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

Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Options
1…2829313334…53

Comments

  • Options
    #902
    mandy gall
    Registered Users Posts: 115 ✭✭mandy gall


    There is no 'trade' as a builder- no school for builders. Anyone can set up a building company and hire the trades in. Self builders,too, have the right to hire these trades in. These regs are just so contradictory that they are set to fail.


  • Options
    #903
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    That is more of a political point you are making which I am sure many would agree with.

    It may well be...but I believe it to be true.

    If 'they' really wanted to protect the consumer, truly, they would have gone about this in a completely different manner.

    There was a perfectly good Building Control Act in place...just not used and/or enforced properly.

    Small measures/tweaking of the existing Act could have made a huge difference.


  • Options
    #904
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    mandy gall wrote: »
    There is no 'trade' as a builder- no school for builders. Anyone can set up a building company and hire the trades in. Self builders,too, have the right to hire these trades in. These regs are just so contradictory that they are set to fail.

    You need to refer to the CIRI website to try and get a better understanding of the role you are incorrectly summarising in quote.


  • Options
    #905
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    DOCARCH wrote: »
    It may well be...but I believe it to be true.

    If 'they' really wanted to protect the consumer, truly, they would have gone about this in a completely different manner.

    There was a perfectly good Building Control Act in place...just not used and/or enforced properly.

    Small measures/tweaking of the existing Act could have made a huge difference.

    Most alternatives to this would have involved extra costs on government resources. For example a system similar to the UK would require extra resources which just aren't there, no matter how little it would have cost. The extra costs on the taxpayer from a change like that would also have kept Joe Duffy's phone busy.


  • Options
    #906
    mandy gall
    Registered Users Posts: 115 ✭✭mandy gall


    Have checked the ciri website throughly and still dont see the school for builders. Just experience, tax compliant etc...are the requirements for registration. Check code of practice it says those listed on the ciri MAY be competent not they DEFINITELY are competent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #907
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    mandy gall wrote: »
    Have checked the ciri website throughly and still dont see the school for builders. Just experience, tax compliant etc...are the requirements for registration. Check code of practice it says those listed on the ciri MAY be competent not they DEFINITELY are competent.
    I'm sorry- I don't see what point you are making???


  • Options
    #908
    4Sticks
    Registered Users Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    With respect that is not the aim of the regulations-

    How naive . The express purpose of the regs is to protect the state. Be gone with with your pyrite infected houses and fire trap apartments now.


  • Options
    #909
    4Sticks
    Registered Users Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Most alternatives to this would have involved extra costs on government resources. For example a system similar to the UK would require extra resources which just aren't there, no matter how little it would have cost.

    No extra costs had to accrue to the state.

    Like the BER system an BC system could be set up to "wash it's own face" . Set up "training" , registration, annual licence fee for individuals to practice as BCO's would be income strand 1. Then charge a m2/fee for all developments from applicants and voila - income strand 2.

    A BCO UK style regime works on the principle that they do not have to be omni present to catch all like Irish Certifiers will have to be. The point about the UK BCO is that s/he has real teeth - all know this - clients / architects / builders that you better do as they ask because they have and are prepared to use pretty draconian enforcement measures. The UK BCO is both effective and time efficient. I fear many Irish certifiers will spend much time affecting very little.


    As a practicing architect in the UK it was simply amazing when in a dispute with a builder to mutter " I wonder what building control would say ? " Brought the conversation to an ubrupt end every time.


  • Options
    #910
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    4Sticks wrote: »
    How naive . The express purpose of the regs is to protect the state. Be gone with with your pyrite infected houses and fire trap apartments now.

    Do you think the current system is a better situation to the proposed one?


  • Options
    #911
    Poor Uncle Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Do you think the current system is a better situation to the proposed one?

    Regardless of the current system the 'proposed' one is a complete knee jerk reaction and evidence of a wasted opportunity, resulting in very poorly introduced legislation.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #912
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    4Sticks wrote: »
    No extra costs had to accrue to the state.

