Longboat quay- Another priory hall

EnergyBlaster · 30-09-2015 7:49pm

Uncle Ben wrote: »

I mentioned something similar a few years back in a semi d I was in. The blockwork only went up so far into the attic and if you stood on your toes you could see into the next doors attic. When I said it to the householder he said he had been told by the builder that it was to allow the attic to breathe! Furthermore, when the neighbours plugged in or out a plug or switched on the TV you could hear it in the adjoining house. These houses were built in 05 / 06.

Surely the banks checked out the assets they were backing.

You forgot a smiley

beauf · 30-09-2015 8:03pm

Valetta wrote: »

What do people do if they are buying a 100 year old house?

They rely on professionals and the authorities to regulate such professionals.

The fact is the consumer has less protection (in the real terms) on a house, than a kettle.

Eugene Norman · 30-09-2015 8:07pm

Valetta wrote: »

What do people do if they are buying a 100 year old house?

They inspect the house. Like if I'm buying an old car or an old phone. It's not the same for new stuff. Buyers have rights when they buy faulty cars, phones etc that are new . Of course that applies to new housing. Or it should.

tigerboon · 30-09-2015 8:09pm

Valetta wrote: »

What do people do if they are buying a 100 year old house?

You don't expect a 100 year old house to be built to current building regulations.

kenmc · 30-09-2015 8:20pm

tigerboon wrote: »

You don't expect a 100 year old house to be built to current building regulations.

of course not, you know it's sound as you can see that it's lasted 100 years. how many apts built in 2006 will be around in 2106?

seamus · 30-09-2015 8:32pm

mfceiling wrote: »

Working on a job yesterday. Popped open a few ceiling tiles (entire grid and tile being changed). Lo and be hold the block work only goes a few runs above the ceiling level. Same this morning in another office. Basically if a fire breaks out it will travel along the corridor taking out every office on the way!! It's been brought to the clients attention by us....They are mad to put it mildly.

My brother bought his house in 2001/2002. So there should be decent regulations underpinning the build. The front room was always cold. Like, freezing, even in summer. Eventually they got sick of this, a child had arrived, and they'd had a leak which damaged some plasterboard, so the room needed a repaint anyway.

So as he's a qualified tradesman and surveyor with plenty of experience behind him, he sets about adding some extra insulation or checking for draughts. He removes plasterboard from one section of the wall and finds that there's about half a metre of insulation. And that's it. Obviously the lads on site said, "We've run out of insulation, there'll be more in tomorrow." "Nah, **** it I'm not waiting around, hang that plasterboard and forget about it". The entire external wall of that room had nothing but 8mm of plasterboard and a brick wall between him and the outside. As he continued to remove the plasterboard, about a metre of the wall came away with it. ****ty mortar, might as well have been wet sand placed between the bricks.

Needless to say he was livid, but also worried about what the rest of the house looks like, even though he's been there 13 years.

I know houses in the 70s and 80s were built damn cheaply, but I've never heard of ones thrown up shoddily. They were built from cheap materials, and sometimes the measurements were a bit erratic, but the builders at least seem to have taken some pride in building solid houses.

Supercell · 30-09-2015 8:45pm

seamus wrote: »

I know houses in the 70s and 80s were built damn cheaply, but I've never heard of ones thrown up shoddily. They were built from cheap materials, and sometimes the measurements were a bit erratic, but the builders at least seem to have taken some pride in building solid houses.

I dunno Seamus, i'd say its a cultural thing to be honest.
My own house was built in 1982 with cavity block , wood battens and plasterboard attached to the battens..was E2 rated when we bought it and 10 minutes after the heating went off in winter you might as well have been sat outside. We've since brought it up to a C3 with a lot of expense but it's nothing like as efficient as my old man's self build in which he barely needs the heating on in all year round.

oppenheimer1 · 30-09-2015 8:51pm

seamus wrote: »

I know houses in the 70s and 80s were built damn cheaply, but I've never heard of ones thrown up shoddily. They were built from cheap materials, and sometimes the measurements were a bit erratic, but the builders at least seem to have taken some pride in building solid houses.

Sorry to contradict you Seamus, but the houses in the 80's were worse. I've read a study, and I can't remember the name of at the moment, that stated the high point for housing quality construction in Ireland was 1996.

zom · 30-09-2015 8:52pm

If big builders and developers are not taking their responsibility for billions of looses, why should small builders and contractors care?

StonyIron · 30-09-2015 8:54pm

Valetta wrote: »

What do people do if they are buying a 100 year old house?

Well, it's usually not bought off the plans.

