Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

You do not have to offer your opinion professionally to clients, therefore the only opinion that matters in this argument is the option of those that DO have to have PI insurance behind them.

That's not a slight, it's just how it is.

Or the opinion of someone who themselves will undertake a self build of an extension or new home.

Its clear from this thread that the legislation is open to interpretation and depending on situation/profession people are choosing the interpretation that suits them.

As DOCARCH says outside forces may well influence this more e.g. the banks. It would seem from experiences of people I know building at present that the banks are looking to cross every T now and dot every i as recently a friend was told the bank wouldn't release the final stage payment without proof the planning fee's had been paid in full.

The friend contacted me as I have stated here before I managed to negotiate a deal with the Council to pay off my fee's over 29 years and he was looking to do the same.

pobber1

4Sticks wrote: »

3. Will you secure funding from a lender ?

This I would imagine is completely dependant on the final house having a reasonable amount of equity once built.

galwaytt

Hairy mellon wrote: »

breg blog: Interesting. We noted that the localgov.ie FAQ section was offline earlier this week. It would appear the section dealing with self-builders Question 12 has been revised. Here is the newly worded section- read below for comparison with previous. Can you spot the differences?

CURRENT "REVISED" VERSION

12. Can I build my own house myself or by direct labour?

Yes. You may appoint yourself as the builder and sign the Certificate of compliance (Undertaking by Builder). As the builder, you are responsible for compliance with the Building Regulations. You must sign the Certificate of Compliance on Completion and you must also appoint an Assigned Certifier to inspect the works during construction.

As an owner, how can I appoint a competent builder?

A competent person may generally be regarded as a person who possesses sufficient training, experience, and knowledge to enable them to undertake the project tasks they are required to perform having regard to the nature of the project and its scale and complexity. Competence can be verified, for instance, by reference to involvement on previous similar projects. One way of choosing a competent builder is to select a builder included on the Construction Industry Register Ireland (CIRI). Further details may be found on www.ciri.ie

Wow, what a mess.

So, it says you can self-build. That's good. Appoint yourself as builder. Fine.

But it also says you need an "Assigned Certifier". But doesn't lay out what an "assigned certifier is" actually is. It does mention "competent builder" in the next sentence............so is that what they mean: that an "Assigned Certifier" is a "competent builder" ??

Then in the next para its says "one way of choosing is..." - so what are the other way(s) ?

There's more holes in that than a 10 yr old sieve.

Does no-one read anything before publishing it anymore ??

You could drive a coach and four through that tbh. Brutal.

galwaytt

DOCARCH wrote: »

Indeed. We saw recently, on this forum (but in a different thread), that somebody was recently offered a mortgage, but, one condition of that mortgage was the use of a building contractor.

So while, in theory, it may still be technically possible (for now) to carry out a self build, other 'forces' may simply make it impossible.

Indeed: we finished on a site recently, direct-build, but the caveat the bank had on it for the client is: no stage payments would be made 'til the structure was up, roofed and weathertight. Had to have and Engineer sign off that it was such, too.

None of this stage payments as you go along thing.

I heard yesterday of one couple getting approval in principle, but before they started the bank said they were 'not in a position' to forward funds due to constraints on liquidity !! In other words: they didn't have the money to give them !!

Penn

galwaytt wrote: »

Wow, what a mess.

So, it says you can self-build. That's good. Appoint yourself as builder. Fine.

But it also says you need an "Assigned Certifier". But doesn't lay out what an "assigned certifier is" actually is. It does mention "competent builder" in the next sentence............so is that what they mean: that an "Assigned Certifier" is a "competent builder" ??

Then in the next para its says "one way of choosing is..." - so what are the other way(s) ?

There's more holes in that than a 10 yr old sieve.

Does no-one read anything before publishing it anymore ??

You could drive a coach and four through that tbh. Brutal.

No, an assigned certifier is an architect/engineer/surveyor who will sign off the entire project.

sydthebeat

pobber1 wrote: »

This I would imagine is completely dependant on the final house having a reasonable amount of equity once built.

the amount of equity in a build after its complete, has nothing to do with the build being constructed on lent money.