    Like the BER system an BC system could be set up to "wash it's own face" . Set up "training" , registration, annual licence fee for individuals to practice as BCO's would be income strand 1. Then charge a m2/fee for all developments from applicants and voila - income strand 2.
    .
    lol. Do you realise the similarities between your suggestion and the Ministers current legislation (which you are criticising)
    ""training" , registration, annual licence fee for individuals to practice " maybe call them certifiers?


  • Options
    #913
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Originally Posted by jonniebgood1

    Do you think the current system is a better situation to the proposed one?
    Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »
    Regardless of the current system the 'proposed' one is a complete knee jerk reaction and evidence of a wasted opportunity, resulting in very poorly introduced legislation.

    Ah Tom- that was a politicians (non) answer to the question!!!


  • Options
    #914
    Poor Uncle Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Ah Tom- that was a politicians (non) answer to the question!!!

    :).....as is your avoidance of the point I made....


  • Options
    #915
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,249 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    lol. Do you realise the similarities between your suggestion and the Ministers current legislation (which you are criticising)
    ""training" , registration, annual licence fee for individuals to practice " maybe call them certifiers?

    If you cannot see the difference between a system where those with the responsibility have the power, compared to SI 9 where those that have the responsibility have none of the power. ... then I'm afraid you haven't grasped the regs at all.


  • Options
    #916
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    If you cannot see the difference between a system where those with the responsibility have the power, compared to SI 9 where those that have the responsibility have none of the power. ... then I'm afraid you haven't grasped the regs at all.

    I highlighted the similarities, not the differences. Clearly.


  • Options
    #917
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »
    Regardless of the current system the 'proposed' one is a complete knee jerk reaction and evidence of a wasted opportunity, resulting in very poorly introduced legislation.
    Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »
    :).....as is your avoidance of the point I made....

    Fair cop- I agree completely with your first point. This smells of a missed opportunity and I fear it will be watered down even more in the coming months as 'guidelines' interpret the legislation in the least confrontational manner possible in view of upcoming elections. It doesn't mean that the old system is better though, so:

    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Do you think the current system is a better situation to the proposed one?


  • Options
    #918
    DOCARCH
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭DOCARCH


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Do you think the current system is a better situation to the proposed one?

    The current system could work fine (better than the proposed system)...if...the 1990 Building Control Act was implemented as written/as intended.


  • Options
    #919
    Poor Uncle Tom
    Registered Users Posts: 14,547 ✭✭✭✭Poor Uncle Tom


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Fair cop- I agree completely with your first point. This smells of a missed opportunity and I fear it will be watered down even more in the coming months as 'guidelines' interpret the legislation in the least confrontational manner possible in view of upcoming elections. It doesn't mean that the old system is better though, so:
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Do you think the current system is a better situation to the proposed one?

    I believe they are both unfit for purpose and serve the wrong element in the equation. I believe the 'old' system is seriously due a complete overhaul, but I don't see the 'new' system as being in any way that overhaul.

    Rather than being watered down I think there will be a complete softly softly approach to the new Act until the local elections are done with. In any event, any job where the commencement notice is lodged on or after 1st March is unlikely to be completed before the local elections and I see most problems at the completion stage. If forms are found to be filled wrongly or have incorrect information, there may not be any completion certificate and no means of getting one retrospectively.

    What will that mean for property sales?


  • Options
    #920
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    DOCARCH wrote: »
    The current system could work fine (better than the proposed system)...if...the 1990 Building Control Act was implemented as written/as intended.
    Essentially the implementation of the 1990 act is what the proposed measures involving certifiers and a registration of builders seem to be aimed at.

    Go into more detail on what you mean. What role of cross checking or insurability did the 1990 act envisage. And who was the proposed arbiter?


  • Options
    #921
    4Sticks
    Registered Users Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    lol. Do you realise the similarities between your suggestion and the Ministers current legislation (which you are criticising)
    ""training" , registration, annual licence fee for individuals to practice " maybe call them certifiers?

