Priory Hall Mk2 "The Laurels"

MadsL

Residents of 68 apartments in Dundrum in Dublin will be forced to move out of their homes for up to three months after the building was found to be in breach of building and fire regulations.

The 80 apartments at The Laurels, near Dundrum Town Centre, are in receivership and 68 are occupied by renting tenants. They are under control of the receiver to Tuskar Asset Management, Kieran Wallace of KPMG.

When are we going to see root and branch radical reform of the obviously incompetent Local Authorities? Is there any hope of this now happening after the planning investigation whitewash?

markpb

MadsL wrote: »

When are we going to see root and branch radical reform of the obviously incompetent Local Authorities?

It's a matter of national legislation that local authorities have no role to play in the inspection of homes under construction. That's obviously totally wrong and immoral but it's down to the government, not the local authorities.

MadsL

markpb wrote: »

It's a matter of national legislation that local authorities have no role to play in the inspection of homes under construction. That's obviously totally wrong and immoral but it's down to the government, not the local authorities.

And what changes have we seen proposed to prevent this from happening again and again?

Incidentally are there no annual fire safety inspections carried out by the local council in a apartment complex like this?

markpb

MadsL wrote: »

And what changes have we seen proposed to prevent this from happening again and again?

Draft Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Incidentally are there no annual fire safety inspections carried out by the local council in a apartment complex like this?

Nope. The local authorities never inspect buildings, not when they're being built, not after. They have no legal powers to do so.

MadsL

They have no legal powers to do so.

Really?

Power of examination, investigation and survey.

6.—A planning authority and the Board shall each have all such powers of examination, investigation and survey as may be necessary for the performance of their functions in relation to this Act or to any other Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0030/print.html

markpb

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0030/print.html

Fair enough, I was under the impression that they didn't. I wonder though what the scope of the words "for the performance of their functions in relation to this Act" are, perhaps there's a reason why they don't. IIRC Dublin Corporation was the only local authority to inspect building sites (over two decades ago) but stopped when the country moved to self-certification.

Cost was a concern, no doubt but obviously that didn't pay off in the long term now that they're footing the bills for Tom McFeeleys schenanigans.

MadsL

Incidentally http://www.tusker.ie/

edit: Are no relationship to Tuskar Asset Management

NIMAN

Feel so sorry for people caught up in this sort of stuff.

Sitting on big mortgages and now being told your home is a danger.

You'd hope when you buy a house that the relevant authorities and people in positions of responsibility would do their jobs.

Hope it all works out for them.

MadsL

As all these apartments are rented, it is more likely the big circle of "property investment" will swallow this up.

Tusker doubtless still own a few of these. Along with a few of our favourite defaulting 'property investors'. Pierce Construction who actually build these are also bellyup.

K-9

MadsL wrote: »

Incidentally http://www.tusker.ie/

This was of no suprise to me to learn they were based in Castleblayney.

That's Tusker Construction not Tuskar Asset Management referred to in your OP. Do you have a link for the OP?

Sponge Bob

Tuskar asset management are different. I think they were a syndicate. The Fraud Squad have taken an interest in aspects of Tuskars business, see

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0515/1224316128820.html
Pierce Construction ALSO BUILT the following!

Bray Town Centre (Wicklow)

Carrickmines Manor (Glenamuck Road, Dublin)

Collaire Court(Callan, Kilkenny)

Eden, Residential Development(Blackrock, Cork)

Gallery Quay Apartments(Dublin)

Marrsfield(Clongriffin)

Santry Cross Hotel and Apartment Development(Dublin)

Shearwater(Kinsale, Co Cork)

Silverglen, (Mountmellick, Co Laois),

Swords Central(Dublin)

The Greens(Thomastown, Kilkenny)

UCD Student Accommodation (1800 student bedrooms, Dublin)

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

When are we going to see root and branch radical reform of the obviously incompetent Local Authorities? Is there any hope of this now happening after the planning investigation whitewash?

More proof of greed from Private Sector builders, architects etc yeah yeah, sure it will be grand. Heres your certificate of compliance with building regulations, now where my cash!!!!!!!!!!!

