Longboat quay- Another priory hall

take everything

Another appalling case. This time residents are apparently being asked to shell out 4 million to sort out the fire risk associated with these apartments

Ridiculous.

StonyIron

This is what you get in a state that doesn't bother to regulate areas of the economy that are close to the government.

Low standards / no standards.

We'd a pathetically under resourced inspection regime.

Supercell

I feel sorry for them, but why should the government have to foot the bill, surely that's between the owners and the developers or Homebond if it exists for apartments?

kneemos

StonyIron wrote: »

This is what you get in a state that doesn't bother to regulate areas of the economy that are close to the government.

Low standards / no standards.

We'd a pathetically under resourced inspection regime.

They're talking about lowering standards.One off houses don't need any inspection apparently.

seamus

Pretty typical of boom time construction. Everyone was reliant on the whole, "Ah sure X has signed off on it, it'll be grand" basis, this included banks and solicitors. There are plenty of people stuck with individual houses with massive issues too, but nobody's campaigning in the Dail on their behalf.

Coupled with the fact that Fianna Fail governments were happy to be lax on regulation provided that construction kept pumping out buildings, it was inevitable this kind of thing would come to pass.

This one will probably have a decent outcome. I reckon DCC or the DDDA will forward a loan to the management company for the cost of the works, with a minimal interest rate and repayable over 40 years or so.

suicide_circus

This is what happens when a developer employs the architect to certify the building.

"Self certification"....is this not an oxymoron? It beggars belief that this is the system in place for ****ing FIRE SAFETY!

Meanwhile deathtrap developer Bernard McNamara declared bankruptcy, has now started a new business and no longer has any legal obligation to put things right. Immoral and wrong in every sense of the word.

beauf

Supercell wrote: »

I feel sorry for them, but why should the government have to foot the bill, surely that's between the owners and the developers or Homebond if it exists for apartments?

Homebond doesn't seem to cover anything. Even if this was structural. Which I'm unclear as what's required here, that will cost 18k per apartment.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/building-giants-to-fight-liability-as-400-pyrite-claims-filed-29931191.html

Property seems to be bought as sold. Just like a €100 car on a backstreet.

Valetta

Caveat Emptor.

Buyers should take responsibility for carrying out their own due diligence on such a sizeable purchase.

Reg'stoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUHunfH0XbI

tayto lover

suicide_circus wrote: »

This is what happens when a developer employs the architect to certify the building.

"Self certification"....is this not an oxymoron? It beggars belief that this is the system in place for ****ing FIRE SAFETY!

Meanwhile deathtrap developer Bernard McNamara declared bankruptcy, has now started a new business and no longer has any legal obligation to put things right. Immoral and wrong in every sense of the word.

Should be locked up but will probably end up getting grants, planning approval and help from old friends and business acquaintances like DOB.

It's mad that Bernard McNamara is now building big developments again but under a (slightly) different company name.

Pre qualification should also include previous and existing business that directors are involved in and should lose large points for receivership/liquidation/bankruptcy.

As it stands, it's the same old names popping up again.

michael999999

The scary thing is, fianna fail were handing Bernard Mc namaras construction company contracts hand over fist when they were in power.

I personally know of them building the new library at The I.T. College in Tralee. An Tintean Building at The Mary I teachers college in Limerick. And The Irish World Academy of Music and Dance also in Limerick.

They also built the Parknasilla holiday resort in Kerry. Which Bertie Ahern had two weeks holiday in, before it opened.

Will all these buildings now need urgent inspection?

Don't forget Letterkenny hospital, michael. Flooded A&E anyone?

The Backwards Man

I know a few fellas that subbed work off him alright, I wouldn't trust an umbrella that they would up.

But for all the buck eejits and cowboys trying to pull a stroke here and there, it's the architects and surveyors I have the most contempt for. Say nothing and take the cheque boys.

oppenheimer1

Valetta wrote: »

Caveat Emptor.

Buyers should take responsibility for carrying out their own due diligence on such a sizeable purchase.

While that is true to a certain extent, it is not unreasonable to believe that a new build should be free from defects such as these. By way of an example, you wouldn't expect to have to get a mechanic to check a brand new car.

The new building regulations have tightened things up a lot, and individual professionals are now liable to ensure these shortcuts are not taken - though the new system isn't fool proof (e.g. set up shell companies and use overseas professional services and there is little or no comeback for the purchaser). The big and unfortunate problem is that there are a lot of existing developments where standards were not met.

Much like insurance when an uninsured driver causes an accident, I believe the construction industry as a whole should bear the cost of the refit. This should be as a levy on all commercial development.

Is priory hall still out of bounds?

brooke 2

take everything wrote: »

Another appalling case. This time residents are apparently being asked to shell out 4 million to sort out the fire risk associated with these apartments

Ridiculous.