    SEAI charges assessors registration fees payable annually. So could a similar Building Control Authority of Ireland. An income stream to the state ( together with m2 based fees for applicants could mean that the system does not have to cost he state as you suggested it would.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #922
    4Sticks
    Registered Users Posts: 1,155 ✭✭✭4Sticks


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Essentially the implementation of the 1990 act is what the proposed measures involving certifiers and a registration of builders seem to be aimed at.

    No it is not.
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Go into more detail on what you mean. What role of cross checking or insurability did the 1990 act envisage. And who was the proposed arbiter?

    Why not educate yourself ?


  • Options
    #923
    BryanF
    Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators Posts: 10,140 Mod ✭✭✭✭BryanF


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I highlighted the similarities, not the differences. Clearly.
    No you didn't
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    Essentially the implementation of the 1990 act is what the proposed measures involving certifiers and a registration of builders seem to be aimed at.
    johnny what are you on about?


  • Options
    #924
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    Due to the late introduction of the final drafts of both the amendment and the code of practice the industry would appear to be not ready for SI.9. Delays that already have started happening in public and private sector projects (design team appointments etc) will create expensive delays and also pressurise an already difficult situation for many contractors. Incomplete and ill-conceived wording in the legislation may extend "untenable liability" on new roles and "vague and loose" language used in legislation may end up being proven in the courts. Various key stakeholders (for example the representative body for architects the RIAI) have made requests for SI.9 to be deferred on these and other grounds. Based on industry estimates the bottom line number of €600m equates to 6,000 jobs lost: the cost to the industry, government and taxpayer for 2014 . By 2020, in 6 years, SI.9 may cost the country close to €3bn, or 30,000 construction jobs.


  • Options
    #925
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    BC(A)R SI.9 discussion on joe duffy today

    http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_liveline.xml


  • Options
    #926
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    4Sticks wrote: »



    Why not educate yourself ?

    I asked docarch to elaborate on his point. I have no interest in engaging in bickering with you.


  • Options
    #927
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    BryanF wrote: »
    No you didn't
    johnny what are you on about?

    I think i did but opinion differs. My post suggested that both training and registration were similarities. I crossed out fees as I had referred to certifiers fulfilling the role proposed. I did not wish to elaborate as it was getting away from the thread subject.


  • Options
    #928
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    some serious implementation questions asked in this post!

    http://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/self-builder-confusion-bcar-si-9-2/

    At a CPD event attended by over 500 architects in the Aviva yesterday an RIAI speaker confirmed that under the Code of Practice definition self-bulding would no longer be possible after 1st March 2014.

    This view supports the recent legal opinion received by the IASOB. No more self-building in 5 days.


  • Options
    #929
    Andrew_Doran
    Registered Users Posts: 227 ✭✭Andrew_Doran


    Hairy mellon wrote: »
    unfortunately no one has debated concerns of consumers. At the end of the day all professionals risks center on professional indemnity insurances. For consumers and self-builders, their houses are on the line.

    Industry issues aside, the home is a central part of the human experience, hell even the animal experience. For something so fundamental in life to to be handled in such a rushed and ignorant way by the law makers is.. jaw dropping.


  • Options
    #930
    Hairy mellon
    Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭Hairy mellon


    Andrew_Doran wrote: »
    Industry issues aside, the home is a central part of the human experience, hell even the animal experience. For something so fundamental in life to to be handled in such a rushed and ignorant way by the law makers is.. jaw dropping.

    Agreed


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #931
    jiminho
    Registered Users Posts: 390 ✭✭jiminho


    Woho, this thread has come along the last month. I've tbh only really flicked thru the regulations and my first thought of them is that they aren't very definitive and almost seem like a work in progress.

    Quick qs tho. I'm a civil engineer, is there anything stopping me from designing, certifying and subcontracting my one off home? Certifying is the tricky part I guess but do these three items need to be completed by a third party? What's stopping me from getting certified in the different denominations like a BER assessor. I see the big one and that is to hire a competent builder (with at least 3 years experience). My goal in life has always been to build my own home with me being heavily involved in the process, i.e being contractor and PM, buying own materials, etc. These regulations seem to suck the fun out of it. Is there any leeway for certain professions? I mean I do this for a living after all.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement