Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

24567…32

Comments

  • #52
    Supertech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 597 ✭✭✭Supertech


    dathi wrote: »
    only had a quick read but surely the self builder only has to set up a limited company "bob the builder very limited" and nominate them as "the builder" to circumvent the regs. use direct labor then cease trading after certifying house ?

    Is that not what landed us here in the first place ??


  • #53
    atech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 195 ✭✭atech


    dathi wrote: »
    only had a quick read but surely the self builder only has to set up a limited company "bob the builder very limited" and nominate them as "the builder" to circumvent the regs. use direct labor then cease trading after certifying house ?

    I think that's what sinnerboy was suggesting in his earlier reply to me (or something similar) but the issue with that as far as I can see is if there is a problem down the line the self builder cannot hold the individual trade to account as he (the self builder) is effectively signing off on his work (electrician, etc) as being compliant.


  • #54
    dathi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭dathi


    atech wrote: »
    I think that's what sinnerboy was suggesting in his earlier reply to me (or something similar) but the issue with that as far as I can see is if there is a problem down the line the self builder cannot hold the individual trade to account as he (the self builder) is effectively signing off on his work (electrician, etc) as being compliant.

    eh no a limited company is a separate legal entity to the owners so he wouldn't be signing of on any work the company would . makes a farce of proper building control though


  • #55
    atech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 195 ✭✭atech


    dathi wrote: »
    eh no a limited company is a separate legal entity to the owners so he wouldn't be signing of on any work the company would . makes a farce of proper building control though

    But the ltd company director is the self builder so whether the company is wound up or not the cost to rectify any issues made by individual trades down the line would lie with them as they have certified all the trades work.


  • #56
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,830 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    lads we are slightly going of topic with this limited company stuff.... but anyway my view is:

    1. its not that easy set up a ltd and maintain limited company books.
    2. once a limited company is dissolved, AFAIK all liability is dissolved with it... im open to correction on that.


  • #57
    atech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 195 ✭✭atech


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    lads we are slightly going of topic with this limited company stuff.... but anyway my view is:

    1. its not that easy set up a ltd and maintain limited company books.
    2. once a limited company is dissolved, AFAIK all liability is dissolved with it... im open to correction on that.

    The builders certification goes right to the heart of these new regulations, so how that builder is set up legally is most definitely relevant.

    Just to clarify I am obviously referring to the house owner as being the self-builder so whether liability is dissolved or not once the company is wound up is irrelevant as the owner would only be suing themselves in any case. Which including the hassle of setting up a ltd company is why I can't see any self-builder going this route.


  • #58
    muffler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,304 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    I cant see the "certifier" working with this type of guy or this type of setup


  • #59
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,830 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    atech wrote: »
    The builders certification goes right to the heart of these new regulations, so how that builder is set up legally is most definitely relevant.

    Just to clarify I am obviously referring to the house owner as being the self-builder so whether liability is dissolved or not once the company is wound up is irrelevant as the owner would only be suing themselves in any case. Which including the hassle of setting up a ltd company is why I can't see any self-builder going this route.

    no actually its worse that that.....

    Ireland has a legal perversion commonly called the "1% rule"

    this means that if there are more than one part named in a lawsuit case, even if one party is foudn to be 99% responsible and teh other 1% responsible.... the 1% party can, and generally does, be loaded with 100% of the determined costs.
    so in the case where a homeowner sues a disolved company, the certifying company WILL benamed in any such action and can be held to 100% of costs even if only 1% responsible.

    this is the main reason insurance companies in ireland are fleeing the architectural certification sector.


  • #60
    atech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 195 ✭✭atech


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    no actually its worse that that.....

    Ireland has a legal perversion commonly called the "1% rule"

    this means that if there are more than one part named in a lawsuit case, even if one party is foudn to be 99% responsible and teh other 1% responsible.... the 1% party can, and generally does, be loaded with 100% of the determined costs.
    so in the case where a homeowner sues a disolved company, the certifying company WILL benamed in any such action and can be held to 100% of costs even if only 1% responsible.

    this is the main reason insurance companies in ireland are fleeing the architectural certification sector.

    Learn something new every day

    In that case then I'd have to concur with what Muffler said.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    It will be interesting to see how Local Authorities and lending institutions of clients will scrutinize "the builder" in would be self builder direct labor projects. In other words if a client by whatever means deems himself the builder will that effort fail / be rejected under scrutiny of those bodies.


  • #62
    daver123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 208 ✭✭daver123


    In my opinion there is absolutely no building regs enforcement. I agree with most of the regulations, i built a house that conforms to my planning conditions and most of the regulations, not once was my house build inspected by anyone other than my architect who certified the house compliant. The major issue is that guidelines are good in theory, but where there is no proper checks they are not worth the paper they are written on.


  • #63
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    daver123 wrote: »
    In my opinion there is absolutely no building regs enforcement.