Had the face bitten off me on here a few months ago when I accepted that Longboat Quay was another Priory Hall!! Was searching for that thread last night but could not find it. Heard George Hook give the issue his treatment on Newstalk this evening - consisted mostly of a rant!! Changed over to RTE where, as usual, a lot more research had been done into the subject.
Mary Wilson had an interview from 2010 with Bernard McNamara in which he declared that all McNamara developments were built to the highest standards!! That was true in his father's time but, unfortunately, does not seem to have been the case during Bernard's tenure. He said he was staying in Ireland to deal with the situation. Mary then stated that he went to England in 2012 where he eventually declared bankruptcy. Now, he is back in business in Ireland, having completed projects for his old friends Michael Smurfitt and Denis O'brien. I am so glad that I don't own an apartment in Longboat Quay - it would be galling to be told that I have to pay thousands of euro to make mine habitable when the culprit has been able to walk free from all responsibility. We hear so much about businessmen who should be able to pick up the pieces after a relatively short time in bankruptcy but, what about the victims of their reckless cost cutting and, dare I say, 'criminal' activities??

brooke 2

suicide_circus wrote: »

This is what happens when a developer employs the architect to certify the building.

"Self certification"....is this not an oxymoron? It beggars belief that this is the system in place for ****ing FIRE SAFETY!

Meanwhile deathtrap developer Bernard McNamara declared bankruptcy, has now started a new business and no longer has any legal obligation to put things right. Immoral and wrong in every sense of the word.

Absolutely!!

brooke 2

seamus wrote: »

Pretty typical of boom time construction. Everyone was reliant on the whole, "Ah sure X has signed off on it, it'll be grand" basis, this included banks and solicitors. There are plenty of people stuck with individual houses with massive issues too, but nobody's campaigning in the Dail on their behalf.

Coupled with the fact that Fianna Fail governments were happy to be lax on regulation provided that construction kept pumping out buildings, it was inevitable this kind of thing would come to pass.

This one will probably have a decent outcome. I reckon DCC or the DDDA will forward a loan to the management company for the cost of the works, with a minimal interest rate and repayable over 40 years or so.

'Decent outcome'? You really think so?
I wonder how many of the Longboat Quay apt owners would agree with you?

brooke 2

michael999999 wrote: »

The scary thing is, fianna fail were handing Bernard Mc namaras construction company contracts hand over fist when they were in power.

I personally know of them building the new library at The I.T. College in Tralee. An Tintean Building at The Mary I teachers college in Limerick. And The Irish World Academy of Music and Dance also in Limerick.

They also built the Parknasilla holiday resort in Kerry. Which Bertie Ahern had two weeks holiday in, before it opened.

Will all these buildings now need urgent inspection?

And how could you forget Thornton Hall??!!
What a fiasco that not built project was!!!

kub

What a joke, an architect would surely have had to sign this off, how come the professionals here are not being pursued?

I appreciate that DFB are in the life saving business and appreciate their profession, i have to wonder though, when exactly did people start moving into this building?

Secondly is this a new regulation that is now being enforced?

kneemos

Valetta wrote: »

Caveat Emptor.

Buyers should take responsibility for carrying out their own due diligence on such a sizeable purchase.

They can't pull apart walls to check for fire breaks,they're depending on the Architects approval.

Massimo Cassagrande

I'm in construction, and from what I saw of an awful, awful lot of Boom-Time developments, ye aint seen nothing yet.. give it another few years for the chickens to really come home to roost. Thrown-up pretty much covers it.

Jakey Rolling

Presumably an Engineer/Architect/Local Authority Inspector/Fire Officer signed off on this - why is their professional indemnity insurance not paying for this incompetence?

end of the road

Valetta wrote: »

Caveat Emptor.

Buyers should take responsibility for carrying out their own due diligence on such a sizeable purchase.

and builders should be forced to build buildings properly via tough regulations. only so much a buyer can do

mfceiling

Working on a job yesterday. Popped open a few ceiling tiles (entire grid and tile being changed). Lo and be hold the block work only goes a few runs above the ceiling level. Same this morning in another office. Basically if a fire breaks out it will travel along the corridor taking out every office on the way!! It's been brought to the clients attention by us....They are mad to put it mildly.

StonyIron

end of the road wrote: »

and builders should be forced to build buildings properly via tough regulations. only so much a buyer can do

Buyers aren't building inspectors this is why developed countries have regulators.

You can't just throw the general public to the wolves.

Valetta

StonyIron wrote: »

Buyers aren't building inspectors this is why developed countries have regulators.

You can't just throw the general public to the wolves.

