W123-80's wrote: » So if I am happy, the engineer is happy, the paperwork is filled, what is the problem?
W123-80's wrote: » It appears to be one big legal mumbo jumbo mess.
DOCARCH wrote: » Problem is that you have to sign a statutory/legal document that you are the principal or director of a building company. Have a look here: http://www.iaosb.com/the_two_main_problems_that_self_builders_are_facing_following_the_commencement_of_%20s.i_9_on_1st_of_march_2014.html Sounds like you have 'Problem 2' solved...so fair play on that front (and to your willing engineer).
W123-80's wrote: » ...what is the problem?
kkelliher wrote: » gents lets keep it nice and on topic and not get into unnecessary heated argument or the thread will close
ronnick wrote: » I can confirm that! and I did. You can until some date in 2015. I'd check your source because you obviously don't know what you are on about even though you like to think you do. go to bed early tonight I'd say
sydthebeat wrote: » you cannot confirm that. legal advise to the contrary is available.
ronnick wrote: » who got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning? in actual fact I think it is you who have missed the whole point! If you read the thread from the start you will see that I confirmed that you can actually nominate yourself as the builder which another person queried. I didn't say that I was nominating myself. I stated in another thread that there are benefits for appointing a MC.
sydthebeat wrote: » well when you sign the builders certificate, nomimating yourself as the builder, and state your the principle of a building company.... you ARE assuming your a building contractor..... or have you missed the whole point ???
ronnick wrote: » I'm not a building contractor. You don't have to be a building contractor to be involved in the construction of dwellings from start to finish. What did I assume?
sydthebeat wrote: » unless you are a building contractor, dont claim to be something your not, and dont assume things. youve already inferred that your not a contractor. and yes, decisions are made on a daily basis on a building site which have knock on effects.
ronnick wrote: » I'm not questioning anyone else's experience here so DONT question mine! I know all about coordination between the trades as I do it on a daily basis. You must be building very complicated houses that you need to make site specific decisions on a daily basis.
sydthebeat wrote: » in a lot of cases, there is more co-ordination of trades in a two storey one off dwelling than there is in a modular 44 apartment block. Apartment blocks are simple repetition. one off dwellings need site specific decisions to be made daily, with the resultant knock on effects to be considered. if you believe house building is not difficult, then you do not have sufficient experience.
ronnick wrote: » Its only a two storey house and not a 44 storey apartment block!
ronnick wrote: » Johnnyhpipe wrote: » Johnnyhpipe if the architect goes burst then he is still personally liable and the court can go after his personal assists! only if he is a sole trader. you will find most are now companies and therefore its unlikely there would be anything to go after.
Johnnyhpipe wrote: » Johnnyhpipe if the architect goes burst then he is still personally liable and the court can go after his personal assists!
4Sticks wrote: » True Drift but to ronnick who is positing that there will simply be him as self builder and the architect , I was asking him to reflect on that. ( in terms of certification it will only be him and the architect) I am not knocking ronnick here or anyone else. Just trying to draw attention to one vital thing - the govt have set citizen against citizen here with this new legislation. In future when faced with new pyrites / Priory Hall hogans new law simply make it much easier for the state not to invlolve itself.
Johnnyhpipe wrote: » ronnick wrote: » kkelliher and byran f - since ye are the experts answer this scenario for us all please - I decide to go down the MC route and appoint one. The MC comes to me and says hey we have an in-house assigned certifier and we can look after that for you also. Sounds good. The builder takes some short cuts during the build and neither the architect or I notice these and they are covered up. Job complete and a year later we pay the retention to the MC and the following week the MC goes /quote] I recall a UK case in the past where there was a competent main contractor, competent subbies, an architect, civil/struct eng and mechanical eng. There were problems with the M&E side of things after a year or so and in the meantime the contractor, the M&E subbie, the architect and M&E engineer went bust. The client took it to court and the judge decided that the civil/struct engineer's insurance should foot the bill because he's the only remaining member of the design team left standing, he has insurance and the client should not be put out of pocket.. I don't expect that any judge would have the same sympathy for someone who takes a fundamental shortcut by appointing themselves as the main contractor... Johnnyhpipe if the architect goes burst then he is still personally liable and the court can go after his personal assists!
ronnick wrote: » kkelliher and byran f - since ye are the experts answer this scenario for us all please - I decide to go down the MC route and appoint one. The MC comes to me and says hey we have an in-house assigned certifier and we can look after that for you also. Sounds good. The builder takes some short cuts during the build and neither the architect or I notice these and they are covered up. Job complete and a year later we pay the retention to the MC and the following week the MC goes /quote] I recall a UK case in the past where there was a competent main contractor, competent subbies, an architect, civil/struct eng and mechanical eng. There were problems with the M&E side of things after a year or so and in the meantime the contractor, the M&E subbie, the architect and M&E engineer went bust. The client took it to court and the judge decided that the civil/struct engineer's insurance should foot the bill because he's the only remaining member of the design team left standing, he has insurance and the client should not be put out of pocket.. I don't expect that any judge would have the same sympathy for someone who takes a fundamental shortcut by appointing themselves as the main contractor...
4Sticks wrote: » Only superficailly. Without a warranty fund for consumers to access in compensation they only get to bankrupt others whilst in all probability not even obtaining adequate compensation for themselves
Drift wrote: » It's a very "pro-consumer" approach
4Sticks wrote: » In future when faced with new pyrites / Priory Hall hogans new law simply make it much easier for the state not to invlolve itself.
4Sticks wrote: » Who will the new guy sue ?
Johnnyhpipe wrote: » I recall a UK case in the past where there was a competent main contractor, competent subbies, an architect, civil/struct eng and mechanical eng. There were problems with the M&E side of things after a year or so and in the meantime the contractor, the M&E subbie, the architect and M&E engineer went bust. The client took it to court and the judge decided that the civil/struct engineer's insurance should foot the bill because he's the only remaining member of the design team left standing, he has insurance and the client should not be put out of pocket..
ronnick wrote: » Why do I need to set up a limited company? Yes my architect is willing to sign off the work. As part of the assigned certifier he has to make numerous visits to site to view the work. I have a construction back ground. If I go down the self build route I will be hiring competent subcontractors to carry out the work.
ronnick wrote: » I decide to go down the MC route and appoint one. The MC comes to me and says hey we have an in-house assigned certifier and we can look after that for you also. Sounds good. The builder takes some short cuts during the build and neither the architect or I notice these and they are covered up. Job complete and a year later we pay the retention to the MC and the following week the MC goes burst. Then the problems with the house start to arise. Who's insurance do I claim off??
