Chartered Surveyors - Assigned Certifiers

getuponthis

Just wondering if anybody knows if Quantiy Surveyor members of SCSI can act as Assigned Certifiers or is it just confined to Building Surveyors who are SCSI members??

DOCARCH

Just Building Surveyors.

Supertech

DOCARCH wrote: »

Just Building Surveyors.

Who are on the Register of Building Surveyors. Not limited to Members of SCSI

DOCARCH

Supertech wrote: »

Who are on the Register of Building Surveyors. Not limited to Members of SCSI

AFAIK it is limited to building surveyors who are registered with the SCSI.

Supertech

Registered with, but not necessarily members (MSCSI) DOCARCH. As I understand it those who come through routes other than the one SCSI accredited Building Surveying course can Register, but are not entitled to become automatic Chartered Members of SCSI.

DOCARCH

Supertech wrote: »

Registered with, but not necessarily members (MSCSI) DOCARCH.

Correct...I was being overly simplistic!

Here's the routes to registration with SCSI as a building surveyor...

Each of the following is eligible for registration in the register:

(a) a graduate of—

(i) the Dundalk Institute of Technology, or

(ii) such other educational body as may be prescribed,

who has received from it in any year prior to 2005 a degree of Bachelor of Science in Building Surveying or in 2005 or any subsequent year an Honours degree of Bachelor of Science in Building Surveying or such other degree, diploma or qualification as may be prescribed and who, in each case, has at least 2 years appropriate experience of performing duties commensurate with those of a building surveryor;

(b) a fellow or associate of the Society of Chartered Surveyors, Building Surveying Division, who has at least 2 years practical experience of performing duties commensurate with those of a building surveyor;

(c) a fellow or member of the Chartered Institute of Building, Building Surveying Section, who has at least 2 years practical experience of performing duties commensurate with those of a building surveyor;

(d) a former fellow or member of the Architecture and Surveying Institute, Building Surveying Section (now merged with the Chartered Institute of Building), who has at least 2 years practical experience of performing duties commensurate with those of a building surveyor;

(e) a fellow or member of the Association of Building Engineers, Building Surveying Section, who has at least 2 years practical experience of performing duties commensurate with those of a building surveyor;

(f) a person who on or after 1 January 2001 and prior to 2005 attained a degree of Bachelor of Science in Building Surveying or in 2005 or any subsequent year an Honours degree of Bachelor of Science in Building Surveying and is enrolled as a fellow or associate of the Society of Chartered Surveyors, or as a fellow or member of the Chartered Institute of Building, the Architecture and Surveying Institute or the Association of Building Engineers;

(g) a person eligible for such registration by virtue of section 44 (which relates to holders of qualifications from other states);

(h) a national of a Member State who has been awarded in a Member State a qualification that the State, pursuant to a relevant measure, is obliged to recognise as corresponding to a qualification referred to in paragraph (a;

(i) a national or resident of a state who, by virtue of the following agreement, is entitled to have his or her qualifications in the field of building surveying recognised in the State, namely, an agreement that—

(i) is entered into between the European Union and the World Trade Organisation, and

(ii) provides for the recognition by the states to which the agreement relates of qualifications of a class specified in the agreement;

(j) a person (not being a person who is eligible for registration pursuant to section 44 ) who—

(i) has been awarded in a state, other than a Member State or a state which is a member of the World Trade Organisation, a degree, diploma or other qualification in building surveying, and

(ii) can demonstrate that he or she has sufficient post-graduate experience of performing duties commensurate with those of a building surveyor;

(k) a person who has been assessed as eligible for registration by the Technical Assessment Board in accordance with the practical experience assessment procedures.

DOCARCH

Supertech wrote: »

Registered with, but not necessarily members (MSCSI) DOCARCH.

You will probably find that the cost of being on the register = the cost of being on the register + being a member....just like the RIAI.

Supertech

Actually No ! Or so I'm reliably informed.

The Building Surveyors Register is a more complex beast than the architects register, believe it or not ! Multiple organisations providing routes to the same location. Multiple Codes of Conduct. One Regulator, also a representative body .... anyway, best not complain. Might end up as home yet

kkelliher

DOCARCH wrote: »

You will probably find that the cost of being on the register = the cost of being on the register + being a member....just like the RIAI.

This is true and in my opinion is actually against the wording of the act which specifically states that payment to the register is irrelevant of membership so therefore are they trying to imply that membership is free?

