Another Priory Hall? Longboat Quay, Dublin Docklands

ted1 · 02-10-2015 12:18pm

Lods1969 wrote: »

The Taxpayer should not have to fund this. With the contribution by the DAA ,I think an extra €18k per apartment is a small amount overall to sort the issue. A loan could be organised, maybe guaranteed by the DAA as I doubt anyone would have the money available. As stated by other posters , these are private individuals. its not acceptable that they pay nothing . Its a disgrace & it shouldn't have happened.

I agree they should provide some funding themselves.

my concern is that if the state fund it to bring it up the latest regulations, then the precedence is set and they will have to do the same for every dwelling in the state. which could be a couple of billion euros.

ted1 · 02-10-2015 12:20pm

Paulw wrote: »

I would say that a lot of residents just wouldn't have that money in their pockets to just cough up. You are talking about thousands of euro. :eek: I'm sure that they did what they could, to remedy the issues, until the exact cost became clear and they realised how much was needed.

A low cost loan should be offered to the MC and this could be paid back of the next 50 years or so through the annual fee.

Paulw · 02-10-2015 12:35pm

Lods1969 wrote: »

The Taxpayer should not have to fund this. With the contribution by the DAA ,I think an extra €18k per apartment is a small amount overall to sort the issue. A loan could be organised, maybe guaranteed by the DAA as I doubt anyone would have the money available. Its a disgrace & it shouldn't have happened.

I never said that the taxpayer should have to pay. Not sure where you read that from. All I said was that I doubt the owners had that amount of money to hand. Many are struggling to pay their mortgage and bills, so an up front 18k is not easy.

Something has to be done. The situation is just not right at all. The funds for repair need to be found and agreed.

A lot of people are at fault for causing the situation - the builder, those who signed off on work that was not completed properly, etc.

JD1763 · 02-10-2015 12:49pm

You want to know why the Government should help these people? It is quite simple - the Government has presided over a system with a complete lack of consequences for cowboy builders. Build a load of sh*** houses stuff them full of pyrite with no fire proofing and that don't meet minimum safety standards - no problem liquidate the company and walk away. Don't worry mate you can just set up a new company or better yet set up ten of them and keep doing the same thing. Isn't Ireland amazing - best country in the world in which to do business if you didn't know. This is what self and light touch regulation have given us.

If the builder was being held to account and criminally prosecuted with his insurance policies paying out to compensate his victims - then fine no need for the taxpayer to step in. But that is not the system our Government (past and present) have gifted to us. The Irish regulatory system is a complete joke with zero accountability for anyone. Until something is done (and the lobbying power of the CIF overcome) situations such as this will keep happening.

And the system leaves the victims to right the wrongs. It's akin to someone breaking into your house, kicking the living sh** out of you, taking all your stuff and then you have to buy them dinner and pay their taxi fare home as a thank you. Because who else can fix the problems but another builder!

Posters here need to stop blaming the victims and look at who is really responsible for what has happened. And you can shove the whole thing about being a taxpayer and this not being your problem where the sun don't shine. I am a taxpayer as well but at least I have some empathy and compassion for the victims of Ireland's corrupt system.

mickmmc · 02-10-2015 1:23pm

According to Frank Mc Donald in the Irish Times, the Architect who certified that Longboat Quay was in compliance was a direct employee of Bernard Mc Namara company. He was a foreign national and no longer in the country.

Victor · 02-10-2015 8:01pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why is it the government's job to hold the developer/builder accountable? The owners are the ones with an obvious interest in doing so. Plus, they are the people who chose to buy the apartments.

You buy something that turns out to be not as described/not fit for purpose - you have an action against the person that sold it to you. It's up to you to bring that action, not the government. And if the person who sold it to you is not worth suing, you may decide not to bring the action. But that doesn't make it the government's job to step in and magic the money up from somewhere.

In a matter of public safety - affecting hundreds of people - the government should involve itself, just as it involves itself in the safety of medicines, food, cars, etc.

The government created light regulation, it is now reaping what it sowed.

Bob24 · 02-10-2015 9:55pm

btw a simple illustration of how the media make things more dramatic than they really are: on Wednesday they were all claiming that if the work was not started by Thursday the building would be evacuated. Yesterday they slightly changed the story and said funding has to be secured by the evening to avoid evacuation.

We are now Friday - no funding found and of course no works started - and has there been an evacuation?

waxon-waxoff · 02-10-2015 10:19pm

Bob24 wrote: »

btw a simple illustration of how the media make things more dramatic than they really are: on Wednesday they were all claiming that if the work was not started by Thursday the building would be evacuated. Yesterday they slightly changed the story and said funding has to be secured by the evening to avoid evacuation.

We are now Friday - no funding found and of course no works started - and has there been an evacuation?

