Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Local Authorities
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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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'

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 ...

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?

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.

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

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 ?

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

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.

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!

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:

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.