Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

jkell061

sydthebeat wrote: »

a certificate of completion (ie final cert of compliance) shouldnt be signed if theres a building reg issue.

who is going to say its invalid?

If its signed then who is going to notice any issue if and until that building is sold?? even then if a cert exists, will the building be checked for compliance?

remember these regulation allow for NO local authority checks.

but surely down the line there'll be court cases and local authorities will have some part to play. Say if the cert is signed, but the assigned certifier is then living in another country. Who does it fall on then?

i know the building owner has to sign saying he's satisfied with the competence of the assigned certifier, could it then fall on the owner. the authorities can't be completely exempt from blame were a cert signed and they never checked and goes unnoticed for say five years?

sydthebeat

jkell061 wrote: »

but surely down the line there'll be court cases and local authorities will have some part to play. Say if the cert is signed, but the assigned certifier is then living in another country. Who does it fall on then?

i know the building owner has to sign saying he's satisfied with the competence of the assigned certifier, could it then fall on the owner. the authorities can't be completely exempt from blame were a cert signed and they never checked and goes unnoticed for say five years?

ah now, im afraid youre being very naive here.

The amendment to the regulations have been written with the express policy of NOT having any responsibility fall on the Local Government.

There is NO statutory responsibility for local authorities to inspect builds... NONE, ZIP, NADA, SQUILCH.

They have been regulated to nothing more than a filing agent. As far as i understand they dont even have any role in checking if the building regulation compliant drawings actually comply or not.

If the situation arises as you've outlined then im afraid who ever is left holding the potato will have to pay.

4Sticks

jkell061 wrote: »

but surely down the line there'll be court cases and local authorities will have some part to play. ... the authorities can't be completely exempt from blame were a cert signed and they never checked and goes unnoticed for say five years?

4Sticks

(4) Where a certificate of compliance, or a notice to which subsection (2) (k) relates, is submitted to a building control authority, the building control authority shall not be under a duty to any person to—
(a) ensure that the building or works to which the certificate or notice relates will, either during the course of the work or when completed, comply with the requirements of building regulations or be free from any defect,
(b) ensure that the certificate complies with the requirements of this Act or of regulations or orders made under this Act, or
(c) verify that the facts stated in the certificate are true and accurate

The state offers no service here.

Priory Halls and pyrite scandals will continue and local authorities will remain legally blameless. The new regulations gaurentee that.
And YOU ALL had the chance to affect this when the regulations went out for public consultation.

Designers only , not builders , not local authorities , not the Dept of the Environment , have been made soley responsible for building standards.

I believe now that

a) those who actually build buildings , being left off the hook completely , will join a race to bottom now and standards will fall. The good guys who morally want to attain high standards will be undercut by those who don't. And they will gain work for doing not doing so.

b) designers can't reasonably take on the responsibilities of builders . More importantly neither will those who insure designers. And any certificate one holds is only as good as the insurances backing it up.

Another impact which will slowly seep out into the public mind is that the number of Designers who qualify as certifiers under the new act has been slashed. Architectural Technicians are one group excluded from participation now and whilst that in itself should not concern most people , it will affect you as the pool of service providers to you has shrunk hugely.

And this will cost you.

.

jonniebgood1

4Sticks wrote: »

The state offers no service here.

This was the case from the start of this process. The local planning authority will keep records. I would argue that this is a good thing as if they were involved in the actual certification it would potentially allow civil service bureaucracy add cost and delay progress in projects.
Also has the piece in the legislation that triggers site visits by the local authority if certifier changes midway through the project, been removed? (it was in the original code of practice).

4Sticks wrote: »

Designers only , not builders , not local authorities , not the Dept of the Environment , have been made soley responsible for building standards.

...

a) those who actually build buildings , being left off the hook completely , will join a race to bottom now and standards will fall. The good guys who morally want to attain high standards will be undercut by those who don't. And they will gain work for doing not doing so.

b) designers can't reasonably take on the responsibilities of builders . More importantly neither will those who insure designers. And any certificate one holds is only as good as the insurances backing it up.

Do you mean in insurance terms? The certificate of compliance is signed by a certifier and the builder. The certifier will then be qualifying their opinion on the proviso that they are basing their opinion on visual inspections and the builders opinion of compliance. Surely the end result is that despite an extra role being the certifier the end result is no better/ worse than present.

The certifier role should have been isolated for professional surveyors that were private firms paid an agreed fee from the council (passed on at commencement stage to owner). In this way they would not be subject to pressure to sign certificate to get paid.

I agree that the current proposal will not properly reward competent builders.

4Sticks

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

This was the case from the start of this process.

Not everybody understands that jbg

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The local planning authority will keep records. I would argue that this is a good thing as if they were involved in the actual certification it would potentially allow civil service bureaucracy add cost and delay progress in projects.

It seems your view held out. Having had 10 years experience in the UK of witnessing the efficient and affective system of local authority building control inspectors I cannot share your view.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The certificate of compliance is signed by a certifier and the builder. The certifier will then be qualifying their opinion on the proviso that they are basing their opinion on visual inspections and the builders opinion of compliance.

No. the builders statement is qualified. The Certifiers is not and in fact s/he certifies the actions of others too.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Surely the end result is that despite an extra role being the certifier the end result is no better/ worse than present.

It is completely different. So far I have not heard of anyone obtaining PI insurance for this

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The certifier role should have been isolated for professional surveyors that were private firms paid an agreed fee from the council (passed on at commencement stage to owner). In this way they would not be subject to pressure to sign certificate to get paid.

I see merit in that too.

jonniebgood1

On the face of it the UK system does seem good. I am letting cynicism about civil service employees get the better of me which is unfair (I recently worked with civil service staff on a project and the majority seemed very hard working).
Will the role of certifier have to be written into a PI policy or will having the insurance in place not cover the certifiers role (albeit with a probable higher premium).
Also I do not see how the certifier will not qualify their certification. The very inclusion of certificates from builder, window manufacturer, structural engineer, etc qualifies any cert given on the basis that they are responsible for their work. If the certifier is covering their work then there is no need for these certs? Most Architects already have a standard checklist of certificates required before they will issue building reg certs of compliance.

sydthebeat

The exact wording of the certs are prescribed therefore no qualification can happen.

The wording is prescribed to include works of others notwithstanding any ancillary certs.

The effect of this wording and these certs will only be tested under a court case condition.

4Sticks

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

On the face of it the UK system does seem good.

On the neck arms torso and legs of it too it's good.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Will the role of certifier have to be written into a PI policy or will having the insurance in place not cover the certifiers role (albeit with a probable higher premium).

We don't know yet do we ?

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Also I do not see how the certifier will not qualify their certification.

What you see or don't see doesn't change anything. You should actually read the documents you are discussing here before sounding like you know what your talking about.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The very inclusion of certificates from builder, window manufacturer, structural engineer, etc qualifies any cert given on the basis that they are responsible for their work.

These activities will be obsolete under the new regulations. Unlike the present opinion on compliance system where the architect is duty bound to seek supporting documentation the new system does not provide for their inclusion.
Again if you actually read the SI at the OP here you would see that.

4Sticks

sydthebeat wrote: »

The effect of this wording and these certs will only be tested under a court case condition.

Except we can say now that the legal opinions sought by the 3 professional bodies affected all separetly concluded that the certifier will be soley taking on dramatically increased liabilities .

( I know you know this syd )

jonniebgood1

4Sticks wrote: »

What you see or don't see doesn't change anything. You should actually read the documents you are discussing here before sounding like you know what your talking about.

These activities will be obsolete under the new regulations. Unlike the present opinion on compliance system where the architect is duty bound to seek supporting documentation the new system does not provide for their inclusion.
Again if you actually read the SI at the OP here you would see that.

Having read much of the thread I don't think anyone here knows fully what they are talking about- that is where much of the problem comes from, hence I take that comment with a pinch of salt.

I have read the documents and code of practice and the outcome is not as clear as you seem to suggest. In fact it is the opposite.

For example the effect on PI insurance is unclear. The point at which a local authority might intervene in problem cases is unclear. Despite your comment above I expect Architects and builders will still seek certificates from suppliers, in fact it seems to me that they would be foolish not to as if there was a court challenge they could then become relevant (as they form a basis for an overall opinion on compliance).

jonniebgood1

4Sticks wrote: »

Except we can say now that the legal opinions sought by the 3 professional bodies affected all separetly concluded that the certifier will be soley taking on dramatically increased liabilities .

( I know you know this syd )

No argument that there is increased liability, but:
Do you have a source that particularly says the certifier will be the sole party with more liability?

4Sticks

Not a single clickable source no , sorry.

Gumbo

Updates S.I. due tomorrow.
Anybody else hear that?

DOCARCH

kceire wrote: »

Updates S.I. due tomorrow.
Anybody else hear that?

Yip.

The Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 – S.I. No. 9 of 2014 – were signed (off) by the Minister on January 15th, will be publicly notified in tomorrow’s edition of the Iris Oifiguil, and, will come into effect on March 1st.

The Minister has 'declined' to defer implementation by 6 months (as requested [again] by the RIAI last week).

Link here to the final S.I. http://gallery.mailchimp.com/956021ef7d6fca71b412254ca/files/S_I_No9_of_2014.pdf?utm_source=RIAI+Member+2013+-+3+December&utm_campaign=a42c68a871-RIAI_BCAR_News_SI_91_20_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_38e310b49e-a42c68a871-269051329

jonniebgood1

The certifier signs off on a document that will be "relying on the ancillary certificates" -This has changed from previous draft.

Just like they do currently?

4Sticks

Agreed jbg - the explanatory note states the change was made bearing in mind the insurance issues for the certifier. This is a sensible - inevitable - change which logically disperses liabilities onto other parties where those other parties have an expertise eg why would an architect take on liabilities say for the electrical design and installation of large building ?