Massimo Cassagrande · 30-09-2015 8:58pm

mfceiling wrote: »

Working on a job yesterday. Popped open a few ceiling tiles (entire grid and tile being changed). Lo and be hold the block work only goes a few runs above the ceiling level. Same this morning in another office. Basically if a fire breaks out it will travel along the corridor taking out every office on the way!! It's been brought to the clients attention by us....They are mad to put it mildly.

That's everywhere tbh. Nothing at all unusual. There are acre upon countless acre of buildings with sweet f-all in the way of proper fire proofing. I watched more engineers sign off on structures where they had no clue at all what was behind the paintwork/carpets/ceiling tiles.

"Double-fire slabbed?"
"Er, Yup."
"Grand...."

"Is there good strong bracing under that lads?"
"Er, Yup".
"Grand..."

Back into the merc, a few grand in the arse pocket and away to sign off the next job. I always kinda wondered "Fcuk me, their insurance is gonna get some hammering some day.." Seems I was wrong.

30-09-2015 9:07pm

Why are RTE news saying the Bernard McNamara had a good reputation. Why the fook would you say that and in the same breath state his buildings were "reasonably" built.?

Twice they mentioned his reputation!

Atlantic Dawn · 30-09-2015 9:07pm

Why don't the owners go down to Stephens Green and blockade all works on the building that McNamara Construction are working on until he pays up? Nothing annoys a multi millionaire more than people taking crumbs from his table.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/it-feels-like-2007-all-over-again-as-bernard-mcnamara-moves-on-site-1.1890436

30-09-2015 9:09pm

Because the company working at St Stephens Green is a completely different entity and has nothing to do with the company that built the apartments.

All in the eyes of the law, of course.

zom · 30-09-2015 9:14pm

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Why are RTE news saying the Bernard McNamara had a good reputation.

He paid them?

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Because the company working at St Stephens Green is a completely different entity and has nothing to do with the company that built the apartments.

All in the eyes of the law, of course.

Thanks God you can only steal this way, imagine if it would work with killing or raping!!

Dirty Dingus McGee · 30-09-2015 9:16pm

Supercell wrote: »

I feel sorry for them, but why should the government have to foot the bill, surely that's between the owners and the developers or Homebond if it exists for apartments?

Because a lack of regulation resulted in the buildings being allowed to be built below the necessary standards.

McGrath5 · 30-09-2015 9:19pm

One of my friends bought a house built around 2005/6, he noticed the ceiling around where the extractor fan in the en suite was starting to become discoloured. After getting up into the attic to check it out, it turns out the builder did not run a pipe up to the roof to a vent, they just covered the fan with insulation, scumbags!

kippy · 30-09-2015 9:21pm

Supercell wrote: »

I dunno Seamus, i'd say its a cultural thing to be honest.
My own house was built in 1982 with cavity block , wood battens and plasterboard attached to the battens..was E2 rated when we bought it and 10 minutes after the heating went off in winter you might as well have been sat outside. We've since brought it up to a C3 with a lot of expense but it's nothing like as efficient as my old man's self build in which he barely needs the heating on in all year round.

And people wonder why tradesmen and the building trade in general illicit so much mistrust from the general populace. I rarely hear yer man Parlon from the CFA discuss any of the issues brought up here.
Your aul man probably spent an awful lot of time on that build making sure everything was above board and did a damn sight better a job regulating whatever tradesmen were involved than the well paid and multilayered framework of groups that have let down thousands of home buyers over the years.

seamus · 30-09-2015 9:22pm

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Because a lack of regulation resulted in the buildings being allowed to be built below the necessary standards.

Actually enforcement was the issue, which means that it's not strictly the state's fault. That's not to say the state helped, but it's like saying that the state is liable for every burglary because it failed to enforce the law.

One thing that surprises me is that the developers, engineers and architects may be gone bust, but surely there were indemnity policies active at the time that could now be leaned on to claim against? Or maybe it's a statute of limitations thing.

Is there any chance criminal proceedings could be brought against someone for failure to meet the regs?

Wildlife Actor · 30-09-2015 9:23pm

It's nice the way the evil ones help one another out, DOB and Bernard. They'll have Michael Lynn back to do the conveyancing on their new building now.

Massimo Cassagrande · 30-09-2015 9:26pm

kippy wrote: »

And people wonder why tradesmen and the building trade in general illicit so much mistrust from the general populace. I rarely hear yer man Parlon from the CFA discuss any of the issues brought up here.
Your aul man probably spent an awful lot of time on that build making sure everything was above board and did a damn sight better a job regulating whatever tradesmen were involved than the well paid and multilayered framework of groups that have let down thousands of home buyers over the years.

