Priory Hall

Farmer Pudsey

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

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

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

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

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

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

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

We will agree to disagree.

Keith186

starbelgrade wrote: »

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

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

Keith186 wrote: »

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

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

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

hmmm wrote: »

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

RichardAnd wrote: »

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

'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.

Lantus

The construction industry is the last great cowboy industry out there. Having worked in in it I can say that most consultants and designers are fairly good in that they design to the minimum legal standard or above. Drawings and specifications are easily inspected and reviewed if needed.

HOWEVER, it is much harder to determine whether the contractor has installed the right insulation, sound proofing, cables, pipes, air tightness detailing once it's all been build and covered up (which they can do very quickly you will find when it suits them.)

The overall quality of Irelands property and housing stock built over the last 10+ years is in all liklehood very poor and time will show just how poor.

There are numerous 'Priory halls' around the country. (We have an apartment block near us with no working fire alarm but it doesn't seem to bother the local coco or anyone else.) With insulation, ventilation, mould, sound and other issues abound. Legacys of an industry not regulated in the slightest.

We must move to a system where everything is checked by an independant body from insulation and u values to air tightness, materials used, build quality etc with the power to enforce changes and make fines and take court action if required.

Buildings last on average several hundred years yet we have better and more stringent regulations on just about every disposable item we produce from chocolate bars to cars which last minutes to around 10 years max. Utter maddness.

I cant think of a single purchase that is more important or expensive for such poor regulations and checking to ensure quality.

The industry knows this. Just by way of example planning conditions are totally unenforceable. We had a building project near us where the conditions of planning were flaunted hundreds of times in relation to out of hours working and other issus like rubbish and noise yet all the coco did was write a letter asking them not to do it. With scary powers like these it was little wonder the contractor carried on regardless knowing they were for the best part untouchable.

Farmer Pudsey

Lantus wrote: »

The construction industry is the last great cowboy industry out there. Having worked in in it I can say that most consultants and designers are fairly good in that they design to the minimum legal standard or above. Drawings and specifications are easily inspected and reviewed if needed.

HOWEVER, it is much harder to determine whether the contractor has installed the right insulation, sound proofing, cables, pipes, air tightness detailing once it's all been build and covered up (which they can do very quickly you will find when it suits them.)

The overall quality of Irelands property and housing stock built over the last 10+ years is in all liklehood very poor and time will show just how poor.

There are numerous 'Priory halls' around the country. (We have an apartment block near us with no working fire alarm but it doesn't seem to bother the local coco or anyone else.) With insulation, ventilation, mould, sound and other issues abound. Legacys of an industry not regulated in the slightest.

We must move to a system where everything is checked by an independant body from insulation and u values to air tightness, materials used, build quality etc with the power to enforce changes and make fines and take court action if required.

Buildings last on average several hundred years yet we have better and more stringent regulations on just about every disposable item we produce from chocolate bars to cars which last minutes to around 10 years max. Utter maddness.

I cant think of a single purchase that is more important or expensive for such poor regulations and checking to ensure quality.

The industry knows this. Just by way of example planning conditions are totally unenforceable. We had a building project near us where the conditions of planning were flaunted hundreds of times in relation to out of hours working and other issus like rubbish and noise yet all the coco did was write a letter asking them not to do it. With scary powers like these it was little wonder the contractor carried on regardless knowing they were for the best part untouchable.

We all know the above there is a saying buyer beware so why should the tax payer foot the bill. The owners should pursue the builder in the first case then the engineers public indenmity and if that fails I do not see any reason why I should foot the bill I made sure when I got a house build that I watched what the builder was doing.

oppenheimer1

mjth2004 wrote: »

'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.

An architect or engineers PI insurance only comes into play if the design is at fault for the problems. This isn't the case with priory hall, the designers specified how it should be done but it appears the developer did not carry through these instructions.

Farmer Pudsey

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

An architect or engineers PI insurance only comes into play if the design is at fault for the problems. This isn't the case with priory hall, the designers specified how it should be done but it appears the developer did not carry through these instructions.

However there was quality control engineers/architect to supervise the site and sign off these should be held to account but this is Ireland you underprice a job then do not do the work and walk away with a hugh profit and leave the punter or tax payer high and dry.

creedp

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

However there was quality control engineers/architect to supervise the site and sign off these should be held to account but this is Ireland you underprice a job then do not do the work and walk away with a hugh profit and leave the punter or tax payer high and dry.

More to the point you price base on top quality job and then as they say in some parts of the country you 'rub your arse to it' and walk away with your fat undertaxed profit. Im not talking about reputable guys here so its not all but some

oppenheimer1

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

However there was quality control engineers/architect to supervise the site and sign off these should be held to account but this is Ireland you underprice a job then do not do the work and walk away with a hugh profit and leave the punter or tax payer high and dry.

What you're talking about is the site/setting out engineer there. They are employed directly by the developer and so the developer would be liable for their mistakes.

