Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not post a copy of a Document, which stated " supply registered number" If APPLICABLE

I'm on I Pad and can't find it.

There is amendments proposed to those documents. So currently this number is proposed.

sheff the ref

Great post. You also have to factor in that there is very little precision technology involved with building a house. Nothing has to be within 0.001 of a mm. You could build more precise things without half the red tape

W123-80's wrote: »

I understand somewhat the theory behind these new reg.
It just seems over the top to completely stop self builders from doing just that.

In any other walk of life I can pretty much do/make for myself what I want once it's legal and I operate to whatever standards are required.

Why am I not allowed to build a house for myself?

If I meet all regulations, have an engineer sign off that all requirements are met, why do I HAVE to employ a third party/middle man do do these checks for me.

At the end of the day most contractors will sub contract. Why can I not cut the contractor/middle man out, meet all regulations and build my own house.

It seems very unfair to me.

newbie2013

sydthebeat wrote: »

The cif are compiling a registry of building contractors. Each contractor is given a reg number which must be submitted as part of the commencement documents.

Can anyone just register, one with some building experience. I work in construction, havent any papers but im very good at what i do. Is it possible i register as one

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

There is amendments proposed to those documents. So currently this number is proposed.

No I found it

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF BUILDER Building Control Authority
1. This notice of assignment relates to the following building or works: ............................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................
2. As the building owner, I have assigned the following person as Builder of the building or works and I am satisfied that they are competent to undertake the works so assigned on my behalf.
Builder’s Name: ................................................................................................................
Address: .............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
Tel.: ................................ Fax: ........................... Email: .................................................
Construction Industry Register Ireland Registration No (where applicable).: ..........
3. I undertake to notify the Building Control Authority in writing of any change in the person assigned as builder of the b u i l d i n g o r works as notified herein.
Building Owner’s Signature: ................................... Date: ..........................................

I take the words "where Applicable " literally, you may be registered , or not..

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

No I found it


I take the words "where Applicable " literally, you may be registered , or not..

As I've said above, there are changes proposed to that

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

As I've said above, there are changes proposed to that

Yes there are changes proposed to that Document

From your post #194, you posted a link to these proposed changes.

It is proposed to ADD the Words
" Registration Number...if Applicable " to the Document.

sydthebeat

W123-80's wrote: »

If a person is willing to build their own house by hiring competent and certified tradesmen, paying VAT on all jobs along the way, getting an engineer to sign off according to the regs, they should be entitled to do so.
.

the problem with this approach is that

1. all the subcontractors

competent and certified tradesmen

are NOT required to provide certification for the work they do.

2. The engineer / architect / surveyor is being FORCED to provide unadulterated certification for the work ALL persons carry out on site.

Therefore unless the engineer is employed to be on site pretty much all of the time to oversee all the subbies (ie what a contractor does) then it is seriously madness to expect any professional to certify work carried out by others on a day to day basis.
Regulations have become so specific that now; every process and piece of material used in a house build has to comply with some regulation and standard, therefore every process and material needs to be inspected to check its certification and installation.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

Yes there are changes proposed to that Document

From your post #194, you posted a link to these proposed changes.

It is proposed to ADD the Words
" Registration Number...if Applicable " to the Document.

Yes thats it.

Again, we are talking about something proposed so nothing is set in stone yet... but id argue against your reading of

I take the words "where Applicable " literally, you may be registered , or not..

"where applicable" means you may not be registered in (as of yet) undisclosed situations.

who knows what those situations are.


Interestingly ive just had a look at the draft code of practise and by my reading of it even if a self builder names themselves as the "builder" they still must engage a "competent person" to oversee the work.

3.3 Builder’s Role
The Builder shall carry out the works in accordance with the plans and specifications of the professional design team, their specialists and sub-consultants as necessary and have regard to these in accordance with the requirements of the Building Regulations.
The Builder (company or sole trader) should -
(a) accept from the Building Owner the assignment to build and supervise the project building or works outlined in the Commencement Notice;
(b) familiarise themselves with the drawings, specifications and documents lodged with the Commencement Notice;
(c) ensure a Competent Person is assigned to oversee the Construction works;
(d) co-operate with the design team, the Assigned Certifier and other certifiers;
(e) ensure that the workmanship complies with the requirements of the Building Regulations;
(f) ensure that materials which they select and for which they are responsible comply with the requirements of the Building Regulations;
(g) sign the Certificate of Compliance (completion);
(h) provide to the Assigned Certifier, such documents for which they are responsible, as may assist the Assigned Certifier to collate particulars for the purposes of handover and certification, and/or for further submissions to the Building Control Authority;
(i) ensure the coordination and provision of all test certificates and confirmations to the satisfaction of the Assigned Certifier or other designated inspectors or certifiers providing Ancillary Certificates; and
(i)(j) Maintain records.