    By local authorities - no. By diligent building professionals ( and there are MANY of them ) - yes there damn well IS.
    daver123 wrote: »
    I agree with most of the regulations,

    Your not asked to agree with them. You are legally compelled as a building owner to comply with them.
    daver123 wrote: »
    i built a house that conforms to my planning conditions and most of the regulations,

    you must comply with ALL regulations.
    daver123 wrote: »
    not once was my house build inspected by anyone other than my architect who certified the house compliant.

    This is the norm and it will continue to be except that in future your builder too will have to certify compliance .
    daver123 wrote: »
    The major issue is that guidelines are good in theory, but where there is no proper checks they are not worth the paper they are written on.

    Proceed on this basis at your own peril.


  • #64
    daver123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 208 ✭✭daver123


    sinnerboy wrote: »
    By local authorities - no. By diligent building professionals ( and there are MANY of them ) - yes there damn well IS.



    Your not asked to agree with them. You are legally compelled as a building owner to comply with them.



    you must comply with ALL regulations.



    This is the norm and it will continue to be except that in future your builder too will have to certify compliance .



    Proceed on this basis at your own peril.

    We all know about the regulations my point is that there are NO PROPER checks by the authorities. This needs to be addressed if there is to be no re occurrence of all the bad houses that were built during the celtic tiger boom. Look at the uk for example ALL new buildings are checked by the local council, why can't that be done here?


  • #65
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    daver123 wrote: »
    why can't that be done here?

    Did you lobby the minister about this during last years consultation on revisions to Building Control arrangements ?

    If you did not then you are wasting everyone's time with your rant.


  • #66
    daver123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 208 ✭✭daver123


    sinnerboy wrote: »
    Did you lobby the minister about this during last years consultation on revisions to Building Control arrangements ?

    If you did not then you are wasting everyone's time with your rant.

    No i didn't lobby the minister - I raised a topic on a forum where people are asked to express their opinions / experiences...no rant i am saying that we should follow the UK model where there are proper checks by council for ALL new builds.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    Pity you did not take action that might have had some affect then.


  • #68
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,830 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    daver123 wrote: »
    No i didn't lobby the minister - I raised a topic on a forum where people are asked to express their opinions / experiences...no rant i am saying that we should follow the UK model where there are proper checks by council for ALL new builds.

    Im afraid your a year too late for this.

    The minister has decided to go down the route of completely NO responsibility to local authorities.

    There is already a thread on this here

    i dont think this thread offers anything new or different so i will merge the threads.


  • #69
    cikearney
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 226 ✭✭cikearney


    sinnerboy wrote: »
    My own reading of this (and I could be wrong) is that there is nothing to stop a self builder appointing himself Main Contractor and by so doing accepting an onerous responsibility.

    Any updates on this possibility, as a qualified trades man with building experience and contacts of up to spec trades men


  • #70
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    Thanks for reading and posting here cikearney. Until the regulations come into force next year we will have to see how this pans out. My own supposition (only) is that this point will be monitored by two sets of parties.
    1. Local Authorities
    2. Lenders

    In your case I understand you hope to build using your savings alone. In which case just the Local Authority to contend with on this point. Experience to date tells us that different LA's make different interpretations of regulations , where there is room for them to do so. My expectation is that some LA's will probe into the question - "Is this named builder really a builder ? " and others will not.

    I expect lenders to behave entirely differently i.e. any excuse to frustrate and delay will be employed by them. They will want sight of all construction related documentation and I believe will want to be satisfied that "real" builders are appointed.

    Putting crystal ball away now.


  • #71
    daver123
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 208 ✭✭daver123


    cikearney wrote: »
    Any updates on this possibility, as a qualified trades man with building experience and contacts of up to spec trades men

    You will need to send in a commencement notice to your LA prior to starting to build and on this notice you will need to specify who the builder / contractor is.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,830 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    daver123 wrote: »
    You will need to send in a commencement notice to your LA prior to starting to build and on this notice you will need to specify who the builder / contractor is.

    Thats got nothing to do with this thread

    You currently have to nominate persons on the existing commencement notice.

    This thread is about nominating a named contractor who will sign a certificate to say they built in accordance with regulations. Nothing to do wit commencemtent notices.


  • #73
    just do it
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,422 ✭✭✭just do it


    Crikey moses, on the surface appears stricter but in reality no extra checks or enforcement by an official authority. From the perspective of a prospective one-off self-builder I really don't give a sucra who signs what once I know it's built right. I don't see anything in this that improves the prospect of that whilst at the same time increasing the cost of the build.