The worst punishment that could happen these people is that they be professionally censured, and that can only happen if they are a member of a professional organisation.

Clearly a lot of people don't understand how the construction industry works. It really is a case of buyer beware.

thebman

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Clearly a lot of people don't understand how the construction industry works. It really is a case of buyer beware.

Most of which the buyer isn't qualified to be aware of making a buyer inevitably getting screwed by an industry full of cowboys and crooks.

I think the state should be stepping in here myself but levying the relevant bodies afterwards to refund the cost. The person buying shouldn't have to pay as there is simply no way they could have none about these issues. It is obviously the people that built its responsibility to ensure they built it properly and if they didn't they can't just walk away from that responsibility now.

Vizzy

thebman,I would agree with you 100% with regard to the state inspecting the buildings and levying builders/developers.
But would/could people pay the extra amount ?
More importantly however I would assume the "levy" would be kept as a bond to be refunded if the building is up to standard.
But in a case like Priory Hall( and I'm not sure how long they are built) the builder would probably have gotten the "levy" returned to them at this stage and possibly gone broke.

mjth2004

@oppenheimer1 - PI insurance comes into play when arch/eng sign-off that the building has been built in accordance with the drawings/specs & in accordance with the Building Regulations!

The problem arises when arch/eng signs-off that the building is in substantial compliance with the drawings/specs & relevant Building Regulations on a single day of inspection! This from my understanding cannot stand up in court as 'substanial' is an objective term & an inspection on one particular day doesn't stand up in regards to a full tIme monitoring role!

Lantus

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

We all know the above there is a saying buyer beware so why should the tax payer foot the bill. The owners should pursue the builder in the first case then the engineers public indenmity and if that fails I do not see any reason why I should foot the bill I made sure when I got a house build that I watched what the builder was doing.

There is no reason why the industry shouldn't pay for this and in fact I would insist on it. Nothing like financial incentive to do a good job first time around. Currently the incentive is on the builder to work the system to cut corners and get away with it. In fact it's such a good game and theres so much extra profit in it the builder is driven to do everything he can to improve his profit even at the expense of quality and sometimes even safety. He can do this safe in the knowledge that there is no regulation and little come back. It's a game to them and they play it well.

Buildings are so complex and involve so many parties and designers only the builder see's the whole picture and can manipulate the entire situation. I have personally sat in meetings where builders have swore blind that they need to use cheaper materials becasue they couldn't get the ones specified and costed for and luckily because I was tipped off had time to ring around and arrnage a supplier on speaker phone infront of the client and PM and basically call them out as liars.

For every one scam I catch though there are probably 50 more I dont as they will involve sub contractors and other parties I dont have control over. The builder all along playing the role of the master puppeteerpulling at the strings here and there to manipulate his profit at any expense.

JustAddWater

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

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'

Ah now come on! We're not all architects and engineers. Nobody, you included would have foreseen the problems at priory hall even with a thorough inspection. You can't honestly expect average people to know this kind if stuff, especially when their told by everyone that the building confirms to all safety standards etc...

So if I go into a shop and buy food and then end up being very ill because the food processing and it's subsecent safety procedures weren't followed then its my fault for not making sure that everything was 100% during the manufacturing of the food ... Yeah... Nice one!

oppenheimer1

mjth2004 wrote: »

@oppenheimer1 - PI insurance comes into play when arch/eng sign-off that the building has been built in accordance with the drawings/specs & in accordance with the Building Regulations!

The problem arises when arch/eng signs-off that the building is in substantial compliance with the drawings/specs & relevant Building Regulations on a single day of inspection! This from my understanding cannot stand up in court as 'substanial' is an objective term & an inspection on one particular day doesn't stand up in regards to a full tIme monitoring role!

Arch (and sometimes Eng) only gives an opinion on compliance. PI insurance doesn't come into play because they have not supervised the works in their entirety, so the sign of is with a caveat.. There are a lot of "buts and maybes" in this declaration. If you are lucky the Arch/Eng will visit the site once a week for a look around, they are not there for every brick so they cannot give assurance that the building was constructed to design. Only if there is a problem with the design does the Arch/Eng PI come into play. An example of this would be an inadequate number of fire escapes.

The role of the engineer/architect is that of designer, not enforcer of regulation.

oppenheimer1

JustAddWater wrote: »

Ah now come on! We're not all architects and engineers. Nobody, you included would have foreseen the problems at priory hall even with a thorough inspection. You can't honestly expect average people to know this kind if stuff, especially when their told by everyone that the building confirms to all safety standards etc...

So if I go into a shop and buy food and then end up being very ill because the food processing and it's subsecent safety procedures weren't followed then its my fault for not making sure that everything was 100% during the manufacturing of the food ... Yeah... Nice one!

