Developers not responsible for building defects

c68zapdsm5i1ru

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/not-possible-for-state-to-take-responsibility-for-poor-celtic-tiger-building-1.3901157

Once more, the rich get off scot free while the ordinary citizen pays the price :mad:

kenmc

And yet they want these same cowboys to build high-rise blocks? Lunacy when they can't even build low-rise safely.

suicide_circus

you too can live in one of these one bed death traps for €2,350 per month!

https://touch.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/dublin-2/cathedral-court-dublin-2-dublin-1903952

Ten of Swords

Love the pic with that article, Eoghan Murphy looks like he is unsure why he's there and Damien English is trying to subtly explain it without getting caught

c68zapdsm5i1ru

I honestly don't understand why the developers get to wash their hands of this. I presume they made a lot of money from building the apartment block so surely they are liable if the work is substandard. What happens if an owner doesn't have €5,000. Will they be prosecuted while the rich family behind this gets to walk away?

El_Bee

not that I could ever afford a house but I wouldn't touch one made during the boom, standards went out the window just get them up quick then on to the next development.

Grayson

Maverick Thundering Slip wrote: »

I honestly don't understand why the developers get to wash their hands of this. I presume they made a lot of money from building the apartment block so surely they are liable if the work is substandard. What happens if an owner doesn't have €5,000. Will they be prosecuted while the rich family behind this gets to walk away?

I can understand why the government doesn't have a responsibility to pay for the repairs but the developer should be responsible. And shouldn't it be illegal to sell something that doesn't meet standards?

jimgoose

I don't think anyone is saying that the developers aren't responsible for these issues, the article says that the State isn't responsible. The trouble is, private individuals pursuing companies like Sherborough - set up by, and for the enrichment and protection of, the sort of thundering fuckers who make John Gotti look like the Dalai Llama - is something akin to attacking a lunatic asylum with a banana.

Ten of Swords

What has changed since the original fire cert was issued? Article unclear

jimgoose

Ten of Swords wrote: »

What has changed since the original fire cert was issued? Article unclear

At the height of the boom there was a lot of this so-called "self-regulation" going on in the building game. A lot of fire certs and suchlike would have been issued that weren't worth the paper and bore no relation to the way the buildings in question had actually been constructed.

BobMc

Blame the Planning and Local Authorities, they allow for self inspection and regulation.

IMO should be government appointed building inspectors at each site be it hi rise or an estate build, its happens in US / Canada and I presume many others. Each stage is inspected and signed off that it conforms to both planning granted and building regs.

Love to see an engineer who signed off on these jailed might make them think twice in furture

begs the question if they can spot flaws at inspection now, how hard would it have been to stop and inspect during construction.

xzanti

Would it not fall back on the main contractor?

Bill of quantities compiled by the builder would have a detailed description of all materials required for the build. The Quantity Surveyor would approve all components as being sufficient/safe/high standard etc. This was done at Tender stage.

This was standard procedure even before the boom.

jam_mac_jam

And guess who we will all vote for in the next election.. that's right kids FF. How short our memories are.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

jimgoose wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying that the developers aren't responsible for these issues, the article says that the State isn't responsible. The trouble is, private individuals pursuing companies like Sherborough - set up by, and for the enrichment and protection of, the sort of thundering fuckers who make John Gotti look like the Dalai Llama - is something akin to attacking a lunatic asylum with a banana.

The article said that the Developers, who include the family who own the Callaghan group of hotels, have taken legal advice and been told they're not responsible for the problem. That seems terribly unfair to me.

Ten of Swords

I would guess that they will simply point at the building certificates issued in 2006 and say it was declared safe and habitable then and nothing has changed

jimgoose

Maverick Thundering Slip wrote: »

The article said that the Developers, who include the family who own the Callaghan group of hotels, have taken legal advice and been told they're not responsible for the problem. That seems terribly unfair to me.

I read "...it did not have any obligation to pay for the remediation works" as meaning the lawyers (who are even bigger fuckers - see above) have reassured the company that there's no sensible way they can be compelled to pay for anything, as if you go back far enough through the trail of self-regulation and happy horseshit, the party ulitmately responsible for this shambles is the City engineer, and that's whole 'nother tin of tuna.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

jimgoose wrote: »

I read "...it did not have any obligation to pay for the remediation works" as meaning the lawyers (who are even bigger fuckers - see above) have reassured the company that there's no sensible way they can be compelled to pay for anything, as if you go back far enough through the trail of self-regulation and happy horseshit, the party ulitmately responsible for this shambles is the City engineer, and that's whole 'nother tin of tuna.

Yeah, I suppose having some kind of conscience doesn't even come into it with people like that. As long as they can't be caught legally they'll happily enjoy their ill gotten gains. Will be boycotting any Callaghan Group hotels after this.

BrokenArrows

Yes its bad that properties were not built to correct standards.

However builders cannot be liable for builds indefinitely. Usually there is a warranty period on buildings where things will be fixed.

The article doesnt state when the apartments were built. It just says "Celtic Tiger" era meaning it could be over 20 years old.

TuringBot47

Maverick Thundering Slip wrote: »

Will be boycotting any Callaghan Group hotels after this.

Maybe their own hotels need a fire safety inspection too.

Or it would only take a couple of apartment owners falling over some trip hazard in a Callaghan hotel to pay for the upgrade works.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Yes its bad that properties were not built to correct standards.

However builders cannot be liable for builds indefinitely. Usually there is a warranty period on buildings where things will be fixed.

