New Building Control Regs

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

Once it doesn't have to measure beyond 25sq m you'll be grand.

No, mine goes as far as 40SqM, after that it goes into Superiority Mode, like yours.

BryanF

please stick to discussing the topic - enough with the sly digs

we have a local elections imminent, why not offer constructive solutions to our wannabe politicians for how they might rectify/amend this legislation. all we seem to have done so far is row over who its affecting and what the liabilities/costs are .

mandy gall

BryanF you are 100 % correct - i am doing my best on that front!

Tune in to Ocean FM on Tuesday morn 939 to 1100 a live debate with candidates in sligo area - im going to ask a few 'hard' questions. It will be available in podcast tuesday pm.

4Sticks

mandy gall wrote: »

BryanF you are 100 % correct - i am doing my best on that front!.

You are doing very well too

mandy gall

4Sticks wrote: »

You are doing very well too

Thank you 4Sticks...it is support from professionals like yourself which encourages me - thank you Its priceless...:)

No6

Fair play to you mandy, I am following events from afar here in Western Australia and I can see you are fighting the good fight and attracting a lot of attention to an extremely unjust and flawed piece of legislation.

mandy gall

No6 wrote: »

Fair play to you mandy, I am following events from afar here in Western Australia and I can see you are fighting the good fight and attracting a lot of attention to an extremely unjust and flawed piece of legislation.

Thank you No 6 - you will know even in Australia they have special rules for owner - builders... Irish Gov needs a good sally rod..:)

No6

The system here in Western Australia has its flaws and is open to serious abuse, inspections here are not required at all for domestic and not completions certs or occupancy permits for dwellings at all, however it is still a lot fairer with the primary liability resting with the registered builder or the owner builder who built the building in the first place!!

4Sticks

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dramatic-fall-in-number-of-buildings-being-started-1.1800470

mandy gall

4Sticks wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dramatic-fall-in-number-of-buildings-being-started-1.1800470

When are the DOECLG going to wake up?

4Sticks

mandy gall

4Sticks

. Some consequences of BC(A)R 2014 – S.I. 9 of 2014

These regulations were made after Priory Hall and pyrites. There were no problems outside the spec residential sector. But the regulations impact on almost every building project of any size at all in Ireland. They have the following consequences.

Architectural technologists can no longer earn a livelihood by not including them on the list of so-called “Assigned Certifiers”. Result: immediate loss of perhaps 90% of income from hundreds of self-employed technologists.

Removal (despite Ministerial assertions to the contrary) of the ability of “self-builders” to oversee the building of their own homes, now obliged to hire building companies. As confirmed by the Conveyancing Committee of the Law Society of Ireland. Result: €20k extra average cost to each family building their own home. In 2013, 60% of all dwellings built were “self-builders”.

Increased hurdles to completion in an uncompetitive construction regulatory system (World Bank: Ireland is 119th out of 153!). Confirmed by National Competitiveness Council. Representations made to Minister before 1 March were ignored. Result: Tougher competition for inward FDI projects for IDA. Ongoing loss of new jobs.

Minimum three weeks validation period for Certificates of Completion. Tiny “weekend fit-out jobs” in e.g. shopping centres must remain unopened and unoccupied for weeks. Result: abandonment of these projects.
Cost of assigned certifier varies from €2000 on the tiniest job upwards. Result: unnecessary cost on SMEs who never asked for these regulations. Mark Fielding, ISME CEO will confirm this.

Need to “Certify compliance” results in defensive design. If it’s not in the book (the TGD) it won’t be certified. The AC cannot certify leading edge energy-saving design. Ask the specialist Energy Consultants. Result: Stop to innovation. Madness, where the EU Commission is pushing towards zero-carbon building by 2020.

Since 1 March 2014 there are 25 steps for statutory compliance (Planning, building regs; health and safety; DEAP calculations etc.) on a 500 square foot house extension. I attach the list. Result: Householders are giving up.
When the building control authority requires the Assigned Certifier to submit more details before allowing the building to be used, and the certifier cannot get the papers because the builder can’t or won’t hand them over, the Certifier faces jail. Result: Hundreds of architects refusing jobs or quoting exorbitant fees for the liability.

Nobody knows better than yourself that one can’t certify anything about a building. You can give a conscientious and truthful and carefully formed opinion. The result of requiring Certificates is more legal actions and richer lawyers. Why in 2012 I likened this law to what the British did in 1750 when they hung hungry children for stealing sheep has now become clear. Certifiers, taking the responsibility because they see no other way to earn a living, will be jailed for not providing the certificates and papers which other people will not give them.