What do people do if they are buying a 100 year old house?

Bulbous Salutation

Jakey Rolling wrote: »

Presumably an Engineer/Architect/Local Authority Inspector/Fire Officer signed off on this - why is their professional indemnity insurance not paying for this incompetence?

I'm not one of those 'blame everyone else for everything that goes wrong in my life' crew, but I do agree with this. There should be some sort of accountability for allowing developments like these to be built. Alas, the thinking during the era of Bertie was to just keep building and sort the problems out later.

tayto lover

Valetta wrote: »

What do people do if they are buying a 100 year old house?

I got a surveyor to examine mine before I bought it.

Uncle Ben

mfceiling wrote: »

Working on a job yesterday. Popped open a few ceiling tiles (entire grid and tile being changed). Lo and be hold the block work only goes a few runs above the ceiling level. Same this morning in another office. Basically if a fire breaks out it will travel along the corridor taking out every office on the way!! It's been brought to the clients attention by us....They are mad to put it mildly.

I mentioned something similar a few years back in a semi d I was in. The blockwork only went up so far into the attic and if you stood on your toes you could see into the next doors attic. When I said it to the householder he said he had been told by the builder that it was to allow the attic to breathe! Furthermore, when the neighbours plugged in or out a plug or switched on the TV you could hear it in the adjoining house. These houses were built in 05 / 06.

Surely the banks checked out the assets they were backing.

EnergyBlaster

Uncle Ben wrote: »

I mentioned something similar a few years back in a semi d I was in. The blockwork only went up so far into the attic and if you stood on your toes you could see into the next doors attic. When I said it to the householder he said he had been told by the builder that it was to allow the attic to breathe! Furthermore, when the neighbours plugged in or out a plug or switched on the TV you could hear it in the adjoining house. These houses were built in 05 / 06.

Surely the banks checked out the assets they were backing.

You forgot a smiley

beauf

Valetta wrote: »

What do people do if they are buying a 100 year old house?

They rely on professionals and the authorities to regulate such professionals.

The fact is the consumer has less protection (in the real terms) on a house, than a kettle.

Eugene Norman

Valetta wrote: »

What do people do if they are buying a 100 year old house?

They inspect the house. Like if I'm buying an old car or an old phone. It's not the same for new stuff. Buyers have rights when they buy faulty cars, phones etc that are new . Of course that applies to new housing. Or it should.

tigerboon

Valetta wrote: »

What do people do if they are buying a 100 year old house?

You don't expect a 100 year old house to be built to current building regulations.

kenmc

tigerboon wrote: »

You don't expect a 100 year old house to be built to current building regulations.

of course not, you know it's sound as you can see that it's lasted 100 years. how many apts built in 2006 will be around in 2106?

seamus

mfceiling wrote: »

Working on a job yesterday. Popped open a few ceiling tiles (entire grid and tile being changed). Lo and be hold the block work only goes a few runs above the ceiling level. Same this morning in another office. Basically if a fire breaks out it will travel along the corridor taking out every office on the way!! It's been brought to the clients attention by us....They are mad to put it mildly.

My brother bought his house in 2001/2002. So there should be decent regulations underpinning the build. The front room was always cold. Like, freezing, even in summer. Eventually they got sick of this, a child had arrived, and they'd had a leak which damaged some plasterboard, so the room needed a repaint anyway.

So as he's a qualified tradesman and surveyor with plenty of experience behind him, he sets about adding some extra insulation or checking for draughts. He removes plasterboard from one section of the wall and finds that there's about half a metre of insulation. And that's it. Obviously the lads on site said, "We've run out of insulation, there'll be more in tomorrow." "Nah, **** it I'm not waiting around, hang that plasterboard and forget about it". The entire external wall of that room had nothing but 8mm of plasterboard and a brick wall between him and the outside. As he continued to remove the plasterboard, about a metre of the wall came away with it. ****ty mortar, might as well have been wet sand placed between the bricks.

Needless to say he was livid, but also worried about what the rest of the house looks like, even though he's been there 13 years.

I know houses in the 70s and 80s were built damn cheaply, but I've never heard of ones thrown up shoddily. They were built from cheap materials, and sometimes the measurements were a bit erratic, but the builders at least seem to have taken some pride in building solid houses.

Supercell

seamus wrote: »

I know houses in the 70s and 80s were built damn cheaply, but I've never heard of ones thrown up shoddily. They were built from cheap materials, and sometimes the measurements were a bit erratic, but the builders at least seem to have taken some pride in building solid houses.

