Part L building reg, plumbers viewwh

jameser123

Why are there building regs if homeowner/self builder ignore them,
I v lost at least 10 jobs in the last few years, sticking to the regs ,regarding renewable energy, eg house might need 40or50 kingpan tubes or Geothermal,
U advise them ,telling them it's regs, but go with plumber who might spec 20-30tubes or nothing at all,
It's sickening , and we all know it takes time to size these systems, price these jobs,
What happens the homeowner if the were not fully compliance with part L,
Anything?
I've also been told it could come back on da plumber?
Who s meant to be inspecting these houses, 2008-present

scudo2

jameser123 wrote: »

Why are there building regs if homeowner/self builder ignore them,
I v lost at least 10 jobs in the last few years, sticking to the regs ,regarding renewable energy, eg house might need 40or50 kingpan tubes or Geothermal,
U advise them ,telling them it's regs, but go with plumber who might spec 20-30tubes or nothing at all,
It's sickening , and we all know it takes time to size these systems, price these jobs,
What happens the homeowner if the were not fully compliance with part L,
Anything?
I've also been told it could come back on da plumber?
Who s meant to be inspecting these houses, 2008-present

Laws are only there to keep us law abiding.
( it only impacts the law abiding ) bit of a joke in itself !

The others get away with it because there is no enforcement. Who will reprimand a plumber over a few tubes on the roof when they can't tackle non RGII's + the hundreds if not thousands of unregistered fitted gas boilers.

Oil is just as bad, but not as illegal !!!

shane 007

jameser123 wrote: »

Why are there building regs if homeowner/self builder ignore them,
I v lost at least 10 jobs in the last few years, sticking to the regs ,regarding renewable energy, eg house might need 40or50 kingpan tubes or Geothermal,
U advise them ,telling them it's regs, but go with plumber who might spec 20-30tubes or nothing at all,
It's sickening , and we all know it takes time to size these systems, price these jobs,
What happens the homeowner if the were not fully compliance with part L,
Anything?
I've also been told it could come back on da plumber?
Who s meant to be inspecting these houses, 2008-present

Completely agree. The amount of new builds I have priced & lost when I mentioned the question "are you installing to meet Part L?". They then say they did not realise anything. Architect/engineer never mentioned anything & they were willing to sign off as meeting the standards.
The other gripe is they never meet the regs on zoning either!

kerryplumbing

Its the same old chestnut really. No checks mean that the legislation is not policed - There should be a lot more onus placed on any engineer who has signed off a house that is not Part L compliant -but this will not ever happen. the powers that be talk the talk but its about time they walked the walk as well. Like the rest of you jobs are being lost by us guys who try to do the right way.
Its something that I have brought up with my TD in the passed but I might as well have been pi**ing in the wind!!!!!!!

shane 007

kerryplumbing wrote: »

Its the same old chestnut really. No checks mean that the legislation is not policed - There should be a lot more onus placed on any engineer who has signed off a house that is not Part L compliant -but this will not ever happen. the powers that be talk the talk but its about time they walked the walk as well. Like the rest of you jobs are being lost by us guys who try to do the right way.
Its something that I have brought up with my TD in the passed but I might as well have been pi**ing in the wind!!!!!!!

I think with the new regs 1st March, it means a lot more now to sign the declaration of compliance. The buck will stop with the architect, engineer or surveyor. It will be interesting to see how they confirm with each trade that their work is compliant.

jameser123

what would happen if u reported these people>nothing?

mickdw

As an engineer certifying builds for years, I think the comments here are a gross exaggeration of the situation on the ground. Most certifiers will not be signing anything that isn't right.
In relation to part L from 2008 onwards, my biggest issue was getting across to homeowners what the requirements were. I general they don't want to know about anything that involves cost.
In relation to sizing systems and plumbers installing lesser levels of renewables than others, as far as I am concerned re certification of compliance with renewable portion, I'm relying on a provisional BER. The homeowner is given the print off detailing kw requirement. If they go and install an off spec system, I'm not giving the cert. I walked away from 3 builds where the owners had no interest at all in complying. On another build, everything was excellent except no solar installed. Solicitor was pushing for a cert and asked for a cert with exclusions as he had to satisfy the mortgage company. In that case I issued a cert stating the outstanding issues and the resulting non compliance.
In short, the plumber should only be designing a system based on known renewable requirement. They should on no account be deciding the renewable requirement.

shane 007

mickdw wrote: »

As an engineer certifying builds for years, I think the comments here are a gross exaggeration of the situation on the ground. Most certifiers will not be signing anything that isn't right.
In relation to part L from 2008 onwards, my biggest issue was getting across to homeowners what the requirements were. I general they don't want to know about anything that involves cost.
In relation to sizing systems and plumbers installing lesser levels of renewables than others, as far as I am concerned re certification of compliance with renewable portion, I'm relying on a provisional BER. The homeowner is given the print off detailing kw requirement. If they go and install an off spec system, I'm not giving the cert. I walked away from 3 builds where the owners had no interest at all in complying. On another build, everything was excellent except no solar installed. Solicitor was pushing for a cert and asked for a cert with exclusions as he had to satisfy the mortgage company. In that case I issued a cert stating the outstanding issues and the resulting non compliance.
In short, the plumber should only be designing a system based on known renewable requirement. They should on no account be deciding the renewable requirement.

