Longboat quay- Another priory hall

Eugene Norman

Is the council expected to drill through walls?

Simply put we should make non-compliance with regulations a criminal or civil offence with one person or persons with ultimate sign off, preferably the developer or architect. Negligence would be a civil offence. Deliberate bad practice should be criminal.

michael999999

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Is the council expected to drill through walls?

Simply put we should make non-compliance with regulations a criminal or civil offence with one person or persons with ultimate sign off, preferably the developer or architect. Negligence would be a civil offence. Deliberate bad practice should be criminal.

Not when Bertie ahern is your best mate!

beanie10

As an electrician I am lost as to how remedial works to a fire alarm system cost €1 million.
Have I misunderstood something?

Paramite Pie

beanie10 wrote: »

As an electrician I am lost as to how remedial works to a fire alarm system cost €1 million.
Have I misunderstood something?

If NAMA or another Gov Agency are paying the bill, companies know they can charge anything they want to fix the issue. A bit of a nudge and a wink... taxman is paying for it after all... sure everyone else is doing it etc..

beauf

I'm a bit baffled by that also. I assume there's more to it. Like fireproof doors, fire barriers between apartments, floors attic maybe.

riclad

This reminds me of the crash in 2008,
self regulation in banks does not work.
When we had crash ,then we found out all the dodgey things banks were doing.
ie giving loans to people to buy shares in the bank.
self regulation in the building industry does not work.
It,s cheaper in the long run to employ council inspectors to inspect all large buildings and apartment blocks while they are being built ,
Than discover 5 years later this building needs to be upgraded to meet fire safety standard,s .
IF you want to buy an apartment now in dublin,
you won,t be allowed to inspect it,100 per cent ,
eg drill into or open walls to see if its built properly .
Maybe in theory you could sue an architect who signed off on the building ,
but you would not get much compensation after paying the legal fees .

brooke 2

Snickers Man wrote: »

Is this the thread in question?

Some guy saying that it is "beyond sensational to compare this to Priory Hall".

I wonder if it's still his/her view.

Yes, that is it!! Very interesting to read those comments now!! Any of those guys on here? Victor? JTman? Guess they were on that thread to do some PR for Mr. McNamara! They sounded arrogant enough for it!! After all, the mighty Mr. Smurfitt has given an interview in which he has been singing the praises of this developer who has been responsible for such shoddy work on Longboat Quay.

Dirty Dingus McGee

seamus wrote: »

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?

Fair enough but it still means they didn't do their job to a certain extent.

If I make a mistake in work a lot of the heat will fall on my boss as it's his job to make sure I keep up my standards and the company will compensate whoever loses out despite it being a person well down the ladder who made the error.Same should apply to the body in charge of the person who signed off on the building.

selous

Thats what I was thinking too, an engineer of some sort has to sign off on this, why isn't HE responsible, did I hear today that the engineer who did sign off stands over what he signed, cool, let him pay so.

The engineer who signed off my estate signed off on fire certs and also ok'd the sewage that had an overflow straight into the river next to it, fills us with confidence, that does.

His company closed.

take everything

Lol at the two stupid fcukers (one from the architects body and one from construction) on primetime tonight pretending to give a damn about one of the residents who was being interviewed by Miriam O' Callaghan.

"Nuffin' to do wiv' us guvnor" was the extent of their contribution all the while making sure to be seen to give a ****e about your man.

Morons.

PolaroidPizza

Are there or are there not building inspectors employed by the state.....Answer - Yes (even though they are vastly under-resourced)
Do they have a mandate to inspect all construction in the country.....answer - Yes (even though they could never be expected to cover more than 1-2% of sites)

so what do we do, blame no-one and say this is how things are, or demand accountability?

Someone is over this department and gets a nice fat salary and a nice fat pension, and is sue an increment at the end of the year. ....accountability should lie with them.
As a department head either they scream from the rafters that this is an unworkable situation and get more resources, or they resign from the position. what they should not do is stay there and let the situation continue as normal.
This is basic management. As a manager of this department, you must accept accountability, whether or not funds were available to you or not.

riclad

There has to be political will for change to happen.
Around 3 per cent of buildings are inspected,
councils would have to get the money to employ building inspectors .
The government have promised new projects ,
social housing, and the new metro line to the airport.
Do they care about this problem.
will they bring in new rules for inspections of new buildings .
maybe it depends on, is there any votes in this,
does the general public care about this.
Theres an election coming up ,so suddenly they have loads of money to spend
on building projects .

P. Breathnach

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

Are there or are there not building inspectors employed by the state.....Answer - Yes (even though they are vastly under-resourced)
Do they have a mandate to inspect all construction in the country.....answer - Yes (even though they could never be expected to cover more than 1-2% of sites)

so what do we do, blame no-one and say this is how things are, or demand accountability?

Someone is over this department and gets a nice fat salary and a nice fat pension, and is sue an increment at the end of the year. ....accountability should lie with them.
As a department head either they scream from the rafters that this is an unworkable situation and get more resources, or they resign from the position. what they should not do is stay there and let the situation continue as normal.
This is basic management. As a manager of this department, you must accept accountability, whether or not funds were available to you or not.

