Flat Roof Insulation

smyth79

The flat roof on our extension is a warm roof construction with 150mm of PIR insulation. My understanding is that adding insulation between the joists could potentially cause condensation by moving the dew point inside the vapour barrier.

The drawing provided by our architect shows 100mm of acoustic rockwool between the joists, on top of the airtightness membrane rather than up tight to the roof, presumably to lessen the noise of rain hitting the PVC roof. Does this create the same risk of condensation as have insulation up tight against the underside of the roof?

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058349441/flat-roof-insulation

May I ask why the need for rockwool at all? Surely 150mm is well within regulations.

You are turning it into a hybrid roof.

Are you having heat loss problems?

Biker1

150mm PIR is more than adequate and no need for rockwool between joists. Just make sure the vapour control layer in the roof is also your airtight layer and properly connected to the airtight layer on the walls. (easier said than done). If your architect insists on another airtight layer at ceiling level, use a diffusion open type membrane there.

smyth79

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122078047#Comment_122078047

It is still under construction so no heat loss problems that I know of. I assumed it was for noise reduction when he specified acoustic rockwool. The ceilings aren't slabbed yet and I haven't put any rockwool in

smyth79

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122078492#Comment_122078492

The top vc layer is already in place with PIR and pvc membrane fitted so I will have to add the airtight layer at ceiling level

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122078692#Comment_122078692

Just something to keep an eye on - I had a warm roof done by a chancer and we couldn't understand why it was always freezing. It turned out that they had put insulation on the roof but left the three sides of the roof empty.

Have someone check everything.

smyth79

Thanks for the tip. Did you manage to get insulation into the areas where it was missing?

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122078492#Comment_122078492

In a new build, it's obviously important than airtightness layers are continuous. It's less importing in an extension, how much less depends of the airtightness of the existing. There is little point building an super airtight extension, on leaky old house, as an extreme example.

Mellor

My understanding is that adding insulation between the joists could potentially cause condensation by moving the dew point inside the vapour barrier.

Yes and No. It can be below, in which case it must be ventilated. Or as mentioned, or it can be a hybrid which can be complicated to get right.

The drawing provided by our architect shows 100mm of acoustic rockwool between the joists, on top of the airtightness membrane rather than up tight to the roof, presumably to lessen the noise of rain hitting the PVC roof. Does this create the same risk of condensation as have insulation up tight against the underside of the roof?

Can create a risk. You would need to do a condensation risk analysis. It may well be for acoustics, but will still provide thermal resistance.
It's positioned as per a cold roof, but not ventilated. But the upper insulation may be insulating enough to keep it above the dew point.

As an aside, that detail looks like it was drawn in MS paint. The notes don't make a lot of sense either. C14 grade is for solid softwood, not engineered beams. It mentions battens, but none are shown.

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122079993#Comment_122079993

Ah our chancer left us with an uninhabitable extension. It was built with a grant and our local authority signed off the work without checking it so in the end a second grant was approved and the work was all demolished and rebuilt by another builder

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122082401#Comment_122082401

I thought that sounded familiar @Ginger83. Glad it all worked out for you.

Demolished and rebuilt, well done.

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083040#Comment_122083040

It worked out in the end. I informed our building control authority that the builder had breached multiple building regulations during construction and during repairs but unfortunately they said that I had left them in a position where they were obliged to prosecute me because the onus is on the home owner to comply. I said come ahead sure I'll have the kettle on.

I was told it would be unpalatable to proceed and I was offered a second grant and a hotel stay with the costs paid. It didn't do the first builder any favours locally though

chooseusername

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083185#Comment_122083185

"I was told it would be unpalatable to proceed"

Unpalatable, great word in the circumstances.

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122083335#Comment_122083335

Yeah I told them that I would have no problem whatsoever accepting the prosecution.

The part that was unpalatable was they realised that they would have been prosecuting a terminally ill wheelchair bound person for work that their council had signed off and paid for without checking. It would have been a bit of egg on their face moment

smyth79

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122080965#Comment_122080965

Thanks for the reply. Think I will stick with just the PIR. It should provide adequate insulation. And it sounds like the risks outweigh the benefits when it comes to the rockwool.

smyth79

Jaysus, that sounds like a nightmare. Glad you got it sorted out in the end

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122084333#Comment_122084333

Yeah all sorted and very warm now.