The flipside is the well intentioned subbie who start on a job and go "lads, ye know we're gonna have to double-slab that ceiling with fireboard and insulate it to meet regs?" and get told - "It gets 1 layer of 12mm slab and paint, and if that doesn't suit, fcuk off and we'll get someone else to do it.."..and there's mouths to feed. That generally tends to be the case.

PolaroidPizza · 30-09-2015 9:27pm

Bulbous Salutation wrote: »

I'm not one of those 'blame everyone else for everything that goes wrong in my life' crew, but I do agree with this. There should be some sort of accountability for allowing developments like these to be built. Alas, the thinking during the era of Bertie was to just keep building and sort the problems out later.

if this was any other country where unions didn't run the country we would have the name of whoever signed off these permits, and that person would now be on the dole.
but instead, that person is sitting on a nice fat pension and looking forward to a nice increment at the end of the year.

P. Breathnach · 30-09-2015 9:31pm

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

if this was any other country where unions didn't run the country we would have the name of whoever signed off these permits, and that person would now be on the dole.
but instead, that person is sitting on a nice fat pension and looking forward to a nice increment at the end of the year.

So it's the doing of the trade union movement?

I never realised that.

PolaroidPizza · 30-09-2015 9:34pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So it's the doing of the trade union movement?

I never realised that.

give me another reason gross incompetence of this nature wouldn't lead to someone getting the sack?

P. Breathnach · 30-09-2015 11:46pm

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

give me another reason gross incompetence of this nature wouldn't lead to someone getting the sack?

Gross incompetence of what nature? You have envisaged a scenario of unionised workers signing off on building projects, and then being protected from suffering any consequence.

The problems under discussion involved self-certification, and the absence of an inspection scheme.

Drift · 01-10-2015 12:03am

seamus wrote: »

One thing that surprises me is that the developers, engineers and architects may be gone bust, but surely there were indemnity policies active at the time that could now be leaned on to claim against? Or maybe it's a statute of limitations thing

Professional Indemnity insurance is based on the year the claim is made not when the building was built so if the professional stopped paying for cover there is no insurance there to cover it. Of course he/she is still probably personally liable but it's not worth taking someone without insurance to court because there's no money to be got.

When an Engineer/Architect/Building Professional retires/leaves the job they are expected to continue paying PI insurance for another 6 years to cover the statute if limitations. Of course only the reputable ones do. And exactly like car insurance the premiums for reputable professionals are sky rocketing because of the cowboys with no insurance!

riclad · 01-10-2015 12:13am

Well self regulation does not work,
so the rule was an architect or someone employed by the builder ,
Signs a document ,this building is built to a high standard in line with building regulations ,and fire safety standards .
of course most builders went bankrupt in the crash ,
so there,s no one left to sue .
Or to pay for repairs apart from the current owners .
All we need to do is adopt the same building inspection rules as the uk ,
its not that expensive and saves the taxpayer money in the long run.
someone bought an apartment from that building about 2 months ago ,
in an allsopp auction.
IT was discussed on newstalk radio today.
It,s the job of the state to bring in laws to protect homeowners and potential buyers from builders who
build apartments that are not built to be safe in the case of a fire .
It,s much easier to check a house to see if its safe re building regs or fire safety regs than an apartment block.
IF you intend to buy a house vs an apartment .
There,s probably another 5 priory hall,s out there ,
we just do,nt know about them yet .

Atlantic Dawn · 01-10-2015 12:24am

riclad wrote: »

There,s probably another 5 priory hall,s out there ,
we just do,nt know about them yet .

There's at least 10 times this in Dublin alone, council don't want to touch it.

Atlantic Dawn · 01-10-2015 9:55am

The situation at the Longboat Quay apartment complex in Dublin’s docklands, where fire safety requirements have apparently been ignored, may be replicated in hundreds of other developments built during the boom.

Prior to 2014, when the Building Control Amendment Regulations came into effect, all that was required for a developer to sell properties was a “certificate of compliance”. This certificate could be signed by an architect, engineer or surveyor after just a visual inspection of the property – and that took place after completion of the works.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/longboat-quay-issue-could-exist-in-hundreds-of-developments-1.2373537

Sheeps · 01-10-2015 9:55am

As a renter in longboat quay, there's not been a peep out of anyone beyond what has been published in the papers and shown on the news. There's been absolutely no communication from the docklands authority or anyone else for that matter.

Longboat quay- Another priory hall

Comments