled to compensation. A buyer cant be expected to know if pyrite has been used or the right gauge of concrete. The buyer has to have that protection.

28-04-2012, 13:15	#7
Tigerandahalf Registered User Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 1,833 Adverts \| Friends	We will agree to disagree.

28-04-2012, 13:19	#9
mjth2004 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 149 Adverts \| Friends	Just to echo what starbelgrade has said, the Building Contol Act has been set up as follows: 1. Developer / Builder - Is the first on the list to carry the can for defaults. 2. Home Owner - Next up it is up to him/her to insure they are buying a product that is built in accordance with the building regulations, done so by hiring a "professional". 3. Professionals - Good look chasing them in court with the wording of their certs of compliance. 4. Local Government Is this fair or correct? No. But these have been the rules in which everyone was/is playing within, unknown to most!

28-04-2012, 15:45	#11
mjth2004 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 149 Adverts \| Friends	True it is a professional 'opinion' in many cases only for conveyances purposes & the level of detail solely comes down to 'substantial compliance' on one particular day of final inspection. This is something the government is now trying to rectify from my readings but unfortunately for those in substandard housing now it's a hard one to chase as they under law (building control act) the owner carries the can some what. Plus in most cases on buying new only a snag list of finishes was done & not a structural report, that was the norm as most thought a 10 year guarantee would look after them.

28-04-2012, 16:19	#12
hmmm Registered User Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 3,376 Adverts \| Friends	I'm all for helping the residents of priory hall. This is different to those who took out bank loans they no longer want to repay, construction standards are something the government was regulating and didn't regulate adequately - a reasonable person can be expected to borrow sensibly and take responsibility for not, a reasonable person can't be expected to know that there are structural defects in a property they buy. Of course, the first place they should look for compensation is after the developers, architects, engineers, whoever. But then the State should step in if nothing else can be done.

28-04-2012, 21:09	#15
mjth2004 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 149 Adverts \| Friends	'Money for jam' equates to certs of compliance! My understanding of it is that when the government looked at bringing in certification it was the professional bodies who put forward self-certification by their professional members with PI insurance. But the problem occurred when the professional bodies used the law society to draw up the cert of compliance along with advising them on the wording to be used by their professional members.