I cannot stress enough the importance of having someone independent checking the work because I speak from experience when I say there's absolutely no law when it comes to building. Yes there is supposed to be regulations however nothing can be done if your builder cuts corners unless you have five years to go through courts.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122084881#Comment_122084881

To say there is no law when it comes to building is simply not true. There is a clear legal mechanism, how do you think multi-million dollar projects get managed if builders could do what they like. I understand why you are saying that based on what happened to you - buts that's really just down to your inexperience as a layperson. I vaguely remember you mentioned it here before.

What building control told you is correct. It is the responsibility of the building owner. Same way that a car is the responsibility of the car owner, not the mechanic. The mechanic/builder is employed by the owner. Going to build control was not the correct way to deal with it. They are not there to supervise construction.
Obviously they recognised that it wasn't your fault so they didn't want to prosecute. They have that discretion, but they can't make up their own laws.

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122088114#Comment_122088114

Building in this country is an absolute free for all. All you have to do is look at all the houses falling apart in the west and as Irish as it gets the quarry was/is still operating. I even contacted safe electric about a potentially dangerous issue and they told me to go back to the clown who created it. Comical.

You could pay a builder money to start a job in the morning and if he never turns up you have no recourse unless you have the money to go legal and even then it might not be worth it.

I'm genuinely speaking from experience and that's without mentioning that it took two and a half years to get a vat invoice because we were being told we didn't pay vat…. on a council grant job

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122089126#Comment_122089126

I'm aware you are speaking from your experience. But that was a layperson dealing with a cowboy builder, without a professional involved to administer. Cowboys exist, as many self builders will tell you. But it's a bit foolish to think that a professionals dealing with large projects daily screwed over the same.

As I said above, there is a really simply legal framework for administering building contracts. And I'm saying this from my experience, as somebody who deals with the builder on behalf of my clients.

Who supervised the work? Who certified the works. What happened when you claimed off their insurance?

You could pay a builder money to start a job in the morning and if he never turns up you have no recourse unless you have the money to go legal and even then it might not be worth it.

The small claims courts only costs €25. Pretty clear case. But the actual mistake there is paying in advance. That's not a good way to ensure work is carried out to the require standard. In your case, if the work wasn't completed to standard, the builder should have been paid. No IFs or BUTs.

I'm genuinely speaking from experience and that's without mentioning that it took two and a half years to get a vat invoice because we were being told we didn't pay vat…. on a council grant job

Did the council pay directly? Or did you pay (and be reimbursed)? A lot of people will ask to pay cash, builders are happy to take it. But makes it harder to get the paperwork in order after the wink wink cash payment.

Anyway, glad it worked out, and the council footed the bill for their laziness.

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122089476#Comment_122089476

Do you mind me asking what the simple legal framework is?

We just trusted the wrong company who led us to believe that they look after it all. We were trying to come to terms with a terminal diagnosis at the time. And I'm not talking about a one man band. I'm talking about multiple vans and even a shop although the locals won't support it since our story got out.

The council paid the grant directly to the builder without inspecting the work. We paid the balance and the following winter the problems arose. We gave them an opportunity to fix it and they bodged it. Maybe it is different on a full build where a builder knows he won't get paid but we had four independent reports detailing a 60k mess. My wife was told whoever built this thought I'd be dead and she would be none the wiser.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122091221#Comment_122091221

The framework is what you have allude to at the end.

Building control are there to regulate development, not supervise the builder for you. But it's easy to do that. Firstly the work should be under a contract that details that the builder gets paid in stages, the defect liability period, the builders insurance. Then you also engage a professional to administer that contract. In a nutshell, the the builder simply doesn't get paid until it's complete and the job certified.
If the builder is found to have been negligent after completion, then they have an opportunity to fix, then you do to their insurance.

If the professional who certifies or supervises the wok is negligent (and it sounds in your case that somebody from the council was) then you also have legal recourse from their insurance. People often try to undertake large projects on the home without professional help, and i'm sure it saves them money. But it also opens the door on all that risk and a dodgy builder.

Ginger83

Thanks for that. Can I ask what can be done if a building control authority refuse to do their job? What then?

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122097335#Comment_122097335

Which building control authority refuse to do their job?
As mentioned above, Building control is not there to be a site supervisor for contractors.

If they after the project, the work is majorly noncompliant, the building owner is liable (eg mechanic and car example). The contract I mentioned above is to ensure if that there to happen, the owner has a clear and easy pathway to pass that liability to the builder and/or professionals who certified the work and caused the liability. That is a really fundamental principle of design and construction contracts.