  • #74
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    just do it wrote: »
    no extra checks or enforcement by an official authority

    Be very , very clear on this. In return for the imposition of LPT the consumer will receive less service from local authorities. Look closely at the wording of the forms you will have to sign as contained in the new regulation procedures

    You will sign to words that have the affect of saying "this is MY builder" and this is MY architect" and I am satisfied they are up to scratch. What attitude do you expect Local Authorities or any other state or financial services body to take if either let you down ?


  • #75
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    In other words the ministers response to the Pyrite crisis and apartment developments which are found to be not safe to live in ( remember we can't discuss actual cases here ) is to further DISTANCE the State from the citizen/consumer.


  • #76
    tootsy70
    Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭tootsy70


    daver123 wrote: »
    You will need to send in a commencement notice to your LA prior to starting to build and on this notice you will need to specify who the builder / contractor is.

    Does this mean you cant go the local tradesmen route, ie just use all trades instead of using a builder to look over the whole build. Im confused by all this because i work in construction and does this mean ill have to work under a builder now if i get work on a self build instead of just working for myself.


  • #77
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    One "builder" has to be named by the client and that builder then has to certify in writing - on a document lodged with the local authority for anyone to see and for all time - that the building is built to comply with regulations.

    What I am saying is we have to wait and see who can call themselves a builder to the satisfaction of local authorities , and to lenders of money.


  • #78
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    another potential issue associated with an insurance/ risk lead building regulation certification could be a reduction in 'green' building options - who is going to certify a straw-bale build or hemplime house ? and will we see an emergence of a type of client that offers their certifier a get-out of jail free card? ie 'I the client acknowledge the risk associated with building my house out of cob and will not hold my certifier of complaince liable if the gaff leaks'


  • #79
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,830 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    BryanF wrote: »
    another potential issue associated with an insurance/ risk lead building regulation certification could be a reduction in 'green' building options - who is going to certify a straw-bale build or hemplime house ? and will we see an emergence of a type of client that offers their certifier a get-out of jail free card? ie 'I the client acknowledge the risk associated with building my house out of cob and will not hold my certifier of complaince liable if the gaff leaks'

    im not sure how that would stand up .... the client would have to indemnify the certifier AND the builder ...


  • #80
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    im not sure how that would stand up .... the client would have to indemnify the certifier AND the builder ...
    ill retract that beauty:pac:

    what i'm really wondering is between the new EN standards required for building materials and the BCA regs 13 - will this see an end to experimental building practices? or to put it another way, will the PI insurers dictate what is acceptable building practices?


  • #81
    woodoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,219 ✭✭✭woodoo


    It sounds like a farce in the making. Why can't we just look to other EU countries and find one that does it really well and copy them. IMO we definitely need the authorities coming along like in the UK to ensure regulations are being complied with during the build. The the client, architect and the authorities will be on the same page.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    woodoo wrote: »
    It sounds like a farce in the making. Why can't we just look to other EU countries and find one that does it really well and copy them. IMO we definitely need the authorities coming along like in the UK to ensure regulations are being complied with during the build. The the client, architect and the authorities will be on the same page.
    to late, this is happening


  • #83
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,830 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    sinnerboy wrote: »
    One "builder" has to be named by the client and that builder then has to certify in writing - on a document lodged with the local authority for anyone to see and for all time - that the building is built to comply with regulations.

    What I am saying is we have to wait and see who can call themselves a builder to the satisfaction of local authorities , and to lenders of money.

    Just as a continuation to this.
    the reading of the ' undertaking by builder' is quite clear in that it stats that it is to be signed by ' a principle or director of a building company'. So bringing that to it's logical conclusion it would read that direct labour builds are out completely. The only acceptable engagement is to use a registered company and the only way a direct labour build can occur is if the client sets up a limited company for the duration of the build.... Is that worth doing with the headaches it entails,bookkeeping etc?

    Has any prospective self builder researched this ?


  • #84
    tootsy70
    Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭tootsy70


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    The only acceptable engagement is to use a registered company and the only way a direct labour build can occur is if the client sets up a limited company for the duration of the build.... Is that worth doing with the headaches it entails,bookkeeping etc?

    Has any prospective self builder researched this ?


    What is the process of setting up such a company and is there any costs to it


  • #85
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,830 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    tootsy70 wrote: »
    What is the process of setting up such a company and is there any costs to it

    Haven't a clue, you wouldn't have to get limited, but you'd have to get vat registered at least I would think.


  • #86
    tootsy70
    Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭tootsy70


    Went over this thread again and just ended up having a good laugh at these new regs. The irish sure are a bunch of thick ****ers, well the people who run the country anyway. The simplest decision to make would to follow the UK process where everything gets finished properly, here in ireland everything gets complicated even more!


