Self-Build, would you pay these Fees

martinn123

martin123 wrote:

Self-Build, would you pay these Fees
We have been discussing on various threads the potential knock on effects of the new Building Control Regulations

http://www.environ.ie/en/Development...Consultations/

there has been a public consultation ongoing.

Many of the regular contributors to this Forum, are from a Certifying Profession and have contributed that Fees for a self-build under the new regulations will increase by up to 15K as constant supervision, as in daily are required under the Reg's as proposed.

In addition it has been suggested that Insurance may not be available to these Certifyers due to the onerous conditions.

I do not want to duplicate the discussion in this thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056606132

but if you are considering a self-build you might want to have a read.

So my question is would you be willing or able to pay Professional fees of up to 15K, to have a Certifyer issue the Certs necessary to complete your build, and obtain funds from the bank.

Personally I think its an over-reaction to Draft Regulations, but I would be interested to hear from posters who have recently completed a build, or those planning for a build in the near future.

If you recently instructed an Architect/Tech/Surveyor, what is your understanding of the service they will supply.
Is it '' just for the Bank'' or do you expect them to bring to your attention potential pitfalls, shortfalls in the build.

Mod edit: The following posts have been moved from here where they were off topic

sydthebeat wrote: »

you see martin, theres a dichotomy here.

I agree completely.

take two construction projects. The first where the client engages someone to prepare construction drawings, prepares a tender process and engages a contractor to project manage the build.
The client then engages someone to make periodic inspections on the build to certify compliance with planning permission and building regulations for the purpose of mortage drawdown.

then take another client who doesn't commission construction drawings, doesnt have a tender process beyond handing out planing drawings to blockies, chippies etc. Doesn't engage a contractor to project manage the build.
The client then engages someone to make periodic inspections on the build to certify compliance with planning permission and building regulations for the purpose of mortage drawdown.

I understand the difference, but while on site, surely something that is obvious, like the height of the walls, assuming you carry a tape measure, deserves a mention, or do you take a '' visual inspection'' literally.

Are you saying that in some way the certifier in the second case should offer any more above and beyond what they have quoted for and been engaged to do? Because believe it or not, speaking as a certifier, they ALWAYS do. They always make allowances on behalf of the client during the build in some form or another, be it taking calls to answer basis reg questions, having to do extra site visits to solve on site build issues.


However, in this case the client actually expected the certifier to take responsibility for an on site build issue which result from having no competent person engaged to manage the build. And i can safely assume did not engage anyone to produce construction instruction to ensure the build was 1. buildable 2. regulation compliant.

Lets clear up this myth of "great savings" can be made by going direct labour. This ONLY works in cases where the project manager is competent a able to run project and has proficient construction knowledge.

Again i agree, but I have to again quote our friend,

Poor Uncle Tom wrote:

I understand your argument but I think, the professional involved in supervision (the Engineer in this case) needs to have cognisance of the fact that there is no other supervision on the site and the self builder is a novice and needs to be protected from themselves, to a degree, or else the professional should disassociate themselves with the build entirely, imo.

This is the attitude I would prefer to see, on site rather than,

Poor Uncle Tom wrote:

It is disingenuous of any professional to attempt to, or even to give the appearance of, sucking vital funds from a project to line their own coffers, while merely casting a cursory eye over proceedings and nonchalantly waving works onward. That type of behaviour does this industry no good whatsoever

So hopefully the new Reg's will do away with the above attitude.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

So hopefully the new Reg's will do away with the above attitude.

they certainly will... the certifier is going to be similar to a clerk of works, on site every day.

expect certification fees to jump from approx €1500 to anything close to €10k

again, i will reiterate.
you get what you pay for.

As PUT alluded to above, if your going top be holding the hand of a "novice self builder" to "protect them from themselves"... they should certainly expect to pay above and beyond the industry standard for this education.

Unfortunately with "direct labour" its a race to the bottom (line) and unfortunately thats where the more unscrupulous in every profession reside.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

I understand the difference, but while on site, surely something that is obvious, like the height of the walls, assuming you carry a tape measure, deserves a mention, or do you take a '' visual inspection'' literally.

did you come to the conclusion that the walls somehow are in contravention of the certification offered?

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

did you come to the conclusion that the walls somehow are in contravention of the certification offered?

Well I came to the conclusion that the walls are not according to the plans, as approved by planning permission, your question is couched in language similar to Certs, and open to various ''get out clauses'' that we have become used to, unfortunately.

So to summarise, in so far as we know all the facts, ( limited),
would you offer, under the NEW Reg's if implimented, as suggested a Cert of Compliance with planning, where the walls '' appear'' not as approved, and at least one door ''appears'' not to open as approved, as per the plans lodged, given the new reguirements, and the necessity for your Cert to be Crystal Clear, and without the current '' get out clauses'' of Visual inspection only, and possible impact on your P.I Insurance.