Finally, the regulations are a failure. My colleagues already report “cuter developers” employing registered building surveyors as in-house Assigned Certifier. The regulations permit this self-certification. Result:- Not only the consequences listed above, the regulations will also fail in preventing another Priory Hall.

source

4Sticks

Nothing in SI 9 will adrress the likes of this other than jail the unfortunate fool who Certifys the build.

mandy gall

4Sticks wrote: »

Nothing in SI 9 will adrress the likes of this other than jail the unfortunate fool who Certifys the build.

Well said 4sticks... under S.I. 9 there will be Jail for Certifiers, jail for Self Builders and Get Out of Jail Free Cards for Builders / Developers...disgraceful legislation that belongs in the dump...and will get thrown into one very soon

martinn123

. under S.I. 9 there will be Jail for Certifiers, jail for Self Builders and Get Out of Jail Free Cards for Builders / Developers.

While I can admire the strength of argument against these Reg's, the assertion that someone is going to Jail, is taking it a bit too far.

Now I am sure someone will post a section from the Act stating, a fine of Xxx or x months in default.

That is a sentence for not paying a Fine.

If you can be a Director of a corrupt Bank, or feck off to The Hamptons, and not see the inside of a prison, I really doubt you will do time for defying these Reg's, and in my view does nothing for your argument suggesting it's Jail time for those involved.
Can we keep to the facts, please,

We have just gone through an Election, I have to say, these Reg's did not feature in any way, that I saw, during the coverage,

Finally, and I offer no offence, but if AT'S see so much wrong here, why are they canvassing so much to be included in the list of Approved Certifyers.

4Sticks

AT's face a two fronted battle.
1. The right to earn a living re instated.
2. SI 9 2014 to be amended for many other reasons as listed before.
Two faces of the same coin for AT's.

4Sticks

martinn123 wrote: »

Can we keep to the facts, please,

The legislation provides for jailtime.

mandy gall

martinn123 wrote: »

While I can admire the strength of argument against these Reg's, the assertion that someone is going to Jail, is taking it a bit too far.

Now I am sure someone will post a section from the Act stating, a fine of Xxx or x months in default.

That is a sentence for not paying a Fine.

If you can be a Director of a corrupt Bank, or feck off to The Hamptons, and not see the inside of a prison, I really doubt you will do time for defying these Reg's, and in my view does nothing for your argument suggesting it's Jail time for those involved.
Can we keep to the facts, please,

We have just gone through an Election, I have to say, these Reg's did not feature in any way, that I saw, during the coverage,

Finally, and I offer no offence, but if AT'S see so much wrong here, why are they canvassing so much to be included in the list of Approved Certifyers.

I should think that ATs are raising their voice to be recognised as ACs because they have every right to be...the same as self builders have every right to be recognised as competent enough to manage their own builds...the way in which ATs and self builders have been totally annihilated is nothing short of discriminatory.

The SI9 is an elitist piece of legislation and is very hard to live with for those of us who are now outcasts.

I do believe that someday, somewhere, someone (and it wont be the developer / builder - most probably an AC) will be taken to court over these regulations and will face jailtime or as you say a fine... either is unjust..

Believe me here in Sligo the SI9 was well and truly discussed in the run up to the elections...

Did you ever sign the petition to have SI9 revoked? If you have thanks!

Penn

martinn123 wrote: »

While I can admire the strength of argument against these Reg's, the assertion that someone is going to Jail, is taking it a bit too far.

Now I am sure someone will post a section from the Act stating, a fine of Xxx or x months in default.

That is a sentence for not paying a Fine.

If you can be a Director of a corrupt Bank, or feck off to The Hamptons, and not see the inside of a prison, I really doubt you will do time for defying these Reg's, and in my view does nothing for your argument suggesting it's Jail time for those involved.
Can we keep to the facts, please,

I agree. While there is the possibility of jailtime for severe breaches of the legislation, the severity of those breaches would have to be such that the professionals and contractors involved were being willfully negligible in their duties, rather than trying to comply with the legislation. The chances of most professionals/builders doing jailtime is very slim. With respect to mandygall, I think there's enough flaws in the legislation which require strong discussion without the need to start talking about jailtime, something which would be extremely rare and likely only ever used in scenarios where it is justified for willful neglect.

martinn123 wrote: »

We have just gone through an Election, I have to say, these Reg's did not feature in any way, that I saw, during the coverage,

The legislation simply doesn't affect most people, not when there are other issues regarding water charges, austerity etc. It mostly just affects those in the construction industry and people who are currently planning on building a house (whether self-build or not). But to the majority of people outside the construction industry and who already have their own homes, it's not that big an issue. It's also neither a European nor local council issue. It's still an issue which needs to be discussed due to the flaws though.

martinn123 wrote: »

Finally, and I offer no offence, but if AT'S see so much wrong here, why are they canvassing so much to be included in the list of Approved Certifyers.

