New Building Control Regs

The Certifier - in most cases will be the architect

Edit

The Certifiers PI provider

RITwing wrote: »

The Certifier - in most cases will be the architect

But who does the buck stop with, as he'll just find a way to blame the contractor or the quarry when something goes wrong. Insurance companies might charge a lot of money, but they don't pay out for the craic.

With respect you need to read back through this thread.
In short - no he cannot.

RITwing wrote: »

With respect you need to read back through this thread.
In short - no he cannot.

So because you can't answer why or how in your post, I must read 15 pages ?
I don't think so.

galwaytt

Ralphdejones wrote: »

So because you can't answer why or how in your post, I must read 15 pages ?
I don't think so.

With respect, RITwing has distilled the 15 pages into post #212 and again in #214.

The answer you're looking for is this: The Certifier.

Unless they change the law that came in in March, it's that simple.

galwaytt wrote: »

With respect, RITwing has distilled the 15 pages into post #212 and again in #214.

The answer you're looking for is this: The Certifier.

Unless they change the law that came in in March, it's that simple.

He has not "distilled" anything, that's the whole point. People are not stupid.
The fob off answer doesn't really do it for me. A simple paragraph would do.

Why is it the certifier and what prevents him from saying can "it's the contractor, he didn't do x" or its the quarry "they didn't test for pyrite" or its the engineer "he didn't spot y"

galwaytt

Ralphdejones wrote: »

He has not "distilled" anything, that's the whole point. People are not stupid.
The fob off answer doesn't really do it for me. A simple paragraph would do.

Why is it the certifier and what prevents him from saying can "it's the contractor, he didn't do x" or its the quarry "they didn't test for pyrite" or its the engineer "he didn't spot y"

It's not a fob off: it is The Answer. Which is, that the law doesn't allow him to "fob it off" as you say. The new law makes him - and is PI - wholly responsible. For everything.

....and that's why there's 15 pages in this thread, and 100's in others on the same subject: it's a mess.

Meantime, the law stands as-is.

galwaytt wrote: »

It's not a fob off: it is The Answer. Which is, that the law doesn't allow him to "fob it off" as you say. The new law makes him - and is PI - wholly responsible. For everything.

....and that's why there's 15 pages in this thread, and 100's in others on the same subject: it's a mess.

Meantime, the law stands as-is.

I'm afraid it is, my first post and question is what's to stop them, you've already admitted its a mess.

We were also led to believe in the past the certifier was wholly responsible, and fobbed off the same way.

If it's only the certifier that is "wholly responsible", why are all the other parties required to sign undertakings ? PI insurance companies are not stupid.

See post 190.

galwaytt

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I'm afraid it is, my first post and question is what's to stop them, you've already admitted its a mess. S.I. 9 commits the Certifier to whole responsibility

We were also led to believe in the past the certifier was wholly responsible, and fobbed off the same way. No you weren't - show me an example. I believe the key word you'll find is 'substantially' (in compliance...)

If it's only the certifier that is "wholly responsible", why are all the other parties required to sign undertakings ? PI insurance companies are not stupid. It doesn't commit them to be responsible, merely that the Certifier satisfies himself (via Certs)

In red.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I'm afraid it is, my first post and question is what's to stop them

SI 9 2014

RITwing wrote: »

See post 190.

So in otherwords the AC just folds his ltd. company and everyone can swing.

You got it in one , in essence.
Consumers are not protected Minister Hogan lied to you.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

So in otherwords the AC just folds his ltd. company and everyone can swing.

AC is unlikely to BE a limited company.

RITwing wrote: »

You got it in one , in essence.
Consumers are not protected Minister Hogan lied to you.

So now we're starting to get the real answers

miss no stars wrote: »

AC is unlikely to BE a limited company.

Most of the ones I've seen certainly are. They'd be a bit stupid not to be in this day and age.

miss no stars wrote: »

AC is unlikely to BE a limited company.

This is where architects are so wrong in the handling of SI 9.
If architects were were being hung every hour on the hour they (consumers) would not care.
Consumers , naturally , are self interested.

The RIAI have dined with the devil in the person of Hogan to gain "an advantage" shafting AT's in the process.

They will reap a whirlwind.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Most of the ones I've seen certainly are. They'd be a bit stupid not to be in this day and age.

SI 9 2014 again - a Certifier can not be.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Most of the ones I've seen certainly are. They'd be a bit stupid not to be in this day and age.

I disagree entirely. A professional - to keep their status - must show continuity of practice. Not so immune as builders who will just fold.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

So now we're starting to get the real answers

Ask better questions

RITwing wrote: »

Ask better questions

I already did, the fob off's don't work.

miss no stars wrote: »

I disagree entirely. A professional - to keep their status - must show continuity of practice. Not so immune as builders who will just fold.

A professional and their status ? don't make me laugh

So what are you still confused about?

Ralphdejones wrote: »

A professional and their status ? don't make me laugh

Eh, yes actually. An engineer who's acting as AC will do so under the EI number. Not under a limited company. If they want to keep their chartership they kinda have to... Keep their chartership :eek:

miss no stars wrote: »

Eh, yes actually. An engineer who's acting as AC will do so under the EI number. Not under a limited company. If they want to keep their chartership they kinda have to... Keep their chartership :eek:

Rubbish, they can become employees of their ltd. company which is the legal entity. You might as well claim people can go after an individual builder, even if it's a limited company.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Rubbish, they can become employees of their ltd. company which is the legal entity. You might as well claim people can go after an individual builder, even if it's a limited company.

Yes, but the company doesn't have an engineer's ireland number, which is what is required on the CN, assignment of AC and undertaking by the AC. Making it quite clear that it's the individual that is acting as the AC.

miss no stars wrote: »

Yes, but the company doesn't have an engineer's ireland number, which is what is required on the CN, assignment of AC and undertaking by the AC. Making it quite clear that it's the individual that is acting as the AC.

An ID number is just that.
An employee cannot be held liable for a ltd. company's liabilty. This is very basic stuff.

Have a look at the assignment of certifier and the language used:

As the building owner, I have assigned the following person as Assigned Certifier, being a
person named on a register maintained pursuant to Part 3 or Part 5 of the Building Control
Act 2007 or Section 7 of the Institution of Civil Engineers of Ireland (Charter Amendment)
Act 1969

Now, that they fcuked up on the ICEI bit is a touch embarrassing for them, but the language is quite clear that the AC is acting as a person, not as an organization.

miss no stars wrote: »

Have a look at the assignment of certifier and the language used:

Now, that they fcuked up on the ICEI bit is a touch embarrassing for them, but the language is quite clear that the AC is acting as a person, not as an organization.

A ltd. company is a legal person, again this is basic stuff.

At any rate, what you're all really claiming is that the engineer is now responsible, no matter what mistakes or cover ups the quarry, architect, designer and contractor make.
That fantasy is not going to stand up in real life anywhere I'm afraid.

Basically we're back to the situation where the lads that will sign anything will get work, and the lads that won't, won't. This has hardly been a recipe for success in the Irish 'construction' industry.