For large very projects, the it could be required for professionals to have cover for 10s of millions.

Thespoofer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122078884#Comment_122078884

When you say 3 sides do you mean on the upstands or in the wall cavity or what? I'd be interested in this. Thanks

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122102167#Comment_122102167

The so called builder did a parapet wall in single leaf. The inner leaf finished at ceiling height. He did a warm roof build up and got a company to pump beads into the cavity so we ended up with a 9 inch high empty space between the beads and the insulation on top of the roof

We gave them an opportunity to fix it and then found out that instead of insulating the roof correctly they double slabbed all the ceilings with an insulated plasterboard 😁

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122105242#Comment_122105242

Insulation aside (which is obviously awful), that “detail” also causes a major waterproofing issue, with the roof covering presumably lapped into the outer leaf. Yikes

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122106171#Comment_122106171

It was a disaster. We had a thermal imaging and a building surveyor and a structural engineer check and none had ever seen a single leaf parapet wall with garden wall cappings. The structural engineer also said the roof span was one metre over the maximum allowed.

dannettesherry

Thanks for sharing!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122088114#Comment_122088114

That is naive at rest. There's tens of thousands of homes with fire safety, pyrite, mica, and god knows what other issues for which the clients/homeowners have zero comeback unless the government put in place a compensation scheme. The builders did what they felt like, and nobody held them to account.

Contractors doing dodgy work can- and do- disappear when too many people start coming after them. It takes very little effort to run a business through a limited liability company.

And on a good day, a trip to the circuit court costs 10k, 100k to the High Court. And will take years. That's your clear legal framework- risking throwing a ton of good money after bad over the course of years and hoping any judgement you get (assuming you win) can be enforced at the end of it.

You seem to think everything is the client's fault for trusting the professionals. What choice do they have?

You're technically correct though. There's lots of laws. Just no enforcement- certainly none available to the the average punter who hired the wrong contractor. Which is wildly different to a a multi-million project where the client can- and should- have their client rep keep tabs on the contract every step of the way. That's just not an affordable option for someone getting a small extension done.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122106888#Comment_122106888

If you think's that's naive, then you most likely didn't understand it.
And username/post history suggest you're a DIY home renovator? Meaning you're exactly the person my advice was aimed at.

There's tens of thousands of homes with fire safety, pyrite, mica, and god knows what other issues for which the clients/homeowners have zero comeback unless the government put in place a compensation scheme. The builders did what they felt like, and nobody held them to account.

The builders did what they like, ignoring the professionals who were certifying, breeched the building regs, and the contract, etc still got paid and then pissed off? I doubt that. As I said, I don't think you understood what I said, re-read post #22.

Cowboy builders do exist, and do dodgy work. But they don't get away with it under the professional/contractual scenario I described. You are are describing the builds where that was ignored to save money - to be clear there's nothing wrong with cutting out professionals/formality/contracts to save money. But it absolutely increases risk.

Contractors doing dodgy work can- and do- disappear when too many people start coming after them. It takes very little effort to run a business through a limited liability company.

Which is why you don't pay in advance, why liability periods exist, and why it's pretty sensible to ensure their insurance exist.
You don't need to go to the high court to make an insurance claim.

There was a thread the other day were a builder was showing a copy of his friends insurance, claiming he was covered under it. No matter how much cheaper that guy was, it simple isn't worth it.

You seem to think everything is the client's fault for trusting the professionals. What choice do they have?

What professionals are you referring to?
I'm saying using professionals will cost mode, but it protects you via the framework I outlined. People can cut those corners if they like, and it will save money. But you simply can't expect the same outcome.

To put it simply, Domestic building control is an opt-in/opt-out situation. People are free to opt out and lower costs, that comes with more risk. You can't then expect a safety net from the government when they risk turns into issues on site.
(Pica/Pyrite is different/complex issue, so government bailout was justified.)

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122106757#Comment_122106757

Glad to hear you go sorted.
Crazy that council are paying the guy, and don't confirm the work. As I said, pure laziness.

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122107780#Comment_122107780

The walls didn't comply. The roof didn't comply. The roof span didn't comply. Ventilation didn't comply. Door widths were not wide enough. All radiators were grossly undersized. There were no safety handles in the shower or at the toilet and the sink was not wheelchair accessible.

