Steps in self building

W123-80's · 06-08-2014 5:26pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

ever project begins with everyone happy

not every project ends with everyone happy, be it immediately or 5, 10, 15 years down the line.

say your engineer dies suddenly straight after, and alas something happens which means you must sell.
If a problem arose say a year into the new occupier which was serious and structural, who gets sued?
you have signed the builders cert to say you are competent.... you are then the "last man standing" therefore the target is firmly on you.
As you are not a professional builder you cannot obtain professional indemnity insurance. This means that YOU can be personally sued for all your personal value.

this may be hypothetical, but its possible.

Self-builders have found themselves in the middle of a mess that wasn't of their making.

But ignoring the mess by burying the head in the sand is a serious mistake.

Indeed.. So if my engineer dies right after the build and along with this tragic occurrence if something equally tragic or utterly incomprehensible happens to me or one of family forcing me or my wife to sell our family home.. then if the new owners find something structural wrong with the house I could be in trouble.. the same house that the dead engineer signed off on..
It's a long shot, but I'll concede it's possible.

DOCARCH · 06-08-2014 5:44pm

The real problem is nobody really knows what the consequences might be...it may only be years down the road that you find out.

The bottom line is, if you are a self-builder, and you proceed, you are signing your name to a document that you are not (legally) entitled to sign unless you are a principal or director of a building company.

What happens in the future if there is a fire in your house? Might insurance companies make your policy null and void if they look at the certification? What happens in the future if you want to borrow money against your house? Might the banks look at the certification and say it is flawed?

Nobody knows!

W123-80's · 06-08-2014 10:12pm

DOCARCH wrote: »

The real problem is nobody really knows what the consequences might be...it may only be years down the road that you find out.

The bottom line is, if you are a self-builder, and you proceed, you are signing your name to a document that you are not (legally) entitled to sign unless you are a principal or director of a building company.
Can I or any prospective self builder not just set up as a sole trader. Surely the regulations do not say a sole trader cannot be a building contractor?

What happens in the future if there is a fire in your house? Might insurance companies make your policy null and void if they look at the certification?
Surely I would be covered if I signed the documentation as the main contracter as a sole trader??

What happens in the future if you want to borrow money against your house? Might the banks look at the certification and say it is flawed?
Personally thats a risk I'd be willing to take.!

Nobody knows!

I don't want to appear to argue every point, I appreciate all the replies here, but I still think there is a lot of scaremongering going on. The lack of clarity and understanding on this issue is frightening.

But the bottom line as I understand it is, once my engineer will sign off and I am willing to take the risk of signing as main contractor I can self build.

kkelliher · 07-08-2014 1:39am

W123-80's wrote: »

But the bottom line as I understand it is, once my engineer will sign off and I am willing to take the risk of signing as main contractor I can self build.

yes if you are the principal / director of a competent building company. it may not be ideal/perfect/agreeable but it is a very straight forward wording.

W123-80's · 07-08-2014 9:50am

kkelliher wrote: »

yes if you are the principal / director of a competent building company. it may not be ideal/perfect/agreeable but it is a very straight forward wording.

So I set up as a sole trader and I'm good to go. When I sign the form I am a new sole trading building firm.
As for 'competent', well I'm not sure how they judge a competent builder, but it can't be on previous experience as that would be unfair to new start ups. Which is what I will be.
In ten years time, when my house falls down, the document was signed by me - the principal of a sole trading building firm.
Its certainly not ideal wording, but I am sure that there is a way under these new regs to allow self builders continue to self build. Surely the regs main purpose is better/safer builds.

sydthebeat · 07-08-2014 9:59am

W123-80's wrote: »

Surely the regs main purpose is better/safer builds.

how is the end user better protected if the person managing and coordinating the build is a novice?

kkelliher · 07-08-2014 10:19am

W123-80's wrote: »

