Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

BryanF

BryanF wrote: »

Specifically, the Building Owner should:
(a) ensure that a Fire Safety Certificate and a Disability Access Certificate are
obtained where required;
(b) sign a Commencement Notice (or 7 day notice) that is lodged;
(c) sign the notice for the assignment of:
1) a competent, registered professional (the Assigned Certifier) who will
inspect the building works during Construction and provide a certificate
of compliance on completion, and
2) a competent Builder to construct in accordance with the plans,
specifications and Building Regulations and to sign the Certificate of
Compliance on completion; Builders included on the Construction
Industry Register Ireland or equivalent may be regarded as competent
for projects consistent with their registration profile.

until someone provides a case example of where a client has managed to act as builder under the BCA 2014, this is case closed.

sydthebeat wrote: »

as bryanf has posted above:
..........
now, irregardless of what the minister is saying. The regulation and code of practise have it in black and white that a building contractor must be assigned.

that's it

sydthebeat wrote: »

ok can i just clarify bryan, should a prospective self builder come on and ask if they have to appoint a building contractor..... what do we do?

we take it that

sydthebeat wrote: »

the regulations AND code of practise are to be implemented as they are read.

so unless said self-builder can provide written documentation from local building control authority stating otherwise,

Yes

they must appoint a main contractor.

that is my reading of the BCA act 7 guidlines (anyone who provides a different opinion backed up by quotes from the legislation is welcome to post)

sydthebeat

Hairy mellon wrote: »

This has always been the worry in the wording of SI.9 (previously SI.80) from the professionals looking at the detailed wording of the legislation.

At the RIAI Egm last october the issue of certifiers essentially guaranteeing other consultants work (M&E engineers in particular) was highlighted from the floor.

The wording of the legislation passed is of concern to anyone willing to undertake new roles. By certifying the works with the current wordings the certifiers would appear to be providing an unqualified guarantee for other consultants work, including design work. This covers structural design calculations, mechanical and electrical designs etc. There is a big legal question as to whether the registered professionals have the specific competence to stand over the multitude of detailed professional inputs required for compliance.

In addition the recent revision to Part D of the regulations means that in order to comply with Part D, which now includes the Construction Products Regulation 2103, that certifiers need to maintain a record of all materials being used on site. This record is quite onerous- confirmation that all materials used have a CE mark and a "declaration of performance"- this is for all materials from aggregate down to nails used on a project.

How this can effectively be done by a anyone outside the normal supply chain (ie. no the contractor) is something as far as i am aware none of the professional bodies have addressed to date.

The legislation would appear to have a number of problems and issues that only will become more visible to all as its implementation is rolled out....

on the bolded part, the revised wording has allowed for specialised contractors such as M+E to provide their own certification and thus indemnify the assigned certifier from accepting responsibility. this is a major alteration from the previous SI.

i agree on Part D but it isnt clear yet whether provision of materials on site is / should be the responsibility of the builders certificate or the assigned certifiers. As its the builder providing the materials, and at the same time certifying they built in accordance with the regs, it is a stretch to see a judge applying the onus for these record son the assigned certifier and not the builder. I do agree that clarification is needed on this issue.

personally i would be of the opinion that if i was the designer, and i provided teh builder with a fully digital copy of the current TGDs as part of the design documents, then its the builders responsibility to read those documents and build as instructed.

BryanF

sydthebeat wrote: »

personally i would be of the opinion that if i was the designer, and i provided teh builder with a fully digital copy of the current TGDs as part of the design documents, then its the builders responsibility to read those documents and build as instructed.

judge to certifier: 'did you certify the buidling complied with Bregs?'
certifier: 'yes, but i couldn't be on site everyday, and in the design documentation, it states 'all work to comply with current Bregs'... '

sydthebeat

BryanF wrote: »

judge to certifier: 'did you certify the buidling complied with Bregs?'
certifier: 'yes, but i couldn't be on site everyday, and in the design documentation, it states 'all work to comply with current Bregs'... '

accepted... but:

Judge: ACME builder, you signed a piece of paper to say you build in according to instructions and regulations

ACME builder: yes judge, but sure i didnt have the time to read all that, i was organising muck for the foundations.....

