Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

mullingar

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

People will happily pay lots of money out to service their Audi or pay out a lot for a fancy holiday but not professional fees.

That will always be the case as average people can see what their very hard earned money buys.

In my opinion professional fees will always seem far too expensive by ordinary people as it never appears to represent value for money as ordinary people would not appreciate the amount of time involved by the professional in once-off projects.

It will be a lot worse with the new regs!

strongback

mullingar wrote: »

That will always be the case as average people can see what their very hard earned money buys.

In my opinion professional fees will always seem far too expensive by ordinary people as it never appears to represent value for money as ordinary people would not appreciate the amount of time involved by the professional in once-off projects.

It will be a lot worse with the new regs!

That's the reason why commercial work is always better than dealing with the public.

There isn't really anything particularly positive about domestic jobs. Low fees, potentially annoying unknowledgeable clients and many times the lowest standard of builders in the industry. I'd be happy to just do planning permissions and then walk away.

BryanF

this is not a discussion about clients v professionals or professionals v contractors!

back on topic please BCA 2014

dathi

from the ciri webpage questions and answers quote "I’ve just set up a new construction company, does that mean I won’t be able to join the register?

If the individual making the application on their own behalf or on behalf of a company has gained experience working for another company, these projects can be used as examples when applying to join the register. "

from ciri website does that mean that paddy joe who has been a laborer for 3 years can now proclaim himself a builder and register with ciri?

sydthebeat

dathi wrote: »

I’ve just set up a new construction company, does that mean I won’t be able to join the register?

If the individual making the application on their own behalf or on behalf of a company has gained experience working for another company, these projects can be used as examples when applying to join the register.

from ciri website does that mean that paddy joe who has been a laborer for 3 years can now proclaim himself a builder and register with ciri?

please put that question to CIRI and come back to us with the answer?

at the moment everything is up in the air and NO ONE seems to know how its going to be implemented.

The ministers contradicting what the regs say.
CIF contradicts what the minister says
The 'guidance leaflet' contradicts the regs
The code of practice contradicts the leaflet....

If it wasnt so serious it would be hilarious.

4Sticks

Get ready for Hogan to blame the architects . I can see him now sat in front of Miriam .....

DOCARCH

4Sticks wrote: »

Get ready for Hogan to blame the architects . I can see him now sat in front of Miriam .....

Whingers!

4Sticks

I see they are all prepared and ready in the kingdom

DOCARCH

DOCARCH wrote: »

SI 9 sign off will involve a significant increase in time input by the professional per build so there will only be so in theory less sign offs per year.

There has been ongoing calls, from various bodies (e.g. the ESRI) that Dublin (alone) needs at least 8000 housing units built, per year, for the next 5 years.

What sort of additional time input will each house require in terms of inspection and certification under SI 9? 50 hours per house, maybe, depending on the size of development? Probably less time for larger developments (due efficiences/economies of scale).

If it was, say, 25 hours per housing unit, for a larger development, for 8000 housing units per year, you would need approx. 100 professionals working full time, 9 to 5 every day, for 48 weeks per year, just working on admin and inspection in connection with SI 9.

I just do not believe there are enough professionals/potential assigned certifiers to go around!

Either construction will come to a halt or something will have to give with SI 9.

4Sticks

The minister could
confer upon Certifiers , under a licence system , all of the stringent powers of enforcement that the BCA 1990 confers upon LABCO's.
mandate that Certifiers must be a stand alone appointment from the Architect. Payment upfront. Certifier not "biddable" to client in any shape of form. Severe penalties for Certifiers for not being honest.

That would work nicely.

jonniebgood1

dathi wrote: »

I’ve just set up a new construction company, does that mean I won’t be able to join the register?

If the individual making the application on their own behalf or on behalf of a company has gained experience working for another company, these projects can be used as examples when applying to join the register.

from ciri website does that mean that paddy joe who has been a laborer for 3 years can now proclaim himself a builder and register with ciri?

