Can someone be legally compelled to do their job?

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119988612#Comment_119988612

Hi thanks for your comment. Yes I made the error of leaving it with what I believed at the time was a trustworthy builder.

I think the reason why there was a solution found was because the building control authority had a meeting with planning and directors in the council and they were disgusted at what had happened.

4 tough winters on the sofa but relieved to have a bed and toilet again.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119988544#Comment_119988544

There's a wide gulf between a surveyor being unwilling to provide a cert and proving non-compliance with the regs in Court. For example, if you look at Part F TGD, the 2.4m minimum height is "suggested".

The actual Part F building regulations, as set out in law, are much broader.

So the Local Authority Building Control would have to prove in Court that the builder did not provide 'adequate means of ventilation' to win a case.

Glad to hear it worked out for you.

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119988977#Comment_119988977

Thanks. That was a relatively small issue overall. It was more a case of incorrect repairs to insulate the roof. Another breach was that the walls didn't comply with U values at the time. The building surveyor did the technical calculations, a ber assessors did the calculations, the technical department of a national insulation company did the calculations and the SEAI were also asked. All came back with the same result that the walls did not meet minimum building regulations.

The builder said they did. We're talking about a compulsive liar here.

I won't get into ventilation but I attached a photo of the mould issues.

Mould on HSE chair.jpg

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119986650#Comment_119986650

Building control showed you some sympathetic leniency there. If your works are in breech, it is likely that you are liable, especially if you carried out this work without professionals or a contract. FWIW, it is not "their council" that funded the works, separate independent departments.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119986725#Comment_119986725

But prosecuting you would not have help you resolved you issue. Issuing you a compliance notice would not have helped. Building control could see that, so they instead helped get you a resolution. I'm not sure what part of that you are unhappy with.

Building control is not there to carry out progress inspections, if you didn't have a professional involved, and opted out of certification or a contract, then you didn't have a strong position to chase the builder. If a builder is engaged to carry out non complying works, then it is the owner/developer/etc who is at fault, not the builder.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119989225#Comment_119989225

What did the detail for the roof junction show? what did the RCP show for the building height? What the supervising professional (architect, engineer, etc) say about the change?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119988500#Comment_119988500

Similarly, what did the contract documents say about insulating in the walls, what did the builders quote say, etc.

I suspect there was initially no professional involved and the builder wasn't contractually bound to provide to that level either. It's you your fault, and Im not blaming your (Im also glad you got it sorted) but the above highlights why professional design and supervision is required. It establishes a legal framework that can be referred back you. Engaging a builder to do a vague, unspecified, body of work leaves the home owner exposed. The builder absolutely sounds like a cowboy, but cowboys survive by offering cowboy services. You not knowing any different, were almost left with a mess and a whole in your pocket (a prosecution would have also came a fine, and a bill to fix, not just a piece of paper). Building control did right by you in this situation, and ultimately the council paid to correct.

Given your post history and info in the I assume this was a downstairs bathroom, bedroom, widenng doors etc. There absolutely no way that would have proceeded past application without an Architectural Technician or Architect on board.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119985611#Comment_119985611

I did engage what I believed was a professional even though building regulations were breached during construction and when the builder did repairs.

Sorry, I'm slightly confused here.

Who is the professional (not their name but are they the builder, architect, surveyor etc) you mention in the quote above?

Who couldn't give an invoice because you didn't pay VAT? Was that the builder or some other professional?

Eitherways, my thought is that you need to let it go. Your situation has been rectified and hopefully you can live the rest of your life in comfort. That said, it's a scandalous waste of taxpayer's money.

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119989927#Comment_119989927

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119989935#Comment_119989935

I am not experienced in the field of construction, the contractor was aware of this and this is probably why I got conned. The builder led to believe that they did it all. I didn't employ them to carry out non complying work, I expected an acceptable standard of work which is what should have been done.

I never said I was unhappy with the Building Control Authority, I just thought that they would do more about the builder breaching regulations but as they said they would have been adding fuel to the fire.

Just a note on your last point.You said there is no way it would have proceeded past application without an architect. You are wrong here but maybe this shows an incompetence in my local council. The builder drew drawings, more like sketches, back of a fag box drawing I am now told which very much passed application (I know , my fault). I'm sure it's happened before so would it not be right to request an architect to sign off and cert of compliance as conditions of a grant?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119989225#Comment_119989225

I get that it was a small issue. I was using the small issue to explain the difference between building regulations and technical guidance documents. The Council can't take anyone to Court for breach of TGD on its own. They would have to prove that the householder (you) is in breach of the actual regulation.

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119991469#Comment_119991469

I employed what I believed to be a professional building contractor because I was led to believe they look after it all. Unfortunately I was coming to terms with health issues and didn't realise the builder was only looking after himself.

I was eligible to reclaim the vat but the builder was making out that I didn't pay vat. The excuses were that it was unclaimable because I wasn't working, unclaimable from his side etc. It took two and a half years to get a vat invoice in the end by letting the builder know I'd have to seek Revenues help. The builder drove to my house, threw the invoice at me, said "I've just lost 13.5% on this job", got in his van and drove off.

I'm relieved it's sorted and I was just asking a legal question originally. It sure is a waste of public funds but the council are aware it's happening and are happy enough. Their view is that they fire out the grant and that's it. The whole construction industry seems to be very grey where you can more or less do what you want from a builder's point of view

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119992182#Comment_119992182

I get you thanks. I know that my local building control authority has never prosecuted anyone so that says a lot.

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119992330#Comment_119992330

My Mother got a few jobs done by the Council via grants but any contractor she hired had to provide written quotations for the work proposed and they also had to show proof that they were tax compliant. No proof of tax compliance, no grant.

I would have assumed that the original quotation would have had to include VAT so if you paid what the builder quoted originally when the job was finished, one would think that you would have paid the VAT element of the bill, yet you say the builder says you didn't pay VAT. Strange.

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119992358#Comment_119992358

Yes the company that did the work here had to do the same. That was my argument with the builder about the invoice. The builder said I didn't pay vat but I said you can clearly see it on the quotation

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119992358#Comment_119992358

I missed your extra bit.

Yes the quote showed vat but I think it's quite obvious that the builder was used to stroking it knowing not many would know they can reclaim it

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119992169#Comment_119992169

On the last point, probably better if I said should rather than would. As in, that’s what I would insist on it I was making that decisions. If people are getting grant money, they need to show it is being used properly. But people don’t like being told how to spend “their” money. So these dodgy builders have move to manoeuvre.