I have no problem with being paid for time, and effort, but

sydthebeat wrote:

expect certification fees to jump from approx €1500 to anything close to €10k

may be expectation, of the end of the recession, on your part.

sydthebeat

no martin, the new regs require the certifier to state all is free from all defect... in my opinion the only person who can offer such certification is someone who is one site every day. Add onto that the obvious huge increase in PI insurance premium as the certifier is supposed to take the responsibility for every single tradesperson, product and process used on the site.

as for this particular case, under the proposed amendment to the regs, id run a thousand miles away in the opposite direction!!!
No construction instruction documents, no competent project manager = not a chance in hell id get involved.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

as for this particular case, under the proposed amendment to the regs, id run a thousand miles away in the opposite direction!!!
No construction instruction documents, no competent project manager = not a chance in hell id get involved.

And yet, he managed to get a Cert,
funny what a fee will get you, from someone who does not really care.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

And yet, he managed to get a Cert,
funny what a fee will get you, from someone who does not really care.

as has been alluded to previously, perhaps the OP was extremely lucky to get the cert.

What would the alternatives be? take off the roof, raise up the blockwork....?? all from the OPs pocket.....

Under the new regs that would seem to be the only option.

who created the problem?

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

as has been alluded to previously, perhaps the OP was extremely lucky to get the cert.

Do you really believe that, i don't, I think if he put the roof on upside down, he would still get a Cert, with certain comments such as ''substantial compliance'' visual inspection only, and opinion, not Certification.
The Certification system is such a devalued currency that my exhaderation above, points to its real value

What would the alternatives be? take off the roof, raise up the blockwork....?? all from the OPs pocket.....

I wonder if a Cert was issued at wall plate level, or after the roof was formed, would love to know the answer to that.

Under the new regs that would seem to be the only option.

who created the problem?

The block-layer, compounded by a project manager who did not understand what was happening, compounded by an Engineer who did not explain to his client, what service he was getting for his cash

Poor Uncle Tom

sydthebeat wrote: »

it probably comes across as if im standing up for the engineer in this particular case.

i wish to state that i certainly am not. I think they behaved in an unprofessional manner in that:
1. they did not make it crystal clear what their services being provided were (or at least clear enough that the OP understood)

2. they did not satisfactorily resolve this issue when it first came to light, or did not fully appreciate the OPs concerns on the issue

3. finalising the certification without fully expressing proper invoice time scales to client.. leading to still invoicing 6 years later!

I understand that and I agree with the above completely, It's good to tease out the issue though.

Mistakes can happen on any job, how fast those mistakes are spotted and put right is the key point. With adequate information (planning permission and working drawings, details and specification) a good workforce (competent tradespeople) knowledgeable management (experienced supervision) and the means (mortgage or funds) in place every single build can be met head on with confidence. Nowhere on that list is the type of 'supervision' mentioned which is issued for bank release purposes.

Certification, whether partial or full, should not be issued by or accepted from someone only having glanced at the site a handfull of times during construction, imo.

For the proposed changed regulations. If actual supervision means calling to the site every working day during the build for inspection purposes and there are say 150 working days in a build, also giving a nominal €100 per visit fee to cover insurance, travel, inspection and file compilation costs, that's €15,000 right there.

martinn123

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Certification, whether partial or full, should not be issued by or accepted from someone only having glanced at the site a handfull of times during construction, imo.

For the proposed changed regulations. If actual supervision means calling to the site every working day during the build for inspection purposes and there are say 150 working days in a build, also giving a nominal €100 per visit fee to cover insurance, travel, inspection and file compilation costs, that's €15,000 right there.

While I understand there are some concerns over the scope of the proposed new regulations, comments like that In my opinion will only serve to put off potential self-builders who might visit these parts.
Visit every day...for what?

Take for example the normal build progress, in a one off house, not a block of apartments.

Dig out for foundations, day or two, inspection.
Pour concrete, one day

Blocklayer, maybe a couple of weeks,on site, what are you going to look at every day?

Floor joists, few days,
Then form the roof, maybe a week or so, what will you look at every day?

The trades, usually don't arrive all together, so inspect spark's work, every day, for what
Plumber, look at his progress every day, why?

I won't go on, I hope I have made a point

If it were as you describe, all you would need was 5 clients, self builders, visit 5 sites a day, 8 hours incl travel, and you have a Gross income of 75K, yea right.

There will be changes to the Inspection process, and to the Fee structure but don't frighten people with daft examples as above.

sydthebeat

martin, what you do not understand is that the certifier under these new regulations is expected to take responsibility for every single aspect of the build... every material used, every process employed, every tradesmans competency, every suitability of products etc.

That means in effect that if a roofer uses a steel nail through a lead sheet the certifer is responsible to remedy defects. If the blocklayer lays blocks above 10mm difference in a wall, the certifier is responsible. Every single aspect of the build is now something the certifier is culpable for. Therefore by definition the certifier should be on site ALL THE TIME. To check certification of materials used, to check tolerances on all dimensions, to check processes of sub contractors etc.

To check if the window installers have properly folded in the DPCs or incorporated air tight tape properly

Include PI premium rises, travel costs etc ..... what is being charged for the current system will seem like chicken feed.

On one hand you want more responsibility from certifiers, and on the other you dont want to pay for it.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

martin, what you do not understand is that the certifier under these new regulations is expected to take responsibility for every single aspect of the build... every material used, every process employed, every tradesmans competency, every suitability of products etc.

That means in effect that if a roofer uses a steel nail through a lead sheet the certifer is responsible to remedy defects. If the blocklayer lays blocks above 10mm difference in a wall, the certifier is responsible. Every single aspect of the build is now something the certifier is culpable for. Therefore by definition the certifier should be on site ALL THE TIME. To check certification of materials used, to check tolerances on all dimensions, to check processes of sub contractors etc.

To check if the window installers have properly folded in the DPCs or incorporated air tight tape properly

Include PI premium rises, travel costs etc ..... what is being charged for the current system will seem like chicken feed.

On one hand you want more responsibility from certifiers, and on the other you dont want to pay for it.

That last sentence,is a distortion of everything I have said, read my posts, I have stated on numerous times that I have no objection to a fair payment structure for Fees.

What I see however in your post, and that of PUT is an over-reaction to the proposed Reg's. Why should you be on site every day, once a week to examine what has been done would reduce PUT's calculations from 15K to 3K, surely on a weekly visit you can examine the nails used, by the carpenter and the quality of the Timbers.
An electrician will take more than a week, to first fix, and all the wiring can be looked at, similarly the Plumber's pipes.

You do not have to count how many blocks laid, every day, you can check the dimensions once a week.

I accept the new reg's will expect a certifyer to stand over him Cert, ( at long last), but I do not see how hanging around a site all day, watching a tiler lay 20 sqM of tiles, is called for

Corkblowin

martinn123 wrote: »

You do not have to count how many blocks laid, every day, you can check the dimensions once a week.

I accept the new reg's will expect a certifyer to stand over him Cert, ( at long last), but I do not see how hanging around a site all day, watching a tiler lay 20 sqM of tiles, is called for

I am currently being sued by a client because large portions of a dormer roof have no insulation on the slope (it's a large non domestic building). I visited that site twice a week at times, and was paid for it, however the contractor just didn't bother on days he knew I wasn't going to be there. It was only picked up using a thermal camera (which weren't readily available when the project was being built). Builder now gone bust & I'm next in line.

If I'm expected to certify a building under the new proposals I shall only do so if I've prepared the construction drawings and if I'm visiting the site most days of the week. Otherwise how will I know what wall ties were used, what's under that new plaster or slabbing, or whether the radon barrier is undamaged before pouring of the floor.

martinn123

Corkblowin wrote: »

I am currently being sued by a client because large portions of a dormer roof have no insulation on the slope (it's a large non domestic building). I visited that site twice a week at times, and was paid for it, however the contractor just didn't bother on days he knew I wasn't going to be there. It was only picked up using a thermal camera (which weren't readily available when the project was being built). Builder now gone bust & I'm next in line.

If I'm expected to certify a building under the new proposals I shall only do so if I've prepared the construction drawings and if I'm visiting the site most days of the week. Otherwise how will I know what wall ties were used, what's under that new plaster or slabbing, or whether the radon barrier is undamaged before pouring of the floor.

I accept completely in a ''large non- domestic situation'' there can be many things going on at the same time, and the concept of work covered up, is a real situation.
My comments here are in relation to ''self-build domestic'' only as its the area where I have experience, having built twice, I have no experience of larger projects.
In a domestic, one thing tends to happen at a time, Blocks, carpenter, electrician, plumber, etc.etc. and is easier I imagine to supervise, weekly.
Apologies if anyone misunderstood this difference.

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

.....don't frighten people with daft examples as above.

I have allowed 6 months to completely finish a self build one off house. I think all will agree that this is cutting it very very fine and that there will be a lot of trades overlap. I can't figure how you think full supervision is anything but just that, full supervision. I'm not talking about being on site all day every day, but for an hour or how ever long it takes, but yes every day.

martinn123 wrote: »

What I see however in your post, and that of PUT is an over-reaction to the proposed Reg's.

I would see it as protecting ourselves in the face of being able to obtain insurance in the first instance.

martinn123 wrote: »

Why should you be on site every day, once a week to examine what has been done would reduce PUT's calculations from 15K to 3K, surely on a weekly visit you can examine the nails used, by the carpenter and the quality of the Timbers.

No, once a week is not full supervision.

martinn123 wrote: »

An electrician will take more than a week, to first fix, and all the wiring can be looked at, similarly the Plumber's pipes.

