Longboat quay- Another priory hall

PolaroidPizza

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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

that's where we disagree.
I tend to go by the job descriptions of council managers...where the words 'responsible for' tends to be written... and responsible for 'implementation of actions decided by others' is definitely not written in any of these job specs.

according to their job descriptions they're supposed to be 'responsible for' a whole rake of activities in their respective departments..
so, if we go by your logic, none of these managers are actually living up to their job descriptions, as the only people responsible for anything are politicians.

brooke 2

Niamh Brennan, former Chairman of the DDDA, was on Marian Finucane today. Left no one in any doubt as to what she thought of Bernard McNamara, as she had had numerous dealings with him. According to her, he had 'the cheek, the CHEEK' to sue the DDDA, ie, the taxpayer, for €1,000,000, as he maintained he was 'enticed' into the Irish Glass Bottle site deal!! Niamh and Co. employed excellent lawyers as she was determined McNamara was not going to get another 'penny' from them. He lost the court case and had to go on his merry way.

It was very interesting to hear the number of times MF interrupted NB as she was raging about McNamara - and she was apoplectic! No one else on the panel, apart from The Mail's Sebastian? seemed to care about the Longboat Quay fiasco.

Apparently, there is an article in today's Sunday Times by the Dutch architect, now living in Ghana, who was employed by McNamara on the Longboat Quay project. Marian let us know, as she interrupted Niamh Brennan, that he was defending McNamara's position, to which Niamh
replied: 'well, he would, wouldn't he??!!'

brooke 2

Longboat Quay 'victims' were on SundayAM with Ivan Yates and Anna Daly yesterday. They really are bandjaxed!

riclad

I heard on a radio program this week , that nama has spent millions improving
buildings to bring them up to standard ,re fire safety and building standards .
Things like fire doors need to be replaced,
service ducts need to be sealed to stop smoke spreading from 1 room to another .

michael999999

Was Bernard Mc Namara employed by NAMA after the crash?

And how much a year were they paying him?

suicide_circus

Criminal negligence. There simply is no other way to describe the actions of the people who built and signed off on these buildings.

Slideshowbob

What about caveat emptor?

Is every local authority responsible for every defect? Where is the line drawn??

kippy

Slideshowbob wrote: »

What about caveat emptor?

Is every local authority responsible for every defect? Where is the line drawn??

Caveat Emptor?
Really?

While the local authority may not be fully to blame, they have a least a portion of the blame.

The builder should have built the building to the specifications required within the planning.
The architects and engineers that signed of what was build should have ensured this was done.
The LA should have inspected the buildings at difference stages of the build and signed off the build.
The banks engineer and indeed the buyer assume all of the above is done and above board as one would expect in any functioning system and they can only check for visible defects.

The line is drawn using planning and building regulations that the LA have a responsibility and legal obligation to police.

Pretty much the last person who can be given any blame in these cases are the buyers.

michael999999

suicide_circus wrote: »

Criminal negligence. There simply is no other way to describe the actions of the people who built and signed off on these buildings.

And still not a sign of any action from the Gardai or fraud bureau!

riclad

Most apartments built after 2000 were never inspected,by anyone
the builder employed someone to write this building is built as per current building regulations.
So those certs are almost worthless .
It,s buyer beware if you buy a private apartment .
or its russian roulette .
I know someone bought 2 apartments in 2004.
There,s are fine ,there,s nothing wrong with them.
Its hard to sue anyone as most irish builders went bankrupt or were taken over by nama .
Only a tiny percentage of buildings are currently inspected .
Its up to the government to bring in a proper building inspection system
and to provide money to employ inspectors as they do in the uk.
Things like fire doors could be checked by a builder ,
Then walls have to opened and checked ,is the fire proofing system
built as per current fire regulations .
Before the crash the accounts of the banks were checked and signed
off as ok by big accounting firms.

PolaroidPizza

Slideshowbob wrote: »

What about caveat emptor?

Is every local authority responsible for every defect? Where is the line drawn??

caveat emptor doesn't apply in this case.
when buying a microwave or a buggy, the buyer has a CE mark on it so they know it meets minimum European safety requirements. buyer beware comes when there is a suspicion that the CE marking is fraudulent, or if the product isn't new and the marking might not still apply. this not only applies to CE marking, but also certificates of authenticity, fuel efficiency ratings etc.

there are no CE marks for apartments, but there is a local authority/fire dept with responsibility for inspecting them. if a new apartment is put up on the market without an inspection, then the responsibility lies with the regulator for not enforcing the inspection.

this is no different to the Volkswagen emission situation where there is a regulator responsible for checking the claims of the seller. the regulator found out the manufacturer was lying and thereby responsibility goes back to the manufacturer to remedy the situation.

in this case, we have a regulator not doing their job, and trying to put the responsibility back on the buyer.

michael999999

Where are the Gardai and Fraud Squad?

asherbassad

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?

Well the government i thought was dutybound to impose standards and regulations upon buildings before, during and after construction. The problem was that these regulations were often sidestepped by cowboy builders because they greased the palms of councillors/inspectors. So if anything it's the fault of the developer AND the government but not the purchaser.

brooke 2

Slideshowbob wrote: »

What about caveat emptor?

Is every local authority responsible for every defect? Where is the line drawn??

Very little publicity given to his appearance before the Oireachtas Inquiry earlier this week. Nothing about it on Oireachtas report. He basically did a Patrick Neary - could not remember any details as Nama had taken over his businesses very promptly. As for the rest, he did not think the inquiry (us) had any right to know how his businesses worked! It seems to have escaped him that we are paying off his debts, so, would have every right to find out how he conducted his affairs!!

Edit: ????? This was not the post to which I replied. I was referring to another post in which NAMA and Bernard McNamara were mentioned.