NIMAN wrote: »

You'd hope when you buy a house that the relevant authorities and people in positions of responsibility would do their jobs.

The people who bought these homes were let down by the greed of the builder cutting corners, the greed of the architects/engineers signing off construction developments that were obviously not in compliance with building or planning regulations and then they were let down by the surveyor that you must engage to survey the property for the mortgage company.

At no stage did they home owner require the services of the Local authorithy as all building work is self certified by private sector engineers and private sector architects.

The law should be changed to bring back what the UK still do and have a council employee inspect each development site at key stages in construction.

MadsL

K-9 wrote: »

That's Tusker Construction not Tuskar Asset Management referred to in your OP. Do you have a link for the OP?

Apologies. And retracted.

However it seems this was a whole caravan of amateur-hour 'pension' investments and optimistic loans.

THREE INVESTORS in Wexford based companies involved in purchasing and developing land for investment have told the High Court the companies have € 18 million excess of liabilities over assets and, unless they secure court protection, are in imminent danger of liquidation.

The petitioners, John Power, James Boggan and Liam Eviston, all with addresses in Co. Wexford, are seeking the appointment of an examiner to Tuskar Asset Management PLC – with offices at John's Gate Street, Wexford – and five related companies.

http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/three-investors-seek-high-court-protection-1499986.html
Wednesday October 15 2008


(21 Sept 2009) Irish Times ;

“Solicitors ordered to repay €3m loan to AIB

A FIRM OF solicitors has been ordered by the High Court to repay a loan of €3 million plus interest to Allied Irish Banks (AIB) after it failed to comply with undertakings given when the loan was made by the bank to one of its clients.

In a case that will have implications for future cases and for the professional indemnity insurance of all solicitors, Mr Justice Michael Peart found that the solicitors were liable for the full amount of the loan, obtained on a property valued at €3.9 million in May 2007 and now considered to be worth no more than €620,000.

The Co Wexford property at the centre of the case, known as Moongate, was owned at the time by a syndicate, with a mortgage of €2.2 million from Anglo Irish Bank.

Two members of the syndicate, accountant Alan Hynes and his wife Noreen, sought to buy the property and borrowed €3 million from the local branch of Allied Irish Bank, where they were well known. The bank accepted a valuation of €3.9 million from CBRE.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0515/1224316128820.html

THE GARDA fraud squad has sought information regarding the activities of Alan Hynes, a director of collapsed property investment company Tuskar Asset Management.

In the commercial court yesterday, a representative of the liquidator of a number of Tuskar-related companies told Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan that the Garda fraud squad was seeking the release of documents relating to the case. It is expected these will then be passed on to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) .

Sponge Bob

Look it doesn't matter if the thing was financed by a pool of banks and dentists and doctors fronted by a scammer of an accountant, ( it was).

What matters is how many more of these substandard apartment blocks have not yet been 'discovered'. The problems with this one in Dundrum were seemingly found by accident.

MadsL

What matters is how many more of these substandard apartment blocks have not yet been 'discovered'. The problems with this one in Dundrum were seemingly found by accident.

and this

Draft Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Doesn't solve the issue of Local Authorities not taking responsibility for ensuring multi-occupancy units are up to code.

Sponge Bob

Here are some more buiilt by Pierce Construction. Are they being inspected??

Bray Town Centre (Wicklow)

Carrickmines Manor (Glenamuck Road, Dublin)

Collaire Court(Callan, Kilkenny)

Eden, Residential Development(Blackrock, Cork)

Gallery Quay Apartments(Dublin)

Marrsfield(Clongriffin)

Santry Cross Hotel and Apartment Development(Dublin)

Shearwater(Kinsale, Co Cork)

Silverglen, (Mountmellick, Co Laois),

Swords Central(Dublin)

The Greens(Thomastown, Kilkenny)

UCD Student Accommodation (1800 student bedrooms, Dublin)

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

and this

Draft Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Doesn't solve the issue of Local Authorities not taking responsibility for ensuring multi-occupancy units are up to code.

I dont know why you keep highlighting that Local Authorities dont take responsibility for ensuring multi-occupancy units are up to code? They cant, its like buying a car, its up to the buyer to ensure everything is ok, and thats why architects and engineers are paid for their inspections of the constructio of these developments. Also why you keep bringing up multi-occupancy units is irrelevant, as LA's will also have to inspect single-occupancy units too.

