Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Chisler2

4Sticks wrote: »

Close

Very simplified now

1. A Desiger stamps/signs and approves design drawings,at commencement .
2. A Certifier inspects during works and certifies upon completion

1+2 could be the same person ( must be architect/engineer/surveyor ) who could also be the builder if

a) the local authority accept this
b) his/her lenders accept this.

I agree this ought to be ok but may not be for a self builder

It should not be ok - but is or could be - in the case of a spec builder.

Take a bow Hogan.

Imagine the commissioner of a one-off house (they cannot be referred to as "self-builders" from hereon, as they will be divested of that choice) is able to find an architect/engineer/surveyor (there will be a shortage of these) willing and able to inspect and "sign off". What is the hapless commissioner's position if the inspector/certifier becomes seriously ill or (even) dies two weeks before the snagging-lists are complete? These things happen. This S.I. is crazy!

4Sticks

The SI does provide a procedure to allow for a change of Certifier and / or builder.
But yes that would be an extermely difficult circumstance.

topcatcbr

sydthebeat wrote: »

I've banged my head against this wall long enough. .......

I congratulate you on the amount of patience you have shown. I was frustrated even reading it.

Some people can only learn from making mistakes. No amount of help and common sense can help.

Penn

Guys, no more warnings. Two people today have been carded already.

Keep it civil. If you're getting into a circular argument with someone, step away from it (preferably without announcing it on the thread).

Any more personal digs will result in a ban. Knock it off.

atech

Have they amended the S.I. to exclude the part about being a principal or director of a building company? or are ye all assuming the 'competent' self-builder will set up their own company so that they can sign the cert (and register with the CIRI if/when inclusion in that becomes mandatory)?

hexosan

atech wrote: »

Have they amended the S.I. to exclude the part about being a principal or director of a building company? or are ye all assuming the 'competent' self-builder will set up their own company so that they can sign the cert (and register with the CIRI if/when inclusion in that becomes mandatory)?

I was wondering when this would get mentioned as some posters seem to be complete ignoring this point. Doesn't matter what the minister says if this section is left in then it's law and must be abided by. There's no way around it.

Hairy mellon

exactly

what the minister and department says doesnt matter

they will not be participating in the roles

The last part of the circle was today- the SCSI confirmed in teh irish times self-building no longer possible under SI.9. The riai confirmed this at copd event last monday attended by 500 architects. In conference on 17th hanuary the IEI confirmed this also. Martin Vaughan spokesperson for Department of Environment was there along with RIAI and CIF and stated anyone declaring themselves on commencement would be deemed non-compliant.

You now have all 3 "competent" representative bodies that are qualified to undertake certifiers roles confirming that self-builders are precluded from the role og builder under si.9 (unless owner is established builder).

it does not matter if a self-builder builds their own house 100% compliant with building regulations, certifiers cant sign off as there is no competent builder involved. Simple as that

Hogan is on radio tomorrow and he will state all is well self-builders away you go. Only problem is no one will act as certifiers on their projects because of SI.9 and Code of practice.

A SCSI or IEI member on register will not be able to do self build. Someone who is qualified to be assigned and design certifier wont be able to self-build. Because it is against the law.

shane6977

[quote="Hairy mellon;89228116"Hogan is on radio tomorrow and he will state all is well self-builders away you go. Only problem is no one will act as certifiers on their projects because of SI.9 and Code of practice.
[/quote]

What time / station is he on?

Hairy mellon

afaik between 7 and 9 rte radio 1.

morning ireland afaik

Villain

Hogan says there are wild exaggerations, people who build direct labour or self build can continue, no changes in statutory act.

There you have it, case closed

DOCARCH

More spin and not the whole truth from Hogan on RTE Radio 1!

DOCARCH

Villain wrote: »

Hogan says there are wild exaggerations, people who build direct labour or self build can continue, no changes in statutory act.