And this was a disabled grant signed off as acceptable and paid.

Edit- never mind....

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122107949#Comment_122107949

Whatever about the hidden stuff. How they thought they'd get away with non accessible grab rails and sanitary-ware. SMH.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122108163#Comment_122108163

Probably for the best. 😏

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122110717#Comment_122110717

Yes, probably for the best!

You give the impression of being diligent and to hold yourself to high standards. And fair dues to you. Unfortunately not everyone in the industry is like you- I'm sure you can easily think of many in your own professional who fall short (and whose messes you've had to clear up).

Punters don't have the knowledge to know what best practice is, and they certainly can't differentiate between you and your less competent colleagues. Effective redress is in practice available only to those with deep pockets, which doesn't include the owner of the 3 bed semi d getting an extension etc.

The system transfers all responsibility to the homeowner who lacks the appropriate knowledge. And there's no checks by local authorities to help. This is unfair.

By contrast I got a BER assessment recently for solar panels- about 2 hours of detailed measurements, photos etc. Which is subject to random audit by seai and- possibly- revocation and (worst case) delisting of the assessor.

In a multibillion euro industry employing a huge number of people which is literally vital to the country, the state and its emanations are bystanders in terms of quality control- reactive at best.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122110898#Comment_122110898

That's a fair assessment. I do hold myself to a high standard, and I expect that of the profession, and professionals generally.
I know many do not, unfortunately there's are many out there offering professional services without relevant qualifications, but the backing of their industry society/group. It's borderline whether I consider them part of the profession, probably not if I'm honest.

The punter may not not how to tell the difference, but when a guy is saying he'll do it for a 1/4 the cost of the rest, that should be a red flag. Importantly, those guys still have PI Insurance. That should be the punters redress. Claim off the insurance of the guy who didn't do his job. If everyone did that, it would be a lot harder got the chancers

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122110898#Comment_122110898

I fully agree with your comment and the unfairness of the system which is wide open for abuse.

In our case we believed that we had done everything right and when we found out we had been conned we went to a legal firm to be told it would cost 50k and take 5 years, time i just did not have and I also couldn't be with uninhabitable accommodation for that long.

When the builder got legal notice he handed a guy a hand drawn sketch of the extension. The guy who has never set foot on our property said he was happy with compliance even though the details on the sketch did not match what was built. The builder was banking on me passing or us not having the funds to go legal.

We went public with our story which added more unfairness as the builder wasn't named although word locally spread like wildfire. The story was also read in the Dail.

The builder simply made a comment through a solicitor and said all work done was to their usual high standard and complied with all regulations

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122112011#Comment_122112011

I take your point on the guy offering to do the job for for 25% of the others, but i recall getting a pile of tenders ranging from 200k to 1 million for the same job. That's an extreme example, but not unique.

You'd not be surprised to see the top bid being well over 50% higher than the lowest. If you're a professional assessing bids, you'll look at quality, minimum qualifications, and previous jobs, and not just price. If you're a big client with repeat business you can rely to an extent on the size of your wallet (and your solicitors office) to keep the contractor honest.

But those tools aren't available to non-professionals. A quality submission for a tender might as well be written in swahili when I'm reading it- i just don't speak the language well enough.

The punter has no way to differentiate between the guy who's cheap because they're a cowboy and the guy who's cheap because he's efficient. They both exist.

And the system doesn't help. As Ginger83 says, €50k and 5 years to get satisfaction at best.

BTW, part of the reason I do as much of my own work as possible is because I've seen them awful standard of work others have done in my home (before my time)- like not tanking or sealing a shower area or taping plasterboard joints, and ignoring insulation and draught proofing for example, really basic stuff. My craftsmanship is not wonderful and my walls look awful, but my shower doesn't leak and my house isn't cold. I'll own my mistakes at a fraction of the price I'd pay someone else to make them for me!

Kaisr Sose

@Ginger83

What you posted is awful. Well done for standing your ground. Whoever siged off the work in the council is part of a massive problem with building controls in this country. Whoever did this should not be allowed work on any grant funded work going forward but thats impossible to enforce

@[Deleted User]

I am with you on the quality of workmanship in this country. For many in construction or trades, it's about cutting corners and charging the most for the least input. Many won't even clean up after themselves. They don't care and they are making a fortune at the moment.

