Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

sydthebeat

Hairy mellon wrote: »

yes BMCS has no security protocol: users could upload details of others for their buildings etc.

No checks of Designer, Builder or Assigned Certifier on #BCMS | BRegs Blog
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/no-checks-of-designer-builder-or-assigned-certifier-on-bcms/

stumbling from one calamity to another....

anybody with a grudge against someone could go and post a completely fictitious project up on the registry.

Hairy mellon

i think its important not to urge anyone to misuse or abuse the system. The problems, however, are pretty apparent.

I think this should be of particular concern to practices say on the homebond register of professionals. Unscrupulous persons could use their details without their knowledge etc.

In fairness to local authorities this system was only introduced last week, when many commenced road testing. I am amazed it actually works. It takes me around a week to set up a new printer...

however this is pretty serious. Its a key element in SI.9 for protection of the consumer.

Villain

I registered as Builder and Other, which is correct imo.

4Sticks

Do you mean registered with CIF or registered on BCMS site?

Villain

BCMS it gives you two options Builder on Register or other.

4Sticks

You are now a builder

4Sticks

I think I'll go on and register as an architect




( only joking no one would ever,ever,ever do that )

DOCARCH

4Sticks wrote: »

I think I'll go on and register as an architect
( only joking no one would ever,ever,ever do that )

You'd have Graby and his minions down your throat! :P


...I think I will go an register as a builder...just in case!

DvB

I'm struggling to even get into the BCMS, it keeps coming up as page does not exist or suchlike.... very frustrating.
I wonder will it allow me register as an Architect despite the fact i'm not RIAI registered?

4Sticks

.... or upload drawings of the Eifel Tower ...

youwhoglue

A little birdy just told me the DoE is not happy with Hogan.
Watch this space for all public buildings with planning but not commenced. :eek:

Hairy mellon

please explain? exemption from si9 perhaps?

sydthebeat

youwhoglue wrote: »

A little birdy just told me the DoE is not happy with Hogan.
Watch this space for all public buildings with planning but not commenced. :eek:

Id imagine it means re tenders

strongback

youwhoglue wrote: »

A little birdy just told me the DoE is not happy with Hogan.
Watch this space for all public buildings with planning but not commenced. :eek:

I got wind last week there is a bit of panic around commencement notices on public projects. Could be a potential quagmire.

4Sticks

Nobody wants to sign as owner I bet

sydthebeat

4Sticks wrote: »

Nobody wants to sign as owner I bet

Very Good point

Hairy mellon

Kilkenny Journal: THE BAD NEWS: Up to 50,000 extra to build your house! BC(A)R SI.9 | BRegs Blog
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/kilkenny-herald-the-bad-news-up-to-50000-extra-to-build-your-house-bcar-si-9/

Andrew_Doran

Hairy mellon wrote: »

Kilkenny Journal: THE BAD NEWS: Up to 50,000 extra to build your house! BC(A)R SI.9 | BRegs Blog
http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/kilkenny-herald-the-bad-news-up-to-50000-extra-to-build-your-house-bcar-si-9/

Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland:

Levy cuts to help hard-working people build their own home

From today (24 February 2014) self-builders will be exempt from paying a levy which until now was placed on most new buildings over a certain size

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/levy-cuts-to-help-hard-working-people-build-their-own-home.

Hairy mellon

Looks like the first consolidated senior council advice is out on the final implemented version of SI9. Its not pretty. Who will take on the certifier roles? Will there be enough professionals to do these roles?


http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/legal-advice-on-bcar-si-9/

4Sticks

“ but there must be a significant prospect that, at the very least, insurance companies will wish to reflect the increased risk for certifiers in the premium paid. Whether those premiums will be affordable by certifiers is another matter. One suspects that the proposed new system relies upon the certifier having professional indemnity insurance. If such insurance is not available to the certifier at acceptable rates, the rationale for the new regime will be entirely undermined.”

now where have we read speculation like that before ?

Hairy mellon

probably previous senior council advice...

in fairness a lot of people have been saying this for a long time

difference now is a senior council is confirming insurance problems

4Sticks

Before then.....

..... long before then

( That post was notes from a public meeting at the DOE to discuss the then draft proposed regs in early 2012 )

martinn123

4Sticks wrote: »

now where have we read speculation like that before ?

“ but there must be a significant prospect that, at the very least, insurance companies will wish to reflect the increased risk for certifiers in the premium paid.

Nothing unusual there

Whether those premiums will be affordable by certifiers is another matter.

We have yet to see anyone saying their premium has increased

One suspects that the proposed new system relies upon the certifier having professional indemnity insurance. If such insurance is not available to the certifier at acceptable rates, the rationale for the new regime will be entirely undermined.”

Kind of stating the obvious.

All that is happening here is more speculation on Increasing Premiums, and that what was happening back in 5/12 with the post as highlighted

Until someone posts some actual Premium Increases, this is just more speculation.

4Sticks

Hairy mellon wrote: »

probably previous senior council advice...

in fairness a lot of people have been saying this for a long time

difference now is a senior council is confirming insurance problems

Construction professional have been saying this since the start of this process and Hogan has ignored them. The coming weeks and months will tell the tale.

4Sticks

martinn123 wrote: »

Until someone posts some actual Premium Increases, this is just more speculation.

And your expectation is premiums will ....... ?

Hairy mellon

apparently at cpd's RIAI have noted there will be 15% increase this year. they have not suggested this is because of BC(A)R SI.9

last year they were saying no increases at all

DOCARCH

One simple problem...which will probably spook insurers a bit...is that Hogan has said in interviews, basically, that if something goes wrong with your house, that the professionals indemnity insurance will pay up...very simple (but also wrong).

This is not what professional indemnity insurance is for, it is to protect the professional, and yes, if the professional is proven to have been negligent, then pay up (but probably not before a trip to the courts).

martinn123

4Sticks wrote: »

And your expectation is premiums will ....... ?

Increase, to take account of Increased Risks, that's how Insurance works.

As to whether it will be unaffordable, massive, or in line with some speculation here, I cannot say

Hairy mellon

i talked to actuary about this last week

currently he is working on programmes to work out premia for insurance products in eu

for instances like this where new regulation comes out and industry is unsure about legal interpretations it is normal procedure to gradually over a 3 year period increase premiums up by 50%- simple hedge against increased claims etc.

by this time there should be some legal precedents set and then further increases are looked at based on information through the courts.

proposed 15% increase for 2014 is in line with this assessment.

youwhoglue

Hairy mellon wrote: »

please explain? exemption from si9 perhaps?

sydthebeat wrote: »

Id imagine it means re tenders

strongback wrote: »

I got wind last week there is a bit of panic around commencement notices on public projects. Could be a potential quagmire.

Let's just say any designer / certifier with half a brain would have submitted extra costs for the extra responsibility and site visits required to comply with new regs that was not allowed for in HSE and DOE tender documentation. There must be a mountain of fee letters in DoE and HSE.

Thus there is more ammo for Hogan to blame Designers / Certifiers down the line.

IMO these Regs are purely to protect the government and Civil/Public Service and should have been phased in. Eg. Multi Unit Buildings and Public Buildings first followed by Industrial and further on Private dwellings after say 18 months as the possibility and consequences for bad construction roughly follow that hierarchy.

This would also have allowed the Government to lead the way on implementation also.

Instead it's a mess.