“Competent Person”: a person is deemed to be a competent person where, having regard to the task he or she is required to perform and taking account of the size and/or complexity of the building or works, the person possesses sufficient training, experience and knowledge appropriate to the nature of the work to be undertaken;

note that this person appears to be separate and distinct from the "assigned certifier"


so by my reading a self builder still must engage a "competent person" to oversee work, separate from an architect / engineer / surveyor

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

Yes thats it.

Again, we are talking about something proposed so nothing is set in stone yet... but id argue against your reading of


"where applicable" means you may not be registered in (as of yet) undisclosed situations.

who knows what those situations are.

All agreed, and as its not set in stone, can we stop assuming all sorts of obstructions to the self-builder, until the stone is set

sydthebeat wrote:

Interestingly ive just had a look at the draft code of practise and by my reading of it even if a self builder names themselves as the "builder" they still must engage a "competent person" to oversee the work.





note that this person appears to be separate and distinct from the "assigned certifier"


so by my reading a self builder still must engage a "competent person" to oversee work, separate from an architect / engineer / surveyor

It does not use the work " engage",
so again I thing you are jumping to conclusions, on words, open to various interpretation.

having ''Appointed'' himself ''Builder'' whats to prevent him, ''Appointing'' himself as ''Competent Person''

I agree the Certifyer is an additional and separate person.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

It does not use the work " engage",
so again I thing you are jumping to conclusions, on words, open to various interpretation.
.

it says 'ensure'... if someone wants to take on this role for nothing... so be it.

martinn123 wrote: »

having ''Appointed'' himself ''Builder'' whats to prevent him, ''Appointing'' himself as ''Competent Person''

nothing, once they comply with the definition of 'competent person' which i included above for that exact purpose. If self builders have the required 'training, experience and knowledge' then there's nothing stopping them as far as i can see.

From the 'assigned certifiers' point of view;
can the building owner, builder and competent person be one and the same?? i think that needs clarification.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

nothing, once they comply with the definition of 'competent person' which i included above for that exact purpose. If self builders have the required 'training, experience and knowledge' then there's nothing stopping them as far as i can see.

From the 'assigned certifiers' point of view;
can the building owner, builder and competent person be one and the same?? i think that needs clarification.

Agreed, and thank you for that.
So some of the ''Obstacles'' to a Self-Build are at least open to clarification, and discussion, it's not all doom and gloom..........yet.

the Final Myth we need to discuss is the notion that the Certifyer will need to be on site all day every day.

The objective of the Reg's is in my view to rely on a Certificate as in coming from a Regulated Person, backed up by the necessary Insurances.

So, I am unsure if you intend to carry out this work??

If so have you discussed this with your Insurer?, or has anyone who intends to carry out this work?
Surely It will be up to the Insurer to dictate the Level of involvement, inspection, and site attendance, for them to stand over the Cert.

Mistakes will happen, that's life, and when they do, no one is suggesting, I hope, the Certifyer should loose their livelihood, or assets, but that they are adequately Insured.
Up top now it's been a case of...'' Not me Guv''

So maybe the next step, is for the Insurance Co's to come out with a Schedule of involvement, required for them to offer Insurance in these cases.

There are flaws in these Reg's, but the objective is to have a remedy, when things go wrong, rather than abandoning the House-holder as is currently the position.

DOCARCH

martinn123 wrote: »

...but the objective is to have a remedy, when things go wrong, rather than abandoning the House-holder as is currently the position.

That's one of the problems with the new regs, situation remains the same (or worse)...householder pretty much left adrift with even less (...no) involvement by the local authority/Building Control.

Only redress for the householder, basically, will be to engage a legal team and go to court and prove negligence (by somebody).

That's why latent defects insurance (as is being pushed by the RIAI) is essential in any new system.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

the Final Myth we need to discuss is the notion that the Certifyer will need to be on site all day every day.