@Mellor

Even on big jobs there are problems with finish. Specs are changed or details not finished to design to maximise profit. The whole system of self-certification is not fit for purpose. If the state establishes building regulations, it should also, through its local authorities, have a robust system of regulation and random inspections of works, whether it's a small extension or a large development. Instead it throws it back on the owner or purchaser to seek redress from insurance or not fit for purpose legal avenue. When you rely on either to ensure compliance with building regulations, you will get low quality builds, works that is not compliant etc.

I live in a top floor apartment on an exposed site with no ceiling insulation. I have 18mm foil backed plaster board, a void of approx 200mm, and then an insulated concrete slab. This is not compliant with building regulations at the time. It gets worse, the main livingroom window deflects in moderate wind. It is now warped from water ingress. Two reports have condemned it and said it's not compliant with building regulations. When I purchased this property, I was provided with architects opinion on compliance with building regulations. In Ireland, this is what lax building controls and self-certification leads to.

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122113187#Comment_122113187

I have heard that the building control authority where I am have never prosecuted anyone. They told me that they would have to prosecute me and I said come on out and I will have the kettle on for you.

If my photo is attached you will see the balls up the cowboy made of ours and then reslabbed all the ceilings again instead of insulating the roof correctly. All the insulation on top of the roof was serving no purpose

Untitled (1) (2).jpg

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122112535#Comment_122112535

The scenario backs up exactly what I’m saying. That’s the system when you opt out of building control and supervision. You to take them to court, and prove negligence. Its difficult. It’s was not the only option.

The pathway I outlined is the full process, where means somebody verifies work, signs a document and put their PI on the line. It’s much easier to pursue negligence in that case, and as a result it’s less common.

I don’t know the terms of the grant. But the council should have went with the latter to protect you and themselves (and tax payers money).

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122113079#Comment_122113079

Of course a punter can’t be expected the read and understand a tender submission. That’s why I’m saying to engage a professional (as in an architectural technologist, architect or a suitably qualified engineer) to supervise and certify the build.

And the system doesn't help. As Ginger83 says, €50k and 5 years to get satisfaction at best. No

That's the system when you opt of certification, and building control. It would have been a cost to do it right, but not €50k. That's it in a nutshell. You can't opt out and decide to self supervise to save money, then complain that you were not qualified to do so.
As you said you own your mistakes for a fraction of the price. Meaning, you save money and take on more risk. Sometimes that works out. It does not always.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122114428#Comment_122114428

You realise that the point I'm trying to make is that most people don't know enough to "opt out" or "self supervise" etc? Myself included- i haven't opted out of or self supervised anything- i just did stuff, paid what I was asked and signed a couple of times where asked.

People don't know what they don't know. It doesn't make them stupid or negligent.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122113187#Comment_122113187

Yes, of course there will always be defective work. My current man project is a "big project". It's close to completion so I'm spending a significant part of my time on site right now flagging defects, and making the contractor rectify them. I'm doing that on behalf of the client, and under the contract they must be fixed.

The contractor can't change material simply to maximise profit. There is very detailed set of drawings and specifications. Those changes would have to be approved by the client, and often they are. (of "the builder is the client").

I know the certification system is not perfect. But an element of self-certification is required for liability. Overwise people can simply deny responsibility.

If the state establishes building regulations, it should also, through its local authorities, have a robust system of regulation and random inspections of works, whether it's a small extension or a large development.

Building control do inspect works. It would be great if they did a lot more, but are the public going to pay levies to fund it? Probably not. So much should a person building an extension pay for the council to supervise?

And there's no way they could inspect enough work in order to certify it. How do you propose that works?
How do the council certify the foundations, the electrical works, the compliance with part M accessibility? etc

Instead it throws it back on the owner or purchaser to seek redress from insurance or not fit for purpose legal avenue. When you rely on either to ensure compliance with building regulations, you will get low quality builds, works that is not compliant etc.

You don't rely on insurance you rely on professional certification. Insurance is to cover the times that mistakes happen.
If you have a better system, I'd love to hear it. We've probably veering into a whole new thread.

I live in a top floor apartment on an exposed site with no ceiling insulation. I have 18mm foil backed plaster board, a void of approx 200mm, and then an insulated concrete slab. This is not compliant with building regulations at the time. It gets worse, the main livingroom window deflects in moderate wind. It is now warped from water ingress. Two reports have condemned it and said it's not compliant with building regulations. When I purchased this property, I was provided with architects opinion on compliance with building regulations. In Ireland, this is what lax building controls and self-certification leads to.