There you have it, case closed

No matter what he says....it does not change the legislation!

hexosan

atech wrote: »

Have they amended the S.I. to exclude the part about being a principal or director of a building company? or are ye all assuming the 'competent' self-builder will set up their own company so that they can sign the cert (and register with the CIRI if/when inclusion in that becomes mandatory)?

@Villain your going around in circles here and you still haven't countered the above statement. The legislation states that a cert has to be signed by a principal or director of a building company how does a self builder comply with this point.
The minister can say whatever he wants it doesn't change the fact that it's the legislation you have to comply with not political spin.

You live in a rose tinted, sugar coated world if you think for one second that you can believe anything that comes out of a politicians mouth. (Especially in the run up to an election)

sydthebeat

Institutes of architects, engineers and surveyors all have come out and said under this legislation self building is over.

These are the certifiers that self builder need to go cap in hand to.

So notwithstanding what the minister ( and villian) says, self building is over.
Cased closed.

Villain

hexosan wrote: »

@Villain your going around in circles here and you still haven't countered the above statement. The legislation states that a cert has to be signed by a principal or director of a building company how does a self builder comply with this point.
The minister can say whatever he wants it doesn't change the fact that it's the legislation you have to comply with not political spin.

You live in a rose tinted, sugar coated world if you think for one second that you can believe anything that comes out of a politicians mouth. (Especially in the run up to an election)

If you believe Phil Hogan is saying what he says without legal advice from his department that's up to you, he couldn't have been any clearer.

I have no love for any politician especially my Local Minister Phil but will I accept the word of the Minister with responsibility over the opinion of others here, absolutely.

sydthebeat

Villain wrote: »

If you believe Phil Hogan is saying what he says without legal advice from his department that's up to you, he couldn't have been any clearer.

I have no love for any politician especially my Local Minister Phil but will I accept the word of the Minister with responsibility over the opinion of others here, absolutely.

The minister has NO responsibility for certifying works. What makes you think he does?

Happyman42

Could somebody from the professions point to a source where what the Minister has been saying for some time now is repudiated?
I would like to see something official, if possible. Thanks

Villain

sydthebeat wrote: »

The minister has NO responsibility for certifying works. What makes you think he does?

He is responsible for the department which over see the legislation and is the responsible statutory body.

I really don't get how people can ignore the Minister here and just decide they are right the department of the Environment is wrong?

sydthebeat

The association of self builders themselves have gotten legal advice which also states self builds see not possible under this legislation.


This minister isn't the first minister to not understand the legislation he's signed

4Sticks

The minister is being disingenuous. Technically correct that self building can continue - for builders !
He knows whats is in his SI means self building as understood by most is over he and knows what the RIAI/IEI/CIF/SCSI/IAOSB have said on the matter.
He wants to sit back and blame others for the problem he has created and I fully expect him to be using words to that affect in primtetime TV over the coming weeks and months.
"Those damn consultants ! Never did their job prperly before and now look at them , Pat / Joe/ Miriam"

Now I am getting off your merry go round Villain.

Happyman42

Is it not time the 'professional' bodies got some counter arguments out there?

antiskeptic

DOCARCH wrote: »

More spin and not the whole truth from Hogan on RTE Radio 1!

Aided and abetted by patchy journalism at Moaning Ireland.

The self-builder's wife they interviewed made it plain: "my husband isn't a registered builder which makes it illegal to sign a document stating that he is"

And RTE failed to ask him that most critical of questions when he was insisting people could still self build employing direct labour. "But what about the form which requires you to be a registered builder?"

4Sticks

Happyman42 wrote: »

Is it not time the 'professional' bodies got some counter arguments out there?

To be met with "whingers / moaners /never did you job properly before / you are part of the legacy problems" . Wait and see...