If every public servant who believed that his or her section was under-resourced were to resign, we would have no public servants.

Staffing levels are essentially set by the politicians in charge. The politicians also control or influence deployment of staff. Most of those who were in charge during the years of madness have been fired by the electorate (unless they chose to slide away at the last election).

brooke 2

According to NAMA's Mr. McDonagh at the PAC today, they had to spend millions on another of the Longboat Quay developer's projects - carrying out remedial work! He did not mention where it was. I doubt it was the €70m upgrade which Mr. McNamara has just completed at the K Club!!

jmayo

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Is the council expected to drill through walls?

Simply put we should make non-compliance with regulations a criminal or civil offence with one person or persons with ultimate sign off, preferably the developer or architect. Negligence would be a civil offence. Deliberate bad practice should be criminal.

Shure we couldn't be having that.
There might be a chance the ex politicans, Galway tent visitors, K club party fundrasiers might actually have to cough up some of their own money or God forbid spent time in a low security prison.

This falls into that favourite get out of jail or responsibility description i.e. a systemic failure.
No one is too blame. :rolleyes:

take everything wrote: »

Lol at the two stupid fcukers (one from the architects body and one from construction) on primetime tonight pretending to give a damn about one of the residents who was being interviewed by Miriam O' Callaghan.

"Nuffin' to do wiv' us guvnor" was the extent of their contribution all the while making sure to be seen to give a ****e about your man.

Morons.

Did they tell us how great the developers past developments were and how wonderful he was ? :rolleyes:

The best suggestion I have seen was here which advised the residents/owners to go down and close the developers current site down.
Then do the same with the next one if he doesn't cough up for the mess left by HIS company.

selous

Now imagine Volkswagen said that, Tough, you didn't check it out properly before you bought it!!

PolaroidPizza

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If every public servant who believed that his or her section was under-resourced were to resign, we would have no public servants.

Staffing levels are essentially set by the politicians in charge. The politicians also control or influence deployment of staff. Most of those who were in charge during the years of madness have been fired by the electorate (unless they chose to slide away at the last election).

I don't want every civil servant to resign...just the managers who claim no responsibility for their departments. they earn a lot of money and get a huge pension yet are completely unaccountable. in particular, the manager of all these local authority building inspectors. they get through less than 1% of the building sites in the country...completely unacceptable. in most other reputable societies, someone responsible for such a department would find it impossible to manage such a non-performing department and justify collecting a huge salary.
why do Irish people feel its ok to stay responsible for such poor performance and think its ok to remain earning big money and big benefits?

P. Breathnach

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

I don't want every civil servant to resign...just the managers who claim no responsibility for their departments. they earn a lot of money and get a huge pension yet are completely unaccountable. in particular, the manager of all these local authority building inspectors. they get through less than 1% of the building sites in the country...completely unacceptable. in most other reputable societies, someone responsible for such a department would find it impossible to manage such a non-performing department and justify collecting a huge salary.
why do Irish people feel its ok to stay responsible for such poor performance and think its ok to remain earning big money and big benefits?

And what if a manager has only two inspectors available where it might require fifteen to cover all the building activity? The manager argues the case with the City/County Manager, who agrees, and makes the case to the Department of the Environment for an increase in the number of inspectors. The DoE agrees, and takes the case to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. the DPE also recognises the need, but replies that due to cabinet decisions on public service recruitment, the positions can not be authorised.

Should the manager in the local authority be required to resign because of a cabinet decision?

PolaroidPizza

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And what if a manager has only two inspectors available where it might require fifteen to cover all the building activity? The manager argues the case with the City/County Manager, who agrees, and makes the case to the Department of the Environment for an increase in the number of inspectors. The DoE agrees, and takes the case to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. the DPE also recognises the need, but replies that due to cabinet decisions on public service recruitment, the positions can not be authorised.

Should the manager in the local authority be required to resign because of a cabinet decision?

the manager shouldn't be receiving a manager salary and managers pension of he/she isn't managing their department.
cuts/budget limitations affect the private sector too, but middle management don't sit on their arses and expect the CEO to take all the flak. middle management get fired/demoted/penalised if they are unable to work within the constraints.
I don't see how these managers can warrant a managers salary with such a non-functioning department? what have they done to justify them? these people are on salaries well above 80K a year, but I don't see anyone asking why?

tayto lover

How can the person responsible for building this nightmare be allowed back into the game to do the same again.
Only in Ireland. BUT of course he's connected.

P. Breathnach

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

the manager shouldn't be receiving a manager salary and managers pension of he/she isn't managing their department.
cuts/budget limitations affect the private sector too, but middle management don't sit on their arses and expect the CEO to take all the flak. middle management get fired/demoted/penalised if they are unable to work within the constraints.
I don't see how these managers can warrant a managers salary with such a non-functioning department? what have they done to justify them? these people are on salaries well above 80K a year, but I don't see anyone asking why?

You are making the assumption that "the manager" has nothing else to do other than oversee an overworked undersized team. Chances are that he or she has to deal with other responsibilities.