There’s probably a whole separate thread. But the ceiling doesn’t require insulation. The roof does. An opinion on compliance is a visual inspection, it’s not a certification.

The windows are usually common property. Repairs should be done via the OMC (if the funds are there).

How long ago was it built?

It took me about 20 seconds of googling to find a clear outline a better system than we have here. It's literally taking me longer to type this post than it took me to find this link.

https://www.merton.gov.uk/planning-and-buildings/building-control/applications-inspections/inspection-process#

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122114993#Comment_122114993

I haven’t called anyone stupid. The fact they know enough about design and construction to opt out and supervise themselves is exactly why they shouldn’t do it, unless they are happy with the risk and have faith in the builder.

You do realise If you’ve opt’d to not have a professional supervise and certify. Then what you are doing is self-supervising? nobody is doing for you. Fine for small jobs. And people are free to make that choice. But if they choose to do something themselves, they can’t turn around and complain they didn’t know what they were doing.

Ginger83

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122115068#Comment_122115068

You say building control do inspect work?

I contacted them directly and stated that a builder had breached multiple building regulations during construction and again during repairs. It wasn't oversights or a mistake. It was very clear that it was a con job.

Building Control asked me for evidence so I sent them detailed reports and they came back and said if you would like the work inspected we will have to prosecute you for the breaches but we will leave this for you to decide.

After considering the consequences I invited them out to inspect the work. The reply was "With the best of intentions we must decline to inspect as it would be unpalatable to all concerned"

It's no wonder building is a joke when the governing body won't do their job

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122118126#Comment_122118126

You post that above, and I explained already. But to reiterate.

Building control have limited resources, they inspect some projects. To inspect all projects would require significant fees to be charged* (like that charge to the owner in London). The building owner is liable for their property**. They choose not to pursue you, as that would have been obviously unfair. Prior to prosecution, you'd be issued a notice to fixed the work. It's still up to you chase the builder back - this is where a contract, sign-off, without holding payments benefits you.

You keep saying they didn't do their job. It is not their job to supervise construction or provide professional services for free. If somebody wants those services, they need to pay for them*. Or they can choose to ignore and take the risk.
Given the nature of the project (Accessibility) a professional should have been involved to some degree imo. Whether they should have been from the council, engaged by the council, or engaged by the owner depends entirely on the nature of the grant.

* I believe being able to pay the council to preform services would be a good idea. But it can't be a free service. Many people would still opt out, but the option should be more available imo.

** Imagine a public building that did have compliant facilities, breeching the regs. The owners would be liable, they can blame the builder and walk away. If the owner has a contract with the designer and they can absolutely seek damages

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122118931#Comment_122118931

Who was suggesting that local authorities inspect various stages of construction for free? I wasn't, and it'd be anyway impossible- not like the council staff work for free so there'd be a cost whether direct or indirect.

Inspection should be compulsory- with payment of a reasonable fee- at the key stages. But it's not even optional- instead of an independent third party the only option is to hire a architect or whatever in private practice and hope they've no concerns about being blacklisted by contractors if theydo their job properly. The private construction industry isn't so large, especially outside Dublin, that that won't happen. That's not something a local government employee in permanent employment needs to worry about- they can do their job without fear or favour.

The state and local government has relegated itself to bystander status, leaving the citizens they're supposed to work for wide open to being shafted. Which is insane- the response to the banking crisis was a huge amount of regulation etc, but the response to priory hall, pyrite, mica, and who knows what else was....nothing....

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122119909#Comment_122119909

That post wasn't responding to you. It was in response to the claim that the council did not do their job. I was pointing out they were not paid to be on site. So unfair to claim they should have been.
You seem to agree that there would need to a charge for that. Charging the owner/developer makes sense. I'd already said I'd like that option, pay a charge for council to inspect.

But people would have to agree for that. Big ask imo. People are currently opting out of building control, and choosing to not pay for professional to inspect. What makes you think they'll pay the council? Look at how many threads get posted here by people looking to get around planning.

Architects are not employed by contractors, so do real danger in them being blacklisted. If anything the contractor has more risk of being blacklisted. If the architect designs the details, then their neck is on the line too.
The response to priory hall, etc was the Building Control Amendment Regulations (BCAR). Where there is a much more robust system of certification (again, mentioned this above). Its pretty clear that people will opt out to save money on domestic construction.