K-9

kceire wrote: »

I dont know why you keep highlighting that Local Authorities dont take responsibility for ensuring multi-occupancy units are up to code? They cant, its like buying a car, its up to the buyer to ensure everything is ok, and thats why architects and engineers are paid for their inspections of the constructio of these developments. Also why you keep bringing up multi-occupancy units is irrelevant, as LA's will also have to inspect single-occupancy units too.

I'd say it is more they aren't willing to. Northern Ireland would have a much stricter inspection code.

MadsL

kceire wrote: »

I dont know why you keep highlighting that Local Authorities dont take responsibility for ensuring multi-occupancy units are up to code? They cant, its like buying a car, its up to the buyer to ensure everything is ok, and thats why architects and engineers are paid for their inspections of the constructio of these developments.

Funny you should bring up a car, don't we have two mechanisms to control car safety. One, a certificate of conformity for new cars to ensure safe design has been adhered to, and an ongoing inspection regime (the NCT) to ensure ongoing safety. Funny how our homes are not deemed worthy to be inspected as safe.

Also why you keep bringing up multi-occupancy units is irrelevant, as LA's will also have to inspect single-occupancy units too

Which is more likely to lead to multiple loss of life, a semi-detached house fire, or a fire in a multistory block of apartments?

Single houses can remedy fire escape issues easily, owners and tenants in a multistory block cannot easily do so.

kceire wrote: »

thats why architects and engineers are paid for their inspections of the constructio of these developments.

Do you believe that system is working? If so, when was the last prosecution and expulsion?

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

Funny how our homes are not deemed worthy to be inspected as safe.

but you fail to admit that our homes are inspected and deemed safe by the architects or engineers that certified the property as safe, structually sound and in compliance with building regs, planning regs etc etc These professionals employed by the builder and also the surveyor employed by the home buyer during the purchase process, they should should pick up these faults but they didnt because they rushed through job A, inoreder to get to job B as quickly as possible.

Now if these checks are overlooked or ignored by the architect/engineer then we have a problem as the building has slipped through the gaps.

MadsL wrote: »

Which is more likely to lead to multiple loss of life, a semi-detached house fire, or a fire in a multistory block of apartments?

Single houses can remedy fire escape issues easily, owners and tenants in a multistory block cannot easily do so.

shouldnt matter, each building shoule be inspected, and certified properly, whether that by the architects/engineers or indeed if a law cahnge is required, the LA.

MadsL wrote: »

Do you believe that system is working? If so, when was the last prosecution and expulsion?

The system most likely worked on a high proportion of developments. Unfortunely (sp), some developments will slip through due to greedy builders, greedy architects and engineers.

I personally believe self certification should be done in conjunction with LA's, and LA's inspect sites at key stages and obtain photographic proof that such and such material was used etc

MadsL

You missed my the last part question- Do you believe that system is working? If so, when was the last prosecution and expulsion?

I firmly believe that an entire generation of development will continue have problem of this nature, and issues with sub-standard construction. Truly independent inspection is the only way to fix this.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

I firmly believe that an entire generation of development will continue have problem of this nature, and issues with sub-standard construction. Truly independent inspection is the only way to fix this.

Yeah and generations of ministers like gormley and roche were equally sanguine about it.

What do you mean by "independent" anyway??

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

I firmly believe that an entire generation of development will continue have problem of this nature, and issues with sub-standard construction. Truly independent inspection is the only way to fix this.

How do you propose to act on this?
Do you want LA's to inspect developments or independant architects / engineers?

MadsL

kceire wrote: »

How do you propose to act on this?
Do you want LA's to inspect developments or independant architects / engineers?

I think we probably need separation from LA Planning and the developer. Both are open to corruption as we have seen in recent years. In the case of multi-unit developments I'd suggest a independent audit/inspection regime be created.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

I think we probably need separation from LA Planning and the developer. Both are open to corruption as we have seen in recent years. In the case of multi-unit developments I'd suggest a independent audit/inspection regime be created.

Run and staffed by who exactly and then answerable to who once you have done that much???

Retroactive powers or not??

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Run and staffed by who exactly and then answerable to who once you have done that much???

Retroactive powers or not??

Construction professionals.
Answerable to the LA in the first instance, but supervised and audited by the DoE.
Retroactive powers in the same way that any planning deviation can lead to planning enforcement. I'd like to see the 7 year rule dropped in cases where human life is compromised.

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

I think we probably need separation from LA Planning and the developer. Both are open to corruption as we have seen in recent years. In the case of multi-unit developments I'd suggest a independent audit/inspection regime be created.

I don't think the corruption is at LA level. I think your getting it mixed up with ministers. I haven't heard of any corruption court cases from a LA in recent years, have you a link to back that up?

MadsL

kceire wrote: »

I don't think the corruption is at LA level. I think your getting it mixed up with ministers.

How about the Mahon Tribunal and the (whitewashed) planning inquiries. An Taisce submitted a dossier listing the highly questionable planning decisions made in high-value developments.

FG whitewashed it as a numbers game - X thousand applications made and X appeals upheld by ABP, completely ignoring the difference between a planning application made for a house extension and one made for a multi-million euro development.

I haven't heard of any corruption court cases from a LA in recent years, have you a link to back that up?

Where have you been?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0519/1224316358542.html

Now I know that you will say that is the councillors not the officials - but my point is that officials are potentially exposed to corruption - an independent inspection body would prevent that.

MadsL

have you a link to back that up?

Dossier on questionable planning decisions, many breaching the development plan for Dublin.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,30481,en.pdf

gurramok

How many more developments have there been whereby they were selfcerted on the fire front? Its two so far, tip of the iceberg imho.
This issue(along with pyrite) is a warning sign for any buyer of bubble property. Buyer beware.

Paulzx

We've done the inspection of new buildings during construction in a previous thread here.

The LA are not legally responsible for inspections during construction. It's crazy and i don't in any way agree with it but thats the law.

Blaming the LA for all the fire safety issues in these new builds is incorrect.

The OP poses a different question on this thread.

What ongoing or periodic inspections are required to be carried out in inhabited dwellings by the Fire Authority?

My understanding is there is no requirement to do this on any specific timescale. If an issue is brought to their attention they do however have the power to do this

22.—(1) In this section “authorised person” means a person authorised for the purposes of this section by a fire authority.


(2) Any authorised person shall be entitled to enter at all reasonable times (subject to his producing, if so required, his authority in writing as such person) and inspect any land or building (other than a dwelling house occupied as a single dwelling) for the purposes of this Act.


(3) Any authorised person may—


(a) inspect any water supply in a building or on any land;


(b) inspect all records required to be kept by a fire safety notice or by regulations;


(c) require to be informed by the owner or occupier of any land or building or by any person in his employment as to the purpose for which the land or building or any particular part thereof is used, the number of persons who are habitually employed or accommodated therein or resort thereto, the substance of which any building is made and the method of its construction and any other matter which the authorised person considers to be relevant.


(4) A fire authority may by notice in writing require the owner or occupier of land or a building to provide the authority, within such period as it may specify, with such plans (including line or simple dimensional drawings) of the land or building, and with such information in writing as it may require and it shall be the duty of the owner or occupier to comply with the notice.


(5) An authorised person shall be entitled in the exercise of his powers under this section to take with him on to land or into a building such persons and equipment as he considers necessary to assist him and to examine and test any ventilation, heating, power or lighting system and any materials or substances used, stored or deposited on the land or in the building and to take samples for the purpose of testing any such materials or substances.


(6) Any person who—


(a) refuses to allow an authorised person to enter any land or building or to take any person or equipment with him in the exercise of his power under this section, or


(b) obstructs or impedes an authorised person in the exercise of any of the powers conferred on him by this section, or


(c) fails or refuses to give to an authorised person on demand or to the fire authority pursuant to a notice in writing any plan or information which he or the authority is entitled to require under this section, or


(d) wilfully or recklessly gives to an authorised person or a fire authority information which is false or misleading in a material respect, or


(e) fails to comply with any requirement of this section,


shall be guilty of an offence.


