Priory Hall Mk2 "The Laurels"

MadsL · 09-07-2012 09:27PM #1

Residents of 68 apartments in Dundrum in Dublin will be forced to move out of their homes for up to three months after the building was found to be in breach of building and fire regulations.

The 80 apartments at The Laurels, near Dundrum Town Centre, are in receivership and 68 are occupied by renting tenants. They are under control of the receiver to Tuskar Asset Management, Kieran Wallace of KPMG.

When are we going to see root and branch radical reform of the obviously incompetent Local Authorities? Is there any hope of this now happening after the planning investigation whitewash?

markpb · 09-07-2012 09:29PM

MadsL wrote: »

When are we going to see root and branch radical reform of the obviously incompetent Local Authorities?

It's a matter of national legislation that local authorities have no role to play in the inspection of homes under construction. That's obviously totally wrong and immoral but it's down to the government, not the local authorities.

MadsL · 09-07-2012 09:33PM

markpb wrote: »

It's a matter of national legislation that local authorities have no role to play in the inspection of homes under construction. That's obviously totally wrong and immoral but it's down to the government, not the local authorities.

And what changes have we seen proposed to prevent this from happening again and again?

Incidentally are there no annual fire safety inspections carried out by the local council in a apartment complex like this?

markpb · 09-07-2012 09:38PM

MadsL wrote: »

And what changes have we seen proposed to prevent this from happening again and again?

Draft Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Incidentally are there no annual fire safety inspections carried out by the local council in a apartment complex like this?

Nope. The local authorities never inspect buildings, not when they're being built, not after. They have no legal powers to do so.

MadsL · 09-07-2012 09:46PM

They have no legal powers to do so.

Really?

Power of examination, investigation and survey.

6.—A planning authority and the Board shall each have all such powers of examination, investigation and survey as may be necessary for the performance of their functions in relation to this Act or to any other Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0030/print.html

markpb · 09-07-2012 10:03PM

MadsL wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0030/print.html

Fair enough, I was under the impression that they didn't. I wonder though what the scope of the words "for the performance of their functions in relation to this Act" are, perhaps there's a reason why they don't. IIRC Dublin Corporation was the only local authority to inspect building sites (over two decades ago) but stopped when the country moved to self-certification.

Cost was a concern, no doubt but obviously that didn't pay off in the long term now that they're footing the bills for Tom McFeeleys schenanigans.

MadsL · 09-07-2012 10:11PM

Incidentally http://www.tusker.ie/

edit: Are no relationship to Tuskar Asset Management

NIMAN · 09-07-2012 10:12PM

Feel so sorry for people caught up in this sort of stuff.

Sitting on big mortgages and now being told your home is a danger.

You'd hope when you buy a house that the relevant authorities and people in positions of responsibility would do their jobs.

Hope it all works out for them.

MadsL · 09-07-2012 10:29PM

As all these apartments are rented, it is more likely the big circle of "property investment" will swallow this up.

Tusker doubtless still own a few of these. Along with a few of our favourite defaulting 'property investors'. Pierce Construction who actually build these are also bellyup.

K-9 · 10-07-2012 08:57AM

MadsL wrote: »

Incidentally http://www.tusker.ie/

This was of no suprise to me to learn they were based in Castleblayney.

That's Tusker Construction not Tuskar Asset Management referred to in your OP. Do you have a link for the OP?

Sponge Bob · 10-07-2012 11:44AM

Tuskar asset management are different. I think they were a syndicate. The Fraud Squad have taken an interest in aspects of Tuskars business, see

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0515/1224316128820.html
Pierce Construction ALSO BUILT the following!

Bray Town Centre (Wicklow)

Carrickmines Manor (Glenamuck Road, Dublin)

Collaire Court(Callan, Kilkenny)

Eden, Residential Development(Blackrock, Cork)

Gallery Quay Apartments(Dublin)

Marrsfield(Clongriffin)

Santry Cross Hotel and Apartment Development(Dublin)

Shearwater(Kinsale, Co Cork)

Silverglen, (Mountmellick, Co Laois),

Swords Central(Dublin)

The Greens(Thomastown, Kilkenny)

UCD Student Accommodation (1800 student bedrooms, Dublin)

Gumbo · 10-07-2012 02:40PM

MadsL wrote: »

When are we going to see root and branch radical reform of the obviously incompetent Local Authorities? Is there any hope of this now happening after the planning investigation whitewash?

More proof of greed from Private Sector builders, architects etc yeah yeah, sure it will be grand. Heres your certificate of compliance with building regulations, now where my cash!!!!!!!!!!!

NIMAN wrote: »

You'd hope when you buy a house that the relevant authorities and people in positions of responsibility would do their jobs.