Not relevant, unseen works are not supervised works.

You do not have to count how many blocks laid, every day, you can check the dimensions once a week.

When you don't provide the insurance cover, you don't get to set the scope of the supervision works.

martinn123 wrote: »

I accept the new reg's will expect a certifyer to stand over him Cert, ( at long last), but I do not see how hanging around a site all day, watching a tiler lay 20 sqM of tiles, is called for

A daft example, while that tiler is laying his 20sqM, a plasterer could have 80m2 of walling plastered covering up electric conduets, vacuum piping, there could be 100m2 of plasterboarding carried out covering plumbing, wiring and hiding non insulation, etc.

Full supervision, is just that.

martinn123

i'm a bit surprised the Mod's have allowed us to stray so far from the OP's question:D

So I have posted this question on a new thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79420529#post79420529

muffler

martinn123 wrote: »

i'm a bit surprised the Mod's have allowed us to stray so far from the OP's question:D

No they haven't or at least I haven't. There's tolerance and then there's out and out off topic posting from people who should really know better.

If anyone sees a post that they think should be moved back again just let me know and I'll have a look.

sinnerboy

How much time would you spend on a , lets say one house , 10 miles from where you live , 250m2 , novice self builder , to sign a document stating

I undertake to inspect and certify the works or building to which this Commencement Notice and the accompanying plans, specifications and particulars listed in the schedule apply in accordance with the Code of Practice for Inspecting and Certifying Building Works. Notwithstanding the responsibilities of other person/s or firms/s in relation to the works, I accept responsibility and legal liability for the inspection of all works as necessary to ensure that they are neither defective nor contravene any requirements of the Second Schedule of the Building Regulations, as applicable to the building works concerned.

( my highlighting of text )

Now I insist that knowing this industry as I do over 25 years that the only sane way to attempt to entertain this undertaking is to be present on site every single day. Maybe not all day every day. But every day.

Anything less than this is not to understand the industry and not to understand the meaning of the quoted text.

rebelden

Who are they recommending to be the professional certifier who is going to be supervising the build every day and more importantly holding the hand of the "novice self builder" to "protect them from themselves"...?

BryanF

rebelden wrote: »

Who are they recommending to be the professional certifier who is going to be supervising the build every day and more importantly holding the hand of the "novice self builder" to "protect them from themselves"...?

This is a hypothetical discussion as the legislation is in draft form.

arch, eng, and rcsi are the proposed certifiers

I'm not sure what your getting at after that?

muffler

As mentioned by BryanF above the discussion is hypothetical as none of us really know what the legislation will contain. At the moment people are assuming the "doomsday" situation which is fair enough based on what has been proposed by the dept.

Personally I believe the proposals will be diluted but there will still be a heavy burden to bear by the certifiers. I dont believe that certifiers will have to be present on the site every day but the number of inspections will quadruple at least.

So if a self builder retains someone at present and the fee is €2500 (as an example) you can expect that fee to rise to €10,000 in the future. The certifier will have to factor in the additional paperwork and increased insurance costs so the minimum fee will be €12,000.

Its all ifs and buts at the moment but people will have to pay substantially more for their inspections when the new legislation kicks in.

martinn123

muffler wrote: »

As mentioned by BryanF above the discussion is hypothetical as none of us really know what the legislation will contain. At the moment people are assuming the "doomsday" situation which is fair enough based on what has been proposed by the dept.

Personally I believe the proposals will be diluted but there will still be a heavy burden to bear by the certifiers. I dont believe that certifiers will have to be present on the site every day but the number of inspections will quadruple at least.

So if a self builder retains someone at present and the fee is €2500 (as an example) you can expect that fee to rise to €10,000 in the future. The certifier will have to factor in the additional paperwork and increased insurance costs so the minimum fee will be €12,000.

Its all ifs and buts at the moment but people will have to pay substantially more for their inspections when the new legislation kicks in.

Agree we are all in hypothetical mode, but that calculation of Fee's increase is not acceptable, in my view

O.K the number of visits increases by a factor of 4, PUT suggested at e100 per visit, so 20 visits instead of 5 an additional 1500.00, plus a few bob for increases in Insurance, not so sure about the paperwork, still the same number of Interim Certs for the Bank, and a Final Cert, I would have thought an increase from 2.5K to max 5k would be justified in a self-build.

Thats why I posed the question '' would you pay these Fees?'' as the argument seems to be heading towards a situation where your income from Certifying Fees increases by 400%, you factor in to pass on the Insurance costs, work a little harder, and the recession is over for you.

Personally I don't believe the Building Public will pay what you seem to expect.

muffler

martinn123 wrote: »

Personally I don't believe the Building Public will pay what you seem to expect.

I dont expect anything as it is almost certain that I wont be a part of it when the legislation changes. Based on what some architects and engineers have been charging up to the present time I am only guessing what the fee will be.