DOCARCH

kkelliher wrote: »

....therefore are they trying to imply that membership is free?

It would seem so!

kkelliher

DOCARCH wrote: »

It would seem so!

The tiger attitude is still alive and well so

RORY O CONNOR

getuponthis wrote: »

Just wondering if anybody knows if Quantity Surveyor members of SCSI can act as Assigned Certifiers or is it just confined to Building Surveyors who are SCSI members??

Assigned certifier can be a Chartered Engineer, An Architect or A building surveyor.

An engineer would be the best option as they have more experience of structural requirements and design.

DOCARCH

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Assigned certifier can be a Chartered Engineer, An Architect or A building surveyor.

An engineer would be the best option as they have more experience of structural requirements and design.

That's just, in essence, a part of the Building Regulations, Part A...there's Part B to M to be covered too. My own experience would be that engineers knowledge of the other parts of the Building Regulations is 'light'.

RORY O CONNOR

DOCARCH wrote: »

That's just, in essence, on part of the Building Regulations, Part A...there's Part B to M to be covered too. My own experience would be that engineers knowledge of the other parts of the Building Regulations is 'light'.

Seems that it is your experience is what is light!

DOCARCH

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Seems that it is your experience is what is light!

From all the posts you've decided to grace us with today I'd have to suggest the reverse and that you do not really or fully understand what you are talking about.

RORY O CONNOR

DOCARCH wrote: »

That's just, in essence, on part of the Building Regulations, Part A...there's Part B to M to be covered too. My own experience would be that engineers knowledge of the other parts of the Building Regulations is 'light'.

Seems that your experience is light.

Few architects have structural design experience yet many engineers are very knowledgeable about all aspects of construction and building regulations.

DOCARCH

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Seems that your experience is light.

Few architects have structural design experience yet many engineers are very knowledgeable about all aspects of construction and building regulations.

No architect would sign off on structure...the structural engineer would usually be an Ancillary Certifier, to sign off on structure (Part A of the Building Regulations).

I still stand by my assertion that engineers are not fully versed in other parts of the Building Regulations.

RORY O CONNOR

DOCARCH wrote: »

Form all the posts you've decided to grace us with today I'd have to suggest the reverse and that you do not really or fully understand what you are talking about.

No I guess not! Twenty years of experience in the construction industry has clearly taught me absolutely nothing at all!

DOCARCH

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

No I guess not! Twenty years of experience in the construction industry has clearly taught me absolutely nothing at all!

Obviously! Glad you realise that!!!

focus_mad

In my opinion, Architects and Building Surveyors would be best suited to offer the design certifier and assigned certifier role. Structural engineers would be best to offer a supplementary design and assigned certificates.

My experience is that some structural engineers stray into different client instructions that they should be nowhere near, one prime example is schedules of condition. Structural engineers I have dealt with will tell me that a building is highly dangerous structurally but won't tell their client to vacate the premises. Go figure. Anyway...

On a parting note, 20 years of construction experience should aid one in knowing when one is potentially operating outside of ones remit or expertise.

Rabbo

It's a shame to see the strong anti-engineer and pro architect/architectural technician undertones are still prevalent on this forum, especially from the newer moderators. Its pretty clear why you don't see many engineers contribute here.

The significant restrictions the new building control regs puts on ATs role in construction is not something I necessarily agree with. I know many ATs that would be more than capable of fulfilling the role of Assigned Certifier. It's baffling that some ATs on here believe that engineers are not necessarily equipped with the technical knowledge or skill to fufill the AC role

BryanF

Rabbo wrote: »

It's a shame to see the strong anti-engineer and pro architect/architectural technician undertones are still prevalent on this forum, especially from the newer moderators..............It's baffling that some ATs on here believe that engineers are not necessarily equipped with the technical knowledge or skill to fufill the AC role

please read this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057304150

with regards to your 'mod' comments, I will only speak for myself here, i do not have any issue with engineers, i work with them 'day in day out', we each have our roles.

focus_mad

Rabbo wrote: »

It's a shame to see the strong anti-engineer and pro architect/architectural technician undertones are still prevalent on this forum, especially from the newer moderators. Its pretty clear why you don't see many engineers contribute here.