BryanF

Madam41 wrote: »

My planning permission for a new house was granted mid 2012.
My commencement noticed is lodged prior to March 1st 2014.

Can someone clarify what if any parts of the new changes to the Building Regulations (SI 8 of 2014 )will apply to me?

Can I proceed by way of direct labour?

Can I proceed by way of the "traditional" commencement notice? When it comes to completion, will the traditional Certificate of Compliance be sufficient or will the "new" form be required?

Lodged And you have or will have made the site ready/ poured foundations?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes sufficient

But there's no need to post the question twice! Delete one of the posts please. And Surely Your supervising arch or eng can tell you this?

Madam41

Sorry about that.. New to the site

sydthebeat

4Sticks wrote: »

Agreed jbg - the explanatory note states the change was made bearing in mind the insurance issues for the certifier. This is a sensible - inevitable - change which logically disperses liabilities onto other parties where those other parties have an expertise eg why would an architect take on liabilities say for the electrical design and installation of large building ?

humm i wonder how far these ancillary certifications can stretch to?

Will plumbers be required to provide certification?
Will window manufacturers?

will roofers? blocklayers?

4Sticks

That would be an ecumenical matter

Penn

sydthebeat wrote: »

humm i wonder how far these ancillary certifications can stretch to?

Will plumbers be required to provide certification?
Will window manufacturers?

will roofers? blocklayers?

That depends on the contractor and assigned certifier. If a plumber (for example) doesn't sign a cert, the responsibility for his work would fall to the contractor.

It's up to the contractor to get ancillary certs for all sub-contractors, and up to the assigned certifier not to sign off on the overall project unless all the ancillary certs have been provided.

Direct employees of the contractor wouldn't need to provide certs (as they fall under the contractor's cert), but anyone else brought in has to provide an ancillary cert for the work they do.

4Sticks

Penncil Dick wrote: »

That depends on the contractor and assigned certifier. If a plumber (for example) doesn't sign a cert, the responsibility for his work would fall to the contractor.

It's up to the contractor to get ancillary certs for all sub-contractors, and up to the assigned certifier not to sign off on the overall project unless all the ancillary certs have been provided.

Direct employees of the contractor wouldn't need to provide certs (as they fall under the contractor's cert), but anyone else brought in has to provide an ancillary cert for the work they do.

Cue - the witholding of ancillary certs as leverage during final account negotiations. Not a new phenomenon but one that I think will only thrive now.

Penn

4Sticks wrote: »

Cue - the witholding of ancillary certs as leverage during final account negotiations. Not a new phenomenon but one that I think will only thrive now.

I can foresee more interim payments being agreed in advance by both contractors and assigned certifiers in case the need arises to walk off a job.

jonniebgood1

sydthebeat wrote: »

humm i wonder how far these ancillary certifications can stretch to?

Will plumbers be required to provide certification?
Will window manufacturers?

will roofers? blocklayers?

It will be up to the certifier but I would say yes to all. I already know Architects that look for all of the above and provide trades with the text to put on their own letterhead to ensure they are covered legally. And as per 4sticks comment these certificates are required prior to practical completion and final payment.

sydthebeat

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It will be up to the certifier but I would say yes to all. I already know Architects that look for all of the above and provide trades with the text to put on their own letterhead to ensure they are covered legally. And as per 4sticks comment these certificates are required prior to practical completion and final payment.

so will we now have a requirement for tradespersons to hold professional indemnity insurance?
proof of which would be required prior to commission.

4Sticks

I think PD covered that here

Penncil Dick wrote: »

If a plumber (for example) doesn't sign a cert, the responsibility for his work would fall to the contractor.

It's up to the contractor to get ancillary certs for all sub-contractors, and up to the assigned certifier not to sign off on the overall project unless all the ancillary certs have been provided.

Direct employees of the contractor wouldn't need to provide certs (as they fall under the contractor's cert), but anyone else brought in has to provide an ancillary cert for the work they do.

Penn

sydthebeat wrote: »

so will we now have a requirement for tradespersons to hold professional indemnity insurance?
proof of which would be required prior to commission.

The new CIF-led CIRI register for contractors will require information on insurance and tax certs before the contractor can be placed on the register. It'll also include requirements to disclose any companies you ran in the past 5 years (so contractors can't just close one company and start another).

I was talking to some people who were at the Engineers Ireland conference last Friday. They said one of the most impressive and reassuring things to come out of it was the details about the CIRI. It's very detailed and comprehensive. The only issue which stems from it is self-builds.

4Sticks

Penncil Dick wrote: »

The only issue which stems from it is self-builds.

Nothing for folks around here to worry about so :D:D

Penn

Here's the link to the CIF:
http://cif.ie/news-events/current-news/ciri/

One other important item I forgot to mention about it, contractors/companies have to renew their membership each year. So it's not a case of signing up once and then letting things like tax/insurance/CPD lapse, they have to provide that info each year to remain on the register.