The building public as you refer to them wont have a choice when it comes to fees other than shopping around. Mortgage or not the private sector is going to take over the running of the building control system in this country.

martinn123

muffler wrote: »

I dont expect anything as it is almost certain that I wont be a part of it when the legislation changes. Based on what some architects and engineers have been charging up to the present time I am only guessing what the fee will be.

Didn't mean to personalise it to yourself, meant the collective ''you'' as in certifyers.

muffler wrote:

The building public as you refer to them wont have a choice when it comes to fees other than shopping around. Mortgage or not the private sector is going to take over the running of the building control system in this country.

That's what the Legal Profession said for years as they ripped off House Buyers, by charging a % Fee for a Conveyance, based on the house price.
Then some hungry Solr's said I'll do it for a set fee, irrespective of the price of the house
The market will set a fair price based on supply and demand,

sydthebeat

we are only commenting in the draft legislation as was proposed. the quote that SB bolded above is the 'catch all' phrase. In all professions there are unscrupulous people. I think the spirit behind the amendments is to get rid of these unscrupulous people by making the certification so onerous as to be dangerous.

You are correct martinn123 what you say about supply and demand equating to the market value. However what you may not realise is that these amendments are restricting the supply (to a select few lobby groups) to such a degree as to significantly reduce supply.

static demand + reduced supply = price rise

simply economics.

The only way this can work is if the certification is fully prescribed by the legislation, and not in such a 'catch all' phrase as above.

again i ask, who in their right mind would take responsibility for the work of others that then have no hand, act or part in employing. And what insurer would stand over this system?

these are all probably very premature questions as the legislation isnt passed yet. I would hope the compliers of the amendment go back and take a concise informed look again at the process.

I certainly believe the system as stands is totally inadequate and useless (to be honest) but lets not blame the 'front line' certifiers. They are acting within a system as devised by the law society, financial institutions and government forces.

No6

The draft legislation as proposed is viewed as being anti competitive by the competition authoirty who have made a sibmission to that effect. Most of the professional posters here are Architectural Technologists who are currently excluded in the proposed legislation from certifying. The DOHLG are creating a new monolopy here with limited participation which irrespective of the liability issues will ensure fees for the services will rise considerably.

If the liability attached to the certification remains as proposed, which in fairness i dont expect it too due to extensive lobbying, it will either prove to be uninsurable or the insurance costs will rise so much that the fees charged for the service will rise considerabley to match it. This would have the effect of excluding lots of self and direct builders from the market but as the one off house is essentially viewed as being unsustainable are you supprised?

fclauson

all of this concern is fine - but lets look at the implementation

see a recent construction mag artical about how many live builds event today fail to meet 2008 Part L.

And how many builds never got a completion cert and then wounder even if this legislation does come in how many people will just ignore it (as they have done in the past)

No6

fclauson wrote: »

all of this concern is fine - but lets look at the implementation

see a recent construction mag artical about how many live builds event today fail to meet 2008 Part L.

And how many builds never got a completion cert and then wounder even if this legislation does come in how many people will just ignore it (as they have done in the past)

The problem is enforcement, no enforcement = low or no compliance. If building control officers inspected every project you can bet that compliance levels would increase substantially.

fclauson

totally agree

and if we had a ruthless inspection program then the cert would not be needed as BC would have done all the inspections which would be required

hence my post back to the dept that BC should be funded from planning application fees and then provided the inspection service

stock>

We don't need new rules we need proper enforcement of the ones we have...................................

jetfiremuck

This is the ideal time to bring in enforceable, responsible and practical building regs. There is little activity at present so implementing a system of overview and compliance will benefit everyone in the end. Whats built and occupied now is grandfathered in with recourses under the existing system. Its the insurance companies that will dictate in the end so why not be ahead of the game before punitive costs. Valid nct for car cover would be a comparison of sorts.

sinnerboy

stock> wrote: »

We don't need new rules we need proper enforcement of the ones we have...................................

This is being acted upon. The question is - how much is one willing to pay ?

sinnerboy

jetfiremuck wrote: »

This is the ideal time to bring in enforceable, responsible and practical building regs. There is little activity at present so implementing a system of overview and compliance will benefit everyone in the end.

Now is always the ideal time to do the right thing in any context.

Unfortunately the inevitable cost rise in the actual enforcement of regulations will result in decisions for some projects not to proceed.

People need to understand the consequences of what they demand and "be careful what you ask for because you might get it".

If the govt. proposal are enacted substantially as drafted there will be a rise in costs due to

a) the significant initial cost in terms of the appointment of some person to implement the enforcement regime and

b) the knock on costs of design , specification , and build quality that that person will dutifully insist upon.

We can't continue to build as we have done in Ireland.

So construction costs will rise and from a certain perspective one may argue that a recessionary period is a bad time to raise standards.

