Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

BryanF · 06-12-2013 4:09pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

CIF bryan

was just correcting my post ! to quick for me syd:D

DOCARCH · 06-12-2013 4:11pm

martinn123 wrote: »

Hm, someone has not been following this thread.

All I am trying to get across, in connection with the proposed regs, is that builders need to have the same standing and take the same resposibilities (and liabilities) as everybody else in the process...

...afterall its builders who build.

Nobody else.

sydthebeat · 06-12-2013 4:12pm

BryanF wrote: »

was just correcting my post ! to quick for me syd:D

it would throw it way of course if insulated concrete formwork was the bastion for builders :P

sydthebeat · 06-12-2013 4:14pm

DOCARCH wrote: »

All I am trying to get across, in connection with the proposed regs, is that builders need to have the same standing and take the same resposibilities (and liabilities) as everybody else in the process...

...afterall its builders who build. Nobody else.

maybe there are some builders out there are so used to having their hand held through a build that their scared to stand on their own feet? surely not though?

wirehairmax · 06-12-2013 4:33pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

maybe there are some builders out there are so used to having their hand held through a build that their scared to stand on their own feet? surely not though?

It's not builders who are bitching and moaning about the proposed amendments to the regs though. It's the architects who are worried now that they can't wriggle out of responsibility any more by stating that a certificate of compliance is useless as it's only their "opinion".
It's also architects who are making sure to highlight and flag the expected increase in fees that will surely ensue due to the extra "responsibility" placed upon them

sydthebeat · 06-12-2013 4:40pm

wirehairmax wrote: »

It's not builders who are bitching and moaning about the proposed amendments to the regs though.

did you miss the out cry earlier where some people think its their human right to build their own home? or the self builders who complain about having to engage a contractor? Its not just architects complaining.

edit: also.. most building contractors out there havent a bloody clue whats coming down the tracks.

wirehairmax wrote: »

It's the architects who are worried now that they can't wriggle out of responsibility any more by stating that a certificate of compliance is useless as it's only their "opinion".

but is it the architects (and lets not forget engineers and surveyors here) responsibility to ensure a building is built in accordance with regulations? why isnt it the builders responsibility? Architects design, they do not build.
yet they are expected to accept responsibility for ALL those that provide materials and services for building........ can you argue that thats fair and equitable?

oh and yes, of course extra services will incur extra costs. Thats basic economics. These extra services are being forced upon the consumer by a government abdicating their responsibility for inspection. So any ire over increased fees should be aimed squarely at minister Hogan.

4Sticks · 06-12-2013 5:10pm

wirehairmax wrote: »

It's not builders who are bitching and moaning about the proposed amendments to the regs though.

You would be happy to certify another persons works then i.e. be held soley legally responsible ?

4Sticks · 06-12-2013 5:20pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

some people think its their human right to build their own home?

I wonder do these same persons not realize that rights and responsibilities go hand in glove i.e. if one "asserts this right" In the context of the up coming regs

- this meaning the owner hiring direct labour is "the builder" and is then legally and indefinitely having "the builders" legally enforceable responsibilities and liabilities to all who may use and who may own the building.

Dwell on that .

martinn123 · 06-12-2013 5:24pm

4Sticks wrote: »

I wonder do these same persons not realize that rights and responsibilities go hand in glove i.e. if one "asserts this right" In the context of the up coming regs

- this meaning the owner hiring direct labour is "the builder" and is then legally and indefinitely having "the builders" legally enforceable responsibilities and liabilities to all who may use and who may own the building.

Dwell on that .

As opposed to the Current Position, where no one holds any responsibility, especially the so called ''Issuer of a Cert'' who is only expressing an opinion.

sydthebeat · 06-12-2013 5:29pm

martinn123 wrote: »

As opposed to the Current Position, where no one holds any responsibility, especially the so called ''Issuer of a Cert'' who is only expressing an opinion.

Everybody agrees the current status quo is not acceptable and is a reminant of a bygone era. Youre going over old ground there.

martinn123 · 06-12-2013 5:33pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

Everybody agrees the current status quo is not acceptable and is a reminant of a bygone era. Youre going over old ground there.

You have made one or two points, on this thread, multiple times and then some.

4Sticks · 06-12-2013 5:34pm

not helpful or relevant

4Sticks · 06-12-2013 5:36pm

martinn123 wrote: »

You have made one or two points, on this thread, multiple times and then some.

shame about a once good thread

agreed! but we don't need video

sydthebeat · 06-12-2013 5:38pm

martinn123 wrote: »

You have made one or two points, on this thread, multiple times and then some.

some things are worth repeating, other things not so much.....

BryanF · 06-12-2013 5:40pm

Gents that's enough!
Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

martinn123 · 06-12-2013 5:50pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

some things are worth repeating, other things not so much.....

Some things may be worth repeating, others require Legislation..............Buiding Control ( Amendement) Regulations 2013.

sydthebeat · 06-12-2013 5:51pm

ok then

Can those who are arguing that these regulations are fair, equitable and to be welcomed please present their points in a concise manner to be debated?