The crux of your point is valid, and the root of the problem is entirely due to the way the "sign off" is framed. This needs to be changed. The problem though is that in order to have complete assurance that the design was being executed to standard, the arch/eng would have to be present, or have a representative present at all times on site - often for jobs this isn't practical and would be a significant extra expense.

Average people aren't meant to know whether buildings are sound or not - and generally people employ their own engineer to check it out beforehand. There was an expectation among consumers however, that with new builds that this wasn't required. This is much the same way that you might bring along a mechanic to check out a second hand car but not a new one. Due to the variability in construction standards across the country, this was not a valid assumption to make, an assumption made on an invalid interpretation of what "sign off" is. People are entitled to have it remediated, but the cost should be borne by the person who sold them the defective product.

JustAddWater

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

People are entitled to have it remediated, but the cost should be borne by the person who sold them the defective product.

I agree 100% ... As developers go bust, refuse to pay etc then where do you go from there?

Maybe like the insurance levy, developers should be obliged to pay into some sort of insurance fund and this is used in situtations like this, but only after all avenues have been persued with the developer (as some would use this as a way of dodging responsibilities)

Farmer Pudsey

JustAddWater wrote: »

I agree 100% ... As developers go bust, refuse to pay etc then where do you go from there?

Maybe like the insurance levy, developers should be obliged to pay into some sort of insurance fund and this is used in situtations like this, but only after all avenues have been persued with the developer (as some would use this as a way of dodging responsibilities)

We have one it is called homebond and it cannot pay out as it did not do its job right during the boom.
I know it may only have supervised houses but it took the money during the goodtimes and did not do the work

creedp

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

What you're talking about is the site/setting out engineer there. They are employed directly by the developer and so the developer would be liable for their mistakes.

The worst punishment that could happen these people is that they be professionally censured, and that can only happen if they are a member of a professional organisation.

Clearly a lot of people don't understand how the construction industry works. It really is a case of buyer beware.

Imagine if another industry (e.g. car industry) took this approach. Sir I know you paid €50k for that Audi but sir its not Audi's fault that the air bags/brakes/etc don't work .. it really is a case of buyer beware sir!

deandean

It was a huge mistake (IMO) to have evacuated Priory Hall in the first instance.

There are other apartment blocks built around the same time that also don't meet the same set of fire safety requirements: similar designs around North Co. Dublin.

Evacuating Priory Hall seems to have been a conscious decision by court/DCC to ramp up the pressure on the developer after other methods hadn't worked on him. It was playing poker while using the unfortunate residents as pawns (sorry for the cross-gaming).

From what I've read of Priory Hall however, you didn't have to go cutting into the walls to see the problems - lack of fire alarm detectors; internal habitable rooms - any surveyor doing a snag list should've seen those problems and the banks should then have declined to offer mortgages on the apartments pending resolution of the problem.

Thoie

I bought, and live in, a building that was newly built before I moved in - not Priory Hall.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I do not see any reason why I should foot the bill I made sure when I got a house build that I watched what the builder was doing.

In the apartment situation it wasn't possible to wander on site and review what the builders were doing - you physically just weren't allowed on site "for safety reasons". There's just too much going on in an apartment building site to allow for up to 200 members of the public to wander in and out.

When I bought my apartment it was finished in May, yet it was July before I could get the keys until the local fire officer had a chance to visit the building and sign off the fire safety certificate. There are annual fire safety inspections carried out by the local council (on top of the regular fire checks carried out by the alarm company).

Given the delay, I think it was reasonable in my situation to presume that the fire officer was carrying out thorough checks (though at this stage I'm wondering).

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The crux of your point is valid, and the root of the problem is entirely due to the way the "sign off" is framed. This needs to be changed.

...

Average people aren't meant to know whether buildings are sound or not - and generally people employ their own engineer to check it out beforehand. There was an expectation among consumers however, that with new builds that this wasn't required.

Even if you did hire an engineer for a new build, they are limited to your apartment. They can't review the outside of your 3rd floor apartment with no balcony. They can view the common areas and confirm there are adequate fire escapes, but they can't get into the spaces between apartments to confirm the correct insulation is there, etc.

rodento

It really is a case of buyer beware and the people who purchased those apartments not doing their homework properly

This is from askaboutmoney in 2007

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=27536

Three pages in it but well worth the read, you can also google Coalport Building Company if ya like but even at the time it was well known that these where well dodgy

Thoie

rodento wrote: »

It really is a case of buyer beware and the people who purchased those apartments not doing their homework properly

This is from askaboutmoney in 2007

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=27536

Three pages in it but well worth the read, you can also google Coalport Building Company if ya like but even at the time it was well known that these where well dodgy

I think that's a bit unfair - it wasn't that well known, and as you can see from that thread it was late Jun 06 when stories started coming out, and those were about the site safety, which were being investigated. The site was shut down until those problems were rectified (and approved by a government agency).

By June 06 all of phase 1 had been sold, and it looks from that thread that a lot of the second phase had also been sold.