Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

shane6977

con1982 wrote: »

Just wondering what arrangements people have made in private architectural and engineering consultancies, regarding who signs the certs.

Jury still out on that issue in my office, compounded even more by the fact that most architectural staff are on contract and not directly employed! HUGE grey area as to who signs the certs!

sydthebeat

shane6977 wrote: »

Jury still out on that issue in my office, compounded even more by the fact that most architectural staff are on contract and not directly employed! HUGE grey area as to who signs the certs!

If i was an employee there's no way in hell I'd be putting my name to any cert. The Company should be registered and the company should be insured.

strongback

Does anyone know if the DOE are expecting the person who does the work to sign the cert taking individual responsibility?

With Engineers Ireland the engineer always signs the cert on behalf of the company. I have been told in the past the RIAI cert had to be signed by the designer as an individual, is this true?

I expect the directors of companies will do the signing off. It is the company that has the insurance.


I interpret the latest wording meaning the lead consultant does not insure the work of the other design team consultants once they have provided cents for their disciplines.

jython98

Hey guys, I will build a front extension at my house which is less than 40sm, I have the plan application submitted one week ago, so building works will start roughly end of March,

1) what should I be aware of the new build regulation?
2) Do I need to submit detailed build/structure drawings to council?
3) Do I need a certifier to certify the building works being done?

Thanks

4Sticks

1) new regs don't apply as you are under 40m2
2) you don't have to
3) you don't have to arising from these regs but it is still advisable. Future purchasers may be put off if you don't ( or their lenders , more to the point )

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

Does anyone know if the DOE are expecting the person who does the work to sign the cert taking individual responsibility?

With Engineers Ireland the engineer always signs the cert on behalf of the company. I have been told in the past the RIAI cert had to be signed by the designer as an individual, is this true?

I expect the directors of companies will do the signing off. It is the company that has the insurance.


I interpret the latest wording meaning the lead consultant does not insure the work of the other design team consultants once they have provided cents for their disciplines.

All certs in the SI include phrases like " I certify" , "I confirm". Whoever that "I" is better be sure that a company policy covers their singular person liabilities. What the DOE expect or don't expect is not really the issue - it will be the legal team of the distressed property owner who will be examining who signed what. That one individual will be top of the list of any legal actions.

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

All certs in the SI include phrases like " I certify" , "I confirm". Whoever that "I" is better be sure that a company policy covers their singular person liabilities. What the DOE expect or don't expect is not really the issue - it will be the legal team of the distressed property owner who will be examining who signed what. That one individual will be top of the list of any legal actions.

I am looking at S.I. No 9 of 2014 and it states:



Signature.............................................Date....................

Persons name.......................................Registration No......

On behalf of.........................................(Company name were relevant)



It looks to me that an employee can sign on behalf of the company. This was always the way it was with Engineers Ireland were the staff member did not have to personally carry insurance. All jobs just went through the companies insurance.

I expect it will be signing on behalf of Ltd companies as opposed to an individual taking all the risk. No individual is going to put their head on the block with a chance of losing their family home etc.

A guidance document from the DOE or the institutions would be nice to remove any doubt.


In terms of what the DOE expect they will be implementing this through the local councils. As it appears to me all these changes are about shifting liability away from the State I think the councils will have an interest in who will be taking up the liability. As much as the Phil Hogan would like to walk away completely the the councils can't abdicate all responsibility. They still have a role in construction industry albeit with a greatly reduced liability under the new legislation.

dathi

jython98 wrote: »

Hey guys, I will build a front extension at my house which is less than 40sm, I have the plan application submitted one week ago, so building works will start roughly end of March,

1) what should I be aware of the new build regulation?
2) Do I need to submit detailed build/structure drawings to council?
3) Do I need a certifier to certify the building works being done?

Thanks

you may have to comply with this safety legislation though
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/New_Legislation/SI_291_2013.pdf

jython98

4Sticks wrote: »

1) new regs don't apply as you are under 40m2
2) you don't have to
3) you don't have to arising from these regs but it is still advisable. Future purchasers may be put off if you don't ( or their lenders , more to the point )

Thanks 4Sticks

jython98

dathi wrote: »

you may have to comply with this safety legislation though
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Legislation/New_Legislation/SI_291_2013.pdf

Can you give more details there please? thanks.