The significant restrictions the new building control regs puts on ATs role in construction is not something I necessarily agree with. I know many ATs that would be more than capable of fulfilling the role of Assigned Certifier. It's baffling that some ATs on here believe that engineers are not necessarily equipped with the technical knowledge or skill to fufill the AC role

Firstly I'm not an AT. I'm a BS

I'm not anti anyone or pro anyone, I can't stand either lot..I jest!!

It boils down to each professional service knowing when they can offer a valid and secure service to a client and when they should put their hands up and say that they need to have a sub consultant. However I would be of the opinion that structural engineers in my experience are top notch at Part A but 'light' elsewhere.

kkelliher

Rabbo wrote: »

It's a shame to see the strong anti-engineer and pro architect/architectural technician undertones are still prevalent on this forum, especially from the newer moderators. Its pretty clear why you don't see many engineers contribute here.

The significant restrictions the new building control regs puts on ATs role in construction is not something I necessarily agree with. I know many ATs that would be more than capable of fulfilling the role of Assigned Certifier. It's baffling that some ATs on here believe that engineers are not necessarily equipped with the technical knowledge or skill to fufill the AC role

As the newest moderator on the block I dont believe I have at any stage shown any anti engineer undertone and I dont recall any of the others doing it either. If you have an issue with any of the moderation just pm the moderator concerned and in most cases any issues can be resolved quickly.

DOCARCH

kkelliher wrote: »

I dont believe I have at any stage shown any anti engineer undertone...

Me either. Engineers are fantastic...at what they do.

All I have suggested, in past posts/other threads, is that up until now, most structural engineers have a singular focus of Part A of the Building Regulations (and other relevant Building Regulations relating to structure). In my own experience the vast majority of engineers I have dealt with in the past have not a good understanding of other parts of the Building Regulations...this is not engineer bashing!

Charlie-Bravo

To lighten the mood, here's one the engineers will appreciate:

Did you hear about the M50? It's a big bolt.

*gets coat*

Gumbo

astrofluff wrote: »

To lighten the mood, here's one the engineers will appreciate:

Did you hear about the M50? It's a big bolt.

*gets coat*

What's the grade?

*grab my coat while your over there*

sydthebeat

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057304150

why dont our engineer posters rock over to this thread and give their €0.02

galwaytt

DOCARCH wrote: »

All I have suggested, in past posts/other threads, is that up until now, most structural engineers have a singular focus of Part A of the Building Regulations (and other relevant Building Regulations relating to structure). In my own experience the vast majority of engineers I have dealt with in the past have not a good understanding of other parts of the Building Regulations...this is not engineer bashing!

...and as neither one nor the other, I often find that any discipline - ME, SE, BER, CS, QS, Arch, are similar in that they often excel at their own discipline but it's the knitting together of those that's the challenge - which is usually where my headaches start !!

You will find that Architects 'design' great buildings, which the S.E. then finds he has to execute in a certain fashion (say add in beams here/there), and then BER lad comes along bemoaning the beams (bridging, condensation), and then Arch comes back in to it and he doesn't like it and off we go round the houses again etc. All are valid.

The best example of this disparate approach I can recall is from the Dermot Bannon programme a good while ago on the TV 'Room to Improve' and the row over a column in the sitting room. Arch didn't like it, client didn't want it, SE said it needs it.

I think this is where Newton and physics won out though :pac: :pac:

sydthebeat

Ahem, architectural technologists are educated in design, technology AND structures and would have a working knowledge of each. ...... to stop issues such as the above happening

Rabbo

I'd just like to say that I wasn't having a go at any particular mod or poster. There just seems to be an underlying pro-AT tone in a lot of posts here. Its clear that many users and mods on the forum are ATs (echoed by the fact that they have their own subforum). All users are of course entitled to their opinion but I have to disagree with people suggesting that Engineers are only versed with Part A and on the other hand ATs have a broad range of knowledge of all parts of the building regulations. The reality is that there are good and bad practitioners in all professions.
Bringing up posts of poor advice from engineers as anecdotal evidence dosent really help the argument.

Construction is a multi-disciplinary industry however in smaller jobs, especially in domestic one-offs, you may only have one professional consulting. The reality is that Chartered Engineers are deemed to be suitable professionals to carry out the AC role. Discrediting engineers and their ability to carry out the AC role wont help ATs with their own case.

DOCARCH

Rabbo wrote: »

I have to disagree with people suggesting that Engineers are only versed with Part A and on the other hand ATs have a broad range of knowledge of all parts of the building regulations.