But a for a fuller perspective on the cost of low/no standards - there are well publicized cases of the cost of same.

91,000 pyrite cases on the East coast I read in a evening paper today - and the ( must not be discussed here ) apartment complex with it's fire safety issues.

How are they to be costed ?

stock>

sinnerboy wrote: »

This is being acted upon. The question is - how much is one willing to pay ?

Are we not paying over the odds to our respective planning authorities in development fees. This enforcement needs to be out of the hands of the developer be they big or small and as the old saying goes "HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE"

We probably need a independent authority with no allegiance to the Riai, IEI, CIF, who take the development fee then appoint a registered engineer to over see the project. Probably the best thing would be to give this authority responsibility for planning as well this would allow the engineer to be part of the whole build from planning to handover.
Just my thoughts......

sinnerboy

Maybe - but the context of this thread is the Govt proposals that clients must appoint either an Architect , Engineer or Surveyor to take absolute responsibility for their build with respect to Building Regulations.

The question is the thread is asking , what fee are clients willing to pay for this ?

stock>

sinnerboy wrote: »

Maybe - but the context of this thread is the Govt proposals that clients must appoint either an Architect , Engineer or Surveyor to take absolute responsibility for their build with respect to Building Regulations.

The question is the thread is asking , what fee are clients willing to pay for this ?

Right! I do understand that and it is as things are at the moment except that most of the contracts used in construction fail to hold anyone liable for defects and non compliance.

Look at how impotent homebond turned out to be?

My argument is that the appointment of a project overseer should not be the gift of the person or company who is having the work carrying out as this has partially contributed to fine mess we are now in' with foremen being fired when trying to ensure work is carried out to the regulations,
I know of an engineer and solicitor who refused to sign off on a house but the client just got someone else to do it, now the house is uninhabitable the builder is gone and the bank has repossessed the house that is only fit for demolition.
Had the original engineer been contractually responsible to an independent authority this wouldn't not have been able to happen.

Also my argument that we pay fees to the planning authority and get very little in return, with the present government going to reduce that even further. I feel that these monies should at least ensure planning compliance and adherence to the construction regulations.
Licencing of contractors is something else that needs to be done some thing like ECSSA or RECI or RGI. Allowing someone to buy a van and trailer and set up a construction business is lunacy by registering and licencing building contractors the homeowner would be protected, it would insure tax compliance and allow an individual or company to be sanctioned where poor work or non compliance to the regulations was proven.

It must also be borne in mind that all the parties involved in a build should share the cost of compliance as it is in their interest to do so and asking only one party to carry this cost is unfair.

My rant.............

sinnerboy

stock> wrote: »

My argument is that the appointment of a project overseer should not be the gift of the person or company who is having the work carrying out as this has partially contributed to fine mess we are now in...It must also be borne in mind that all the parties involved in a build should share the cost of compliance as it is in their interest to do so and asking only one party to carry this cost is unfair.

100% agree with you.

martinn123

stock> wrote: »

Right! I do understand that and it is as things are at the moment except that most of the contracts used in construction fail to hold anyone liable for defects and non compliance.

Look at how impotent homebond turned out to be?

My argument is that the appointment of a project overseer should not be the gift of the person or company who is having the work carrying out as this has partially contributed to fine mess we are now in' with foremen being fired when trying to ensure work is carried out to the regulations,
I know of an engineer and solicitor who refused to sign off on a house but the client just got someone else to do it, now the house is uninhabitable the builder is gone and the bank has repossessed the house that is only fit for demolition.
Had the original engineer been contractually responsible to an independent authority this wouldn't not have been able to happen.

Also my argument that we pay fees to the planning authority and get very little in return, with the present government going to reduce that even further. I feel that these monies should at least ensure planning compliance and adherence to the construction regulations.
Licencing of contractors is something else that needs to be done some thing like ECSSA or RECI or RGI. Allowing someone to buy a van and trailer and set up a construction business is lunacy by registering and licencing building contractors the homeowner would be protected, it would insure tax compliance and allow an individual or company to be sanctioned where poor work or non compliance to the regulations was proven.

It must also be borne in mind that all the parties involved in a build should share the cost of compliance as it is in their interest to do so and asking only one party to carry this cost is unfair.

My rant.............

Highlighted text is in my view the problem
Someone was prepared to ''sign off'' on buildings with defects.

the contributions here have concentrated on the ''Fees'' required to comply with the proposed new Reg's, but ignores the elephant in the room, who took the Fee's on the problem builds, who signed off on ''The Apartment Block, we cannot discuss'' stop blaming thr L\A if an Architect/Surveyor/Technician signed off on the build. Stop blaming the Developer, who fled to UK for bankrupsy, someone took a Fee and signed a Cert, weasel words like '' visual inspection only'' and ''Opinion'' rather than Cert, is what these new Reg's are designed to eliminate, perhaps over the top, but do you deserve, it in my opinion yes.
If you were going to certify a building and commit a purchaser to a 35 yr mortgage, you should have actually inspected the build, and charged an appropriate Fee, or walked away.