The people who bought these homes were let down by the greed of the builder cutting corners, the greed of the architects/engineers signing off construction developments that were obviously not in compliance with building or planning regulations and then they were let down by the surveyor that you must engage to survey the property for the mortgage company.

At no stage did they home owner require the services of the Local authorithy as all building work is self certified by private sector engineers and private sector architects.

The law should be changed to bring back what the UK still do and have a council employee inspect each development site at key stages in construction.

MadsL · 10-07-2012 02:51PM

K-9 wrote: »

That's Tusker Construction not Tuskar Asset Management referred to in your OP. Do you have a link for the OP?

Apologies. And retracted.

However it seems this was a whole caravan of amateur-hour 'pension' investments and optimistic loans.

THREE INVESTORS in Wexford based companies involved in purchasing and developing land for investment have told the High Court the companies have € 18 million excess of liabilities over assets and, unless they secure court protection, are in imminent danger of liquidation.

The petitioners, John Power, James Boggan and Liam Eviston, all with addresses in Co. Wexford, are seeking the appointment of an examiner to Tuskar Asset Management PLC – with offices at John's Gate Street, Wexford – and five related companies.

http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/three-investors-seek-high-court-protection-1499986.html
Wednesday October 15 2008

(21 Sept 2009) Irish Times ;

“Solicitors ordered to repay €3m loan to AIB

A FIRM OF solicitors has been ordered by the High Court to repay a loan of €3 million plus interest to Allied Irish Banks (AIB) after it failed to comply with undertakings given when the loan was made by the bank to one of its clients.

In a case that will have implications for future cases and for the professional indemnity insurance of all solicitors, Mr Justice Michael Peart found that the solicitors were liable for the full amount of the loan, obtained on a property valued at €3.9 million in May 2007 and now considered to be worth no more than €620,000.

The Co Wexford property at the centre of the case, known as Moongate, was owned at the time by a syndicate, with a mortgage of €2.2 million from Anglo Irish Bank.

Two members of the syndicate, accountant Alan Hynes and his wife Noreen, sought to buy the property and borrowed €3 million from the local branch of Allied Irish Bank, where they were well known. The bank accepted a valuation of €3.9 million from CBRE.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0515/1224316128820.html

THE GARDA fraud squad has sought information regarding the activities of Alan Hynes, a director of collapsed property investment company Tuskar Asset Management.

In the commercial court yesterday, a representative of the liquidator of a number of Tuskar-related companies told Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan that the Garda fraud squad was seeking the release of documents relating to the case. It is expected these will then be passed on to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) .

Sponge Bob · 10-07-2012 03:46PM

Look it doesn't matter if the thing was financed by a pool of banks and dentists and doctors fronted by a scammer of an accountant, ( it was).

What matters is how many more of these substandard apartment blocks have not yet been 'discovered'. The problems with this one in Dundrum were seemingly found by accident.

MadsL · 10-07-2012 04:00PM

What matters is how many more of these substandard apartment blocks have not yet been 'discovered'. The problems with this one in Dundrum were seemingly found by accident.

and this

Draft Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Doesn't solve the issue of Local Authorities not taking responsibility for ensuring multi-occupancy units are up to code.

Sponge Bob · 10-07-2012 04:02PM

Here are some more buiilt by Pierce Construction. Are they being inspected??

Bray Town Centre (Wicklow)

Carrickmines Manor (Glenamuck Road, Dublin)

Collaire Court(Callan, Kilkenny)

Eden, Residential Development(Blackrock, Cork)

Gallery Quay Apartments(Dublin)

Marrsfield(Clongriffin)

Santry Cross Hotel and Apartment Development(Dublin)

Shearwater(Kinsale, Co Cork)

Silverglen, (Mountmellick, Co Laois),

Swords Central(Dublin)

The Greens(Thomastown, Kilkenny)

UCD Student Accommodation (1800 student bedrooms, Dublin)

Gumbo · 10-07-2012 04:58PM

MadsL wrote: »

and this

Draft Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Doesn't solve the issue of Local Authorities not taking responsibility for ensuring multi-occupancy units are up to code.

I dont know why you keep highlighting that Local Authorities dont take responsibility for ensuring multi-occupancy units are up to code? They cant, its like buying a car, its up to the buyer to ensure everything is ok, and thats why architects and engineers are paid for their inspections of the constructio of these developments. Also why you keep bringing up multi-occupancy units is irrelevant, as LA's will also have to inspect single-occupancy units too.