I dunno Seamus, i'd say its a cultural thing to be honest.
My own house was built in 1982 with cavity block , wood battens and plasterboard attached to the battens..was E2 rated when we bought it and 10 minutes after the heating went off in winter you might as well have been sat outside. We've since brought it up to a C3 with a lot of expense but it's nothing like as efficient as my old man's self build in which he barely needs the heating on in all year round.

oppenheimer1

seamus wrote: »

I know houses in the 70s and 80s were built damn cheaply, but I've never heard of ones thrown up shoddily. They were built from cheap materials, and sometimes the measurements were a bit erratic, but the builders at least seem to have taken some pride in building solid houses.

Sorry to contradict you Seamus, but the houses in the 80's were worse. I've read a study, and I can't remember the name of at the moment, that stated the high point for housing quality construction in Ireland was 1996.

zom

If big builders and developers are not taking their responsibility for billions of looses, why should small builders and contractors care?

StonyIron

Valetta wrote: »

What do people do if they are buying a 100 year old house?

Well, it's usually not bought off the plans.

Massimo Cassagrande

mfceiling wrote: »

Working on a job yesterday. Popped open a few ceiling tiles (entire grid and tile being changed). Lo and be hold the block work only goes a few runs above the ceiling level. Same this morning in another office. Basically if a fire breaks out it will travel along the corridor taking out every office on the way!! It's been brought to the clients attention by us....They are mad to put it mildly.

That's everywhere tbh. Nothing at all unusual. There are acre upon countless acre of buildings with sweet f-all in the way of proper fire proofing. I watched more engineers sign off on structures where they had no clue at all what was behind the paintwork/carpets/ceiling tiles.

"Double-fire slabbed?"
"Er, Yup."
"Grand...."


"Is there good strong bracing under that lads?"
"Er, Yup".
"Grand..."

Back into the merc, a few grand in the arse pocket and away to sign off the next job. I always kinda wondered "Fcuk me, their insurance is gonna get some hammering some day.." Seems I was wrong.

Why are RTE news saying the Bernard McNamara had a good reputation. Why the fook would you say that and in the same breath state his buildings were "reasonably" built.?

Twice they mentioned his reputation!

Atlantic Dawn

Why don't the owners go down to Stephens Green and blockade all works on the building that McNamara Construction are working on until he pays up? Nothing annoys a multi millionaire more than people taking crumbs from his table.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/it-feels-like-2007-all-over-again-as-bernard-mcnamara-moves-on-site-1.1890436

Because the company working at St Stephens Green is a completely different entity and has nothing to do with the company that built the apartments.

All in the eyes of the law, of course.

zom

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Why are RTE news saying the Bernard McNamara had a good reputation.

He paid them?

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Because the company working at St Stephens Green is a completely different entity and has nothing to do with the company that built the apartments.

All in the eyes of the law, of course.

Thanks God you can only steal this way, imagine if it would work with killing or raping!!

Dirty Dingus McGee

Supercell wrote: »

I feel sorry for them, but why should the government have to foot the bill, surely that's between the owners and the developers or Homebond if it exists for apartments?

Because a lack of regulation resulted in the buildings being allowed to be built below the necessary standards.

McGrath5

One of my friends bought a house built around 2005/6, he noticed the ceiling around where the extractor fan in the en suite was starting to become discoloured. After getting up into the attic to check it out, it turns out the builder did not run a pipe up to the roof to a vent, they just covered the fan with insulation, scumbags!

kippy

Supercell wrote: »

I dunno Seamus, i'd say its a cultural thing to be honest.
My own house was built in 1982 with cavity block , wood battens and plasterboard attached to the battens..was E2 rated when we bought it and 10 minutes after the heating went off in winter you might as well have been sat outside. We've since brought it up to a C3 with a lot of expense but it's nothing like as efficient as my old man's self build in which he barely needs the heating on in all year round.

And people wonder why tradesmen and the building trade in general illicit so much mistrust from the general populace. I rarely hear yer man Parlon from the CFA discuss any of the issues brought up here.
Your aul man probably spent an awful lot of time on that build making sure everything was above board and did a damn sight better a job regulating whatever tradesmen were involved than the well paid and multilayered framework of groups that have let down thousands of home buyers over the years.

seamus

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Because a lack of regulation resulted in the buildings being allowed to be built below the necessary standards.

Actually enforcement was the issue, which means that it's not strictly the state's fault. That's not to say the state helped, but it's like saying that the state is liable for every burglary because it failed to enforce the law.

One thing that surprises me is that the developers, engineers and architects may be gone bust, but surely there were indemnity policies active at the time that could now be leaned on to claim against? Or maybe it's a statute of limitations thing.

Is there any chance criminal proceedings could be brought against someone for failure to meet the regs?

Wildlife Actor

It's nice the way the evil ones help one another out, DOB and Bernard. They'll have Michael Lynn back to do the conveyancing on their new building now.