Gumbo

jython98 wrote: »

Can you give more details there please? thanks.

http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Publications_and_Forms/Publications/Construction/homeowners_guidance.pdf

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

I am looking at S.I. No 9 of 2014 and it states:



Signature.............................................Date....................

Persons name.......................................Registration No......

On behalf of.........................................(Company name were relevant)


I expect it will be signing on behalf of Ltd companies as opposed to an individual taking all the risk. No individual is going to put their head on the block with a chance of losing their family home etc..

Pretend you are a solicitor acting on behalf of 25 firetrap apartment owners.
You have to hand a document signed as above. Pretend too the company is no more. Who do you chase ?

Pretend now you are the "person" above. How do feel now ? Are you insured by the policy of a company that now does not exist ? Will that stop the legal action ?

con1982

4Sticks wrote: »

Pretend you are a solicitor acting on behalf of 25 firetrap apartment owners.
You have to hand a document signed as above. Pretend too the company is no more. Who do you chase ?

Pretend now you are the "person" above. How do feel now ? Are you insured by the policy of a company that now does not exist ? Will that stop the legal action ?

Yeah. This is what I was thinking.

Litigative nature or Ireland. . . . .

DvB

Out of interest, where do you stand if registered with the RIBA & not the RIAI?

As a Technician member back in the day i had a difference of opinion with the institute & for that reason feel less than excited about having to register now as an Architect. All the literature I've read & the seminar i attended (through Engineers Ireland) made reference to RIAI registered Architects only being able to fulfil the role as assigned certifier. Or have I taken that up incorrectly?

archtech

DvB wrote: »

Out of interest, where do you stand if registered with the RIBA & not the RIAI?

As a Technician member back in the day i had a difference of opinion with the institute & for that reason feel less than excited about having to register now as an Architect. All the literature I've read & the seminar i attended (through Engineers Ireland) made reference to RIAI registered Architects only being able to fulfil the role as assigned certifier. Or have I taken that up incorrectly?

One has to Register with the Statutory Registration Authority which is administrated by the RIAI but one doesn't have to be a member of the RIAI as far as I understand (ie two separate memberships with 2 separate fees)

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

Pretend you are a solicitor acting on behalf of 25 firetrap apartment owners.
You have to hand a document signed as above. Pretend too the company is no more. Who do you chase ?

Pretend now you are the "person" above. How do feel now ? Are you insured by the policy of a company that now does not exist ? Will that stop the legal action ?

I have signed many many certs in the past. What's the difference between the new legislation than when I signed a cert in the past?

If I signed a cert 5 years ago and there is a problem today of course I am going to be questioned on it if there is a legal case to answer. In legal terms though, and this is agreed with the Law Society of Ireland, I am not personally liable for an insurance claim if I have signed on behalf of a company. If I did something knowingly illegal or grossly negligent that led to a death, serious injury or fraud of course I as an individual will have to answer for that. That has always been the way and any experienced professional signing certs knows that.

The first wording that came out as part of the new legislation was all wrong but the new wording provides as much protection to the individual as signing a cert in the past. Now you don't sign off on other professions work and you can sign on behalf of a company. The new wording has been agreed by the institutions and the insurance companies say they will provide insurance.

There is scaremongering going on in this thread that is ill informed or worse still malicious.

There is no such thing as signing a cert with impunity and there never was.


The big big issue is that in the past it was,

Architects
Engineers
Specialists
Builders
And the Local Authorities

These groups shared the responsibility between them.

Now the local authorities have taken a step back in their responsibility to regulate the industry. Personally I think that's a very bad thing. We should all be in it together carrying the responsibility to ensure the best quality product is delivered to the consumer.

sydthebeat

strongback wrote: »

Architects
Engineers
Specialists
Builders
And the Local Authorities
.

Architects
Engineers
Specialists not required to hold PI insurance so company dies, responsibility dies
Builders same as above, once company winds up , no recourse for action
And the Local Authorities enough said here


The "1% rule" we have in litigation Ireland means last man standing carrys the can.... which always tends to be the professional as:

(a) their current insurance covers them for all previous work, and not work done during the lifespan of the policy
(b) they are required to hold 'run off' insurance until statute of limitations has expired.

These new certificates place a very real cross hair on the signer whom, and im in agreement with 4sticks here, will be in line for legal action notwithstanding the insurance held by the company on whos behalf its signed. Expect to found in a witness box trying to explain the reason for non compliance which has lead to a day in court.

In my opinion only the company directors should sign certs on behalf of the company.

strongback wrote: »

The first wording that came out as part of the new legislation was all wrong but the new wording provides as much protection to the individual as signing a cert in the past.

If you believe that then im afraid you could be in a small minority

see here

while i agree that there is a 'watering down' of responsibility in the final wording, it still amounts to the certifiers certifying work carried out by others.

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

There is scaremongering going on in this thread that is ill informed or worse still malicious.

For my own part , I bear malice to no one and have gone to considerable lengths to inform myself. ( Just in case you were spreading the tar liberally)

I do see things in a less benign light then you do. Perhaps to avoid tedium we may leave it at that.

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

I spoke to the insurer and asked about the new legislation. They had nothing concrete on whether the wording of the statements was going to change, they said negotiating were ongoing. .....
They said they will be proving guidance on the how the changes effect insurance when the wordings are finalised.

Any update on this strongback ?

strongback

sydthebeat wrote: »

Architects
Engineers
Specialists not required to hold PI insurance so company dies, responsibility dies
Builders same as above, once company winds up , no recourse for action
And the Local Authorities enough said here


The "1% rule" we have in litigation Ireland means last man standing carrys the can.... which always tends to be the professional as:

(a) their current insurance covers them for all previous work, and not work done during the lifespan of the policy
(b) they are required to hold 'run off' insurance until statute of limitations has expired.

These new certificates place a very real cross hair on the signer whom, and im in agreement with 4sticks here, will be in line for legal action notwithstanding the insurance held by the company on whos behalf its signed. Expect to found in a witness box trying to explain the reason for non compliance which has lead to a day in court.

In my opinion only the company directors should sign certs on behalf of the company.





If you believe that then im afraid you could be in a small minority

see here

while i agree that there is a 'watering down' of responsibility in the final wording, it still amounts to the certifiers certifying work carried out by others.

In terms of 'last man standing' this is what we currently have. I am last man on a project at present as are a number of my friends in their practices. I don't see how that can be avoided and to me seems a different issue to the signing of compliance certs. In other words the new legislation changes nothing.

In terms of being the last man there is the potential my PI insurance could be used to cover faulty design work by others who no longer exist. A big issue with being last man is the very time consuming paper chase that happens.


In terms of being in a small minority I think you will find my view is that of the ACEI and Engineers Ireland. The new wording is very much in place to appease the insurers and the new language is very reminiscent of the way insurers speak and write.

I agree with the solicitor in that the wording is too vague in places and is open to legal scrutiny but I sincerely believe the intention of the wording is to protect the professionals involved. How the words are interpreted legally may only be decided in a test case. That is always the way with new legislation. Remember the law generally takes a fair and reasonable approach.

The fact that the wording allows that certificates and insurance of other professions involved in the project are valid and can be drawn on I don't believe the lead consult will be fully responsible for sub consultants unless they go bust which is exactly the situation we have now.

My belief is there was a shift in thinking by the DOE away from a completely blunt approach using absolute statements. What I am reading on the new cert is familiar to me as it is very similar in wording to the existing Engineers Ireland cert.

The solicitor is nit picking the wording of the certs from a legal perspective and I welcome that.

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

Any update on this strongback ?

The insurance I use, who is probably the biggest insurance broker to the construction industry in Ireland and the UK, said they would be continuing to provide PPI in light of the new legislation and they renewed my cover. They were advising on the new wordings to the certs.

The insurance industry they told me told will act retrospectively in relation to the new changes in the legislation. If in say two years time claims go up significantly then the insurers will react to that by putting up premiums or potentially not providing insurance to certain practices or to the country as a whole.

We know there are less insurers in Ireland providing PI but this is because the market crashed and one of the results was insurance claims increased massively. If the insurers aren't making money or worse losing money they won't hang around.

sydthebeat

theres a HUGE problem with the current status quo regarding certification.
see priory hall.

Im saying that the current situation where the last man standing is the professional isnt good enough, and should not be accepted. I dont think home purchasers should find any solace in saying these regulations will lead to situations

which is exactly the situation we have now.

The purpose of these regs is to provide a robust building control system for the protection of consumers, which i think it has failed utterly at.

Personally i dont agree that the situation will be the same, i think these regulations give insurance companies MUCH MORE of a reason to pay out on spurious claims without letting claims get to court. The wording is a lot narrower and absolute than the wording im used to seeing (RIAI opinions). So if they are quick about paying out now, they will be even quicker after 1st march.

strongback

sydthebeat wrote: »

theres a HUGE problem with the current status quo regarding certification.
see priory hall.

Im saying that the current situation where the last man standing is the professional isnt good enough, and should not be accepted. I dont think home purchasers should find any solace in saying these regulations will lead to situations
The purpose of these regs is to provide a robust building control system for the protection of consumers, which i think it has failed utterly at.

Personally i dont agree that the situation will be the same, i think these regulations give insurance companies MUCH MORE of a reason to pay out on spurious claims without letting claims get to court. The wording is a lot narrower and absolute than the wording im used to seeing (RIAI opinions). So if they are quick about paying out now, they will be even quicker after 1st march.

There was rogue play at Priory Hall and this is not typical of the majority of projects. People can get things wrong or take short cuts they regret but it falls short of fraud. Priory Hall appears to me to be grossly fraudulent negligence.

The last man standing issue is a legal one. Should this be addressed by Building Control? Can the building legislation include for changes to the law in terms of last man standing? Seems like two different issues to me.

I would equate the words reasonable care etc with substantial compliance. We can only do what's practical in other words. Nobody can sit on site watching every nail being hammered in. Of course these words are familiar to insurance companies and collateral warranties etc so that is why from a legal viewpoint solicitors are calling them vague.


I agree the legislation falls way short. The Local Authorities will be largely allowed to abdicate themselves from responsibility when they are in fact the best body to police building control. They are independent and there remit is essentially to protecting the consumers interest.

A proper regulated building control as in the UK was what should have been the goal but Smiling Phil just wanted building control shoved off his table.

The reality is that we are going to have to make the most of what is now law. The focus in my view should be on educating ourselves on how to avoid the pot holes instead of the alternative of protest which to me is little short of pissing in the wind at this stage. I don't want to appear that I'm whistling past the graveyard but this thing is not stopping.

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

The last man standing issue is a legal one. Should this be addressed by Building Control? Can the building legislation include for changes to the law in terms of last man standing? Seems like two different issues to me.

Well yes but the context that the last man standing finds himself in can be dramatically impacted by building control. I have found through direct experience of working in the UK that an active local authority resourced building control inspectorate creates a culture of compliance on building sites.
One is less likely to be a last man standing there. In that respect building control can address the last man standing scenario.

strongback wrote: »

I would equate the words reasonable care etc with substantial compliance. We can only do what's practical in other words. Nobody can sit on site watching every nail being hammered in. Of course these words are familiar to insurance companies and collateral warranties etc so that is why from a legal viewpoint solicitors are calling them vague.

I can only hope you are right.

strongback wrote: »

I agree the legislation falls way short. The Local Authorities will be largely allowed to abdicate themselves from responsibility when they are in fact the best body to police building control. They are independent and there remit is essentially to protecting the consumers interest.

A proper regulated building control as in the UK was what should have been the goal but Smiling Phil just wanted building control shoved off his table.

Snap !

strongback wrote: »

The reality is that we are going to have to make the most of what is now law. The focus in my view should be on educating ourselves on how to avoid the pot holes instead of the alternative of protest which to me is little short of pissing in the wind at this stage. I don't want to appear that I'm whistling past the graveyard but this thing is not stopping.

Well that's ok if the "we" you mean is the "the gang of 3" professions allowed by law to participate. AT's and others have disenfranchised. But worse than that the consumer is now funneled by law towards only the "the gang of 3 " .
They will I am sure find ways to adjust to the new realities whilst the standard of building continues not to improve. The end user will lose out in future just as at present - even more so as it will be easier for a future govt not to do a Priory Hall / Pyrtite Remediation Scheme settlement or arrangement

4Sticks

And was not this

strongback wrote: »

My belief is there was a shift in thinking by the DOE away from a completely blunt approach using absolute statements. What I am reading on the new cert is familiar to me as it is very similar in wording to the existing Engineers Ireland cert.

derived from

strongback wrote: »

protest which to me is little short of pissing in the wind at this stage

strongback

4Sticks wrote: »

Well yes but the context that the last man standing finds himself in can be dramatically impacted by building control. I have found through direct experience of working in the UK that an active local authority resourced building control inspectorate creates a culture of compliance on building sites.
One is less likely to be a last man standing there. In that respect building control can address the last man standing scenario.