An AT's formal education is essentially how to detail and specify buildings taking into account/in accordance with all parts of the Building Regulations...as far as I am aware, engineers have no formal education in all parts of the Building Regulations.

If AT's were the only profession allowed to act as Design and Assigned Certifiers there would be some rational logic to it!

BTW, I am not an AT...there is only 1 AT mod on the C&P Forum.

Gumbo

Rabbo wrote: »

I'd just like to say that I wasn't having a go at any particular mod or poster. There just seems to be an underlying pro-AT tone in a lot of posts here. Its clear that many users and mods on the forum are ATs (echoed by the fact that they have their own subforum). All users are of course entitled to their opinion but I have to disagree with people suggesting that Engineers are only versed with Part A and on the other hand ATs have a broad range of knowledge of all parts of the building regulations. The reality is that there are good and bad practitioners in all professions.
Bringing up posts of poor advice from engineers as anecdotal evidence dosent really help the argument.

Construction is a multi-disciplinary industry however in smaller jobs, especially in domestic one-offs, you may only have one professional consulting. The reality is that Chartered Engineers are deemed to be suitable professionals to carry out the AC role. Discrediting engineers and their ability to carry out the AC role wont help ATs with their own case.

My degree is in Structural Engineering and we don't learn any building regulations in college. That came from on the job experience.

RORY O CONNOR

DOCARCH wrote: »

Just Building Surveyors.

Engineers and Architects too.

RORY O CONNOR

DOCARCH wrote: »

An AT's formal education is essentially how to detail and specify buildings taking into account/in accordance with all parts of the Building Regulations...as far as I am aware, engineers have no formal education in all parts of the Building Regulations.

If AT's were the only profession allowed to act as Design and Assigned Certifiers there would be some rational logic to it!

BTW, I am not an AT...there is only 1 AT mod on the C&P Forum.

I doubt Architects have a formal education on Building regulations. Most construction professionals become knowledgeable about the building regulations by practical experience on site and/or in design of the works, usually being instructed/informed by a senior or from actually reading the regs themselves to see what applies for the particular section of the works they may be involved with.

kkelliher

I am a graduate of the construction technology course in bolton street (I don't know if they still run it) and we had the joy of a whole class dedicated to the regs and technical guidance documents. Worst attended class of the course without doubt.

sydthebeat

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

I doubt Architects have a formal education on Building regulations. Most construction professionals become knowledgeable about the building regulations by practical experience on site and/or in design of the works, usually being instructed/informed by a senior or from actually reading the regs themselves to see what applies for the particular section of the works they may be involved with.

i can remember from my college years having to prepare a FSC as part of one of my projects, second year i think.

also, every critique had a big focus on building regulations, as well as building science.

BryanF

kkelliher wrote: »

I am a graduate of the construction technology course in bolton street (I don't know if they still run it) and we had the joy of a whole class dedicated to the regs and technical guidance documents. Worst attended class of the course without doubt.

sydthebeat wrote: »

i can remember from my college years having to prepare a FSC as part of one of my projects, second year i think.

also, every critique had a big focus on building regulations, as well as building science.

+1

DOCARCH

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Engineers and Architects too.

In relation to what???

In my post, or the section of the post you quoted...'Just Building Surveyors'...I was referring to the fact that Building Surveyors are the only type of surveyors eligible to act as Design/Assigned Certifiers.

RORY O CONNOR

DOCARCH wrote: »

In relation to what???

In my post, or the section of the post you quoted...'Just Building Surveyors'...I was referring to the fact that Building Surveyors are the only type of surveyors eligible to act as Design/Assigned Certifiers.

I don't agree.

Engineers with design experience and Architects with design experience would also qualify for to act as Design/Assigned Certifiers.

Building surveyors are unlikely to have any qualifications in regard to structural design for bearing capacity of soil, concrete foundations, structural steel, load bearing walls & roofs and would be unable to provide the specific certification for the elements regarding structure.

DOCARCH

RORY O CONNOR wrote: »

Engineers with design experience and Architects with design experience would also qualify for to act as Design/Assigned Certifiers.

That's what I said.

Not sure what you are on about? Look at the thread title first...the only type of surveyor permitted to act as Design/Assigned Certifier is a (chartered) building surveyor. That's what I pointed out earlier.

This thread has nothing to do with architects or engineers. I am well aware that chartered engineers and registered architects can (also) act as Design/Assigned Certifiers.