7. Construction Stage Inspection – by Certifiers
7.1 Inspection Plan
The certifiers shall adopt an appropriate Inspection Plan which takes full account of relevant factors for the building work concerned. Relevant factors should be assessed at the outset and regularly reviewed so that effective control is maintained for the duration of each project, with adequate site inspections and records sufficient
to demonstrate the application of reasonable skill and care.
The building control process, in order to be effective, requires an Inspection Plan of appropriate intensity and frequency. However, it is not practicable for every item of work to which the Building Regulations relate to be examined. The supervision by the Builder is, therefore, of critical importance. The test of the Inspection Plan will be its
success in achieving reasonable standards of health and safety in or about buildings, energy conservation, accessibility and sustainability for building users.
Inspection staff should use professional skill and judgement in their selection of priorities for inspection within the certifier’s stated policy. Depending on the complexity of the project, such inspections may need to be carried out by personnel with greater expertise. Inspection staff should be briefed by their employer and, where necessary, by the Assigned Certifier on the Design lodged to the Building
Control Authority and on appropriate inspections and tests to carry out.

7.1.1 Factors in Determining Inspection Plan
The Inspection Plan is dependent on many factors including -
(a) type of building, type of construction and expertise of the Builder;
(b) how complicated or relatively straightforward the method of construction is;
(c) whether recent experience indicates current problems in interpreting and/or
achieving compliance with certain requirements;
(d) how serious the consequences of a particular contravention might be;
(e) the impracticability or impossibility of subsequent inspection of closed up work; and
(f) speed of construction, or methods of fast track construction.

7.1.17.1.2 Inspection
Subject to the appropriate professional judgement or risk assessment, and that it is not practicable for every item of work to which the requirements of the Building Regulations relate to be examined, inspection should normally be made of:
(a) elements and components, the failure of which would, in the opinion of the certifier, be significant;
(b) all works which, in the opinion of the certifier, constitute unusual designs or methods of construction;
(c) work relating to fire safety;
(d) any types of work, construction, equipment or material which could, if not verified, cause defects which would, in the opinion of the certifier or designated inspector, be seriously detrimental to the fundamental purposes of the Building Regulations; and
(e) any additional areas of work necessary for the subsequent issue of a certificate at completion.

7.2 Inspection frequency
The most important thing is to have an appropriate Inspection Plan; the scope and frequency of inspection should be determined and incorporated in a formal written plan. This plan should be kept under review as the project proceeds. It should take into account the Inspection Plan factors above.
Periodic inspection should be carried depending on the size and nature of the particular building project. This should include critical milestone inspections and inspections as set out in the Inspection Notification Framework (INF).

above is how the draft code of practise frame the inspections.

however the certificate to be signed offers and unqualified certification which covers everything on site...
look how much of the above is left to "the opinion of the certifier".... something we were trying to get away from in the current regs....

martinn123

DOCARCH wrote: »

That's one of the problems with the new regs, situation remains the same (or worse)...householder pretty much left adrift with even less (...no) involvement by the local authority/Building Control.

Not if,

The objective of the Reg's is in my view to rely on a Certificate as in coming from a Regulated Person, backed up by the necessary Insurances.

Only redress for the householder, basically, will be to engage a legal team and go to court and prove negligence (by somebody).

That's why latent defects insurance (as is being pushed by the RIAI) is essential in any new system.[/QUOTE]

DOCARCH

Not sure what you did with your post there Martin? I cannot 'quote'...but...

The objective of the Reg's is in my view to rely on a Certificate as in coming from a Regulated Person, backed up by the necessary Insurances.

Yes, but you still have to go through the process of suing that person (...or suing the right person), go to court and prove negligence.

A professionals PI insurance does not act as some form of building insurance against defects.

martinn123

DOCARCH wrote: »

The objective of the Reg's is in my view to rely on a Certificate as in coming from a Regulated Person, backed up by the necessary Insurances.

Yes, but you still have to go through the process of suing that person (...or suing the right person), go to court and prove negligence.

But that's the position in all walks of life, Small Claims Court for a dodgy TV, District Court for a dodgy car, Circuit Court, High Court Etc. Not sure what point you are making?

DOCARCH wrote:

A professionals PI insurance does not act as some form of building insurance against defects.

No. But a Cert of Compliance, is a starting point, in the event of a problem arising.
So..........(insert name here)......Certified this house was built in Compliance with the Building Regulations.

In the event of Priory Hall#2, we have somewhere to start.

If it's a Pyrite type issue, it may give the house-holder somewhere to go.

The Document, syd posted above is a useful Template towards an Inspection Schedule, however I am also pointing out it does not say the certifyer has to be on-site every day.
The problem here seems to be the Wording of the Cert.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

The Document, syd posted above is a useful Template towards an Inspection Schedule, however I am also pointing out it does not say the certifyer has to be on-site every day.
The problem here seems to be the Wording of the Cert.

no theres no prescribed wording that the certifier has to be on site every day, its not envisaged by the compilers of the code of practise that they would have..... however....

an awful lot of the inspection schedule is left to "the opinion of the certifier".
the wording of teh certification is extremely onerous in that the certifier accepts responsibility for all works, by everybody, and all materials and processes, without qualification.

therefore the certifier is left with the reponsibility to determine what the frequency should be and how often works need to be inspected. Most certifiers that you ask would say that that certification would require an inspection (conservatively) almost every - to every other working day ... with the risk of defects increasing with every day of no inspection.

because, at the end of the day, its not the blocklayer, carpenter, plumber etc etc etc that is responsible for the quality of their work, its the certifier.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

no theres no prescribed wording that the certifier has to be on site every day, its not envisaged by the compilers of the code of practise that they would have..... however....

an awful lot of the inspection schedule is left to "the opinion of the certifier".
the wording of teh certification is extremely onerous in that the certifier accepts responsibility for all works, by everybody, and all materials and processes, without qualification.

therefore the certifier is left with the reponsibility to determine what the frequency should be and how often works need to be inspected. Most certifiers that you ask would say that that certification would require an inspection (conservatively) almost every - to every other working day ... with the risk of defects increasing with every day of no inspection.

because, at the end of the day, its not the blocklayer, carpenter, plumber etc etc etc that is responsible for the quality of their work, its the certifier.

I think you might put those comments in some context, regarding the size of the Project.
I can see how on a block of Apartments, a daily Inspection would be justified, but a one off self-builder will be frightened by the Cost Implications of the above post.

Surely it would be possible to have works scheduled in a manner that does not require daily visits, in a domestic build.

i accept your points regarding responsibility, but please be mindful of the audience here, you are raising a lot of cost worries, possibly unnecessarily.

( see recent post in Prices/Costs)

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

I think you might put those comments in some context, regarding the size of the Project.
I can see how on a block of Apartments, a daily Inspection would be justified, but a one off self-builder will be frightened by the Cost Implications of the above post.

Surely it would be possible to have works scheduled in a manner that does not require daily visits, in a domestic build.

i accept your points regarding responsibility, but please be mindful of the audience here, you are raising a lot of cost worries, possibly unnecessarily.

( see recent post in Prices/Costs)

if any thing the opposite is true... larger builds will have homogeneous process and procedures which can be assessed easier than a one off build where you could have 4 or 5 trades on site at one time.

House building is actually a lot more logistical than persons think, when compared to commercial type builds with alternative build methods.

Surely it would be possible to have works scheduled in a manner that does not require daily visits, in a domestic build.

yet you expect a novice self builder to have the ability to organise these schedules to allow for more intermittent inspections?

If the designer was simply asked to certify what they designed and specified then yes, it would be a lot more simplier. And if the responsibility was left with the builder to certify that they built in accordance to these plans and specifications and in accordance with the building regulations, then yes, that would make it a lot simplier too.

However we still have a case that what is currently proposed is that one person accepts responsibility for the quality of anothers work, and allows that other to offer no responsibility for their own work.

In the face of that, why would a certifier take risks?

i accept your points regarding responsibility, but please be mindful of the audience here, you are raising a lot of cost worries, possibly unnecessarily

all i am doing is debating the possible fall out from these regulations.
one thing that IS GUARANTEED is that costs for professionals will rise, costs which have to be borne by the client.

and the other thing that is GUARANTEED by these regulations is that your local authority and government will have NO RESPONSIBILITY whatsoever to whether buildings comply or not.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

if any thing the opposite is true... larger builds will have homogeneous process and procedures which can be assessed easier than a one off build where you could have 4 or 5 trades on site at one time.

House building is actually a lot more logistical than persons think, when compared to commercial type builds with alternative build methods.


yet you expect a novice self builder to have the ability to organise these schedules to allow for more intermittent inspections?

.

Well, having built two homes over the past years, direct, I can say the only time there were 5 trades on my site, was possibly the days before I moved in, as my missus said ''finish by Sat or your not getting paid''

I think you are exaggerating, and that it is possible to co-ordinate the build, to allow inspection.

Any self-builders out there, care to comment on these last few posts??

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

it is possible to co-ordinate the build, to allow inspection.

i never said it wasnt, please dont try to create a straw man here.