So back to my question, any ''about to become a builder ''out there? what do you think of the Fee's as suggestered here?

muffler

martinn123 wrote: »

If you were going to certify a building and commit a purchaser to a 35 yr mortgage

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. No certifier/professional committed anyone to a mortgage. Can you give me one example please where someone was ordered to take out a mortgage by an engineer/architect/technician? Making a statement like that is a bit like blaming an undertaker for peoples deaths

martinn123 wrote: »

you should have actually inspected the build, and charged an appropriate Fee, or walked away.

You're burying your head in the sand (again) and refusing to see or accept what has been posted umpteen different times now on this and other threads.

sinnerboy

martinn123 wrote: »

...the contributions here have concentrated on the ''Fees'' required to comply with the proposed new Reg's....
So back to my question, any ''about to become a builder ''out there? what do you think of the Fee's as suggestered here?

Feeling a little confused Martin ? . Try to stick to your own point.

martinn123

muffler wrote: »

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. No certifier/professional committed anyone to a mortgage. Can you give me one example please where someone was ordered to take out a mortgage by an engineer/architect/technician? Making a statement like that is a bit like blaming an undertaker for peoples deaths

Well your choice of words '' was ordered to take out a mortgage '' makes a reasonable reply impossible, I can't supply an example, to meet your question. ( there's an opportunity for you to selectively quote )
I can however point to to the situation on North Dublin, we cannot name,
bankers chasing bonus's, valuers chasing fees, solicitors chasing fees, and Architects etc, chasing fees, colluded to to trap apartment purchasers into 35 yr Mortgages.
OK no one held a gun to their head, but all the Professionals above failed in their duty, to protect customers from rogue developers.
i know you do not like it, but Certifyers were part of a system, for which many people will be paying for a lifetime.

You're burying your head in the sand (again) and refusing to see or accept what has been posted umpteen different times now on this and other threads.

I would suggest it is you and others who are burying your head in the sand, I have stated before the '' cert'' or as you prefer to call it ''opinion'' is a devalued currency, probably never to be trusted again, without the root and branch reforms the new Reg's will bring about, meantime you sit on the fence and complain, or blame someone else, the L/A's, planners,developers, valuers, ALL of whom share responsibility for the mess.

sinnerboy wrote:

Feeling a little confused Martin ? . Try to stick to your own point.

confused, me, no, you might not have noticed, but I was commenting on a post, it's not my job to keep the thread on topic.

why do you think my name is Martin??

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

...it's not my job to keep the thread on topic.

Speaking of which, the thread is straying a bit.

The old chestnut about Building Control, Supervision and Certification is tiresome at this stage, and you are right everyone will find someone else to blame, and like everyone else here I am sick of that particular attitude.

I suggest that it is a very small percentage of rogue Developers/Certifiers/Bankers/Solicitors that caused 90% of the crapstorm that we are all left with now.

The question really is what would a 'normal' one-off house owner/builder be willing to pay for full supervision leading to full certification of the building, whether it is to be paid to the private sector or to Building Control?

stock>

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Speaking of which, the thread is straying a bit.

The old chestnut about Building Control, Supervision and Certification is tiresome at this stage, and you are right everyone will find someone else to blame, and like everyone else here I am sick of that particular attitude.

I suggest that it is a very small percentage of rogue Developers/Certifiers/Bankers/Solicitors that caused 90% of the crapstorm that we are all left with now.

The question really is what would a 'normal' one-off house owner/builder be willing to pay for full supervision leading to full certification of the building, whether it is to be paid to the private sector or to Building Control?

Having been involved in construction for over 20 yrs my experience shows that those who got in to the business of construction to make money did so; at whatever method it took, from the safety of their employees to cheap materials of lesser specification, I saw "so called block layers that I wouldn't put building manholes.

As for fees with septic tank inspections looking at costing upto €1000 and this being borne by the water authority,compliance inspections are not going to be cheap if only one party has to bear the cost. As I said earlier all parties banks, planning authority and home owner/ developer must share the cost.

Would it be fairer to put a rate on the total floor area with loading for additional floors? maybe €10/m2 for a single storey with and additional €2/m2 for every additional floor. These are figures I pulled from the air.
These charges and the appointment of the overseeing engineer must not be in the power of the party that has commissioned the project...............................

martinn123

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

The question really is what would a 'normal' one-off house owner/builder be willing to pay for full supervision leading to full certification of the building, whether it is to be paid to the private sector or to Building Control?

Thank you PUT, sum's mentioned are 10-15K, for a Full On Supervision, and Certification.
I think thats a bit high, but as I have said I have no problem with fees reflecting time etc,

having built two houses, I got a great service, with weekly/ or monthly, depending on progress, site visits, from my Arch, liasing with the various trades, for a lot less than this, my last build took 12 months.