You also seem to think that if somebody has only two staff to handle a workload that would require fifteen staff, it is a failure of the manager if not all the work gets done. No, it's a failure of those who decide not to assign sufficient staff.

michael999999

tayto lover wrote: »

How can the person responsible for building this nightmare be allowed back into the game to do the same again.
Only in Ireland. BUT of course he's connected.

Because he's a life long fianna failer, Bertie aherns best friend, and Denis o Brien is now bank rolling him.

Some people are untouchable!

PolaroidPizza

P. Breathnach wrote: »

You are making the assumption that "the manager" has nothing else to do other than oversee an overworked undersized team. Chances are that he or she has to deal with other responsibilities.

You also seem to think that if somebody has only two staff to handle a workload that would require fifteen staff, it is a failure of the manager if not all the work gets done. No, it's a failure of those who decide not to assign sufficient staff.

Leaving the blame with a politicial means no-one is accountable. Each council/fire department has a budget. The decision not to assign that budget to building inspectors came from someone with a pension and a salary that isnt a politician. Because you want to state that decision was a politician, that means no-one will be ever accountable. Politicians do politics...county and departmental managers make these decisions...they need to be made accountable for them

P. Breathnach

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

Leaving the blame with a politicial means no-one is accountable. Each council/fire department has a budget. The decision not to assign that budget to building inspectors came from someone with a pension and a salary that isnt a politician. Because you want to state that decision was a politician, that means no-one will be ever accountable. Politicians do politics...county and departmental managers make these decisions...they need to be made accountable for them

The budgets are submitted to politicians, who decide on therm. So you want to make executive and administrative staff responsible for decisions that they do not have the power to make.

This week we are seeing reports of local authorities (the politicians) voting for lower rates of LPT than proposed in budgets drawn up by their own executive.

Recognise this: politicians have power, and they use it. Often unwisely.

PolaroidPizza

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The budgets are submitted to politicians, who decide on therm. So you want to make executive and administrative staff responsible for decisions that they do not have the power to make.

This week we are seeing reports of local authorities (the politicians) voting for lower rates of LPT than proposed in budgets drawn up by their own executive.

Recognise this: politicians have power, and they use it. Often unwisely.

If county and departmental managers are not un the business of making decisions...then what the sweet jesus ate we paying them decision maker salaries for.
My entire argument here is that there are civil servant management being paid a lot of money in management positions. If we follow your logic then...we can remove this layer altogether as its politicians that decide everything

P. Breathnach

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

If county and departmental managers are not un the business of making decisions...then what the sweet jesus ate we paying them decision maker salaries for.
My entire argument here is that there are civil servant management being paid a lot of money in management positions. If we follow your logic then...we can remove this layer altogether as its politicians that decide everything

It is for managers to implement the decisions made by others - and that applies equally to private and public sectors.

Coping with the vagaries of politicians is itself a big task, one that adds to the burden of management in the public service.

Uncle Ben

It really is a pity that the building regulations weren't enforced but not just for the reasons that the buildings would have been safer.
We live in a country here where if the regulations are enforced but don't suit the individual there are cries of victimisation and nit picking.
Take for instance the proposed Garth Brooks concerts last year. When the co. manager enforced the conditions of planning we had uproar on a national and international stage with representations going right to the top of politics and seeking changes and the blind eye and cute hoorism to take place so as the concert could take place.
Take for instance the building regs which also took place post recession re safety etc. We now have Alan Kelly changing that on self builds and one off housing because it doesn't suit.
Take for instance the mortgage legislation re lending and savings. We have seen that the prices of housing isn't increasing because this is having the required effect. However, there are now calls on Noonan and the Central Bank to relax same legislation because it doesn't suit or is politically correct at present.
And finally take the recent case with DCC and the woman with the satellite. Because of a person's age there was vitriol directed at DCC not only online but also in mainstream media. They were proven in Court to have acted correctly however even Kenny stated that he would prefer not to see a repeat to paraphrase same.
I'n in no doubt that Priory Hall, Longboat Quay and I'm sure there will be others were totally constructed wrongly and that inspections should have been carried out.
However Im also well aware that when inspections are being or proposed to be carried out that widespread outrage takes place and if building sites in the country were being slowed down or closed down people would still be up in arms.
Just a contarian view.

FalconGirl

tayto lover wrote: »

How can the person responsible for building this nightmare be allowed back into the game to do the same again.
Only in Ireland. BUT of course he's connected.

Ain't that the truth. He should be looking at a prison sentence. No accountability in our society.

cowboyBuilder

test post

riclad

Loads of people break the rules on satellite dish,s ,
she got a letter to take down the dish.
She could have taken it down ,
and avoided the fine.
The problem in dublin is its very expensive to build house,s ,
builders say theres little profit to be made.
Maybe they could reduce the taxes,council levys on new houses .
Nama has found problems in half the house,s it owns.
This could effect our economy as new companys like intel won,t
come here if theres no rental units for workers avaidable at a reasonable price .
There was not a lot of building going on before the deposit rule came into force .
I think the building regs on self build are now voluntary ,
you can choose to get the house inspected if you wish.
We need 20 thousand homes built every year in dublin,
at teh moment its around 3k units being built .