[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.
Hairy mellon wrote: » yes BMCS has no security protocol: users could upload details of others for their buildings etc. No checks of Designer, Builder or Assigned Certifier on #BCMS | BRegs Bloghttp://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/no-checks-of-designer-builder-or-assigned-certifier-on-bcms/
4Sticks wrote: » I think I'll go on and register as an architect ( only joking no one would ever,ever,ever do that )
youwhoglue wrote: » A little birdy just told me the DoE is not happy with Hogan. Watch this space for all public buildings with planning but not commenced. :eek:
4Sticks wrote: » Nobody wants to sign as owner I bet
Hairy mellon wrote: » Kilkenny Journal: THE BAD NEWS: Up to 50,000 extra to build your house! BC(A)R SI.9 | BRegs Bloghttp://bregsforum.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/kilkenny-herald-the-bad-news-up-to-50000-extra-to-build-your-house-bcar-si-9/
Levy cuts to help hard-working people build their own home From today (24 February 2014) self-builders will be exempt from paying a levy which until now was placed on most new buildings over a certain sizehttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/levy-cuts-to-help-hard-working-people-build-their-own-home.
“ but there must be a significant prospect that, at the very least, insurance companies will wish to reflect the increased risk for certifiers in the premium paid. Whether those premiums will be affordable by certifiers is another matter. One suspects that the proposed new system relies upon the certifier having professional indemnity insurance. If such insurance is not available to the certifier at acceptable rates, the rationale for the new regime will be entirely undermined.”
4Sticks wrote: » now where have we read speculation like that before ?
“ but there must be a significant prospect that, at the very least, insurance companies will wish to reflect the increased risk for certifiers in the premium paid.
Whether those premiums will be affordable by certifiers is another matter.
One suspects that the proposed new system relies upon the certifier having professional indemnity insurance. If such insurance is not available to the certifier at acceptable rates, the rationale for the new regime will be entirely undermined.”
Hairy mellon wrote: » probably previous senior council advice... in fairness a lot of people have been saying this for a long time difference now is a senior council is confirming insurance problems
martinn123 wrote: » Until someone posts some actual Premium Increases, this is just more speculation.
4Sticks wrote: » And your expectation is premiums will ....... ?
Hairy mellon wrote: » please explain? exemption from si9 perhaps?
sydthebeat wrote: » Id imagine it means re tenders
strongback wrote: » I got wind last week there is a bit of panic around commencement notices on public projects. Could be a potential quagmire.