So I set up as a sole trader and I'm good to go. When I sign the form I am a new sole trading building firm.
As for 'competent', well I'm not sure how they judge a competent builder, but it can't be on previous experience as that would be unfair to new start ups. Which is what I will be.
In ten years time, when my house falls down, the document was signed by me - the principal of a sole trading building firm.
Its certainly not ideal wording, but I am sure that there is a way under these new regs to allow self builders continue to self build. Surely the regs main purpose is better/safer builds.

and you will also have to deal with the tax implications of being a builder, RCT tax, subcontract vat returns, and therefore you will have to be able to prove all purchases and labour payments (incl pension contributions and the like) are being made in accordance with industry regs. You will also need employers liability insurance, public liability insurance and possibly contractors all risk, as you cannot insure the property yourself if being built by a builder and generally insurance policies exclude works done for a director of the firm. There is more to being a builder than organising for works to be done.

kkelliher · 07-08-2014 10:24am

W123-80's wrote: »

but it can't be on previous experience as that would be unfair to new start ups.

new start ups generally come out of an experienced person going it alone so they will have the experience but just not in their own name.

W123-80's wrote: »

but I am sure that there is a way under these new regs to allow self builders continue to self build

I believe the industry, in the main, has come to the understanding that there is not.

I am not for a second stating that I think this is right or wrong but the fact is the legislation is there so it must be complied with. You must remember that Priory hall and the like did not fall down, there was no talk that they would but in the event of a fire the fire spread would have destroyed the building. There is more to this than simply having the building standing. there is health and safety and the like to think of.

If your house has an issue on the basis of inexperience and something was to go wrong and an injury or death was caused then you may think differently about building regulations and control. It may be far fetched but the fact is, it does happen.

Rebar · 07-08-2014 11:12am

I've 20+ years in the construction industry, I've been involved on the construction of hundreds of houses, and I've built several houses by direct labour over the years.

I'm building another house for myself again shortly and there is no way i'm signing a form saying I'm "Principal or Director of a Building Company"

Firstly, Mr Taxman would have something to say about that a future date.

What happens if a guy slips off the roof and gets killed or paralysed for life ?

The HSA, the relatives, the insurance companies, and the courts, are going to be looking at me as "Principal or Director of a Building Company"

Even a Dog needs a licence in this country, but a contractor needs nothing to call himself a contractor.
Even guys I know that have been building contractors for years, don't know and don't want to hear mention of the building regulations. Contractors seem to think building regs are engineers and architects problems, and they have to catch them. Something is badly wrong with the Irish construction industry. But what do you expect with all this legislation on the books but, as usual, almost zero enforcement of same by the state in practice ?

The honest Architects, Engineers and Contractors simply cannot compete in an industry where there is a raft of legislation, but practically no official enforcement of said state legislation by the state.

Contractors rightly have to obtain quite a few safety certifications, yet they don't have to hold a single certifiction in understanding even basic building regs. Compulsory attendance to some building regs courses, and a some sort of qualification card for contractors in Building regs would not go amiss.

Secondly, it's going to be hard enough to find and Architect and Engineer who are trustworthy and willing enough to do the design, specifications and inspections right, and certify them properly, and put the proper time into it, and not likely to be folding up shop in the next 10-20 years, never mind give them the scapegoat of being able to blame me when something down the road goes tits up, or a technical flaw / technicality pops up when I go to sell the house, and I'm the "Principal or Director of a Building Company" that built the house.

As far as I can see the only thing I can do is :

A) Employee a good professional architect that's likely to still exist in 10-20 years

Insist he employees a good chartered engineer that is likely to still exist in 10-20 years
C) Employer a reputable contractor that is likely to exist in 10-20 years
D) Inspect the site daily myself and report everything I see to said Engineer (who in reality will only be on site once a week at best) and report it to the Contractor and Architect, and keep a written record of all this.
E) Build a smaller, but much better house to afford all these extra fees

or

F) Buy an existing house and renovate it instead to avoid most of the above headaches

What we have now the the typical fcked up Irish situation where, as usual, we are swamped in legislation but there is effectively almost no state enforcement of said legislation at all, instead it's up to every man to fight for himself in court afterwards when it all goes tits up, and make the solicitors and barristers even richer.

Imagine the car NCT system was run this way ? Self Certification my ass. It's a cowboys charter and anyone who is not a cowboy will never be able to compete.

What a mess. What a joke.

sydthebeat · 07-08-2014 11:41am

^^^^^^^^^ wish there was a way of multi thanking a post

first sensible post from the building side ive seen on here in quite a while

DOCARCH · 07-08-2014 1:41pm

Great post Rebar.

Rebar wrote: »

Even guys I know that have been building contractors for years, don't know and don't want to hear mention of the building regulations. Contractors seem to think building regs are engineers and architects problems, and they have to catch them.

This has been my experience in the past with many of the contractors I have dealt with...they simply don't want to know!

W123-80's · 07-08-2014 2:47pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^ wish there was a way of multi thanking a post

first sensible post from the building side ive seen on here in quite a while

Its a sensible post from a self builders point of view also.
It high lights the total and utter lack of clarity on the issue from all sides.

W123-80's · 07-08-2014 2:49pm

Rebar wrote: »

I've 20+ years in the construction industry, I've been involved on the construction of hundreds of houses, and I've built several houses by direct labour over the years.

I'm building another house for myself again shortly and there is no way i'm signing a form saying I'm "Principal or Director of a Building Company"

Firstly, Mr Taxman would have something to say about that a future date.

What happens if a guy slips off the roof and gets killed or paralysed for life ?

The HSA, the relatives, the insurance companies, and the courts, are going to be looking at me as "Principal or Director of a Building Company"

Even a Dog needs a licence in this country, but a contractor needs nothing to call himself a contractor.
Even guys I know that have been building contractors for years, don't know and don't want to hear mention of the building regulations. Contractors seem to think building regs are engineers and architects problems, and they have to catch them. Something is badly wrong with the Irish construction industry. But what do you expect with all this legislation on the books but, as usual, almost zero enforcement of same by the state in practice ?

The honest Architects, Engineers and Contractors simply cannot compete in an industry where there is a raft of legislation, but practically no official enforcement of said state legislation by the state.

Contractors rightly have to obtain quite a few safety certifications, yet they don't have to hold a single certifiction in understanding even basic building regs. Compulsory attendance to some building regs courses, and a some sort of qualification card for contractors in Building regs would not go amiss.

Secondly, it's going to be hard enough to find and Architect and Engineer who are trustworthy and willing enough to do the design, specifications and inspections right, and certify them properly, and put the proper time into it, and not likely to be folding up shop in the next 10-20 years, never mind give them the scapegoat of being able to blame me when something down the road goes tits up, or a technical flaw / technicality pops up when I go to sell the house, and I'm the "Principal or Director of a Building Company" that built the house.

As far as I can see the only thing I can do is :

A) Employee a good professional architect that's likely to still exist in 10-20 years
Insist he employees a good chartered engineer that is likely to still exist in 10-20 years
C) Employer a reputable contractor that is likely to exist in 10-20 years
D) Inspect the site daily myself and report everything I see to said Engineer (who in reality will only be on site once a week at best) and report it to the Contractor and Architect, and keep a written record of all this.
E) Build a smaller, but much better house to afford all these extra fees

or

F) Buy an existing house and renovate it instead to avoid most of the above headaches

What we have now the the typical fcked up Irish situation where, as usual, we are swamped in legislation but there is effectively almost no state enforcement of said legislation at all, instead it's up to every man to fight for himself in court afterwards when it all goes tits up, and make the solicitors and barristers even richer.

Imagine the car NCT system was run this way ? Self Certification my ass. It's a cowboys charter and anyone who is not a cowboy will never be able to compete.

What a mess. What a joke.

Great post. It addresses what was my next question.

Why would any competent contractor in his right mind sign as the principle when he can also be chased for ever and a day should something go wrong down the line??

Is he not also taking a huge risk by signing?

sydthebeat · 07-08-2014 2:54pm

W123-80's wrote: »

Great post. It addresses what was my next question.

1. Why would any competent contractor in his right mind sign as the principle when he can also be chased for ever and a day should something go wrong down the line??

2. Is he not also taking a huge risk by signing?

1. How does he work if he doesnt sign??

2. of course it is.... every one who signs a certificate to say they are "certain" takes a huge risk.... unfortunately novice self builders cannot see this, and some professionals would rather bury their heads in the sand.

some said above that there was a lot of scare mongering going on.... id argue that the possibilities are being laid out

W123-80's · 07-08-2014 2:56pm

kkelliher wrote: »

and you will also have to deal with the tax implications of being a builder, RCT tax, subcontract vat returns, and therefore you will have to be able to prove all purchases and labour payments (incl pension contributions and the like) are being made in accordance with industry regs. You will also need employers liability insurance, public liability insurance and possibly contractors all risk, as you cannot insure the property yourself if being built by a builder and generally insurance policies exclude works done for a director of the firm. There is more to being a builder than organising for works to be done.

You make a good point.!

All that insurance talk is frightening surely. But somebody has got to play devils advocate on this issue from a self builder point of view and from a general point of view. If nothing else the devils advocate will keep asking the 'stupid' questions that highlight the lack of understanding on the issue..

I am all for better built houses and better processes to ensure this happens. But regulations for the sake of regulations is an awful situation to be in for all sides, when nobody seems to know what is right or wrong.

W123-80's · 07-08-2014 3:05pm

kkelliher wrote: »

new start ups generally come out of an experienced person going it alone so they will have the experience but just not in their own name.

But what if they are an experienced Carpenter/Plaster/Electrician with 20 years experience in their field going out for the first time as a main contractor?
Are they then a competent builder?

What about a guy who has delivered cement to sites for 10 years as an owner hauler. He sets up as a contractor, is he competent?

What about the accountant who has managed the finances of 6 building contractors, sees the money to be made, he decides to set up as a contractor.

What about the quantity surveyor with 2 years experience who takes on his first build as a main contractor? Is he competent?

New start ups coming from already experienced persons is a pretty vague statement.. experience in what??

Surely every builder at some stage of his career was an inexperienced builder?

sydthebeat · 07-08-2014 3:22pm

W123-80's wrote: »

But what if they are an experienced Carpenter/Plaster/Electrician with 20 years experience in their field going out for the first time as a main contractor?
Are they then a competent builder?

What about a guy who has delivered cement to sites for 10 years as an owner hauler. He sets up as a contractor, is he competent?

What about the accountant who has managed the finances of 6 building contractors, sees the money to be made, he decides to set up as a contractor.

What about the quantity surveyor with 2 years experience who takes on his first build as a main contractor? Is he competent?

New start ups coming from already experienced persons is a pretty vague statement.. experience in what??

Surely every builder at some stage of his career was an inexperienced builder?

its up to CIRI to vet all new prospective members

W123-80's · 07-08-2014 3:34pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

its up to CIRI to vet all new prospective members

Have they published criterion on how they vet a prospective member in terms of experience?

Rebar · 07-08-2014 4:02pm

W123-80's wrote: »

Great post. It addresses what was my next question.

Why would any competent contractor in his right mind sign as the principle when he can also be chased for ever and a day should something go wrong down the line??

Is he not also taking a huge risk by signing?

W123-80's wrote: »

But what if they are an experienced Carpenter/Plaster/Electrician with 20 years experience in their field going out for the first time as a main contractor?
Are they then a competent builder?

What about a guy who has delivered cement to sites for 10 years as an owner hauler. He sets up as a contractor, is he competent?

What about the accountant who has managed the finances of 6 building contractors, sees the money to be made, he decides to set up as a contractor.

What about the quantity surveyor with 2 years experience who takes on his first build as a main contractor? Is he competent?

New start ups coming from already experienced persons is a pretty vague statement.. experience in what??

Surely every builder at some stage of his career was an inexperienced builder?

You're equating experience with honesty. Experience is important and great to have, but it's not everything. Far from it.

The bigger question is how does the honest man, new or not, willing to do it right, now compete on price terms, with the dishonest under this 'new' system of self certification that has no real day to day state enforcement in practice ?

Will this "new" system weed out a single cowboy builder / architect / engineer / tradesman ? No.

Would it have prevented all the priory halls still lurking out there and protected all those buyers ? No.

Will it prevent new Priory halls in the future and protect the buyers of same ? No.

There's only two categories of Self Builder/Contractor/Architect/Engineer/Tradesmen etc. to worry about. The honest / conscientious ones trying their best, and the dishonest cowboys who will still sign and do anything put in front of them, and justify it with cover ups bullshyte and lies, because in effect there is no enforcement, just a far off day in court that may never ever come, and even if it does they'll just try to muddy the waters all over the place with more bullshyting and evasion.

If the worst comes to the worst they can fold up shop, declare bankruptcy, and start up under another name. This situation is possible because there is in effect, no practical day to day enforcement by the sate of any construction legislation. With this 'new' system, you can still be a cowboy for years in this country if you so choose. With effectively no real state enforcement of any regs at the time of building itself, the only way honest practitioners can now compete is to become corner cutters and chancers as well, and signers of "ah sure it'll do rightly" work, or get out of the Irish Construction Industry.

So under this 'new' system, how do you know which type of practitioner you have anymore ? Yet again, you won't know until its too late and the problems show up years later.

In 20+ years in the construction industry, I've never encountered a state Building Control Officer or a state HSA inspector on any construction site. I know they exist, but visits are absolute exception to the norm. I'm not getting at them, they are stuck with the same shyte system as well. Imagine what kind of chaos there would be on the streets, if in 20 years you knew Gardai existed, but in so few numbers and made so few visits, that you never actually ever seen one on the street ? Who on earth would keep to the law ? Very few. How would honest people get on in those streets ?

I dare anyone to go out and try and buy a house built in the last 15 years that complies with all the building and planning regs it was supposed to at the time of its construction. I haven't found one yet, because anyone lucky enough to have one in this country, is hanging onto it, and would be mad to sell it, because they won't find another too easily.

W123-80's · 07-08-2014 4:30pm

Rebar wrote: »

You're equating experience with honesty.
I don't think I am. My examples all have x amount of years experience in their own field. They then opt to take on entire building contracts, does that make them competent?
The reason I ask is because there is no specific Building contractor trade, they generally come from some other back ground.
So what makes a competent builder and what experience is acceptable for a brand new builder to be classed a competent builder

The bigger question is how does the honest man, new or not, now compete with the dishonest under this 'new' system of self certification that has no real day to day state enforcement in practice ?
Is that not the way it was before the regs. Honest builders and dishonest builders.

Will this new system weed out a single cowboy builder / architect / engineer / tradesman ? No.
But the intention of these regs is that it will surely?
I just cannot understand why it cannot weed out the cowboys but still allow a self build to go ahead.

Experience is important and great to have, but it's not everything. Far from it.

There's only two categories of Self Builder/Contractor/Architect/Engineer/Tradesmen etc. to worry about. The honest / conscientious ones trying their best, and the dishonest cowboys who will still sign and do anything put in front of them, and justify it with cover ups bullshyte and lies, because in effect there is no enforcement, just a far off day in court that may never ever come, and even if it does they'll just try to muddy the waters all over the place with more bullshyting.
Those two categories have been in existence for years.

If the worst comes to the worst they can fold up shop, declare bankruptcy, and start up under another name. This situation is possible because there is in effect, no practical day to day enforcement by the sate of legislation. With this 'new' system, you can still be a cowboy for years in this country if you so choose. With effectively no real state enforcement of any regs at the time of building itself, the only way honest practitioners can now compete is to become corner cutters and chancers as well, and signers of "ah sure it'll do rightly" work, or get out of the Irish Construction Industry.

So under this 'new' system, how do you know which type of practitioner you have anymore ? Yet again, you won't know until its too late and the problems show up years later.

In 20+ years in the construction industry, I've never encountered a state Building Control Officer or a state HSA inspector on any construction site. I know they exist, but visits are absolute exception to the norm. Imagine what kind of chaos there would be on the streets, if in 20 years you knew Gardai existed, but in so few numbers and made so few visits, that you never actually ever seen one on the street ? Who on earth would keep to the law ? Very few. How would honest people get on in those streets ?
I fully agree new building regulations need to be policed if they are going to be introduced. Why spend €,000,000's on legal teams and consultants to come up with the legislation to then just throw it out to the masses and walk away.. It makes no sense.
It also makes no sense that a self builder building a house is not allowed.
Is there any benchmark legislation from other developed nations that have implemented these types of regs?
Are self builds virtually impossible in any other developed nations? Genuine question, I don't know the answer.!

But sure Big Phil and his pals know best.

I dare anyone to go out and try and buy a house built in the last 15 years that complies with all the building and planning regs it was supposed to. I haven't found one yet, because anyone lucky enough to have one in this country is hanging onto it, and would be mad to sell it, because they won't find another too easily.
I agree

.

Rebar · 07-08-2014 5:09pm

W123-80's wrote: »

I don't think I am. My examples all have x amount of years experience in their own field. They then opt to take on entire building contracts, does that make them competent?
The reason I ask is because there is no specific Building contractor trade, they generally come from some other back ground.
So what makes a competent builder and what experience is acceptable for a brand new builder to be classed a competent builder

The system should facilitate, support, promote, encourage and reward honest Self Builders and honest Professional Contractors and Honest Professionals, not people who are prepared to sign and self certify anything for the sake of it.

How do you think honest car mechanics would compete and make a living here if NCT's used the "self certification" process ?

W123-80's wrote: »

Is that not the way it was before the regs. Honest builders and dishonest builders.

Yes, but the 'new' system, like any civilised law and order, is supposed to make it harder for the dishonest, and address the flaws of the past. It doesn't.

W123-80's wrote: »

But the intention of these regs is that it will surely?
I just cannot understand why it cannot weed out the cowboys but still allow a self build to go ahead.

I would hope that was the intention of the 'new' system, but with the same old self certification, sign whatever you want, but with no real enforcement until years later in court, if at all.

W123-80's wrote: »

Is there any benchmark legislation from other developed nations that have implemented these types of regs?
Are self builds virtually impossible in any other developed nations? Genuine question, I don't know the answer.!

"Down with that sort of thing" - We wouldn't want to be doing anything here that works well and is tried and tested for years in other countries, we wouldn't want to be taking the best and most successful systems from other counties and adapting them for here, oh no.

It's almost a type of xenophobia and inverted snobbery here at here at this stage. The people in charge of such things in this small little country love trying to reinvent the wheel from scratch, and end up inventing a square wheel and then saying "what's wrong with that ? " Add in the old "it doesn't suit my connections" and it's the usual Irish recipe for an Irish disaster.

RITwing · 07-08-2014 5:14pm

I think with respect that the thrust of what rebar is saying you are missing. Simply put the new regulations do not fix those things they should fix ( which rebar has described very well)

W123-80's wrote: »

But the intention of these regs is that it will surely?

No. That is the deception.

The true intention of the regs is
1. to take as much construction activity as possible into the tax net.
2. to protect the state from future claims on it arising out of failures like pyrite / Priory Hall.

All else attributed to it is a smokescreen - lies.

The only unqulaified profesional welcome for the regs I have seen published come from one profesion - can you guess which one ?

W123-80's · 07-08-2014 5:16pm

Rebar wrote: »

The system should facilitate, support, promote, encourage and reward honest Self Builders and honest Professional Contractors and Honest Professionals, not people who are prepared to sign and self certify anything for the sake of it.

This pretty much sums it up for me.!

kkelliher · 07-08-2014 6:16pm

RITwing wrote: »

I think with respect that the thrust of what rebar is saying you are missing. Simply put the new regulations do not fix those things they should fix ( which rebar has described very well)

No. That is the deception.