K-9 · 10-07-2012 06:35PM

kceire wrote: »

I dont know why you keep highlighting that Local Authorities dont take responsibility for ensuring multi-occupancy units are up to code? They cant, its like buying a car, its up to the buyer to ensure everything is ok, and thats why architects and engineers are paid for their inspections of the constructio of these developments. Also why you keep bringing up multi-occupancy units is irrelevant, as LA's will also have to inspect single-occupancy units too.

I'd say it is more they aren't willing to. Northern Ireland would have a much stricter inspection code.

MadsL · 10-07-2012 07:46PM

kceire wrote: »

I dont know why you keep highlighting that Local Authorities dont take responsibility for ensuring multi-occupancy units are up to code? They cant, its like buying a car, its up to the buyer to ensure everything is ok, and thats why architects and engineers are paid for their inspections of the constructio of these developments.

Funny you should bring up a car, don't we have two mechanisms to control car safety. One, a certificate of conformity for new cars to ensure safe design has been adhered to, and an ongoing inspection regime (the NCT) to ensure ongoing safety. Funny how our homes are not deemed worthy to be inspected as safe.

Also why you keep bringing up multi-occupancy units is irrelevant, as LA's will also have to inspect single-occupancy units too

Which is more likely to lead to multiple loss of life, a semi-detached house fire, or a fire in a multistory block of apartments?

Single houses can remedy fire escape issues easily, owners and tenants in a multistory block cannot easily do so.

kceire wrote: »

thats why architects and engineers are paid for their inspections of the constructio of these developments.

Do you believe that system is working? If so, when was the last prosecution and expulsion?

Gumbo · 10-07-2012 09:08PM

MadsL wrote: »

Funny how our homes are not deemed worthy to be inspected as safe.

but you fail to admit that our homes are inspected and deemed safe by the architects or engineers that certified the property as safe, structually sound and in compliance with building regs, planning regs etc etc These professionals employed by the builder and also the surveyor employed by the home buyer during the purchase process, they should should pick up these faults but they didnt because they rushed through job A, inoreder to get to job B as quickly as possible.

Now if these checks are overlooked or ignored by the architect/engineer then we have a problem as the building has slipped through the gaps.

MadsL wrote: »

Which is more likely to lead to multiple loss of life, a semi-detached house fire, or a fire in a multistory block of apartments?

Single houses can remedy fire escape issues easily, owners and tenants in a multistory block cannot easily do so.

shouldnt matter, each building shoule be inspected, and certified properly, whether that by the architects/engineers or indeed if a law cahnge is required, the LA.

MadsL wrote: »

Do you believe that system is working? If so, when was the last prosecution and expulsion?

The system most likely worked on a high proportion of developments. Unfortunely (sp), some developments will slip through due to greedy builders, greedy architects and engineers.

I personally believe self certification should be done in conjunction with LA's, and LA's inspect sites at key stages and obtain photographic proof that such and such material was used etc

MadsL · 10-07-2012 10:08PM

You missed my the last part question- Do you believe that system is working? If so, when was the last prosecution and expulsion?

I firmly believe that an entire generation of development will continue have problem of this nature, and issues with sub-standard construction. Truly independent inspection is the only way to fix this.

Sponge Bob · 11-07-2012 02:11AM

MadsL wrote: »

I firmly believe that an entire generation of development will continue have problem of this nature, and issues with sub-standard construction. Truly independent inspection is the only way to fix this.

Yeah and generations of ministers like gormley and roche were equally sanguine about it.

What do you mean by "independent" anyway??

Gumbo · 11-07-2012 10:29AM

MadsL wrote: »

I firmly believe that an entire generation of development will continue have problem of this nature, and issues with sub-standard construction. Truly independent inspection is the only way to fix this.

How do you propose to act on this?
Do you want LA's to inspect developments or independant architects / engineers?

MadsL · 11-07-2012 03:08PM

kceire wrote: »

How do you propose to act on this?
Do you want LA's to inspect developments or independant architects / engineers?

I think we probably need separation from LA Planning and the developer. Both are open to corruption as we have seen in recent years. In the case of multi-unit developments I'd suggest a independent audit/inspection regime be created.

Sponge Bob · 11-07-2012 03:20PM

MadsL wrote: »

I think we probably need separation from LA Planning and the developer. Both are open to corruption as we have seen in recent years. In the case of multi-unit developments I'd suggest a independent audit/inspection regime be created.

Run and staffed by who exactly and then answerable to who once you have done that much???

Retroactive powers or not??

MadsL · 11-07-2012 03:29PM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Run and staffed by who exactly and then answerable to who once you have done that much???

Retroactive powers or not??

Construction professionals.
Answerable to the LA in the first instance, but supervised and audited by the DoE.
Retroactive powers in the same way that any planning deviation can lead to planning enforcement. I'd like to see the 7 year rule dropped in cases where human life is compromised.