Hairy mellon

BryanF wrote: »

judge to certifier: 'did you certify the buidling complied with Bregs?'
certifier: 'yes, but i couldn't be on site everyday, and in the design documentation, it states 'all work to comply with current Bregs'... '

a friend of mine, an experienced architect who is in his final year of barristers course, was in the supreme court looking in at some cases last week.

he sat in on a pyrite case- contractor vs quarry. He was amazed at the level of technical knowledge senior council had on the smallest detail of not only procurement process and the contracts, but of the building process itself.

he has a very pessimistic take on how this legislation will be interpreted in the courts, and the extraordinary level of professional service required under strict interpretation of SI9. Your quote is very close to his own version...

sydthebeat

BryanF wrote: »

judge to certifier: 'did you certify the buidling complied with Bregs?'
certifier: 'yes, but i couldn't be on site everyday, and in the design documentation, it states 'all work to comply with current Bregs'... '

just to clarify, im not saying provide the TGDs as a replacement for design documents, but as an addition, in order to act as an additional indemnification measure.

jonniebgood1

The layout and wording of the legislation would seem to me to be aimed at indemnifying the state of any end responsibility, thus it does not matter if the certifier or designer has given a copy of the regs in the tender package. A knowledge of the building regulations should be taken for granted if a builder is a member of CIRI as a builder will have signed a declaration stating this as part of their application for membership. Rather the status of the certifiers PI policy will be the Judges main concern.

Also with regards to the earlier discussion about CIRI the early responsibility for ensuring builders competency (through registration) also falls on the certifier. They must be happy to be involved with the builder in question as they will be certifying their work. The CIRI registration is based on payment of an annual fee, with no qualification necessary although there is mention of the need to attend CPD on an ongoing basis to renew membership. They have a website www.ciri.ie which gives information on what is required with insurance details and tax clearance certificate the 2 required submissions (better than nothing).

Hairy mellon

This is a pretty powerful and simple post here by the iasob, the irish association of self builders website. Non technical, clear and passionate:

http://www.iaosb.com/people%20of%20ireland,%20stand%20up%20for%20your%20right.html

sydthebeat

Hairy mellon wrote: »

This is a pretty powerful and simple post here by the iasob, the irish association of self builders website. Non technical, clear and passionate:

And full of hyperbole and inaccuracies.

Hairy mellon

their sentiments seem pretty accurate and heartfelt

For the self-builder we have previously discussed the extraordinary cost of SI.9 to individual builds. Self-builders would appear to be precluded from the role of builder from 1st March 2014. Consequently the increase costs for a typical self-build house could increase by €23,000 (for a typical €180,000 self-build). The current estimate of additional cost due to SI.9 for this self-build sector alone could be almost €150m per annum.

Some self-builders can absorb additional costs of SI.9, some will reduce the scope of their build to accommodate these additional costs (i.e. build smaller or part- complete areas etc). The reality is that others, at lower cost end, will simply not be able to afford to construct their own houses.

By industry estimates up to 1,800 self-builders (28%) will not construct their own houses due to the increased costs of SI.9 (source IASOB). This may cost the construction industry and economy €324m 2014 alone. In a recent radio interview Tom Parlon of the CIF suggested an estimate of estimate of 10,000 extra jobs per €1Bn of additional construction spend. If this is correct then SI.9 may cost 3,200 jobs in a typical year. By 2020 SI.9, in the self-build domestic sector, 6 years of SI.9 will have cost almost 20,000 construction jobs with a loss to the domestic economy of €1.94Bn. That's a big number for little or no additionaL consumer protection...

sydthebeat

ive seen many of both types of self builders over the years.

The extremely good ones who are knowledgeable about every aspect of the build and are interested and enthusiastic about learning "on the job". These tend to be people who are not afraid to spend the extra few euros for quality over quantity and take a belt and braces approach.

Then we have the other kind. The kind that pay cash where ever possible to guys in the dole in order to get a cheap build. Who actively go looking for seconds and cut offs. Who scoff at the thought of paying 4k for a MHRV system but insist on paying 10K+ for a 'colonial' kitchen and are happy with holes in the walls as ventilation.

Its my opinion that the first kind will be mildly imposed by these regulations but will view it as an extra assurance of quality and will use the extra professional knowledge on site to its fullest.

