[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Regulations will come into effect on March 1st 2014 and the Code of Practice to accompany them will, we understand be published by the Department in the coming months.
4Sticks wrote: » Yes. And one could renovate much larger existing areas too. Another flaw in the regs imo . There is plenty of scope to undertake significant works here which ought to be included in the scope of the regulations.
newbie2013 wrote: » ??
Chisler2 wrote: » If any other occupational group - for example the farmers, the teachers - was being hobbled and hamstrung by proposed new government legislation there would be organised, high-profile protest. Where is the opposition? Surely the building industry has the benefit of closely-interwoven networks of trades?
kkelliher wrote: » I can only speak for the scsi which is generally the most useless representative body around.
cosatron wrote: » Are the SCSI any good at all. Thinking off joining with an APC in building control. I'm an AT so I was hoping to use the SCSI as my route to certifying
4Sticks wrote: » Anyone who maybe so kind as to post here if PI cover has been made available at reasonable cost to cover the increased risks to certifiers ?
sydthebeat wrote: » No one knows how to price for these jobs, no one knows how to even word a tender package properly.
DOCARCH wrote: » Logic would say that implementation has to (must) be postponed.
archtech wrote: » The Minister's Private Secretary advised as late as last week that the Department are still on course to implement the regulations on March 1st.
DOCARCH wrote: » I suppose...you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs...:rolleyes:
con1982 wrote: » Are Designers the eggs in your metaphor?
kceire wrote: » i have been told by inner circles, that the amendment is also still on course to be implemented on March 1st.
sydthebeat wrote: » it will be implemented alright, its just the industry wont be in a position to amalgamate to it straight away ... another case of "its alright jack" the COP and wording of certs and the actual amendment should have been set in stone at least 6 months ago.
sydthebeat wrote: » They can invalidate the CN? Lol that will make for great arguments over the counter. The building control section in my la wouldn't know a building reg from a title block
But if we inspect a site and it has already substainially commenced, then theres nothing that can be done - invalidation.
jkell061 wrote: » it was mentioned earlier that the certificate of compliance (design) does not necessarily need to be the assigned certifier. I don't think it states that it MUST be. what is the case here?
Supertech wrote: » How is that rectified in terms of the Commencement Notice ? Are works suspended pending lodgement of a revised notice and then recommenced on the appropriate date ?
kceire wrote: » Yes, and its quite common believe it or not. We mainly invalidate them for starting works early. Mistakes etc can be rectified by phone and email, ie the admin team will call you and say "you put the wrong date in" or "wrong number" etc. They will then accept an email confirming the correct details and edit the form in house. But if we inspect a site and it has already substainially commenced, then theres nothing that can be done - invalidation.
sydthebeat wrote: » ive never had a CN invlidated
sydthebeat wrote: » must be different rules for different LAs ive never had a CN invlidatedive sent in CNs for builds that were finished months earlier.
4Sticks wrote: » I have
sydthebeat wrote: » no they can be different, once registered.
jkell061 wrote: » thanks syd, and this may be a stupid question, but say for a house, and the certificate of completion is made invalid for some reason due to the building not conforming to regs, what then happens the house? it then must sit idle until further works are done until it complies?
