Revoking a cert of compliance

ironsides

We had a cert of compliance completed by an architect and all looked rosy, but when we were nearly completing a sale, the buyer's report threw query on the cert with some building regulations that were not met.
The architect is reviewing - but has anyone ever heard or an architect revoking a cert? ...What would they do next? I have a cert, but is it any good now that it has been called into question and maybe incorrect?

Poor Uncle Tom

It may be called a Certificate of Compliance but it is actually an Opinion on Compliance from the person completing it. You will also find that the Opinion/Certificate is generally an Opinion of Practical Compliance. It seems like I am making excuses here but I am not, that's just the way it is worded.

Revoking an Opinion of Compliance can happen and usually due to non payment of fees to the person providing the opinion. I've had to do it on two occasions.

fclauson

PUT

I do not get this -

a building either complies or it does not

but then that’s not the case because it’s not a comply or not comply it’s an opinion of comply or not comply

Now you are suggesting that the opinion is based on payment - so it’s not actually an objective opinion on the build compliance - its more subjective as its being augmented by an opinion of the opinioator/client relationship and the building compliance

Another angle on this could be a payment to the opinionator to get a different opinion to that which they would have made would be acceptable and normal practice (i.e. please sign this off and here is some cash)

And then dare I say it that verges into very dangerous territory because one is not making a payment to get an opinion on something which is either complaint or not compliant but a payment to get an opinion if my relationship with the opinionator is sweet or sour.

Or am I just being totally naive?

muffler

fclauson wrote: »

Or am I just being totally naive?

Yes

overshoot

compliance of the building regs is a huge area and can become fuzzy for use of a better word, for example the regs say no more than 16 stairs in a flight but the national gallery has 22, it can do it because there is a mind the step warning and a lift there so it becomes the persons choice to use them. its not 100% compliant with the individual guideline but as there is two options the opinion of compliance was given. so in some cases by doing one thing another could be exempt

the reason the cert can be held back a lot, especially lately is well a basic payment issue... the banks are first creditor, so if a house were to be sold on a ghost estate no body else gets paid, but the architect/engineer can withhold the cert and block the sale to ensure they get something rather than the bank everything

Another angle on this could be a payment to the opinionator to get a different opinion to that which they would have made would be acceptable and normal practice (i.e. please sign this off and here is some cash)

instead of typing i did a quick google search and this should answer this point.

in the end its someone standing over the works done and being liable for it

sydthebeat

the "building regulations" are simply an overview of policy as to whats required in building.

For example see page 5 here

That shaded passage IS the actual building regulations, and the proceeding 79 pages are a 'prima facie' means to comply with the regulation. Its often misunderstood that the TGD's (Technical Guidance Documents) are the actual regulations.

So then whats considered compliance is open to interpretation in many cases. For example the floor to ceiling heights of a dormer are prescribed in a diagram that refers to a "suggested" requirement.... so when is it applicable? If the floor to ceiling height ended up at 2380 would it comply?
These are the type of things professionals have to struggle with everyday.

martinn123

fcaluson wrote:

Or am I just being totally naive?

muffler wrote: »

Yes

Niave,maybe, asking a reasonable question, definately, note the answer from inside the profession.:D

In my view Certs have become a questionable currency given current problems encountered by for example Apartment Blocks.

Until the Banks, and Law Socy get together and come up with a new solution, mere Opinions with wording, containing so many '' get out clauses'' will be suspect, and subject to more careful scrutiny by Solicitors anxious to protect their clients funds.

I the meantime and perhaps in the near future someone will be held responsible, for Certs which have proved to be, shall we say ''questionable''

BTY I love the idea of witdrawing a Cert for non payment, how does this happen in reality, there is a piece of paper out there, with your name on it, propping up a sale/mortgage, how do you get the piece of paper back:rolleyes:

Poor Uncle Tom

fclauson wrote: »

a building either complies or it does not

but then that’s not the case because it’s not a comply or not comply it’s an opinion of comply or not comply

Now you are suggesting that the opinion is based on payment - so it’s not actually an objective opinion on the build compliance - its more subjective as its being augmented by an opinion of the opinioator/client relationship and the building compliance.

The lack of certification from the Building Control Authority in this country forced this situation.

If the Building Control Authority visited every site with a view to establishing compliance or not with Building Regulations and issued the appropriate certification, there would be no need for third party intervention as is the case.

fclauson wrote: »

Another angle on this could be a payment to the opinionator to get a different opinion to that which they would have made would be acceptable and normal practice (i.e. please sign this off and here is some cash)

And then dare I say it that verges into very dangerous territory because one is not making a payment to get an opinion on something which is either complaint or not compliant but a payment to get an opinion if my relationship with the opinionator is sweet or sour.

Or am I just being totally naive?

Your naivety is coming from the notion that a professional working in the private sector should not be paid for carrying out work which ultimately is necessary to complete the sale of a property. All work is carried out on the vasis that payment is made when the work is done. Or am I missing something here, should payment be hidden away out of sight? I would prefer if the solicitors involved handled payments for works but this very rarely happens for once of houses, and even less so now that most solicitors client accounts are audited on a continuous basis, most small legal practices don't want to deal this way.

sydthebeat wrote: »

the "building regulations" are simply an overview of policy as to whats required in building.

For example see page 5 here

That shaded passage IS the actual building regulations, and the proceeding 79 pages are a 'prima facie' means to comply with the regulation. Its often misunderstood that the TGD's (Technical Guidance Documents) are the actual regulations.

So then whats considered compliance is open to interpretation in many cases. For example the floor to ceiling heights of a dormer are prescribed in a diagram that refers to a "suggested" requirement.... so when is it applicable? If the floor to ceiling height ended up at 2380 would it comply?
These are the type of things professionals have to struggle with everyday.

This says it all really.

martinn123 wrote: »

Niave,maybe, asking a reasonable question, definately, note the answer from inside the profession.:D

Every poster here is aware of your destain for the architectural profession, don't try to hide it behind a smilie...;)

martinn123 wrote: »

In my view Certs have become a questionable currency given current problems encountered by for example Apartment Blocks.

Opinions martinn, opinions. Not certs.

martinn123 wrote: »

Until the Banks, and Law Socy get together and come up with a new solution, mere Opinions with wording, containing so many '' get out clauses'' will be suspect, and subject to more careful scrutiny by Solicitors anxious to protect their clients funds.

I the meantime and perhaps in the near future someone will be held responsible, for Certs which have proved to be, shall we say ''questionable''

I welcome this also. It would be nice to see Building Control getting in and doing the job they are actually meant to be doing.

martinn123 wrote: »

BTY I love the idea of witdrawing a Cert for non payment, how does this happen in reality, there is a piece of paper out there, with your name on it, propping up a sale/mortgage, how do you get the piece of paper back:rolleyes:

The piece of paper can stay where it is. A phone call to the new owners solicitors advising them the Opinion is no longer valid as the seller has renaged on payment gets a very very fast response.

I'm sure you don't like it when you carry out a job, whether it is a full conservatory or a piece of glass for a window and you find out you're not being paid for it.....;)

martinn123

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

This says it all really.

Every poster here is aware of your destain for the architectural profession, don't try to hide it behind a smilie...;)

Quite wrong actually, the Moderators here, have formed this opinion,

if you care to read a thread I started

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2056302524

which has 83 posts, you will see you are wrong. This thread was started as an offshoot of another thread, and I was invited I think, by yourself, to start it.

I'm sure you don't like it when you carry out a job, whether it is a full conservatory or a piece of glass for a window and you find out you're not being paid for it.....;)

True.

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

Quite wrong actually, the Moderators here, have formed this opinion,

No martinn, that's just my opinion, I don't speak for anyone else. But I still want you to post, regardless of what I think your regard for the profession is I still value your opinion.

Back on topic.
Opinions of compliance will be around until the Building Control Offices are given the staff and resources to carry out their jobs, as I see it.

BryanF

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

The lack of certification from the Building Control Authority in this country forced this situation.

If the Building Control Authority visited every site with a view to establishing compliance or not with Building Regulations and issued the appropriate certification, there would be no need for third party intervention as is the case.

+1 this is the real issue

martinn123

If the Building Control Authority visited every site with a view to establishing compliance or not with Building Regulations and issued the appropriate certification, there would be no need for third party intervention as is the case.

Why a Building Control person, visiting every site. Why not the Architect/Engineer etc.

Suitably compensated of course, he/she is familiar with the design, and the client.They carry the proper Insurances.
But accepting responsibility for the Certification, and compliance, and not issuing Certs with qualifications.

sinnerboy

martinn123 wrote: »

Why a Building Control person, visiting every site. Why not the Architect/Engineer etc.

Suitably compensated of course, he/she is familiar with the design, and the client.They carry the proper Insurances.
But accepting responsibility for the Certification, and compliance, and not issuing Certs with qualifications.

Contrasting my 10 years in the UK with my 16 here.

In the UK one must lodge a set of documents to apply for Building Control Consent. It is as serious a process (for want of a better form of words) and you can't build without Planning Permission AND Building Control Approval. Building Control Officers do visits every site ( big and small) to enforce compliance.

They are not "familiar with the client" which is the whole point. I have lost repeat work in Ireland because I became persona non grata on account of "you and your f-ing regs". And who wants to pay the bad cop ? So in being diligent in enforcing regulations I have on occasions missed out on payment and and/or repeat work.

In the UK when the BCO says jump everybody - client/architect/builder/engineer has to say "how high" .

I know many won't accept the fact the there cannot be a blanket 100% Certificate of Compliance. You see it really is more complicated than that.

For example Look to the preamble pages of any TGD and you will find words to the affect that in the case of work to existing buildings that that the bald application of the all the items within the TGD may not be practicable . In the case of Part L there is a clause that states that a literal 100% implementation of Part L to historic building is not desirable if the character of the building is compromised.

And so compliance with regulations by necessity comes down to interpretation and expert opinion. If any profesional was silly enough to have issued a "100% Certificate" and their PI insurer got wind of that then PI cover would be withdrawn straight away truly rendering the "100%" document worthless.

This can make all building professionals seem a little shifty perhaps . If you don't care to take account of the complexities involved.


.

sinnerboy

ironsides wrote: »

We had a cert of compliance completed by an architect and all looked rosy, but when we were nearly completing a sale, the buyer's report threw query on the cert with some building regulations that were not met.
The architect is reviewing - but has anyone ever heard or an architect revoking a cert? ...What would they do next? I have a cert, but is it any good now that it has been called into question and maybe incorrect?

I have been that architect. I met with the other one. Issues were solved
(simply) and the transaction proceeded. I won't be drawn on details and I only mention this to say for the moment at least have some faith in your architect.

martinn123

Interesting comparison between UK and here.

Who pays for the Building Control in UK, as I assume with regular visits to inspect, its expensive, and who issues the Compliance Certs.

fclauson

martinn123 wrote: »

Interesting comparison between UK and here.

Who pays for the Building Control in UK, as I assume with regular visits to inspect, its expensive, and who issues the Compliance Certs.

A combination of your planning fee and your local taxes

so the are as unbiased as the local police, traffic warden etc in that reguard

fclauson

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

The piece of paper can stay where it is. A phone call to the new owners solicitors advising them the Opinion is no longer valid as the seller has renaged on payment gets a very very fast response.

fast response yes

ethical - hmm

got my exam results - my teacher said well done - and he then told my parents that I actually failed the test

sinnerboy

And you would do what in this circumstance fc

sinnerboy

fclauson wrote: »

got my exam results - my teacher said well done -

...and then found out I cheated....

fclauson wrote: »

and he then told my parents that I actually failed the test

martinn123

sinnerboy wrote: »

...and then found out I cheated....

But he didn't cheat, he passed the test, in so far as

Poor Uncle Tom wrote:

Opinions martinn, opinions. Not certs.

He failed to pay, for the exam, surely the opinion is not influenced by the payment of a fee.;)

No6

The opinion isn't but if its not paid for it remains IMO the intelectual property of the person who issued it and therefore they can withdraw it if its not paid for, exact same as a design. PI insurance is expensive and getting even worse so if an unpaind for cert isn't withdrawn and someone decide to sue the person who issued it for some reason they will not be covered.

I don't issue certs of compliance unless I have been paid first!!

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

surely the opinion is not influenced by the payment of a fee.;)

The opinion won't change, but that opinion document may not be used until paid for and a sale can hinge on that one document.

exactly as No.6 said.

sydthebeat

If i did a pre-purchase report on a house and had it all typed up and ready to go... and the client refused to pay for it.... then i wouldnt hand it over.

That wouldnt in anyway change the condition of the dwelling, yet the client wouldnt have my report outlining any issues.

Similarly if i produce an opinion on the construction of a dwelling, and didnt get paid, then the client doesnt get to use my opinion.

To be honest im flabbergasted this is not understood.
I suppose it comes from the lack of appreciation of what an architect / technician does.
Some people seem to have the theory if they cant kick it, they dont have to pay for it.

sinnerboy

sydthebeat wrote: »

To be honest im flabbergasted this is not understood.

no - I think it is and many think

sydthebeat wrote: »

if they cant kick it, they dont have to pay for it.

martinn123

fclauson wrote: »

A combination of your planning fee and your local taxes

so the are as unbiased as the local police, traffic warden etc in that reguard

An un-biased Building Control Dept in each local Auth, paid for by a combination of Planning Fee, and local Taxes.

In the UK when the BCO says jump everybody - client/architect/builder/engineer has to say "how high" .

Can it be that simple, how did we go wrong, vested interests anyone.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

......how did we go wrong,...........

preaching to the converted martin

archtech

martinn123 wrote: »

Can it be that simple, how did we go wrong, vested interests anyone.

I was told that local authorities did not want to accept responsibility for "certifying" compliance as they were afraid of claims against them.
The irony is had they(building control) been inspecting works during construction at least one local authority won't now be footing a bill for accommodation.

Of course what the local authorities could a have done, was took on the role and engaged private inspectors as happens in the UK, maintaining control and standards but reducing their risk.

fash

I think you'll find that if an opinion on compliance is issued, it cannot be revoked.
It would fall into the same category as professional advice.

Whether someone has paid for the professional advice or not is often irrelevant - it allows one to be sued in negligence.


Not issuing it until one is paid is a separate issue.

fash

ironsides wrote: »

We had a cert of compliance completed by an architect and all looked rosy, but when we were nearly completing a sale, the buyer's report threw query on the cert with some building regulations that were not met.
The architect is reviewing - but has anyone ever heard or an architect revoking a cert? ...What would they do next? I have a cert, but is it any good now that it has been called into question and maybe incorrect?

The architect can't do very much.
His/her problem will only arise if someone relies on that certificate and suffers loss as a result.

If it is incorrect (and you know it), you shouldn't be relying on it - and you may have a claim against the architect.

Poor Uncle Tom

As previously stated, I've had an opinion on compliance revoked on two separate occasions because of non payment. Whether the solicitors were obliged to negate the opinion or not I don't know, it isn't my area to know, but they did. So not only is it possible, it has been done.

fash

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

As previously stated, I've had an opinion on compliance revoked on two separate occasions because of non payment. Whether the solicitors were obliged to negate the opinion or not I don't know, it isn't my area to know, but they did. So not only is it possible, it has been done.

Just because they "revoked" it doesn't mean it is revoked. You gave an opinion that something was in compliance.
That was your professional opinion.
If someone relies on your professional opinion - even if they did not pay for it - and it was wrong, they can sue you (subject to the other elements required to prove a case for negligent misstatement - reasonable reliance, causation & damage).

Basic tort law.

Poor Uncle Tom

I understand what you are saying but you are getting way ahead of yourself.

We are not talking about negligence or even the presumption of negligence here.

We are talking about revoking a document because of non payment, not because of fear of having made a mistake or error in the document, which nobody should be able to retract, imo.

My point is that if I retract my opinion document because of non-payment, which I have stated I already have done. Then the ex-client had to get another one done up by providing the fee for it first with the solicitor and then lodge this with the other documentation for the sale of a property.

This has already been done.

muffler

fash wrote: »

If someone relies on your professional opinion

They can't as the opinion has been revoked

archtech

Non payment by a client of an Opinion of Compliance can be considered as breach of contract. Unless the issues regarding the contract are resolved (ie payment received) then the contract would become null and void and with it the Opinion of Compliance.

yoloc

sydthebeat wrote: »

So then whats considered compliance is open to interpretation in many cases. For example the floor to ceiling heights of a dormer are prescribed in a diagram that refers to a "suggested" requirement.... so when is it applicable? If the floor to ceiling height ended up at 2380 would it comply?
These are the type of things professionals have to struggle with everyday.

Know of a sale of a house where the ceiling height was 2355mm upstairs in a dormer. I think the trusses where bought in the UK where the ceiling height isn't set in stone yet its recommended to be 2.3m there. The building reg's for ceiling heights here in Ireland are 2.4m but wouldn't be a problem if its an inch or 2 smaller when its upstairs in a dormer.

It wouldn't stop me from buying a house and even if it was a problem for the banks, id pay to get it extended to the 2.4m height needed in this country. One thing that would concern me though, is it possible to cut the timber with the punched brackets and install new timber using nails or even bolts seeing as their stronger. At a guess i couldn't see that being a major issue because the timber and bolts would do the same job as the punched brackets. You'd probably have to cut just few at a time though.

Just thinking about it, i was labouring for a plasterer before and we were working on a house that was getting sold. It had a flat roof and on the ceiling upstairs we had to install battens then xtratherm insulation and it brought the ceiling below 2.3m if i remember correctly. I could even touch the ceiling when it was getting plastered and this house sold just a few week's after we finished the job.