I can only hope you are right.




Snap !



Well that's ok if the "we" you mean is the "the gang of 3" professions allowed by law to participate. AT's and others have disenfranchised. But worse than that the consumer is now funneled by law towards only the "the gang of 3 " .
They will I am sure find ways to adjust to the new realities whilst the standard of building continues not to improve. The end user will lose out in future just as at present - even more so as it will be easier for a future govt not to do a Priory Hall / Pyrtite Remediation Scheme settlement or arrangement

The last man standing situation is the same in the UK as it is here. I agree that the more stringent application of Building Control in the UK makes it much less likely that errors or bad building will occur but it doesn't stop companies from going bust.

One argument I have heard is that the professionals and builders will now be upping their game. Due to the increased level of self regulation individuals and companies will be more vigilant and careful about how they do their work. I think this will probably happen but it could create a more negative environment that paralyses people, initially anyway.

My view is I have to work and to do so I will have to adapt a bit but hopefully not a lot to the new legislation. I certainly won't be fearful of signing my name to a cert. I am a company director I should add. I won't expect staff to sign certs and never have. If I have a day in court I would expect the judge to listen to the arguments and weigh things up. In a case between a member of the public versus a company though I feel the member of the public may be favoured particularly if it involves the persons home.


"The Gang of Three"...........sounds like that band from Leeds when one of the members dies. Maybe it should be "Free the Gang of One"

I don't know why architectural technologists were excluded, that seems wrong to me as AT's are more familiar with the Regs than architects, engineers and especially building surveyors. Architects in this country in my view have been very good at protecting their position and keeping other disciplines down as much as possible. It's not like this in France, Italy or Spain.

I do think though that anybody doing architectural work in this day and age should have some qualifications. My feeling looking forward at new entrants coming into the industry is that an appropriate degree or maybe even a masters along with chartership should be required to sign certs.

It was too easy for a person with no training to call themselves an architect in this country, it's good in my opinion that this changed.

I fully agree there should also be a route for proven experienced technicians to become certifiers.

How much have architects helped AT's and technicians in their cause to be included as certifiers??

4Sticks

I concur with all you've posted just then strongback .

I believe that the non domestic market will be far less impacted by SI 9 2014 than the discussions here have suggested. My experience of that sector is that it is characterized by diligent professionals - designers , contractors , sub contractors and specialists who aspire to and maintain the very highest standards. That sector will adjust reasonably well and with relatively little to fear from the new legislation.

The context of this particular forum must be borne in mind when reading this thread. This forum is characterized by the domestic self build market. By a very long mile it will be the sector most impacted notwithstanding the ministers weezil words that there is to nothing stop self builders deeming themselves actual builders , provided that their certifier is ok with that ( signal to certifiers - - you will carry then can here guys big time so watch out ) . In this context SI 9 2014 is a game changer. For what it's worth to you - my opinion - is that one must fear the changes the new burdens of certification in this context.

4Sticks

strongback wrote: »

How much have architects helped AT's and technicians in their cause to be included as certifiers??

archtech

An important thing for any certifier will be the paper trail and having enough evidence to demonstrate that the building was designed in compliance and that the relevant information was provided to a building contractor in a meaningful way to allow the building be built. And then to maintain a record that what was supposed to be done was done.

IMO from a design perspective a certifier is looking at having to prepare (either by themselves or an ancillary certifier) a report/statement with supporting calculations/drawings etc for every element ( from drainage falls to u-values to required areas for roof ventilation and everything in between)of the building relating to demonstrating compliance. It will no longer be safe to make assumptions or use rules of thumb. This level of information will really impact of the domestic situation, whereby for so long, a good builder, with a good set of GA drawings and a spec was more than sufficient.

No6

strongback wrote: »

How much have architects helped AT's and technicians in their cause to be included as certifiers??

Et Tu Brutus



http://mlddesign.net/index.php?/project/private-collection/

see the image on the top right!!

About that much i reckon from the RIAI council!!