Poor Uncle Tom

martinn123 wrote: »

I got a great service, with weekly/ or monthly, depending on progress, site visits, from my Arch, liasing with the various trades, for a lot less than this, my last build took 12 months.

Yes, I'm sure you did, but with weekly/monthly site visits the Arch cannot sign for full supervision, or if they do they are leaving themselves open to potential litigation.

Just think about it for a minute.
If you fit 15 windows in a house and the supervising Arch sees you fit one window and leaves the site. On one of the windows, lets say, the vDPC slips back into the cavity unbeknownst to you and the plasterer sets the reveals in place. The house is ultimately signed off (under the proposed regs) and the following winter a large damp stain appears on the inside wall. If the homeowner gets a professional in and finds the fault, fixes it and makes good the finish. Who reimburses the homeowner the €900 bill? Based on the signed cert we know who pays it, but is that right?

muffler

martinn123 wrote: »

meantime you sit on the fence and complain, or blame someone else, the L/A's, planners,developers, valuers, ALL of whom share responsibility for the mess.

I never "sat on the fence" in my life and I certainly have no intention of starting now. I have always taken responsibility for my own actions but what I wont do is take responsibility for the actions of someone else like different conservatory and window suppliers and fitters I have encountered over the years who made a cock up of work and couldnt be found again.

So yes, a lot of people need to take a hard look at their own poor standards.

Will23

back to the original question - would you pay these fees?

the construction contract is between the client/employer and the contractor.

the designer will have produced a set of drawings to whatever detail the employer/client paid him/her for (the design - the bit we actually do...).

he/she then can provide a service beyond this. it is a defined service and the client can pay him/her whatever is agreed for that service, but in the end the contract is between you and the contractor for the build part of the process.

if he/she is giving an opinion the cost will remain as it always was... status quo remains...

if you want certification in compliance with the new draft regs costs will increase substantially. to what figure costs increase is just a guess but they will increase significantly.

a simple example is that the certifier will be responsible for the manufacture of the windows, the manufacture of the boiler, the manufacture of the solar panels, etc... you name it. what the public wants is certification akin to that of a motor vehicle... if this is to be provided then the maker/builder of that product should supply the certificate, i.e. the contractor/builder/manufacturer...

we (architects, etc) have no problem certifying the design (the bit we are responsible for) it is the construction/manufacture stage that is the issue here... if we are to take responsibility for this stage, we must be constantly part of it, and get paid for this additional service.

Will.

stock>

Here something to ponder...........

Do we make contract /construction managers responsible for this compliance certification?
To achieve this do we require all persons in this role to undergo training similar to the PSCS/PSDP and have them carry insurance as part of this certification....................

germack3

The system of enforcing building regulations should be taken from the American system. The contractor is given a building permit which is displayed at all times in full view of the passing public, if not the job is illegal, at certain points in the construction a building inspector qualified in the particular trades comes to inspects the works and signs it off, at the request of the builder. If the works to be inspected is not visible it is made visible at the cost of the builder. during first fix and another inspection following second fixing. these are carried out in order, so one inspector does not sign off if the previous inspector hasn't sign off, this cost is carried by the contractor who pays a percentage to the inspection dept. this means that the works are monitored by varies qualified trades and no one inspector can be paid off with out been caught.

martinn123

germack3 wrote: »

The system of enforcing building regulations should be taken from the American system. The contractor is given a building permit which is displayed at all times in full view of the passing public, if not the job is illegal, at certain points in the construction a building inspector qualified in the particular trades comes to inspects the works and signs it off, at the request of the builder. If the works to be inspected is not visible it is made visible at the cost of the builder. during first fix and another inspection following second fixing. these are carried out in order, so one inspector does not sign off if the previous inspector hasn't sign off, this cost is carried by the contractor who pays a percentage to the inspection dept. this means that the works are monitored by varies qualified trades and no one inspector can be paid off with out been caught.

Sounds very sensible, and not terribly costly.

Numerous posts here have suggested supervision would have to be Daily, and costs of up to 15K have been put forward.
Have you any ideas on the costs, of the system above, apart from the works covered up scenario, say of a one off house.
It would seem to me the system you suggest could be monitored, and certified, for a few grand, and no more.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

Sounds very sensible, and not terribly costly.

Numerous posts here have suggested supervision would have to be Daily, and costs of up to 15K have been put forward.
Have you any ideas on the costs, of the system above, apart from the works covered up scenario, say of a one off house.
It would seem to me the system you suggest could be monitored, and certified, for a few grand, and no more.

the system being announced above is a 'government personnel' enforcement system.

all of us here have been calling for a proper local authority enforcement system, and not the system as is being drafted.

its completely pointless knowing what that system costs because it bears NO RESEMBLANCE to the inspection system that these amendment to the regulations is creating.......