(7) Where an authorised person is refused entry to land or a building in the exercise of his powers under this section the fire authority may apply to the District Court for a warrant authorising such entry.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1981/en/act/pub/0030/sec0022.html#sec22


It is important to note however, contrary to what has been said by a previous post in this thread, that the Authorised person has no right whatsoever to enter a single dwelling. His powers extend only to multi occupancy dwellings under the legislation.


So to sum up.

Does the LA authority have a power to enter an apartment block for the purpose of a fire safety inspection?...........Yes

Does the LA have a legal obligation to do this periodically?..........Nothing in the legislation.

Does the LA have the power to enter a single dwelling?..............No

Head The Wall

Lets not forget that the council also owned a lot of apartments in priory hall. Where was their own due diligence when purchasing their properties?

Vizzy

Head The Wall wrote: »

Lets not forget that the council also owned a lot of apartments in priory hall. Where was their own due diligence when purchasing their properties?

Thats a very good question.

IMO whatever Engineer/Architect in the LA signed off on these should geta serious ass kicking(should be sued by right) as should the private "professionals" that signed off on the rest of the houses.

Gumbo

Vizzy wrote: »

Thats a very good question.

IMO whatever Engineer/Architect in the LA signed off on these should geta serious ass kicking(should be sued by right) as should the private "professionals" that signed off on the rest of the houses.

No LA architect or engineer signed off on any of these plans. They were signed off by private sector acrhitects and engineers, whose PI insurance should be chased for payment.

MadsL wrote: »

How about the Mahon Tribunal and the (whitewashed) planning inquiries. An Taisce submitted a dossier listing the highly questionable planning decisions made in high-value developments.

FG whitewashed it as a numbers game - X thousand applications made and X appeals upheld by ABP, completely ignoring the difference between a planning application made for a house extension and one made for a multi-million euro development.



Where have you been?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0519/1224316358542.html

Now I know that you will say that is the councillors not the officials - but my point is that officials are potentially exposed to corruption - an independent inspection body would prevent that.

With all due respect, your hatred for LA's is blinding you to the facts. Its the policital end thats open to corruption, not the LA staff, ie. planners, site inspectors etc

While i agree that self certification should be stopped, as posted on this thread and the other Priory Hall thread.

MadsL

kceire wrote: »

With all due respect, your hatred for LA's is blinding you to the facts. Its the policital end thats open to corruption, not the LA staff, ie. planners, site inspectors etc

Hatred? I feel the LA's should be fully investigated and that this has been whitewashed, but hatred is a bit strong don't you think? Are you absolutely sure that no planner or city/county manager has ever taken a bung?

Incidentally, don't you think your defence of LAs might be a bit compromised by the fact you work for one?

Sponge Bob

I dunno what your point is Madsl, the people who inspect buildings on behalf of LAs ARE the Construction Professionals you want to inspect these buildings.

Do you want Construction Professionals to inspect the Construction Professionals ...is that it????

MadsL

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I dunno what your point is Madsl, the people who inspect buildings on behalf of LAs ARE the Construction Professionals you want to inspect these buildings.

Do you want Construction Professionals to inspect the Construction Professionals ...is that it????

Do accountants audit accountants? Independent audits show up failings; the problem is we have no-one truly independent in the process as it stands right now. Self-certification is a joke without serious penalties for fraudulent sign-off and random independent inspection (if we fall short of full independent inspection).

Not sure why people here seem to have a problem with that concept.

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

Hatred? I feel the LA's should be fully investigated and that this has been whitewashed, but hatred is a bit strong don't you think? Are you absolutely sure that no planner or city/county manager has ever taken a bung?

Hatred because evry post you post, is to blame an LA, when the LA have done nothing wrong here, thats why i assume the hatred. My apolagies if im wrong. On the corruption thing, yes im sure. Have you any proof that an LA employee did take a bribe as your the one that posted that there was corruption at LA level where i said it wasnt at LA level but at councillor/TD level

MadsL wrote: »

Incidentally, don't you think your defence of LAs might be a bit compromised by the fact you work for one?