I fully understand where you are coming from but the new builds since 2006 rarely have full boiler interlocked controls, rarely is a zone maximum 100m2 (a 150m2 bungalow must have 3 zones & generally only have 2, heating & DHW). Solar is generally sized to meet cost expectations or number of occupants & rarely sized to be a part of Part L.

So my question to you as an engineer is how much detail do you look at when considering when your signature will be included or not? Do you look for a 3 channel timeclock or do you test the interlock of the system with installed controls?
As another example, I have seen multi-fuel stoves included in Part L calculations where it should only be wood burning stoves.
Are you relying in the final BER for this information or do you physcically check yourself?
I'm genuinely interested in your take of this as I see it as a major issue or will it not be?

Wearb

mickdw wrote: »

As an engineer certifying builds for years, I think the comments here are a gross exaggeration of the situation on the ground. Most certifiers will not be signing anything that isn't right.
In relation to part L from 2008 onwards, my biggest issue was getting across to homeowners what the requirements were. I general they don't want to know about anything that involves cost.
In relation to sizing systems and plumbers installing lesser levels of renewables than others, as far as I am concerned re certification of compliance with renewable portion, I'm relying on a provisional BER. The homeowner is given the print off detailing kw requirement. If they go and install an off spec system, I'm not giving the cert. I walked away from 3 builds where the owners had no interest at all in complying. On another build, everything was excellent except no solar installed. Solicitor was pushing for a cert and asked for a cert with exclusions as he had to satisfy the mortgage company. In that case I issued a cert stating the outstanding issues and the resulting non compliance.
In short, the plumber should only be designing a system based on known renewable requirement. They should on no account be deciding the renewable requirement.

Seeing as you posted on the P&H forum, I would also be interested in your reply to Shane's questions. Maybe not you in particular, but a lot of people have signed off of some horrible installations in the recent past that no one should have put their name to.
I am regularly getting calls as to why it is costing so much to heat the house and aside from insulation (who is responsible for lookinf into the cavity, floor and loft) the plumbing insulation and controls have been appalling. Sometimes net even basic controls. A couple of hundred euros spent at the time of installation could save thousands over the life of a heating system. As an engineer I am sure you know what I am talking about.

I am not having a rant at you. At least you are here explaining it to us from your point of view and I commend you for that. I look forward to hearing your point of view on this.

mickdw

shane 007 wrote: »

I fully understand where you are coming from but the new builds since 2006 rarely have full boiler interlocked controls, rarely is a zone maximum 100m2 (a 150m2 bungalow must have 3 zones & generally only have 2, heating & DHW). Solar is generally sized to meet cost expectations or number of occupants & rarely sized to be a part of Part L.

So my question to you as an engineer is how much detail do you look at when considering when your signature will be included or not? Do you look for a 3 channel timeclock or do you test the interlock of the system with installed controls?
As another example, I have seen multi-fuel stoves included in Part L calculations where it should only be wood burning stoves.
Are you relying in the final BER for this information or do you physcically check yourself?
I'm genuinely interested in your take of this as I see it as a major issue or will it not be?

I tend to forcefully point homeowners in the direction of reliable and good tradespeople.... The type of plumber who has a good reputation and will walk you through what he has done. Having said that, alot of builds now have fully specified systems and in those cases, I would be getting a commissioning cert incorporating a statement that is installed as per the spec.
Going back to a few years back, a generally tended to get a simple cert from plumber stating that works were in compliance with regs and ber spec as issued. At the end of the day, I cannot claim to be competent to certify a plumbing system so I've no business looking at the system. If I end up in court, I need to be able to show that I issued my cert on foot of something and not just took a guess at it.
I can't agree that Solar is generally sized based on cost. Not in this area anyway. Quite a number of the builds I've been involved with have also been inspected by building control officer. BC tend to look for spec to show compliance with part L, part m and part f mostly. Certainly presenting a system designed around cost instead of Part l compliance wouldnt wash with them either.
and yes I've seen the stove trick too and gone into construction stage with a wood pellet stove specified to help with renewables only to find a turf burning stove in place at a later stage. I've not seen a clean cert issued in such a case though although in one case the building control inspector didn't notice.

shane 007

I was told by one engineer that he relies totally on the information given by the BER guy for compliance. However, the BER guy relies on getting the required info from the drunk plumber whom he is driving home in his taxi on a Saturday night!
:-)

alancar89

shane 007 wrote: »

I think with the new regs 1st March, it means a lot more now to sign the declaration of compliance. The buck will stop with the architect, engineer or surveyor. It will be interesting to see how they confirm with each trade that their work is compliant.

The new regs that came in on 1st of March will have nothing to do with compliance. It will be more paperwork that will gather in county council planning offices that nobody will ever look at or inspect! There is a complete lack of building control across the country there are several one off houses around me that were never checked by any building control after the fact and that will not change any time soon. All the new regs mean is that the one off development will have to be overseen by a "competent person" Shoddy workmanship will still be signed off, of that I have no doubt.

mickdw

alancar89 wrote: »

The new regs that came in on 1st of March will have nothing to do with compliance. It will be more paperwork that will gather in county council planning offices that nobody will ever look at or inspect! There is a complete lack of building control across the country there are several one off houses around me that were never checked by any building control after the fact and that will not change any time soon. All the new regs mean is that the one off development will have to be overseen by a "competent person" Shoddy workmanship will still be signed off, of that I have no doubt.

I think it will have a drastic effect.
My PI insurance has already gone up crazily this year. I personally will not be certifying work in the near future as I believe the increased claims we will see as a result of these new regs will put the insurance through the roof. Here is the real killer. We must keep professional indemnity insurance in place for 6 years minimum AFTER works have ceased to cover ourselves for any claims that might arise. How is an engineer to price a certification job now knowing that insurance in 5 years time could be 10 fold What it is now. We are supposed to price now and hope to cover unknown insurance costs in future. It's an impossible situation.
I believe everything with have to be certified to the last degree. So you will have the situation where the headline certifier will sub contract aspects of the project to other engineers such that they will have a cert re planning compliance from one person. Structure from another, energy compliance from another, etc down to the point where the head certifier is responsible for little. Certs also from the builder / trades. It's probably the only way its insurable really.

Wearb

mickdw wrote: »

I think it will have a drastic effect.
My PI insurance has already gone up crazily this year. I personally will not be certifying work in the near future as I believe the increased claims we will see as a result of these new regs will put the insurance through the roof. Here is the real killer. We must keep professional indemnity insurance in place for 6 years minimum AFTER works have ceased to cover ourselves for any claims that might arise. How is an engineer to price a certification job now knowing that insurance in 5 years time could be 10 fold What it is now. We are supposed to price now and hope to cover unknown insurance costs in future. It's an impossible situation.
I believe everything with have to be certified to the last degree. So you will have the situation where the headline certifier will sub contract aspects of the project to other engineers such that they will have a cert re planning compliance from one person. Structure from another, energy compliance from another, etc down to the point where the head certifier is responsible for little. Certs also from the builder / trades. It's probably the only way its insurable really.

That will only work if your insurance comes down with each cert you get from the subbies. If your insurance stays the same regardless, then what incentive is there for you (I mean engineers in general) to have all the other certs. I suppose time will tell, but from what I have been hearing on the radio about self builds, there seems to be a few loopholes there.

DGOBS

We always seem to be the best little country in the would for regulations and certification, with NO ENFORCEMENT, as Alan pointed out, where are all the building control officers? (In their office) anyone here ever had a site visit from any of them?

mickdw

DGOBS wrote: »

We always seem to be the best little country in the would for regulations and certification, with NO ENFORCEMENT, as Alan pointed out, where are all the building control officers? (In their office) anyone here ever had a site visit from any of them?

There appears to be one officer operating in mayo. They pick about 1 in 6 projects to take an interest in at random for the last 4 years or so. Before that they were invisible tbh.

mickdw

Wearb wrote: »

That will only work if your insurance comes down with each cert you get from the subbies. If your insurance stays the same regardless, then what incentive is there for you (I mean engineers in general) to have all the other certs. I suppose time will tell, but from what I have been hearing on the radio about self builds, there seems to be a few loopholes there.

Because if there is a claim, chances are the liability will be passed off to responsible person and not come against main certifier. Insurance for engineers who have had claims against them goes through the roof.

DGOBS

Doesn't seem to happen in the UK, building control officers visit every site, planning officers come to site on request etc. Ireland, always full of excuses!

If LABC was enforced the likes of Piroy Hall wouldn't have happened.

kerryplumbing

Given Priory Hall wouldn't you think that Dublin City Council would ensure that the checks are now made - why is it lessons are never learned?????

dathi

kerryplumbing wrote: »

Given Priory Hall wouldn't you think that Dublin City Council would ensure that the checks are now made - why is it lessons are never learned?????

lessons have been learned thats why the new legislation puts all the responsibility on the certifying arch/eng it makes sure government will never have to pay compensation for priory type situations in the future,

paddythefarmer

could any tell me is it still possible to self build with this new regs knowing that i have the knologe and trades people to do the work without having to pay outrages prizes to builders and u know the usualy crap was all lined up to go and this comes in have lived in two houses already no the problems that can happen bad windows lack of instilation no heating controls no solar gain to living quarters coulde go on for ever any advise

dathi

paddythefarmer wrote: »

could any tell me is it still possible to self build with this new regs knowing that i have the knologe and trades people to do the work without having to pay outrages prizes to builders and u know the usualy crap was all lined up to go and this comes in have lived in two houses already no the problems that can happen bad windows lack of instilation no heating controls no solar gain to living quarters coulde go on for ever any advise

ah no