The other kind need to be saved from themselves.

mullingar

sydthebeat wrote: »

ive seen many of both types of self builders over the years.

The extremely good ones who are knowledgeable about every aspect of the build and are interested and enthusiastic about learning "on the job". These tend to be people who are not afraid to spend the extra few euros for quality over quantity and take a belt and braces approach.

Then we have the other kind. The kind that pay cash where ever possible to guys in the dole in order to get a cheap build. Who actively go looking for seconds and cut offs. Who scoff at the thought of paying 4k for a MHRV system but insist on paying 10K+ for a 'colonial' kitchen and are happy with holes in the walls as ventilation.

Its my opinion that the first kind will be mildly imposed by these regulations but will view it as an extra assurance of quality and will use the extra professional knowledge on site to its fullest.

The other kind need to be saved from themselves.

I would like to think I would fall into your first category.

I really want to do my own self build for 2015 but the new regs just might destroy our plan.

I want to be the main builder/project manager with the full hands on approach to ensure that I get a quality job by employing properly regd tradesmen. I have no problem and would welcome a structural/civil engineer for advice and get certified sign off at every stage but it's all the little decisions that make a build a quality home for many years to come.

I really hope the wording of the signatory changes from just a director of a building company to also allow the Self-build owner to sign it off.

jonniebgood1

mullingar wrote: »

I would like to think I would fall into your first category.

I really want to do my own self build for 2015 but the new regs just might destroy our plan.

I want to be the main builder/project manager with the full hands on approach to ensure that I get a quality job by employing properly regd tradesmen. I have no problem and would welcome a structural/civil engineer for advice and get certified sign off at every stage but it's all the little decisions that make a build a quality home for many years to come.

I really hope the wording of the signatory changes from just a director of a building company to also allow the Self-build owner to sign it off.

There is nothing to stop you being project manager and achieving the stated aims in this llegislation. Your builder should be seen as a person or trade that will help you achieve a higher quality end product based on their years of experience. You say you want properly registered tradesmen which is what is now being required by law (once ciri is up and running).

musgravedk

Just wondering, If a builder was to provide the client with a latent defect policy for the works for a certain time period say 7 years , would that not reduce the risk to the certifier?

Hairy mellon

unfortunately not- the first person in line for any legal action is the assigned and design certifier, followed by all the others including the builder.

Unfortunately the threat of legal action is enough for PI insurers to jack up premiums even if these law suits do not materialise.

We believe Homebond is preparing their own version of defects liability insurance along with their own register of 'competent persons" qualified under SI.9 to undertake the certifier roles.

musgravedk

I see, well at that rate i dont think that the fee you would need to get would be paid for by the client ....and as such there seems to be no sense at all taking the risk for any less than 8% of building costs would that be fair ?

Hairy mellon

no guidance as yet as to costs for risk- would be very had to do in advance of court cases happening in any event.

rough guidance on roles would suggest between 70 and 100 hours needed for a typical €180k house for certifier roles

additional fees and costs for ancillary certifiers would be on top of this

brian hayes td suggested hourly rates would apply to established design teams on qualifying capital projects

BryanF

Hairy mellon wrote: »

brian hayes td suggested hourly rates would apply to established design teams on qualifying capital projects

Hairy Mellon,

As regards Mr Brian Hayes, you and i both know the market will decide the fees/rates.

no guidance as yet as to costs for risk- would be very had to do in advance of court cases happening in any event.

rough guidance on roles would suggest between 70 and 100 hours needed for a typical €180k house for certifier roles

additional fees and costs for ancillary certifiers would be on top of this

Can we try to deal in facts as much as possible here.

Hairy mellon

Hi BryanF

Here is Dail Exchange: Building Regulations Compliance: 29 Jan 2014: Written answers (KildareStreet.com)
http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2014-01-29a.168&s=Building+regulation

Current public-sector projects letters of appointments are appear to be requesting design teams to assume new roles in SI.9 with no additional fees mentioned

this issue is an "evolving" one in the industry it would appear

BryanF

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Current public-sector projects letters of appointments are appear to be requesting design teams to assume new roles in SI.9 with no additional fees mentioned

any contractor / consultant would be a fool to accept this responsibility without an increased fee

DOCARCH

BryanF wrote: »

any contractor / consultant would be a fool to accept this responsibility without an increased fee

Agreed. I cannot see this happening.

sydthebeat

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Hi BryanF

Here is Dail Exchange: Building Regulations Compliance: 29 Jan 2014: Written answers (KildareStreet.com)
http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2014-01-29a.168&s=Building+regulation

Current public-sector projects letters of appointments are appear to be requesting design teams to assume new roles in SI.9 with no additional fees mentioned

this issue is an "evolving" one in the industry it would appear

laughable.....

but not unexpected that governemnt want private sector to do work for nothing.

RORY O CONNOR

Anyone with any sense will not certify anything unless he has designed it and been on site to ensure it has been done correctly. How else can you be sure!

Hairy mellon

Looks like riai are strengthening call for deferral

RIAI request Deferral of Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 of 2014) | BRegs Blog
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/riai-request-deferral-of-building-control-amendment-regulation-si-9-of-2014/

RORY O CONNOR

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Looks like riai are strengthening call for deferral

RIAI request Deferral of Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 of 2014) | BRegs Blog
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/riai-request-deferral-of-building-control-amendment-regulation-si-9-of-2014/

Probably because they are scared of the regulations

BryanF

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Probably because they are scared of the regulations

i dont think 'scared' is the RIAI party line

surely we can give a better critical analysis of the posted article..

jonniebgood1

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Looks like riai are strengthening call for deferral

RIAI request Deferral of Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 of 2014) | BRegs Blog
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/riai-request-deferral-of-building-control-amendment-regulation-si-9-of-2014/

They left this late!!! Why?

The letter itself is very weak. In fact some of the 'main issues' are nothing to do with the Government or the legislation. Rather they shown that despite the changes being on the cards for a considerable time, contracts for example have not been revised in preparation (as per issue 1 in letter). Issue 5 listed in letter is about proper filing of information by planning authorities, this reads like grasping at straws as it is nothing to do with the RIAI's own members. The addressee of the letter is also interesting- it is not sent to the responsible Minister. This reads as a snub to Minister Hogan as the legislation is fronted by him. Whether this lessens any chance of having its message accepted is arguable.

RORY O CONNOR

BryanF wrote: »

i dont think 'scared' is the RIAI party line

surely we can give a better critical analysis of the posted article..

For scared read unwilling to accept radical change that would mean Architects (and Engineers such as myself) have to take more responsibility and be culpable. Current certification of works has nice wording like opinion on compliance which is very vague. With the new bill all inspections and sign off certification will state categorically that something complies and if it is found later to be otherwise there is someone who can be legally pursued.

strongback

The changes to the wordings of the certs only happened a few weeks ago, there appears a valid argument that some time is needed to incorporate the new wording into standard contract documents..

sydthebeat

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

They left this late!!! Why?

The letter itself is very weak. In fact some of the 'main issues' are nothing to do with the Government or the legislation. Rather they shown that despite the changes being on the cards for a considerable time, contracts for example have not been revised in preparation (as per issue 1 in letter). Issue 5 listed in letter is about proper filing of information by planning authorities, this reads like grasping at straws as it is nothing to do with the RIAI's own members. The addressee of the letter is also interesting- it is not sent to the responsible Minister. This reads as a snub to Minister Hogan as the legislation is fronted by him. Whether this lessens any chance of having its message accepted is arguable.

i think the RIAI realised they are not going to get any change from Minister Hogan, so they have changed tact. pointless in the extreme in my opinion.

To be fair on the time scale for contracts, SI 9 was only signed into law on 21st January which left a lead in time for theses regs of 5 1/2 weeks, which is minuscule in terms of government legislation. Yes it can be argued that a lot of prep work could have been done legally, but to be fair again, the final wording of the assigned certifiers is significantly different to SI 80s wording so a lot of the legal prep work would have been wasted.

what it does shown is that RIAI are shown to be very incompetent in their dealing with, and understanding, of the amended regs. They council of riai have been in 'reserved' agreement with every aspect of how the conversations with stakeholders went through the process, and it was only when the members called for an EGM did the council actually realise how worried their membership was about the incoming regs.
They have now found themselves totally unprepared, maybe because they actually thought they could get it deferred.

The fact that they have advised their members to try to get the 'assigned certifiers' role agreed as a separate engagement to that of "architect" is completely shambolic.