Not really, as im only a newcomer to the LA and work nowhere near that side of the operation, but i did spend 10 years in private practice (Consulting Engineers) submitting plannine, fire cert applications, site inspection and signing off on projects so i know the the process involved which joe Soap doesnt.

MadsL wrote: »

Self-certification is a joke without serious penalties for fraudulent sign-off and random independent inspection (if we fall short of full independent inspection).

I agree, i would like to see LA interaction at every level, like the UK system. I believe LA inspectors should be there at key stages, foundation cutting, wall plate, roof, etc etc to see exactly what is going into the building and of course to photograph it for the file should evidence ever be required

MadsL wrote: »

Not sure why people here seem to have a problem with that concept.

because the manner of your posts are blaming the LA, which people have pulled you up on explaining that the direction of your anger is poninting the wrong way. Its not the LA at fault here, its the system, and that needs to be changed at government/legal level.

Sponge Bob

MadsL wrote: »

Do accountants audit accountants? Independent audits show up failings; the problem is we have no-one truly independent in the process as it stands right now.

That would be yes yes and yes. However you made an observation and did not propose a solution of any sort did you???

Kceire wrote:

Hatred because evry post you post, is to blame an LA, when the LA have done nothing wrong here, thats why i assume the hatred.

I'd be inclined to agree the LA has done nothing wrong ...seeing as the inspection framework is grossly inadequate.

I'd transfer the inspection regime for multi unit dwellings to the NSAI myself.

The LA has a poacher/gamekeeper issue, taking contributions for planning and then enforcing planning and standards both _against_ their valuable customers the developers.

Sadly as it means Phil Hogans lot handing off to Richard Brutons lot I fear it will not happen.

MadsL

kceire wrote: »

Hatred because evry post you post, is to blame an LA, when the LA have done nothing wrong here, thats why i assume the hatred. My apolagies if im wrong.

Every post? I maintain that DCC should have spotted the problems with Priory Hall and were negligent not to do so. I also believe that LAs (and fire brigades) should have been conducting spot checks as part of their remit to ensure public safety.

On the corruption thing, yes im sure. Have you any proof that an LA employee did take a bribe as your the one that posted that there was corruption at LA level where i said it wasnt at LA level but at councillor/TD level

Ahem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Redmond

Not really, as im only a newcomer to the LA and work nowhere near that side of the operation, but i did spend 10 years in private practice (Consulting Engineers) submitting plannine, fire cert applications, site inspection and signing off on projects so i know the the process involved which joe Soap doesnt.

What concerns me most of all is planners not signing off that projects are completed as submitted in the plans and the failure to inspect.

I agree, i would like to see LA interaction at every level, like the UK system. I believe LA inspectors should be there at key stages, foundation cutting, wall plate, roof, etc etc to see exactly what is going into the building and of course to photograph it for the file should evidence ever be required

I agree with that, I'm baffled that now that we have planners doing sweet FA as there is a recession, they could not be out checking up on the work that was done in the greed boom times.

because the manner of your posts are blaming the LA, which people have pulled you up on explaining that the direction of your anger is poninting the wrong way. Its not the LA at fault here, its the system, and that needs to be changed at government/legal level.

I still maintain that (as above) the LAs had a public safety remit which they failed to carry out through spot inspections after the architect signed off.

Sponge Bob wrote:

I'd transfer the inspection regime for multi unit dwellings to the NSAI myself.

I wouldn't trust that shower either. They issued Agrément Certificates for peat-filter septic tanks made by Bord na Mona which were claimed to be bio-digesters and meeting the EU standards. They don't work. They are a third of the price of the actually working commercially available bio-digesters. One hand washes the other.

Vizzy

MadsL wrote: »

I agree with that, I'm baffled that now that we have planners doing sweet FA as there is a recession, they could not be out checking up on the work that was done in the greed boom times.



I still maintain that (as above) the LAs had a public safety remit which they failed to carry out through spot inspections after the architect signed off.



I wouldn't trust that shower either. They issued Agrément Certificates for peat-filter septic tanks made by Bord na Mona which were claimed to be bio-digesters and meeting the EU standards. They don't work. They are a third of the price of the actually working commercially available bio-digesters. One hand washes the other.