You can apply to join CIRI. There are a number of requirements such as proper insurance, a strong grasp of safety related issues and a tax clearance certificate. As it is a new register it is not possible for anyone to accurately tell you your chances of success. The information which you submit gives ample opportunity for you to demonstrate previous experience.

dathi

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You can apply to join CIRI. There are a number of requirements such as proper insurance, a strong grasp of safety related issues and a tax clearance certificate. As it is a new register it is not possible for anyone to accurately tell you your chances of success. The information which you submit gives ample opportunity for you to demonstrate previous experience.

sorry if i wasnt clear jonnie i was not talking about myself the first half of my post was lifted directly from the ciri webpage just pointing out the farce that anyone can still call them selves a builder without any minimum qualifications other than a tax cert

sydthebeat

dathi wrote: »

sorry if i wasnt clear jonnie i was not talking about myself the first half of my post was lifted directly from the ciri webpage just pointing out the farce that anyone can still call them selves a builder without any minimum qualifications other than a tax cert

Dathi, there are no qualifications in Ireland to become a builder, that's part of the problem.

jonniebgood1

dathi wrote: »

sorry if i wasnt clear jonnie i was not talking about myself the first half of my post was lifted directly from the ciri webpage just pointing out the farce that anyone can still call them selves a builder without any minimum qualifications other than a tax cert

Fair enough- I agree by the way. CIRI could be a step in the right direction although according to the guidance document issued to councils and linked here in the last few pages any person who wishes to build can just assign themselves to the role!!!

4Sticks

sydthebeat wrote: »

please put that question to CIRI and come back to us with the answer?

at the moment everything is up in the air and NO ONE seems to know how its going to be implemented.

The ministers contradicting what the regs say.
CIF contradicts what the minister says
The 'guidance leaflet' contradicts the regs
The code of practice contradicts the leaflet....

If it wasnt so serious it would be hilarious.

This letter summarizes nicely

Source

The representative body for self-builder’s in Ireland the IASOB have recently written to every local authority and to the Department of the Environment asking for recent inaccurate public guidance to be retracted. The public guidance document is attached after the letter below. Letter from Iaosb to Building Control Department’s regarding Building Control (Amendment) S.I 9 of 2014 to follow (extract off IASOB website):

________________________

Dear Building Control Section,

RE: Self- Builder status under Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 of 2014)

I am writing to you on behalf of the Irish Association of Self Builders regarding the status of self-builders from 1st March onwards. Despite numerous written from Minster Phil Hogan to questions asked on our behalf by other TD’s the status of our members remains vague.

We have been informed by attendees that at an Engineer’s briefing on January 17th 2014 the consensus view of the Construction Industry Federation (CIF), Department of the Environment (DOE) and Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland (RIAI) representatives was that self-building would no longer be possible from 1st March onwards. Hubert Fitzpartick of the Construction Industry Federation (CIF Director of Housing) confirmed this position that self-building would end on 1st march (interview on January 23rd 2014).

Contrary to this in numerous written answers to TD’s you have stated that self-building can continue as before under SI.9. John Graby, the Director of the RIAI stated that self-building was possible under BC(A)R SI.9 in an interview on 6th February 2014.

We have read with dismay recent Local Authority public guidance on BC(A)R SI.9. It is unfortunate that a recent local authority guidance to the public on Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 of 2014) would appear to be inaccurate and contradictory. Given that we have less than 2 weeks before the implementation date of 1st March, incorrect information is of no assistance to members of the public and professionals who are scrambling to adapt to the new regulation.

Reading item 22 together with 11 and 12 it would appear that Local Authorities may deem owners that undertake the role of builder on commencement compliant, provided the completion certificate is signed by a “Builder”- a “Director of Principal of a building company”. This could indicate that a completion certificate provided by a competent “builder”(someone not involved in the build or inspection during construction) could be satisfactory compliance with SI.9. So we now have the unacceptable situation where we have the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government at odds with his Department with different interpretations of the regulation, the CIF and the RIAI also with different opinions (two key stakeholders) and finally local authorities who issued different guidelines again on the status of the self-builder under BC(A)R SI.9.

Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 OF 2014) of course has not changed and the completion certificate for a builder states “to be signed by a Principal or Director or of a building company only”.

We the Irish Association of Self Builders, have sought independent legal advice on the status of self-builders under Building Control (Amendment) Regulation (SI.9 of 2014). Our legal advisor confirmed that the sentence “to be signed by a Principal or Director or of a building company only” is the applicable section that has been signed into law. If that sentence is not removed or changed to include building owner, then the building owner may find themselves with legal actions taken by or against them should they go ahead and sign the certificate as the builder. The document Building Control (Amendment) Regulation SI.9 of 2014 was passed in to law by the Minister on the 15th of January 2014 and it can not be changed for individual cases.