Im fully aware of how many trades can be on site, i produce work schedules, i know what overlaps can exist in a properly organised schedule. Self builds tend to stretch out longer than contractor builds simply because of this inability to schedule trades and materials to the maximum.

oh and im glad you agree that it is possible to have many trades on site at the one time.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

i never said it wasnt, please dont try to create a straw man here.

Well the phrase you used was,

sydthebeat wrote:

yet you expect a novice self builder to have the ability to organise these schedules to allow for more intermittent inspections?

Yes I Do.

sydthebeat wrote:

Im fully aware of how many trades can be on site, i produce work schedules, i know what overlaps can exist in a properly organised schedule. Self builds tend to stretch out longer than contractor builds simply because of this inability to schedule trades and materials to the maximum.

They can also stretch, because the home builder is waiting until a tradesman is available.
Good guy's aren't always available to your schedule, I waited 4 weeks for the right blocklayer, and was glad to wait, but you know that.

sydthebeat wrote:

oh and im glad you agree that it is possible to have many trades on site at the one time.

Great lets base the whole conversation on the last 5 days of my build.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

Well the phrase you used was,

Yes I Do.

They can also stretch, because the home builder is waiting until a tradesman is available.
Good guy's aren't always available to your schedule, I waited 4 weeks for the right blocklayer, and was glad to wait, but you know that.

Great lets base the whole conversation on the last 5 days of my build.

well lets just say im offering my opinion from being in the industry for 15 years, and not just having build two houses with the missus.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

well lets just say im offering my opinion from being in the industry for 15 years, and not just having build two houses with the missus.

In fairness she wasn't much use

Well done on your career to date.

i'll repeat my reguest,

Any self-builders out there, care to comment on these last few posts??

and await responses from that side of the industry.

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

If the designer was simply asked to certify what they designed and specified then yes, it would be a lot more simplier. And if the responsibility was left with the builder to certify that they built in accordance to these plans and specifications and in accordance with the building regulations.

....problem solved!

This is why there needs to be statutory registration (and regulation) of builders. Very simply builders need to be 'professionalised', have professional indemnity insurance, and be equally liable for their own work as the designer is for theirs...

...basically everybody should take full responsibility (and liability) for their own work.

sydthebeat

DOCARCH wrote: »

....problem solved!

This is why there needs to be statutory registration (and regulation) of builders. Very simply builders need to be 'professionalised', have professional indemnity insurance, and be equally liable for their own work as the designer is for theirs...

...basically everybody should take full responsibility (and liability) for their own work.

i agree

but would a system like that allow for the "have a go DIY self builder"?? if so, how?

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

i agree

but would a system like that allow for the "have a go DIY self builder"?? if so, how?

I'd ask you, why should it?

Maybe there needs to be a whole new profession/qualification, like a 'master builder' (something similar to what they have in Germany) who could set himself up as a building contractor...or act as a project manager/provide oversight for the self builder.

sydthebeat

DOCARCH wrote: »

I'd ask you, why should it?

Maybe there needs to be a whole new profession/qualification, like a 'master builder' (something similar to what they have in Germany) who could set himself up as a building contractor...or act as a project manager/provide oversight for the self builder.

well thats exactly whats proposed..... in that the "builder" must ensure that a competent person is engaged to over see the build.

there is still an element out there who think its their god given right to build their own home without a 'competent person' to over see.

DOCARCH

But...the problem is, there is no definintion of competent (for builders)?

A builder building away on his own for the last 30 odd years might have lots of experience, but, is he competent?

I came across one 'highly rated' builder recently - lots and lots of past experience and projects under his belt (in excess of 25 years) - I found him tying a cavity wall with 215 solid blocks across the cavity (tying the inner and outer leaf) at intervals. I basically said...WTF!...despite having a set of construction drawings to work to, he said that's the way he had always built cavity walls!

The mind boggles! That's a guy with loads of experience at building, but, no understanding of what he is doing.

sheff the ref

A fine solid job all the same............if you were putting up a cattle shed!!!

DOCARCH wrote: »

But...the problem is, there is no definintion of competent (for builders)?

A builder building away on his own for the last 30 odd years might have lots of experience, but, is he competent?

I came across one 'highly rated' builder recently - lots and lots of past experience and projects under his belt (in excess of 25 years) - I found him tying a cavity wall with 215 solid blocks across the cavity (tying the inner and outer leaf) at intervals. I basically said...WTF!...despite having a set of construction drawings to work to, he said that's the way he had always built cavity walls!

The mind boggles! That's a guy with loads of experience at building, but, no understanding of what he is doing.