Given your distrust for the LA (particularly planners),the Architects who submit plans and the RIAI,what professionals would you suggest should sign off on these developments given that it was professionals signing off on both this development and Priory Hall that caused the problem in the first place?
As kceire and a number of other posters have pointed out,there is not an obligation on the LA to carry out the required inspection,even though it is agreed by nearly everyone that they shold carry out these inspections.But then it was the professionals(i.e RIAI and construction industry) that lobbied the government to introduce self regulation.
.

MadsL

Vizzy wrote: »

Given your distrust for the LA (particularly planners),the Architects who submit plans and the RIAI,what professionals would you suggest should sign off on these developments given that it was professionals signing off on both this development and Priory Hall that caused the problem in the first place?

Professionals directly answerable to the DoE as independent contractors. They system is at fault not the individuals - I do not doubt that many sign-off were done with a vague kind of "you'll never work in this town again" feeling if objections were raised. Sure, they never check after all.

Vizzy wrote: »

As kceire and a number of other posters have pointed out,there is not an obligation on the LA to carry out the required inspection,even though it is agreed by nearly everyone that they shold carry out these inspections.But then it was the professionals(i.e RIAI and construction industry) that lobbied the government to introduce self regulation.
.

Do the LA have a duty of care with regard for public safety?

Vizzy

MadsL wrote: »

Do the LA have a duty of care with regard for public safety?

They certainly do !
But no more so than the architect/civil engineer etc to whom I have paid money to certify that my house or flat is not full of pyrite or is not a fire hazard.

MadsL

Vizzy wrote: »

They certainly do !
But no more so than the architect/civil engineer etc to whom I have paid money to certify that my house or flat is not full of pyrite or is not a fire hazard.

In the case of Priory Hall - how do you feel about the fact the LA failed to spot the issues despite purchasing several apartments?

To return to my earlier question, how many architect/civil engineers have been struck off/prosecuted over this?

Vizzy

MadsL wrote: »

In the case of Priory Hall - how do you feel about the fact the LA failed to spot the issues despite purchasing several apartments?

To return to my earlier question, how many architect/civil engineers have been struck off/prosecuted over this?

Vizzy wrote: »

Thats a very good question.

IMO whatever Engineer/Architect in the LA signed off on these should geta serious ass kicking(should be sued by right) as should the private "professionals" that signed off on the rest of the houses.

This is how I feel about the LA units in Priory Hall(although kceire contends that no local authority architect or engineer signed off on them but I suspect that he may have misunderstood my post)

You are correct that nobody(at least I have not heard of any) from the "professional" ranks has been struck off.
But will this improve at all if your so called independent inspectors are used because,after all,how independent are they.What would stop the principal officer of the DOEHLG appointing his brother the architect to head up these inspections?

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

Every post? I maintain that DCC should have spotted the problems with Priory Hall and were negligent not to do so. I also believe that LAs (and fire brigades) should have been conducting spot checks as part of their remit to ensure public safety.

But its not DCC's or any LA's job to do this. Why on earth were Private Sector Engineers and Architects employed to supervise the works and sign off on the project then???? Im sorry but you really have no understanding of the building process and until you do, then you cannot argue it.

MadsL wrote: »

Ahem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Redmond

yes ok, thats fair enough, but your original post claimed recent corruption, i wasnt aware you meant going back to the 60's-80's.

MadsL wrote: »

What concerns me most of all is planners not signing off that projects are completed as submitted in the plans and the failure to inspect.

A planner cannot sign off on a project as completed or in accordance with planning and building regulations, only the architects and engineers who designed the building can do that. FULL STOP.

MadsL wrote: »

I agree with that, I'm baffled that now that we have planners doing sweet FA as there is a recession, they could not be out checking up on the work that was done in the greed boom times.

You do know that not all planners deal with planning applications? Only a handful do. The others deal with city projects or regeneration projects such as Local Area Plans, Wayfinding Schemes, Dublinbikes etc

Also what right has a planner to enter my home that was built in 2006? A planner is planning qualified, most of them couldnt tell you whether theres 30min fire protection required or 60 min fire protection required, its not their job, and their not qualified to check/know that.