On behalf of our members we request that you formally retract this guidance document and correct any public statements regarding concerning the status of the self-builder; we believe your public guidance is misleading and bring local authorities into disrepute. We will also be writing requesting a formal correction from Minister Hogan and the RIAI that have issued conflicting and misrepresentative advice on this matter also. Why we are not afforded the courtesy of a correct and legally accurate response and guidance to our one simple question “can self-building continue after 1st March”? What has been given up to now is not acceptable to our members and to the citizens of this country affected by this legislation.

Look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours Sincerely,

Shane McCloud

Irish Association of self Builders

www.iaosb.com

dathi

sydthebeat wrote: »

Dathi, there are no qualifications in Ireland to become a builder, that's part of the problem.

thats exactly the point i was making anyone can still call them selves a builder without any technical knowledge or minimum qualification ,I am not expecting builders to have the same level of knowledge as arch /engs or even lowly techs but as the regs get more complex to comply with, there should have been a minimum education standard set for the principle of building firm to achieve. with a lead in time for them to achieve it. whether this was a level 5,6,or 7 is another debate, what we have at the moment is a tax cert which while i am sure will please revenue no end, will not improve building control compliance.

mickdw

It seems like a no brainer that there should be a builders licence system like some countries operate.
This ties together the required knowledge, tax clearance and insurances and the information is then placed on a public file.

4Sticks

Co Clare councilor gears up for local elections

DOCARCH

DOCARCH wrote: »

Joooooooe Dufffffffy!

Just hitting the airwaves now...tune in!

DOCARCH

DOCARCH wrote: »

Just hitting the airwaves now...tune in!

I would expect to hear more about this (on Joe Duffy) during the week. At the end of the programme, Joe said he would come back to it as 'the switch board had light up'.

topcatcbr

I only just caught the end of it. I thought there would be more discussion on here about the "Duffy" segment.

mandy gall

Look at code of practice page 6" building owners role:...ultimately responsible for the works etc.." to me ultimately is the key word. The building owner is the one who will be liable for anything that goes wrong in the future.

BryanF

mandy gall wrote: »

Look at code of practice page 6" building owners role:...ultimately responsible for the works etc.." to me ultimately is the key word. The building owner is the one who will be liable for anything that goes wrong in the future.

whats your point?

mandy gall

My point is whats the point in these whole regs? Supposedly to protect the consumer?? How is the consumer protected if something goes wrong with the building in the future?

DOCARCH

mandy gall wrote: »

Supposedly to protect the consumer?? How is the consumer protected if something goes wrong with the building in the future?

They are not...if anything the consumer is worse off (and more out of pocket from the outset)...'protecting the consumer' was just the political spin on the new regs.

The powers that be seem to think that professional indemnity insurance (PII) = latent defects insurance, i.e. if something goes wrong PII will pay out. It is not. PII is there to protect the professional (in theory) and the only redress the consumer has is to engage in a potentially lengthy legal battle.

4Sticks

mandy gall wrote: »

My point is whats the point in these whole regs? Supposedly to protect the consumer?? How is the consumer protected if something goes wrong with the building in the future?

Wont happen with self builders according to lots around here.

jonniebgood1

mandy gall wrote: »

How is the consumer protected if something goes wrong with the building in the future?

The building is built by an experienced builder who is bound by a high level of standards (they sign a commitment to this). As this is their trade they are less likely to make mistakes than someone unfamiliar in the role of managing a building project, including health and safety on site. A certifier backed up by PI insurance will also sign that building is in compliance with building regulations -this was not previously always the case and is a clearly better position.

mandy gall

So what is the point of these regs then when the building owner is ultimately responsible?

DOCARCH

mandy gall wrote: »

So what is the point of these regs then when the building owner is ultimately responsible?

To get the government and local authorities completely off the hook with anything to do with construction and associated problems that may arise in the future. Black and white...nothing to do with them.

jonniebgood1

DOCARCH wrote: »

To get the government and local authorities completely off the hook with anything to do with construction and associated problems that may arise in the future. Black and white...nothing to do with them.

With respect that is not the aim of the regulations- That is more of a political point you are making which I am sure many would agree with.