Gumbo · 11-07-2012 10:14PM

MadsL wrote: »

I think we probably need separation from LA Planning and the developer. Both are open to corruption as we have seen in recent years. In the case of multi-unit developments I'd suggest a independent audit/inspection regime be created.

I don't think the corruption is at LA level. I think your getting it mixed up with ministers. I haven't heard of any corruption court cases from a LA in recent years, have you a link to back that up?

MadsL · 11-07-2012 10:26PM

kceire wrote: »

I don't think the corruption is at LA level. I think your getting it mixed up with ministers.

How about the Mahon Tribunal and the (whitewashed) planning inquiries. An Taisce submitted a dossier listing the highly questionable planning decisions made in high-value developments.

FG whitewashed it as a numbers game - X thousand applications made and X appeals upheld by ABP, completely ignoring the difference between a planning application made for a house extension and one made for a multi-million euro development.

I haven't heard of any corruption court cases from a LA in recent years, have you a link to back that up?

Where have you been?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0519/1224316358542.html

Now I know that you will say that is the councillors not the officials - but my point is that officials are potentially exposed to corruption - an independent inspection body would prevent that.

MadsL · 11-07-2012 10:28PM

have you a link to back that up?

Dossier on questionable planning decisions, many breaching the development plan for Dublin.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,30481,en.pdf

gurramok · 11-07-2012 11:06PM

How many more developments have there been whereby they were selfcerted on the fire front? Its two so far, tip of the iceberg imho.
This issue(along with pyrite) is a warning sign for any buyer of bubble property. Buyer beware.

Paulzx · 12-07-2012 10:27AM

We've done the inspection of new buildings during construction in a previous thread here.

The LA are not legally responsible for inspections during construction. It's crazy and i don't in any way agree with it but thats the law.

Blaming the LA for all the fire safety issues in these new builds is incorrect.

The OP poses a different question on this thread.

What ongoing or periodic inspections are required to be carried out in inhabited dwellings by the Fire Authority?

My understanding is there is no requirement to do this on any specific timescale. If an issue is brought to their attention they do however have the power to do this

22.—(1) In this section “authorised person” means a person authorised for the purposes of this section by a fire authority.

(2) Any authorised person shall be entitled to enter at all reasonable times (subject to his producing, if so required, his authority in writing as such person) and inspect any land or building (other than a dwelling house occupied as a single dwelling) for the purposes of this Act.

(3) Any authorised person may—

(a) inspect any water supply in a building or on any land;

(b) inspect all records required to be kept by a fire safety notice or by regulations;

(c) require to be informed by the owner or occupier of any land or building or by any person in his employment as to the purpose for which the land or building or any particular part thereof is used, the number of persons who are habitually employed or accommodated therein or resort thereto, the substance of which any building is made and the method of its construction and any other matter which the authorised person considers to be relevant.

(4) A fire authority may by notice in writing require the owner or occupier of land or a building to provide the authority, within such period as it may specify, with such plans (including line or simple dimensional drawings) of the land or building, and with such information in writing as it may require and it shall be the duty of the owner or occupier to comply with the notice.

(5) An authorised person shall be entitled in the exercise of his powers under this section to take with him on to land or into a building such persons and equipment as he considers necessary to assist him and to examine and test any ventilation, heating, power or lighting system and any materials or substances used, stored or deposited on the land or in the building and to take samples for the purpose of testing any such materials or substances.

(6) Any person who—

(a) refuses to allow an authorised person to enter any land or building or to take any person or equipment with him in the exercise of his power under this section, or

(b) obstructs or impedes an authorised person in the exercise of any of the powers conferred on him by this section, or

(c) fails or refuses to give to an authorised person on demand or to the fire authority pursuant to a notice in writing any plan or information which he or the authority is entitled to require under this section, or

(d) wilfully or recklessly gives to an authorised person or a fire authority information which is false or misleading in a material respect, or

(e) fails to comply with any requirement of this section,

shall be guilty of an offence.

(7) Where an authorised person is refused entry to land or a building in the exercise of his powers under this section the fire authority may apply to the District Court for a warrant authorising such entry.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1981/en/act/pub/0030/sec0022.html#sec22

It is important to note however, contrary to what has been said by a previous post in this thread, that the Authorised person has no right whatsoever to enter a single dwelling. His powers extend only to multi occupancy dwellings under the legislation.

So to sum up.

Does the LA authority have a power to enter an apartment block for the purpose of a fire safety inspection?...........Yes

Does the LA have a legal obligation to do this periodically?..........Nothing in the legislation.

Does the LA have the power to enter a single dwelling?..............No

Priory Hall Mk2 "The Laurels"

Comments