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

Or the opinion of someone who themselves will undertake a self build of an extension or new home.

sorry but NO

teh opinion of someone undertaking a self build doesn't hold any weight.

They are still dependent on the opinion of the professional who holds PI insurance in case that opinion is challenged in a court of law.

I really cannot see how you can compare the two.

I put it to you this way...... can a self build choose to go ahead with a build because in his opinion he can? no, is the answer.

DOCARCH

pobber1 wrote: »

This I would imagine is completely dependant on the final house having a reasonable amount of equity once built.

Yes but I would suggest that the banks may take a view on what they perceive to be the less risky route/more water tight route to them having an asset they can sell, if needs be, once the house is complete.

Having the owner of the house as the 'certified' builder, I reckon, could muddy things up a bit? Not as clear cut as having a (third party) building contractor being the 'certified' builder.

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

sorry but NO

teh opinion of someone undertaking a self build doesn't hold any weight.

They are still dependent on the opinion of the professional who holds PI insurance in case that opinion is challenged in a court of law.

I really cannot see how you can compare the two.

I put it to you this way...... can a self build choose to go ahead with a build because in his opinion he can? no, is the answer.

Of course they can? If a self builder can engage an architect/engineer/surveyor who will sign off on the build if the self builder nominate themselves as the builder they can proceed, the Minister has stated this and the FAQ on Localgov site states this. You are just choosing to ignore those facts or look at other conflicting historic statements.

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

Of course they can? If a self builder can engage an architect/engineer/surveyor who will sign off on the build if the self builder nominate themselves as the builder they can proceed, the Minister has stated this and the FAQ on Localgov site states this. You are just choosing to ignore those facts or look at other conflicting historic statements.

ah look, ignore what the law says if you want.......

4Sticks

Villain wrote: »

If a self builder can engage an architect/engineer/surveyor

and if the bank will let them

and if a validating officer - at completion of the build - agrees.

and if in 10/15 years the next purchasers advisers have no issues with it

then no problem at all.

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

ah look, ignore what the law says if you want.......

The law is not clear, the latest interpretation of the law by the Minister is clear, you just seem to want to ignore that but accept what he said months ago instead?

Villain

4Sticks wrote: »

and if the bank will let them

and if a validating officer - at completion of the build - agrees.

and if in 10/15 years the next purchasers advisers have no issues with it

then no problem at all.

You assume a bank is involved in every case, that is not the case especially in rural areas where a site is obtain FOC and where self builds are very common.
Once the certificate of compliance is issued and the validating office signs off then there is no issue.

Penn

Villain wrote: »

Of course they can? If a self builder can engage an architect/engineer/surveyor who will sign off on the build if the self builder nominate themselves as the builder they can proceed, the Minister has stated this and the FAQ on Localgov site states this. You are just choosing to ignore those facts or look at other conflicting historic statements.

But you're missing the point, Villain. Architects/Engineers/Surveyors will now be extremely hesitant to be the assigned certifier on a self-build project due to the increased liability they'll face for things which are largely outside their control.

Hell, there are actual builders who the company I work for have decided we won't be the assigned certifier for because we think it'll potentially cause us trouble.

You're complaining about "professionals" on this thread, but it's the professionals who will literally need to turn away potential business because it could leave them liable for other people's mistakes.

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

The law is not clear, the latest interpretation of the law by the Minister is clear, you just seem to want to ignore that but accept what he said months ago instead?

so politicians speeches are now to be taken as 'the law'....... thats just bonkers.

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

so politicians speeches are now to be taken as 'the law'....... thats just bonkers.

You ignored what I said, the law is not clear, the Minister was answered a question on the Dail record on how the law affected a certain situation, his response is clear.

You think the Law states one thing the Minister thinks it states the opposite, I'll take the word of the Minister

4Sticks

Villain wrote: »

I'll take the word of the Minister

In what context ?
If merely in posting on the internet - well good for you take whatever you want. In a real life context - most unwise.

4Sticks

Villain wrote: »

the law is not clear,

Is is.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

so politicians speeches are now to be taken as 'the law'....... thats just bonkers.

The law is not clear, the latest interpretation of the law by the Minister is clear

ah look, ignore what the law says if you want.