Villain

4Sticks wrote: »

The minister is being disingenuous. Technically correct that self building can continue - for builders !
He knows whats is in his SI means self building as understood by most is over he and knows what the RIAI/IEI/CIF/SCSI/IAOSB have said on the matter.
He wants to sit back and blame others for the problem he has created and I fully expect him to be using words to that affect in primtetime TV over the coming weeks and months.
"Those damn consultants ! Never did their job prperly before and now look at them , Pat / Joe/ Miriam"

Now I am getting off your merry go round Villain.

Did you hear what he said on Morning Ireland? He explained that the scenarios that were mentioned by RTE could continue as normal?

4Sticks

Stepping off merry go round ....now

4Sticks

sydthebeat wrote: »

This minister isn't the first minister to not understand the legislation he's signed

He is a little cleverer then most think. He manged the professions well as the 2012 Draft regs with words to the affected that " no matter the input of all/any others" , I alone now accept fill responsibility for this building" put them all onto the backfoot. Only in Jan 2014 were changes made to at least make liabilities insurable by providing for ancillary certifications. Cynical. Clever.

With my crystal ball in hand in now predict a one line SI in the near future to remove the " to be signed by Principal or Director of building company only" form the standard form of builders certification. IAOSB and all they represent will breath a sigh of relief and under that circumstance will be very accepting of all the other rigours and costs the SI 9 imposes on them i.e. the imposition of Desiger and Certifier will not seem so bad after all....

Being hit with the small stick being less bad than being hit with the big stick.

Happyman42

4Sticks wrote: »

To be met with "whingers / moaners /never did you job properly before / you are part of the legacy problems" . Wait and see...

eh NO, but it might bring a glint of 'professionalism' to the whole sorry mess. We had a member of the RIAA quoted this morning yet the Minister was able to say that they weren't speaking for the RIAA in an official capacity. The RIAA are also speaking out of two sides of their mouths. Somebody needs to take control of what it's members are saying.
Once again we see vested interests combine and joe public gets left footing the bills and making sense of the mess.

martinn123

4Sticks wrote: »

He is a little cleverer then most think. He manged the professions well as the 2012 Draft regs with words to the affected that " no matter the input of all/any others" , I alone now accept fill responsibility for this building" put them all onto the backfoot. Only in Jan 2014 were changes made to at least make liabilities insurable by providing for ancillary certifications. Cynical. Clever.

Or responding to observations made, before the Reg's come into force, to remove a valid objection, and make the Legislation, workable
Surely thats what these periods of consultation are for.

4Sticks wrote:

With my crystal ball in hand in now predict a one line SI in the near future to remove the " to be signed by Principal or Director of building company only" form the standard form of builders certification. IAOSB and all they represent will breath a sigh of relief and under that circumstance will be very accepting of all the other rigours and costs the SI 9 imposes on them i.e. the imposition of Desiger and Certifier will not seem so bad after all....

Being hit with the small stick being less bad than being hit with the big stick.

I suggested yesterday, a simple Amendment could remove this objection, again if your crystal ball, is working, and this wording is amended, are we all back on track, and the ongoing, and cynical criticisms aimed at Self Builders, here can desist.

Interestingly Hogan also states Fees should be in the range of 1-3K for a one off, for this extra work.

This is in stark contrast to comments here some time ago, that Certifyers would have to be on site every day, and charge up to 8%.

I for one would welcome some ''Legal Opinion'',post, Hogans statement this morning, not anything available up to now.

An end to Gross Exhaduration, as Hogan stated, would also be welcome.

Note. I am certainly not a supporter of Hogan, or FG

Happyman42

Now we have (as per latest news bulletins) 'members' of the RIAA looking for a deferral of the legislation. Has the RIAA itself gone on holidays?

hexosan

@villain you still haven't explained how a self builder can get around signing the cert where it requires the principal or director of a company. ????

@martainn123 while id like to believe the fees will only add a couple of extra grand to the build cost is this not a free market and what right has the minister to say how much a professional should charge to certify. At the end of the day he's not doing the certifying.
If he came out and said builders will only be charging X amount I'm sure you'd have a problem with that.