Thats how things work in this country, if you dont have a legal claim you turn to the media to fight for you, create a big fuss, get the publics sympathy and wait for the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

Bob24 · 02-10-2015 10:43pm

waxon-waxoff wrote: »

Thats how things work in this country, if you dont have a legal claim you turn to the media to fight for you, create a big fuss, get the publics sympathy and wait for the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

Although I do think the owners deserve much sympathy and are victims of both the developer AND incompetent officials who issued worthless certificates, I do agree this is what is likely at play here. Funny coincidence that an issue which has been known for months if not years suddenly becomes an emergency and comes under the media spotlight just when serious talks about elections are starting ...

my friend · 03-10-2015 12:23am

Caveat emptor

No taxpayer bailout.

Schadenfreude that Mary Mc the queen of Fianna Fáil owns two of the apartments,

Very well timed tantrums and threats from the owners, my advice? deal with good builders and professionals in future

NAMA by any offers they make are only spending taxpayers cash, No increased offers. Let the owners chase the experts that surveyed the units for them prior to closing.

Hillybilly4 · 03-10-2015 8:31am

From the Irish Examiner earlier this year:

The fire consultant on the development was John Greaney and Associates. He confirmed his role in a statement to the Irish Examiner.

“Greaney Fire Safety was engaged as a fire safety consultants on the project by (the then) Michael McNamara & Co to oversee design and construction in terms of each structure’s compliance with the requirements of the building control regulations.

“I prepared the fire safety design strategies and submitted applications for the requisite fire safety certificates which were granted in 2004. The requirements were satisfied at this point. I supervised the construction works at the stages relevant to the fire safety design strategies; and certificates of fire safety compliance were issued at the practical completion stages in 2006.”

Curious as to why there is no comeback on this company/person? Or have they conveniently gone out of business too?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/longboat-quay-taxpayer-to-foot-part-of-bill-for-works-at-controversial-housing-complex-314229.html

brooke 2 · 03-10-2015 9:37am

mickmmc wrote: »

According to Frank Mc Donald in the Irish Times, the Architect who certified that Longboat Quay was in compliance was a direct employee of Bernard Mc Namara company. He was a foreign national and no longer in the country.

In Ghana, I believe!

listermint · 03-10-2015 9:47am

Very simple, The same lax regulation was deployed in the construction sector since the mid 90s here as was deployed in the financial sector.

In the scramble to make the most money the Government cut requirements for inspection across the board cut inspector positions and let the industry self regulate pretty much carbon copy of what went on in the banks.

When this happens those inside chase after profit, standards are simply not deployed and there are many such developments that have the same issues country wide only they are not in individual private hands so have yet to be uncovered. Id imagine if one went through some of the nama developments you may see some fire regulation work being done 10 years post construction otherwise they wouldnt find buyers.

This stuff is only coming to light now because people are having to inspect the buildings for works OR pre sale.

Its rampant is government policy and you know what nothing has changed, same number of inspectors i believe there might not even be a head count of 6 or so across the country and they are looking over maybe 3% of builds. Hilarious stuff altogether and we have the government again trying to light a fire excuse the pun under the flames of a construction boom.

Round Two, we are back baby.

brooke 2 · 03-10-2015 9:47am

my friend wrote: »

Caveat emptor

No taxpayer bailout.

Schadenfreude that Mary Mc the queen of Fianna Fáil owns two of the apartments,

Very well timed tantrums and threats from the owners, my advice? deal with good builders and professionals in future

NAMA by any offers they make are only spending taxpayers cash, No increased offers. Let the owners chase the experts that surveyed the units for them prior to closing.

Deal with good builders......? But..but..but..
according to many in the media, even RTE'S
Seán O'Rourke, Bernard McNamara was a 'reputable builder'!! They must have never heard of roofs blowing off, leaking roofs, flooded hospitals (Letterkenny, anyone?) in many of this builder's projects!!

listermint · 03-10-2015 9:48am

brooke 2 wrote: »

Deal with good builders......? But..but..but..
according to many in the media, even RTE'S
Seán O'Rourke, Bernard McNamara was a 'reputable builder'!! They must have never heard of roofs blowing off, leaking roofs, flooded hospitals (Letterkenny, anyone?) in many of this builder's projects!!

Poster is clearly trying to wind people up.

They would be straight back to the dealer if they found something wrong with their new car.

Bob24 · 03-10-2015 10:02am

my friend wrote: »

deal with good builders and professionals in future

I assume you are defining "good builder" as a builder who follows regulations?

If yes, do you find it acceptable that someone who is not a "good builder" was even allowed to operate in this country?

And 10 years ago (before any of these issues had ever been mentioned), how exactly was the public expected to tell which appartement builders were good and bad ones?

my friend · 03-10-2015 10:05am

brooke 2 wrote: »

Deal with good builders......? But..but..but..
according to many in the media, even RTE'S
Seán O'Rourke, Bernard McNamara was a 'reputable builder'!! They must have never heard of roofs blowing off, leaking roofs, flooded hospitals (Letterkenny, anyone?) in many of this builder's projects!!

