Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

sydthebeat

I think self builders need to ask themselves seriously, if there is no requirement to engage a building contractor, like the department are claiming, them why don't they simply remove that line from the cert. ... or alter it to include self building?
Its very easy for them to do, see the latest amendment for example.

4Sticks

I can confirm that your understanding accords with the Department’s position that a Self-Builder can nominate them-self as the Builder and sign the undertaking and the Certificate of Compliance on Completion (Part A). In nominating themselves as Builder and signing the Undertaking by the Builder, they are declaring that they are competent and undertaking to follow the certified design and to employ/engage competent persons, etc. and anyone signing these forms must of course be faithful to the undertakings so given.

The Notice of Assignment of Builder requires the owner to declare they are satisfied that the assigned person is competent to undertake the works. This is the essential point - that the owner acts with responsibility. In practice this assigned person will be a sole trader, a company or a Self-Builder and their status is irrelevant once competence is assured. The Building Control Authority has no role in checking or verifying the builder's competence– it is the owner’s responsibility. .

The Assigned Builder is then required to sign their form of undertaking. The form must be signed by the person notified to the Building Control Authority as the Builder, thus preserving the chain of responsibility. In effect the owner controls who signs this form by making the notice of assignment. Where the person assigned is a firm, the signature must be signed by a Principal or Director i.e. it should not be signed by an employee. This qualification of the signatory is only necessary in the case of a company. Where a Self-Builder is acting on his or her own behalf, there are no agents or intermediaries involved, and the potential for confusion over legal responsibility does not therefore arise.

On this aspect of the matter you also asked why the signature line could not refer to the “building owner” – in this regard it is important to understand that the undertaking by the Builder and the Certificate of Compliance on Completion deal with the responsibilities of the Builder (not the owner) and it is important therefore that persons signing these forms know and understand that they are dealing with their responsibilities as Builder for the purposes of these forms.

In relation to the “Code of Practice for Inspecting and Certifying Buildings and Works” and the guidance in relation to use of competent persons, in your situation it is the Self-Builder who must be satisfy as to the competence of any person they engage for a particular task.

Pretend now you are a lender. How now do you regard these clarifications ?

mandy gall

Self builders must insist on the certs to be amended NOW it really is the only way to proceed. Certifiers, banks, insurance companies will not give a hoot what mr martin vaughan says. Sign the petition..forward it to your friends.

BryanF

4Sticks wrote: »

Pretend now you are a lender. How now do you regard these clarifications ?

Pretend now you are a certifer. How now do you regard these clarifications.

martinn123

4Sticks wrote: »

Pretend now you are a lender. How now do you regard these clarifications ?

Well they accepted some dodgy opinions in the past.

4Sticks

Multiple choice question. Fill in the blank.

........ has happened in the meantime to change things

a. Nothing
b. Something

4Sticks

BryanF wrote: »

Pretend now you are a certifer. How now do you regard these clarifications.

Indeed but even more to the point

Pretend now you are a certifers PI provider. How now do you regard these clarifications.

BryanF

4Sticks wrote: »

Indeed but even more to the point

Pretend now you are a certifers PI provider. How now do you regard these clarifications.

I don't regard this as a clarification. It's nothing more than an opinion on the legislation. Would this stand up in a court of law? The legislation needs to be changed, if that is I fact the governments intent.
But as stated by you and discussed 50pages back:
If the self builder sells on. And the new owner takes a notion to sue over something the 'main contractor' did incorrectly. who's insurance will be claimed against..

mickdw

BryanF wrote: »

I don't regard this as a clarification. It's nothing more than an opinion on the legislation. Would this stand up in a court of law? The legislation needs to be changed, if that is I fact the governments intent.
But as stated by you and discussed 50pages back:
If the self builder sells on. And the new owner takes a notion to sue over something the 'main contractor' did incorrectly. who's insurance will be claimed against..

The only insurance available. ... The certifier.
As someone who had been certifying works for over 10 years and with a route to becoming chartered, I just don't see that its viable for a small business going forward. Insurance implications are unknown into the future and with the requirement to maintain cover for years, its practically impossible to price work right now. It's only a runner imo for a large consultancy.

BryanF

mickdw wrote: »

. It's only a runner imo for a large consultancy.

this is something the bigger guys have traditional not bothered with. As the money wasnt there given their overheads. Interesting times.. embarrassing times for many until chartered issues get sorted.

4Sticks

2 past presidents present an alternative here

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/2423/

And again here

http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/03/18/eoin-o-cofaigh-two-weeks-gone-bcar-si-9/

4Sticks

martinn123 wrote: »

can I suggest you refer this letter to your Thread on the ''Legal Forum'' and get some unbiased advice from that source.

I see the IAOSB has gone one better then that

mandy gall

4Sticks wrote: »

I see the IAOSB has gone one better then that

This thing is far from over. SI9 will be in the bin soon!:D

sydthebeat

mandy gall wrote: »

This thing is far from over. SI9 will be in the bin soon!:D

I really hope you are right

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

I really hope you are right

Me too! The more I look into it, the more flaws there are!

DOCARCH

Here's one to consider - this is a recent enquiry I made to the RIAI (still waiting an answer):

There would appear to be emphasis in the BC(A)R/SI 9 2014 on the Assigned Certifier being a 'person', i.e. a named individual and not a company.

At the end of the build the Assigned Certifier is certifying they have carried out the inspections as per the predetermined inspection plan submitted at commencement.

If the Assigned Certifier is ill or indisposed when it is time for a predetermined inspection, say inspection of foundation trenches prior to pouring concrete, does work have to stop on site until the Assigned Certifier is available to carry out the inspection?

I would assume so?

While there appears to be a mechanism to change the Assigned Certifier during the build, I doubt this is very practical to ‘engage’ another nominated Assigned Certifier for one or two inspections and then revert to the original Assigned Certifier?

As far as I can see, if SI 9 is to be complied with, the contractor will have to allow/incorporate in their pricing a certain amount of 'downtime' on a build and this will also have to be covered in new/amended building contracts.

mandy gall

sydthebeat wrote: »

I really hope you are right

Well Im not wrong!
we will look back one day and laugh our heads off at the big SI9 Joke and its brother the SI105 joke. Such craic!!

mandy gall

I was thinking the other day i should call the DOE... and tell them i cant find an Assigned Certifier to work with self builders, and seeing as the Dept and Minister are saying self building can continue, can the Dept strike the Certifiers off their list because they are not complying with the SI9? Such fools.
I better be nice now in case my head will roll..mod police are after me!!

sydthebeat

mandy gall wrote: »

Well Im not wrong!
we will look back one day and laugh our heads off at the big SI9 Joke and its brother the SI105 joke. Such craic!!

And it's inbred cousin SI 80 2013

mandy gall

sydthebeat wrote: »

And it's inbred cousin SI 80 2013

And their pervy uncles at the CIF

wirehairmax

mandy gall wrote: »

And their pervy uncles at the CIF

What's the CIF got to do with it?

mandy gall

wirehairmax wrote: »

What's the CIF got to do with it?

Absolutely EVERYTHING!

wirehairmax

4Sticks wrote: »

I see the IAOSB has gone one better then that

Who exactly are the IAOSB? Their website doesn't give any information as to who their officers are and they don't provide an address or contact number. The "about us" tab does not function whether that is intentional or not? The website, while it does have some bits of information for self-builders, seems to be more concerned with filling the pages with as much advertising as possible.
I also do not know of one single self-builder who is or was a member in the 17 years I've been working all over Leinster.
Does anybody know who they are? Surely to be credible and relevant they would have to have officers, a constitution, hold meetings and an agm, provide a registered address and all the other essentials of being a credible association or party.

mandy gall

wirehairmax wrote: »

Who exactly are the IAOSB? Their website doesn't give any information as to who their officers are and they don't provide an address or contact number. The "about us" tab does not function whether that is intentional or not? The website, while it does have some bits of information for self-builders, seems to be more concerned with filling the pages with as much advertising as possible.
I also do not know of one single self-builder who is or was a member in the 17 years I've been working all over Leinster.
Does anybody know who they are? Surely to be credible and relevant they would have to have officers, a constitution, hold meetings and an agm, provide a registered address and all the other essentials of being a credible association or party.

Maybe they're angels - sent to look after all the poor victims of the SI9 :cool:

wirehairmax

mandy gall wrote: »

Absolutely EVERYTHING!

Such as? One off houses and extensions are only a blip on the radar of the CIF. I think your ire should be directed at the DOE and our wonderful minister of the environment if anywhere.
There's not one builder out there that wants all this extra hassle and paperwork and expense as it's hard enough to get decent rates and get paid as it is without all this on top.
In saying that though, it will be better to be dealing with professionals on site on a more regular basis rather than people trying to build using google and forums like this one.

mandy gall

wirehairmax wrote: »

Such as? One off houses and extensions are only a blip on the radar of the CIF. I think your ire should be directed at the DOE and our wonderful minister of the environment if anywhere.
There's not one builder out there that wants all this extra hassle and paperwork and expense as it's hard enough to get decent rates and get paid as it is without all this on top.
In saying that though, it will be better to be dealing with professionals on site on a more regular basis rather than people trying to build using google and forums like this one.

Ive just come back from the future - Ireland 2020 - i was at the BuildingControlTribunal- i found out Hogan & Dept were only the puppets it was the CIF who were the puppet masters - imagine that!! :rolleyes:

wirehairmax

mandy gall wrote: »

Ive just come back from the future - Ireland 2020 - i was at the BuildingControlTribunal- i found out Hogan & Dept were only the puppets it was the CIF who were the puppet masters - imagine that!! :rolleyes:

What are you spouting on about? Too much coffee this morning?

mandy gall

wirehairmax wrote: »

What are you spouting on about? Too much coffee this morning?

Im a bit giddy today apologies.

Drift

mandy gall wrote: »

Im a bit giddy today apologies.

Is the giddiness linked to some sort of information you have on SI9 or did you just have too much coffee?!

Corkblowin

DOCARCH wrote: »

Here's one to consider - this is a recent enquiry I made to the RIAI (still waiting an answer):

There would appear to be emphasis in the BC(A)R/SI 9 2014 on the Assigned Certifier being a 'person', i.e. a named individual and not a company.

At the end of the build the Assigned Certifier is certifying they have carried out the inspections as per the predetermined inspection plan submitted at commencement.

If the Assigned Certifier is ill or indisposed when it is time for a predetermined inspection, say inspection of foundation trenches prior to pouring concrete, does work have to stop on site until the Assigned Certifier is available to carry out the inspection?

I would assume so?

While there appears to be a mechanism to change the Assigned Certifier during the build, I doubt this is very practical to ‘engage’ another nominated Assigned Certifier for one or two inspections and then revert to the original Assigned Certifier?

As far as I can see, if SI 9 is to be complied with, the contractor will have to allow/incorporate in their pricing a certain amount of 'downtime' on a build and this will also have to be covered in new/amended building contracts.

I expect you're going to get an answer along the lines that the assigned certifier can have a trusted employee do the inspection - but of course thats not what the regulation says. If not then assigned certifiers can't take any holidays while a job is on site!