Well, the simplest answer is two-fold: a) to have their profession and qualifications recognised as being equal to architects/engineers/surveyors, and b) it will give them a greater voice to be part of the discussion and have a hand in helping to shape the legislation.

4Sticks

Penn wrote: »

The chances of most professionals/builders doing jailtime is very slim. With respect to mandygall, I think there's enough flaws in the legislation which require strong discussion without the need to start talking about jailtime

Mandy simply picked up on a point I made. Hogan has provided nothing to prevent or remedy another pyrite scandal. He has expedited the potential passage of an individual to jail is all - an unlikely outcome I do agree.

The over arching point is that Hogan has caused a lot of damage with an instrument that does not even deliver on it's primary aim - better buildings.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

While I can admire the strength of argument against these Reg's, the assertion that someone is going to Jail, is taking it a bit too far.

Now I am sure someone will post a section from the Act stating, a fine of Xxx or x months in default.

That is a sentence for not paying a Fine.

If you can be a Director of a corrupt Bank, or feck off to The Hamptons, and not see the inside of a prison, I really doubt you will do time for defying these Reg's, and in my view does nothing for your argument suggesting it's Jail time for those involved.
Can we keep to the facts, please,

We have just gone through an Election, I have to say, these Reg's did not feature in any way, that I saw, during the coverage,

Finally, and I offer no offence, but if AT'S see so much wrong here, why are they canvassing so much to be included in the list of Approved Certifyers.

ASSIGNED CERTIFIERS FACING JAIL

Discussion around the new duties on those architects and others acting as “Assigned Certifier” under BC(A)R 2014 has focussed on civil liability to clients, tenants, purchasers etc.. This paper draws attention to the criminal liability involved in not providing the building control authority with documentation they require to validate a Certificate of Completion.

S.I.9 – Part IIIC – Certificate of Compliance on Completion, article 20F(5) says:-

“Where the building control authority considers that a Certificate of Compliance on Completion may not be valid … they may within 21 days of receipt of the certificate, write to the person who submitted the certificate and … (ii) require the person submitting the certificate to submit such revised certificate or such additional documentation as may be deemed necessary by the building control authority to accompany the certificate for the purposes of paragraphs (3) and (4).”

Article 6A of S.I. 9 of 2014 says:-

“Failure to comply with any requirement under Parts II, III, IIIA, IIIB or IIIC shall be an offence to which section 17(2) of the Act of 1990 applies.”

So if the BCA require additional documentation, and if the Assigned Certifier does not comply, the Certifier commits an offence to which s.17(2) of the Act applies.

Section 17(2) of the Building Control Act of 1990 says:-

17 (2) A person guilty of an offence …. shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £800, or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both the fine and the imprisonment and, if the offence is carried on after conviction, such person shall be guilty of a further offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £150 per day in respect of each day on which the offence is continued, or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both the fine and the imprisonment.

RIAI advice in relation to the criminal liability of the Assigned Certifier

The RIAI has advised that “Insurers have confirmed PII cover will be available for Assigned Certifiers”.

PII policies cover the insured person in respect of civil liability. It is not possible to obtain insurance cover in respect of a criminal act. It follows that PII cover will be no help if the BCA require you to provide documents and you will not or cannot do so.

The RIAI circulated the detailed “Opinion of Counsel” dated 4 September 2013, where Mr. Gavin Ralston SC considers the question of liability under the headings of:- liability in contract, liability in tort, and liability for others. He does not mention criminal liability. He also says “As I have observed at the outset, the onus of complying with the amended Building Regulations falls upon the “owner”.”

From this, he appears not to have considered that the failure of an Assigned Certifier to comply with a requirement of the BCA to provide information in connection with a Certificate of Completion would be a criminal offence.

Criminal liability of an employee acting as Assigned Certifier

It has been said that an Employer’s PII covers an employee signing a Certificate of Completion or otherwise acting as Assigned Certifier. The problem is that PII does not cover criminal liability. At this moment, it is unclear whether the employer would have a vicarious criminal liability in respect of an employee who failed to comply with a BCA requirement for information with a Completion certificate.