MadsL wrote: »

I still maintain that (as above) the LAs had a public safety remit which they failed to carry out through spot inspections after the architect signed off.

after the Architect signed off on the building, it was finished. What would you expect a planner to do.......go in there with a hammer and start hammering out holes to check for insulation thickness, fire proofing, structural integrity???????? Why would you do that when you have 2 certificates in front of you from a Private Sector Architect stating with their company name, PI insurance and sworn by the RIAI code that buildings are constructed in accordance with current Building and Planning Regulations?????

MadsL wrote: »

I wouldn't trust that shower either. They issued Agrément Certificates for peat-filter septic tanks made by Bord na Mona which were claimed to be bio-digesters and meeting the EU standards. They don't work. They are a third of the price of the actually working commercially available bio-digesters. One hand washes the other.

again, then if you dont trust anyone, who would you appoint?

MadsL wrote: »

Professionals directly answerable to the DoE as independent contractors. They system is at fault not the individuals - I do not doubt that many sign-off were done with a vague kind of "you'll never work in this town again" feeling if objections were raised. Sure, they never check after all.

Whats to stop these professionals not taking bribes? Sure these professionals would of been around during the boom, and probably signed off on some of the properties they are inspecting?
Also, answerable to the DoE, isint an LA answerable to the DoE?

Sponge Bob

kceire wrote: »

after the Architect signed off on the building, it was finished. What would you expect a planner to do.......go in there with a hammer and start hammering out holes to check for insulation thickness, fire proofing, structural integrity???????? Why would you do that when you have 2 certificates in front of you from a Private Sector Architect stating with their company name, PI insurance and sworn by the RIAI code that buildings are constructed in accordance with current Building and Planning Regulations?????

And entirely apart from the fact that the Planner is not qualifed to inspect what you describe..that would require an Engineer or an Architect or a QS perhaps.

I am disappointed the NSAI is utterly unacceptable to Madsl but sure I tried.

MadsL

How many architects have been sued or struck off under self-certification. how many 'architects' were not members of RIAI?

I think we are all under agreement that the system is broken.

hammering out holes to check for insulation thickness, fire proofing, structural integrity

If you think this is the only way to check a building for adherence to the submitted plans and spec, I do wonder at your understanding of the "process".

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

How many architects have been sued or struck off under self-certification. how many 'architects' were not members of RIAI?

and what does this figure have to do with your argument? Maybe check with the Garda or www.courts.ie ?

MadsL wrote: »

If you think this is the only way to check a building for adherence to the submitted plans and spec, I do wonder at your understanding of the "process".

see ya, im out. You can only bring the horse to the water...........

Edit : On a curious note, you explain to me how after a building is fully completed, signed off by the relevant architect/engineer etc, how you would go about checking that 60 min plasterboard was installed and not 30 min plasterboard without cutting a hole in any wall. or indeed, you tell me how to check that a 203 Universal Beam was used and not a 152 Universal Beam? The list goes on.........

MadsL

kceire wrote: »

Edit : On a curious note, you explain to me how after a building is fully completed, signed off by the relevant architect/engineer etc, how you would go about checking that 60 min plasterboard was installed and not 30 min plasterboard without cutting a hole in any wall. or indeed, you tell me how to check that a 203 Universal Beam was used and not a 152 Universal Beam? The list goes on.........

You might want to google "evidence-based auditing" - fairly easy to confirm materials used if you use your head. In your example I would ask to see invoices and delivery dockets against the relevant bill of quantities. More than one way to skin a cat.

Gumbo

MadsL wrote: »

You might want to google "evidence-based auditing" - fairly easy to confirm materials used if you use your head. In your example I would ask to see invoices and delivery dockets against the relevant bill of quantities. More than one way to skin a cat.

Even if i had all invoices and delivery dockets, i wouldnt put my name on a certificate to say that the materials are in the building, nor would i wisk my PI Insurance and anybody that would certifify a building in accordance with building regs and planning regs based on some invoices and delivery dockets would want to have their heads examined, professional qualification revolked and struck off the register!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just last week we had a delivery of 100M of electrical cable delivered to site in the city centre. It was for use in Dublin Zoo. I'd like to see somebody explain their certificate based on that !!!!!!!!!!111