Guy's, we have 70 odd pages of argument here, much of which is different people putting forward what they interpret as the ''Law''

None I think are Lawyers, but many do hold other qualifications

I suggest from Monday, meetings can be held between representatives of Certifying Professionals, and say the law Society, to agree how to work these new regulations.

the solicitors will want to protect the Lenders, and the certifying Professionals, their clients and PI.

Villain

Penn wrote: »

But you're missing the point, Villain. Architects/Engineers/Surveyors will now be extremely hesitant to be the assigned certifier on a self-build project due to the increased liability they'll face for things which are largely outside their control.

Hell, there are actual builders who the company I work for have decided we won't be the assigned certifier for because we think it'll potentially cause us trouble.

You're complaining about "professionals" on this thread, but it's the professionals who will literally need to turn away potential business because it could leave them liable for other people's mistakes.

You see by your own admission there are builders who you or other Engineers wouldn't sign off on, however I believe there are Engineers who would sign off on some Self Builders, an experienced Self Builder may be far ahead of some builders.

The issue others are raising here is that even if an Engineer wanted to sign off on a Self Builder they can't due to the legislation however the Minister has stated that they can?

Villain

4Sticks wrote: »

Is is.

You think the legislation is clear?? Have you actually read it?

4Sticks

Yes. more than once. And the novice self builder ( direct labour ) cannot nominate himself.

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

You think the legislation is clear?? Have you actually read it?

this is straight from the Code of Practise

In relation to the Design and Construction of buildings, the Building Owner should ensure that they appoint a competent Builder and competent registered professionals to act as Designer and as Assigned Certifier.

crystal clear and complete contradictory to what you are saying

Villain

4Sticks wrote: »

Yes. more than once. And the novice self builder ( direct labour ) cannot nominate himself.

What about an expierenced self builder who wants to go direct labour? What section of the legislation states what you say?

The form for nominating a builder states:

2.
As the building owner, I have assigned the following person as Builder of the
works and I am satisfied that they are competent to undertake the works so
assigned on my behalf.

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

this is straight from the Code of Practise




crystal clear and complete contradictory to what you are saying

Where does it say they can't nominate themselves as a competent builder?

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

Where does it say they can't nominate themselves as a competent builder?

it says the have to appoint a competent builder.....


a novice self build is neither "competent" not a "builder" QED

4Sticks

The value of this thread is somewhat devalued by repeated circular arguments.

this post includes the part of the text whereby at completion the builders certificate can only be signed by an actual builder.

If you still persist in differing with me on this I see no value in contradicting you further on the internet.

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

it says the have to appoint a competent builder.....


a novice self build is neither "competent" not a "builder" QED

Who decides that a self builder is not competent and why do you assume a self builder is a novice?

Hairy mellon

the code of practice is clear- owners cannot be builders. there is not one reference to an owner occupying this role. the code has a pretty clear definition of what a competent person is.

the localgov.ie website advice has been revised this week to coincide with this.

statements and opinions are just that- statements. If this legislation is vague it will be clarified through court proceedings resultant from implementation issues.

legal advice is already there- 3 senior council opinions on si.9 (previously si.80) that all concur the wording is "extraordinarily loose and vague"

as a result we have conflicting interpretations from the department, minister etc. There will also be variations in implementation as a result. We got a taste of this last week with varying implementation dates being given out by various local authorities.

Govt need to come out with definitive legal advice on implementation of SI.9 asap imho.

martinn123

4Sticks wrote: »

The value of this thread is somewhat devalued by repeated circular arguments.

I agree, however it's also devalued by certain contributors, having an interpretation, and refusing to accept that an alternative interpretation, may, exist, to the frustration of those who have a background in or upcoming interest in a Self Build.

In the event that ''self-building'' is outlawed by this legislation, and that is not what the Politicians expected, then Amending Legislation can be passed, or amendment by way of Ministerial Order.

various vested interests are working, canvassing, to achieve their desired results, we even have Joe Duffy, on the case, Ha Ha.
With Local Elections coming up, expect the Self Building constituency to make more noise, and overturn any defects, if they actually exist.