It is difficult to see how an employee who signs a Certificate of Completion can avoid personal criminal liability if she or he is unable to provide information required by a BCA.

Was this criminalization of the Assigned Certifier deliberate?

Presumably. Introducing the new regulations, the Minister said:- “If anyone signs a statutory certificate for a building which subsequently proves to be non-compliant, they can be held legally liable for the consequences”.

So let’s all hope together as follows:-

Let’s all hope the BCA never requires Completion Certificate documents which the AC cannot provide. What documents might those be?

Test reports for impact glazing, and the glass came from …. where, and no test reports are available?
CE papers to show fitness for purpose of the OSB in the floor, which came from … where? (They make a lot of inexpensive OSB in China)
Test reports on the aggregate, from an excavation subcontractor who might have gone into liquidation (There is no pyrite in the aggregate, is there?)
Documents from the main contractor, but who busy preparing a disruption claim, arising out of the architect’s failure to certify Practical Completion because the BCA won’t validate the Completion Certificate, and because the contractor needs or just wants to make a few bob
And let’s all hope that when you explain to the BCA that you tried really really hard, but cannot get the documents, they tell you That’s All Right Then. We don’t need them. We were only joking. And the fact that you promised when you signed the Assignment Form to give them to us – that doesn’t matter either.


dont let the FACTS get in the way of a good old swipe at professionals again Martinn123

4Sticks

Penn wrote: »

Well, the simplest answer is two-fold: a) to have their profession and qualifications recognised as being equal to architects/engineers/surveyors,

Yeah - you wish

Penn

4Sticks wrote: »

Mandy simply picked up on a point I made. Hogan has provided nothing to prevent or remedy another pyrite scandal. He has expedited the potential passage of an individual to jail is all - an unlikely outcome I do agree.

The over arching point is that Hogan has caused a lot of damage with an instrument that does not even deliver on it's primary aim - better buildings.

I agree completely.

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote:

dont let the FACTS get in the way of a good old swipe at professionals again Martinn123

Oh dear! that old chestnut again.

My post referred to the unlikely situation where someone does " jail-time"

So let me explain, as your reply is comprehensive.

in this Republic we have something special " separation of Powers "

So while legislation can formulate offences, and lay down remedies, and penalties, the imposition of such penalties are a matter for the Judiciary, and them alone.

We see daily that Legislation is challenged in the Courts, and Judges impose penalties based on their judgment, not the Ministers.

Mandatory sentences are ignored daily, in cases such as Posession of Drugs indeed the only area where a Mandatory sentence is imposed is in the case of Murder.

So my assertion that no one will do Jail a Time, is based on the actuality that " white Collar Crime " rarely results in Jail.

You can reproduce the wording of Opinions, legislation all you like, the reality WILL be as has been acknowledged by other contributors that Jail Time will not be a feature here.

That's my simple point, but as you want to have another swipe, I double you will accept it,

Hence my reference to Bankers, The Hamptons etc, plus can I add, did McFeeley serve a day in prison.

So let's be realistic, the Regulation may not be to your liking, but you will not end up in Jail.

sydthebeat

martinn123 wrote: »

....

So let's be realistic, the Regulation may not be to your liking, but you will not end up in Jail.

holy god, now martinn13 purports to speak for judges :rolleyes:

well luckily assigned certifiers wont have to base their defenses on your internet opinion

look up the meaning of summary convictions and indictment convictions.... then come back and say no one will be jailed.

there was a guy jailed today for two years for pushing someone into the sea, im sure he didnt think he'd do jail time either.....

martinn123

sydthebeat wrote: »

holy god, now martinn13 purports to speak for judges :rolleyes:

Not aware that I did, but don't let that stop you

well luckily assigned certifiers wont have to base their defenses on your internet opinion

look up the meaning of summary convictions and indictment convictions.... then come back and say no one will be jailed.

Maybe they could talk to a Solicitor.

there was a guy jailed today for two years for pushing someone into the sea, im sure he didnt think he'd do jail time either.....

Well don't push anyone into the sea then.

sydthebeat

For a guy hell bent on "the facts" you sure deal in a whole pile of hyperbole.

Penn

Quit the unnecessary digs at each other or infractions/bans will be handed out.

4Sticks

The Law Society Practice Note to all solicitors says that the Assigned Certificate only will be used for conveying property. This means that the buyer will only have the Completion Certificate and none of the supporting documents or Ancillary Certs. It’s back to single point responsibility.

source

So all other parties to a construction project may relax. One person alone will "sign" for you.

Rejoice.