At the moment it appears that those in favour are only in favour because it is causing strife to professionals, and obviously thats not a valid reason to be in favour of these regulations.

4Sticks · 06-12-2013 6:20pm

Indeed. I too would welcome regs which obliged others to certify my works.

Martin , maxie , why not lobby for your "right" to certify your own works. I won't hold my breath.

Penn · 06-12-2013 7:31pm

Enough of the petty snipes and personalising the discussion. Discuss the topic civilly or don't post, and if you have an issue with a post, report it and allow the mods to deal with it.

Back on topic, please.

martinn123 · 06-12-2013 7:37pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

ok then

Can those who are arguing that these regulations are fair, equitable and to be welcomed please present their points in a concise manner to be debated?

At the moment it appears that those in favour are only in favour because it is causing strife to professionals, and obviously thats not a valid reason to be in favour of these regulations.

I doubt, given the tone and synical comments prevelant in this thread, since it's inseption, it would allow for a debate.
You only have to look at the post after your own, for evidence of this.
In view of the Mod Warning I will say no more.

sydthebeat · 06-12-2013 7:47pm

Is there ANYONE who can argue in favour of the regs?

Anyone at all?

4Sticks · 06-12-2013 8:30pm

I think the RIAI at Merrion Sq for the most part welcome it believing it funnels the market place almost exclusively to their members.

Self builders take note that your options for selecting your certifier will narrow.

4Sticks · 06-12-2013 8:44pm

Can anyone find a public statement by the CIF or any building company that uses words to the effect that " we are the ones who physically build buildings after all and therefore we should certify what is our own work."

martinn123 · 06-12-2013 9:04pm

4Sticks wrote: »

Can anyone find a public statement by the CIF or any building company that uses words to the effect that " we are the ones who physically build buildings after all and therefore we should certify what is our own work."

Perhaps in the light of your comments, you could explain the numerous calls, from Architectural Professionals, for the extensive involvement of Building Control types from the Local Authorities to provide Inspection and Certification.

Do they build anything ?.

sydthebeat · 06-12-2013 9:11pm

martinn123 wrote: »

Perhaps in the light of your comments, you could explain the numerous calls, from Architectural Professionals, for the extensive involvement of Building Control types from the Local Authorities to provide Inspection and Certification.

Do they build anything ?.

Erh, because that's the very successful system that's implemented in other countries which offers 100% inspections to ensure defects DO NOT happen.

All that is happening here with the regs is the Government abdicating any responsibility to ensure defects do not happen, but solely to have one target for litigation AFTER a defect happens.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel here.

Either we go fully local authority inspectIon scheme or we go full self certificatIon where all parties certify their input. At the moment we have a bastardised version of the latter.

Please do not get these two distinct separate schemes mixed up.

4Sticks · 06-12-2013 9:15pm

I let others speak for themselves. Have you seen then no builders wanting to stand over their works then - in the form of certification. Why no aspirations from that group do you think ?

DOCARCH · 06-12-2013 9:21pm

martinn123 wrote: »

Do they build anything ?.

No.

+1 to Syd's reply to that...and 'they' are (in theory) independent. Plus, nobody has every suggested that 'they' certify anything.

A degree of independent oversight is required (and more than there is now!) to keep builders and certifiers in check.

Ever wonder why people driving in the middle of the night, when there is nobody else/no other cars around, stop at red traffic lights?

martinn123 · 06-12-2013 9:22pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

Erh, because that's the very successful system that's implemented in other countries which offers 100% inspections to ensure defects DO NOT happen.

I'll ignore the Erh, in the light of Moderation instruction to avoid petty snipes, maybe you will give me the same courtesy,

I have been watching with interest programmes such as Coyboy Builders on Channel 5 which definitely dispels your myth of 100% inspections and defects not happening.

All that is happening here with the regs is the Government abdicating any responsibility to ensure defects do not happen, but solely to have one target for litigation AFTER a defect happens.

We do not need to reinvent the wheel here.

Either we go fully local authority inspectIon scheme or we go full self certificatIon where all parties certify their input. At the moment we have a bastardised version of the latter.

Please do not get these two distinct separate schemes mixed up.

sydthebeat · 06-12-2013 9:36pm

martinn123 wrote: »

I'll ignore the Erh, in the light of Moderation instruction to avoid petty snipes, maybe you will give me the same courtesy,

I have been watching with interest programmes such as Coyboy Builders on Channel 5 which definitely dispels your myth of 100% inspections and defects not happening.

Have a fun time buildIng your straw man and come back to us when you want to debate the topic at hand.

martinn123 · 06-12-2013 9:47pm

sydthebeat wrote: »

Have a fun time buildIng your straw man and come back to us when you want to debate the topic at hand.

So countesy is not your thing , OK I'm out of here, enjoy the one sided discussion between Architects, and enjoy the consequences when the Legislation is enacted as currently drafted.Or with amendments from vested interests, Associations o f which you are not a member of.

Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Comments