The true intention of the regs is
1. to take as much construction activity as possible into the tax net.
2. to protect the state from future claims on it arising out of failures like pyrite / Priory Hall.

All else attributed to it is a smokescreen - lies.

The only unqulaified profesional welcome for the regs I have seen published come from one profesion - can you guess which one ?

i think most people will agree with you but the bottom line is its in place and therefore must be complied with until such time as a change occurs

W123-80's · 07-08-2014 10:25pm

kkelliher wrote: »

i think most people will agree with you but the bottom line is its in place and therefore must be complied with until such time as a change occurs

I think RITwing is spot on. The regs are in place to increase tax intake and ensure no more priory hall incidents, and to be fair they are both noble reasons.
But the fact remains the regs have a serious knock on effect and were poorly thought out.
I don't think it's good enough to say the regs are there.. so they must be complied with.

I'll put my hysterical hat on for a moment... surely my human right to build my own house (within the rules) is being inflicted.! The government are closing the market by forcing all wishing to build a one off house to enlist the services of a contractor... that is nonsense and what is more it is unfair. It is putting unnecessary costs on people trying to build their home.

Why is self building so bad?
Is it done in other countries?
Is it regulated for in other countries?
These are a few questions I would like answered by the minister and his cronies.
I can build my own car if I want - once I play by the rules.

I know my 1st cousin, a chippie, moved into his self build in Canada 6 months ago. I must ask him what the story is there.
I would like a government minister to come out and say; 'I'm sorry but self building in Ireland is no longer legal'... and here is why...

Johnnyhpipe · 07-08-2014 11:43pm

Why does it have to be legal/illegal in order for someone not to do something they don't understand? If you don't understand what you're at, and you're not a competent contractor and have no engineering/architectural knowledge...then it's pretty simple..don't try to build something...

Honestly, the sh1te I have seen built by "self builders" who have since required the services of a structural engineer and qualified contractor is comical!

W123-80's · 07-08-2014 11:50pm

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

Why does it have to be legal/illegal in order for someone not to do something they don't understand? If you don't understand what you're at, and you're not a competent contractor and have no engineering/architectural knowledge...then it's pretty simple..don't try to build something...

Honestly, the sh1te I have seen built by "self builders" who have since required the services of a structural engineer and qualified contractor is comical!

There has been sh1te built by self builders and there has been sh1te built by 'competent' builders.
Why can there not be an avenue for self builders?
Why can the legislation not allow for a self build within the rules?
Is there any good reason aside from the flutes never bothered their holes to legislate for it?
In a properly regulated environment surely a self build is fine?

BryanF · 08-08-2014 1:38am

Johnnyhpipe wrote: »

Why does it have to be legal/illegal in order for someone not to do something they don't understand? If you don't understand what you're at, and you're not a competent contractor and have no engineering/architectural knowledge...then it's pretty simple..don't try to build something...

at this juncture, I'd ask that you read the forum charter. See the section that discusses 'the law'

Honestly, the sh1te I have seen built by "self builders" who have since required the services of a structural engineer and qualified contractor is comical!

This has been your fall back position from the start. Consider the constructive criticism you have received and discuss it with your architect and solicitor.

RITwing · 08-08-2014 2:20pm

W123-80's wrote: »

I think RITwing is spot on. The regs are in place ...... and ensure no more priory hall incidents,

No. I am saying the new regs will not stop another Priory Hall. The unscruplous developer will find a weak architect and simply "buy" the certificates.

What the regulations are actually intended to acheive is to make it easier for a future minister faced with a future similar scandal to say "sue the architect - the state will not assist"

RITwing · 08-08-2014 2:22pm

kkelliher wrote: »

i think most people will agree with you but the bottom line is its in place and therefore must be complied with until such time as a change occurs

Ok - but I don't think I suggested otherwise. We must comply with all laws including bad ones.
It is usefull to tease out why ceratin laws are bad and how they may be changed.

Steps in self building

Comments