What would S O'R or any of the RTE sheep know about quality builders?
McNamara may have had a huge operation but delivered projects with defects around the country, don't forget his roots as a one time Fianna Fáil councillor in Clare and you might trace his growth from there.

April 73 · 03-10-2015 10:50am

Hillybilly4 wrote: »

From the Irish Examiner earlier this year:

The fire consultant on the development was John Greaney and Associates. He confirmed his role in a statement to the Irish Examiner.

“Greaney Fire Safety was engaged as a fire safety consultants on the project by (the then) Michael McNamara & Co to oversee design and construction in terms of each structure’s compliance with the requirements of the building control regulations.

“I prepared the fire safety design strategies and submitted applications for the requisite fire safety certificates which were granted in 2004. The requirements were satisfied at this point. I supervised the construction works at the stages relevant to the fire safety design strategies; and certificates of fire safety compliance were issued at the practical completion stages in 2006.”

Curious as to why there is no comeback on this company/person? Or have they conveniently gone out of business too?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/longboat-quay-taxpayer-to-foot-part-of-bill-for-works-at-controversial-housing-complex-314229.html

I must be naive. Is this company not responsible for defects in the fire safety design & compliance? Would they not have indemnity insurance?

April 73 · 03-10-2015 10:52am

When you google the company - it looks like a it's a one-man band operating from his home office ðŸ˜³

Gumbo · 03-10-2015 11:53am

Still in operation today and actively lodging fire safety certificates.

Victor · 03-10-2015 5:21pm

my friend wrote: »

Let the owners chase the experts that surveyed the units for them prior to closing.

I'm not sure that this is meaningful. These people are checking that things are generally in order. they have not supervised construction and they aren't making holes in walls to check their thickness. You're paying €100-500 for a snag list, not 15% of construction cost (perhaps €20,000).

April 73 wrote: »

I must be naive. Is this company not responsible for defects in the fire safety design & compliance? Would they not have indemnity insurance?

They might. Has it been claimed against? Has it expired?

April 73 wrote: »

When you google the company - it looks like a it's a one-man band operating from his home office ðŸ˜³

This isn't necessarily a 'bad thing'.

worded · 03-10-2015 6:31pm

kceire wrote: »

Still in operation today and actively lodging fire safety certificates.

How can they still be allowed to practice after this ?

April 73 · 03-10-2015 8:31pm

Victor wrote: »

I'm not sure that this is meaningful. These people are checking that things are generally in order. they have not supervised construction and they aren't making holes in walls to check their thickness. You're paying €100-500 for a snag list, not 15% of construction cost (perhaps €20,000).

They might. Has it been claimed against? Has it expired?

This isn't necessarily a 'bad thing'.

No, it isn't and I knew someone would say this. But...according to that examiner article the company (the one man-band) was very heavily involved in the design & certification of fire safety in that development. Should this much responsibility rest in one man's hands?

Bob24 · 29-09-2017 10:11pm

A deal was agreed to secure funding to fix the issues there back in December: http://www.thejournal.ie/longboat-quay-agreement-3149792-Dec2016/

But I don't see any news report since then. Does anyone know the situation there? No reports just means journalists (and the fire brigade which had threatened to evacuate) are not interested in the place anymore? Or the issues have actually been sorted and after all it was definitely not another Priory Hall?

JTMan · 29-09-2017 10:17pm

Bob24 wrote: »

A deal was agreed to secure funding to fix the issues there back in December: http://www.thejournal.ie/longboat-quay-agreement-3149792-Dec2016/

But I don't see any news report since then. Does anyone know the situation there? No reports just means journalists (and the fire brigade which had threatened to evacuate) are not interested in the place anymore? Or the issues have actually been sorted and after all it was definitely not another Priory Hall?

Fire safety construction started earlier this year. Due to be complete in December 2017. Construction is running to schedule apparently. Hence, fire safety compliance issues are almost solved.

Bob24 · 30-09-2017 1:27pm

JTMan wrote: »

Fire safety construction started earlier this year. Due to be complete in December 2017. Construction is running to schedule apparently. Hence, fire safety compliance issues are almost solved.

Cheers. Yes I know work had started but not sure about the status. I assume once it is completed there will be a new fire safety inspection and we will only know then that the issues are actually fixed? Also it seems like there are separate issues with the roof which need to be addressed.

JTMan · 30-09-2017 5:17pm

Yeah, one would think that the new works will be certified.

Nameless17 · 11-03-2023 5:01pm

Hey folks. Thinking of buying a apartment in the Longboat Quay South development. Considering it's a Celtic era building and it had it's widely publicised at the time fire safety issues - now solved, luckily, would you have any other comments on those apartment's build quality? Thanks!