The article doesnt state when the apartments were built. It just says "Celtic Tiger" era meaning it could be over 20 years old.

But surely if it can be proved that the building was substandard/dangerous/didn't meet minimum requirements right from the start the buck should stop somewhere.

Ten of Swords

BrokenArrows wrote: »

The article doesnt state when the apartments were built. It just says "Celtic Tiger" era meaning it could be over 20 years old.

There is a link to the original article in the 2nd paragraph and it mentions it. The place was built in 2006

TuringBot47

Ten of Swords wrote: »

There is a link to the original article in the 2nd paragraph and it mentions it. The place was built in 2006

Even newly built houses only have a 10 year "homebond" guarantee.

Typically, home buyers have to get an engineers report/survey on a property before buying it. Never had an apartment, but if each apartment owner paid for a survey before purchasing I don't know whether that would include at least the structural issues in the balconies. I doubt they look at the apartment block in it's entirety or communal areas/stairways/fire doors outside of the apartment.

jmayo

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Love the pic with that article, Eoghan Murphy looks like he is unsure why he's there and Damien English is trying to subtly explain it without getting caught

Better hope the bint on the right doesn't fall off the chair or trip on the way out or she will be back with her fine gael colleague's legal company suing the Custom House i.e. the Irish taxpayers.

jimgoose wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying that the developers aren't responsible for these issues, the article says that the State isn't responsible. The trouble is, private individuals pursuing companies like Sherborough - set up by, and for the enrichment and protection of, the sort of thundering fuckers who make John Gotti look like the Dalai Llama - is something akin to attacking a lunatic asylum with a banana.

This is exactly why class action lawsuits have never been or never will be allowed in this country.
The trough feeders and connected ones would be in the mire.

It is a joke that developers, builders, engineers, local authority staff can fook off and give the two fingers to the poor ones that are stuck with the crud due to the aforementioned cartell's greed and ineptitude.

TuringBot47

jmayo wrote: »

It is a joke that developers, builders, engineers, local authority staff can fook off and give the two fingers to the poor ones that are stuck with the crud due to the aforementioned cartell's greed and ineptitude.

In fairness, "the poor ones" can't afford an apartment in the middle of Dublin city centre. I imagine they've been paying €1000+ a year in management fees too, so maybe the management company have some responsibility.

Berserker

Maverick Thundering Slip wrote: »

What happens if an owner doesn't have €5,000. Will they be prosecuted while the rich family behind this gets to walk away?

I'd imagine they would be prosecuted and they may even end up losing their home as a result.

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

And guess who we will all vote for in the next election.. that's right kids FF. How short our memories are.

What has FF got to do with this? I'd blame them for an awful lot of things but the blame lies elsewhere on this one.

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Even newly built houses only have a 10 year "homebond" guarantee.

An there was no money to pay people who were supposed to be covered by the guarantee when push came to shove.

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Typically, home buyers have to get an engineers report/survey on a property before buying it. Never had an apartment, but if each apartment owner paid for a survey before purchasing I don't know whether that would include at least the structural issues in the balconies. I doubt they look at the apartment block in it's entirety or communal areas/stairways/fire doors outside of the apartment.

Do you get a survey done on a new home or apartment?

Seth Brundle

jmayo wrote: »

This is exactly why class action lawsuits have never been or never will be allowed in this country.
The trough feeders and connected ones would be in the mire.

They are.
GDPR has brought that ability in.

Berserker wrote: »

What has FF got to do with this? I'd blame them for an awful lot of things but the blame lies elsewhere on this one.

So who was supposed to be in charge all that time then?

El_Bee

jmayo

Seth Brundle wrote: »

They are.
GDPR has brought that ability in.

So who was supposed to be in charge all that time then?

Hang on a minute I thought GDPR only allowed not for profit organisations being able to bring actions on behalf of people whose rights re data had been infringed.
That is bit different to group of people taking a class action for themselves on any issue is it not ?

TuringBot47

Berserker wrote: »

Do you get a survey done on a new home or apartment?

Never bought new, but have often heard of people calling in professionals to perform the "snag list".
I assumed they were registered engineers of some form.

NSAman

With all new development and all new construction, you have a building inspector in the states. You have plumbing inspectors, elevator inspectors and of course the local building inspector who grants permits and signs off on work carried out to standards. OK it is an onerous job if you are renovating a building but at least someone is looking at the work done and has the authority to close the site down if breeches are evident.

Along with this in older and new buildings you have a residents organisation made up of the residents. They HAVE to have money set aside for items such as this in case a fault develops in the building. That doesnt always allow the correct amount of money to be available should something major go wrong. It is up to the owners to solve the issue, the same as with any house etc.

However, you can have some reliance on the building inspections that have taken place correctly.

Nice idea in theory, but doesn't always work that way..(see Millenium Tower in SF developer is on the hook but purchasers have lost a fortune in apartments)

Seth Brundle

jmayo wrote: »

Hang on a minute I thought GDPR only allowed not for profit organisations being able to bring actions on behalf of people whose rights re data had been infringed.
That is bit different to group of people taking a class action for themselves on any issue is it not ?

My understanding is that the back door has been opened.
A group of people can authorise an NGO to make a complaint on their behalf...
https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/gb/articles/2018/october/are-gdpr-class-actions-on-the-horizon-an-irish-perspective/
https://www.williamfry.com/newsandinsights/news-article/2018/08/27/has-the-gdpr-opened-the-door-to-class-actions-in-ireland