  • #87
    No6
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,489 ✭✭✭No6


    If you control things as in the UK then some of the liability for errors will pass to the local authority, that is why we have the new system here, It was written by the department of enviornment who control the local authorities and therefore the building control side of things and who would ultimately therefore become partly liable fo building control errors if they had a UK style system so instead they passed the buck completely to the private sector. Its a classic piece of legislation when viewed from the avoid any and all responsibility for anything perspective of the public service. The reality will however be a complete and utter disaster IMO!!!:eek:


  • #88
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    Local Authorities have always feared exercising the powers they have to enforce building standards and this new legislation enables them to duck that responsibility even more so than before.


  • #89
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,830 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    tootsy70 wrote: »
    Went over this thread again and just ended up having a good laugh at these new regs. The irish sure are a bunch of thick ****ers, well the people who run the country anyway. The simplest decision to make would to follow the UK process where everything gets finished properly, here in ireland everything gets complicated even more!

    as no 6 says.... its a complete pontius pilate-like washing of hands here.

    the national consumer agency suggested two systems
    one truly self certification, the other wholly Local Authority inspections.

    The cival servants who drafted this legislation decided, under the cloud of pyrite, priory hall and future debacles, that the less liability held by government the better, therefore they steered well clear of the 100% inspection choice. They have chosen to mirror the Scottish self certification system.

    this document gives you a good idea of the different systems available throughout Europe.
    Its interesting and very damning how inept our current system is.
    Refer to the Scottish system on pages on 60 - 61.... its by no means perfect.
    also refer to table on page 11 to show who is authorised to confirm self certification in different countries, we will be going from no restriction to most probably the most restrictive regulation in one fell swoop. And thats in a country with NO restriction as to the "qualification" of a builder.
    So we will have a highly restricted list of people "certifying" the work of persons who need no qualification to carry out their duties... hummmmm


  • #90
    dathi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭dathi


    http://cif.ie/training-development/cif-fetac-level-6-building-regulations-programme/ wonder will this be the minimum qualification to call your self a builder ?:D


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,150 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    dathi wrote: »
    http://cif.ie/training-development/cif-fetac-level-6-building-regulations-programme/ wonder will this be the minimum qualification to call your self a builder ?:D

    That course should be compulsory for all builders!


  • #92
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,830 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    DOCARCH wrote: »
    That course should be compulsory for all builders!

    Are you going to learn much in 10 days?


  • #93
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,150 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Are you going to learn much in 10 days?

    10 days learning is better than 0 days learning! :)


  • #94
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,830 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    DOCARCH wrote: »
    10 days learning is better than 0 days learning! :)

    agreed, and probably acceptable on top of previous structured learning.

    however 10 days learning from scratch does not a builder make.


  • #95
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,150 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    agreed, and probably acceptable on top of previous structured learning.

    however 10 days learning from scratch does not a builder make.

    I suppose what I was getting at is that many building contractors working today have 0 days of any form of structured learning!

    Some building contractors may be coming from a specific trade backgorund/have 'served their time' in a trade, e.g. carpentry, but many do not even have that background.


  • #96
    hexosan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭hexosan


    I see this got a mention on the consumer show on rte the other night, minister hogan basically stated it was going to solve all of Ireland's problems. When asked why not go down the full inspection route his reply was people were paying arch's, engineers & builders to do a job so it was up to these professional to do their job properly and with in the regulations.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    AnarchistKen
    Registered Users Posts: 129 ✭✭AnarchistKen


    hexosan wrote: »
    I see this got a mention on the consumer show on rte the other night, minister hogan basically stated it was going to solve all of Ireland's problems. When asked why not go down the full inspection route his reply was people were paying arch's, engineers & builders to do a job so it was up to these professional to do their job properly and with in the regulations.

    I watched the same programme and could almost see Hogan throwing the curveball into the private sector.

    I also got a sense that any certifier who makes a balls of an inspection whereby a defect (latent or otherwise) is not spotted and is detrimental to the build will be hung out to dry.

    Rightly so you might think but even professional building surveyors might miss something and be hit with massive negligence suits. I wouldn't be signing anything risky like one of those Certs even if my mother was the builder!


  • #98
    tootsy70
    Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭tootsy70


    Would these new amendments only apply to buildings built after the starting date of this bill.


  • #99
    Supertech
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 597 ✭✭✭Supertech


    tootsy70 wrote: »
    Would these new amendments only apply to buildings built after the starting date of this bill.

    Buildings commenced after 1st March 2014. However, anything in planning from December of this year at the latest, and probably from now could feasibly fall under the scope of the Design Cert.


  • #100
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,830 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    I wonder what all the RIAITECH members think of the fleeting reference to technicians in this document from the president of RIAI to its members???

    are they happy that this amounts to "representation"??


  • #101
    sinnerboy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,433 ✭✭✭sinnerboy


    More to the point what will the consumer think when they discover that they must hire only RIAI Architects - not Technicians ? Like with the old toll booths on the M50 consumers are being bottlenecked here.

    But to answer your query any Technician that continues to pay membership fees to an institute that acts to undermine him/her is a damned fool.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement