Another Priory Hall? Longboat Quay, Dublin Docklands

Muahahaha · 23-02-2015 4:25pm #1

Seems another apartment block has fallen foul of fire safety issues. Longboat Quay was built by Bernard McNamara, the main man behind the €420m Glass Bottle site. The apartment blocks themselves house a lot of Google and Facebook employees. According to Mick Clifford in the Examiner the management company were forced to place fire marshalls in the corridors of the apartment blocks on a 24/7 basis in case a fire broke out whilst remediation works were being carried out. Some residents are saying they didn't see any fire marshals at all.

Full story here
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/is-this-apartment-block-the-next-priory-hall-311205.html

Gumbo · 23-02-2015 5:32pm

I'd say there's many more too.

handlemaster · 23-02-2015 7:55pm

Some owners must be thinking s**t no ones going to buy here now

woodstock1708 · 27-02-2015 6:47pm

I've rented an apartment in Longboat Quay for six years, and I work from home so I'm there a lot. I see the fire marshals all the time during the day. Until today I didn't know they were fire marshals though. I thought they were just security, wearing hi viz vests and checking some kind of bar codes on the baseboard moulding in the common areas. I cannot say if I have seen them late at night, but I have definitely seen them at all hours of the day.

Residents were indeed made aware that urgent upgrades to fire safety systems were being carried out. However, I never realised how bad the situation was until this morning, when my next door neighbour forwarded me an article in the Irish Examiner. Perhaps owners knew about this? I don't know. I can't remember receiving any alarming letters, just that the situation was found to be in violation of fire safety rules and that changes would be made.

I just thought the fire alarms were old. Had no idea about about the lack of smoke vents in the stairwell.

In support of Longboat Quay, it's a nice place to live. The building's common areas are not as posh as others in Grand Canal Square, but we've loved our apt and have never had any of the issues with mould that are being mentioned in the press. Also the walls seemed extremely thick in the sense of sound proofing - obviously that is not helpful if there's a fire, but I have always felt that the building *appeared* to have been built to high standards.

Victor · 28-02-2015 12:44am

Another story here: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/longboat-quay-taxpayer-to-foot-part-of-bill-for-works-at-controversial-housing-complex-314229.html with roof photo. There are about 300 apartments + retail units.

woodstock1708 wrote: »

I've rented an apartment in Longboat Quay for six years, and I work from home so I'm there a lot. I see the fire marshals all the time during the day. Until today I didn't know they were fire marshals though.

Did you not receive any correspondence?

I thought they were just security, wearing hi viz vests and checking some kind of bar codes on the baseboard moulding in the common areas.

This is to ensure they complete their patrols as assigned, and don't just sit around watching TV or somesuch.

I just thought the fire alarms were old. Had no idea about about the lack of smoke vents in the stairwell.

Smoke vents are relatively straightforward to install - not hugely different to a roof window that is wired to the alarm system. I imagine each could be fitted in a week. That it has taken 8 months to re-do the alarm system seems protracted. Structural alterations could be a whole other ballgame.

Also the walls seemed extremely thick in the sense of sound proofing - obviously that is not helpful if there's a fire

That will depend. Some forms of construction, e.g. solid concrete walls, with proper sealing around the edges, will be both sound and fire proof to a high degree. However, things like doors, windows and other gaps can compromise both? Some lightweight sound proofing might not be fireproof.

JTMan · 28-02-2015 9:39am

I am very close to a resident there. Know the story.

Victor wrote: »

Did you not receive any correspondence?

Multiple emails, 3 postal letters and 2 in-person meetings.

Victor wrote: »

Smoke vents are relatively straightforward to install - not hugely different to a roof window that is wired to the alarm system. I imagine each could be fitted in a week.

The first issue is the fire alarm system was not up to scratch. That is now completely fixed. A new fire alarm has been installed in every room in every apartment. There were about 1,000 alarms installed. This took time as it required access to 200 apartments. The fire alarm system, excluding the vents, is now state of the art of the highest possible standard and fixed.

The second issue is the DDDA, the receiver, the residents and owners simply do not know exactly all the other requirements, although they have an idea. This requires a full survey of all apartments. This survey is starting in this month.

Victor wrote: »

That it has taken 8 months to re-do the alarm system seems protracted.

The delays were not about getting something done. The delays were due to the huge number of parties involved including several government bodies. It is a credit to the management company that they were able to coordinate this.

Victor wrote: »

Structural alterations could be a whole other ballgame.

Exactly but it all seems to be fixable, at a high cost.

This whole saga, which is now part resolved, will hopefully fully be behind Longboat Quay soon.

Bernie McNamara has a lot to answer for.

brooke 2 · 28-02-2015 10:02am

JTMan wrote: »

I am very close to a resident there. Know the story.

Multiple emails, 3 postal letters and 2 in-person meetings.

The first issue is the fire alarm system was not up to scratch. That is now completely fixed. A new fire alarm has been installed in every room in every apartment. There were about 1,000 alarms installed. This took time as it required access to 200 apartments. The fire alarm system, excluding the vents, is now state of the art of the highest possible standard and fixed.

The second issue is the DDDA, the receiver, the residents and owners simply do not know exactly all the other requirements, although they have an idea. This requires a full survey of all apartments. This survey is starting in this month.

The delays were not about getting something done. The delays were due to the huge number of parties involved including several government bodies. It is a credit to the management company that they were able to coordinate this.

Exactly but it all seems to be fixable, at a high cost.

This whole saga, which is now part resolved, will hopefully fully be behind Longboat Quay soon.

Bernie McNamara has a lot to answer for.

Is it true that the residents have to fork up for some of the cost of the remediation
work? Read somewhere that the management company has charged them an extra
€150 per annum for a number of years into the future.

No word from Mr. McNamara
about this débâcle - he cannot be tracked down, apparently. Wonder if anyone in
the media will chase him down as they did Priory Hall's Fehily??

JTMan · 28-02-2015 10:15am

brooke 2 wrote: »

Is it true that the residents have to fork up for some of the cost of the remediation
work? Read somewhere that the management company has charged them an extra
€150 per annum for a number of years into the future.

The receiver, DDDA and Longboat Quay Management Company paid for the new fire alarms. Longboat Quay Management Company passed the cost on to residents. They secured a loan to prevent an upfront cost. The cost is spread over 4 years, with 3 years left to bill, the amount varies depending on the apartment size.

brooke 2 wrote: »

No word from Mr. McNamara
about this débâcle

Bernie has washed his hands.

brooke 2 wrote: »

- he cannot be tracked down, apparently.

He can be tracked down. He is, shockingly, back in the construction game. He is doing work for Denis O'Brien.

brooke 2 wrote: »

Wonder if anyone in
the media will chase him down as they did Priory Hall's Fehily??

it is beyond sensational to compare this to Priory Hall. It is not directly comparable. Fixes to the issues are already well underway. Everyone is talking. Solutions have already been put in place including a state of the art alarm system with more fixes to come.

Bob24 · 28-02-2015 10:27am

JTMan wrote: »

it is beyond sensational to compare this to Priory Hall. It is not directly comparable. Fixes to the issues are already well underway. Everyone is talking. Solutions have already been put in place including a state of the art alarm system with more fixes to come.

Exactly - I have been renting there for a while and this thing hasn't caused any annoyance (except of course it will have some impact on management fees, but if what was said on this thread is correct, it is fairly short term).

I'm currently looking at buying an apartment, and if I could find what I want in Longboat Quay I would not hesitate to go for it. If other people are scared away buy this issue, that is all very well as far as I am concerned :-)

Victor · 28-02-2015 10:55am

brooke 2 wrote: »

Is it true that the residents have to fork up for some of the cost of the remediation work? Read somewhere that the management company has charged them an extra €150 per annum for a number of years into the future.

The developer doesn't have the money. Where do you expect the money to come from?

No word from Mr. McNamara about this débâcle - he cannot be tracked down, apparently. Wonder if anyone in the media will chase him down as they did Priory Hall's Fehily??

He doesn't have the money.

JTMan · 28-02-2015 11:02am

Victor wrote: »

The developer doesn't have the money. Where do you expect the money to come from?
He doesn't have the money.

There are multiple liable parties.

The DDDA are liable because they own the common areas.

The receiver to the developer is liable because they assumed the liabilities of the developer.

The management company has assumed some liability thus far.

The receiver has some cash from other sales. Also, the receiver owns some apartments, that are worth a lot, so they have a vested interest is getting the issues resolved.

Hence, whist the developer "has no cash", he is no longer a liable party.

Snickers Man · 01-10-2015 10:44am

JTMan wrote: »

it is beyond sensational to compare this to Priory Hall. It is not directly comparable. Fixes to the issues are already well underway. Everyone is talking. Solutions have already been put in place including a state of the art alarm system with more fixes to come.

Is this still your view?

JTMan wrote:

There are multiple liable parties.

The DDDA are liable because they own the common areas.

The receiver to the developer is liable because they assumed the liabilities of the developer.

The management company has assumed some liability thus far.

The receiver has some cash from other sales. Also, the receiver owns some apartments, that are worth a lot, so they have a vested interest is getting the issues resolved.

Hence, whist the developer "has no cash", he is no longer a liable party.

What are the implications for a "receiver" taking hold of the properties of another bust developer if they are likely to find, and become liable for, a host of expensive problems such as have been found here?

Paulw · 01-10-2015 11:13am

The biggest issue, in the whole country, is lack of enforcement. Nothing is properly signed off and nothing is properly checked when completed.

In the boom, buildings were thrown up, and everything was signed off based on the designs, not on the actual construction. It is insane.

This is not the first, and won't be the last issue for structures around the country.

Gasherbraun · 01-10-2015 1:15pm

Paulw wrote: »

The biggest issue, in the whole country, is lack of enforcement. Nothing is properly signed off and nothing is properly checked when completed.

In the boom, buildings were thrown up, and everything was signed off based on the designs, not on the actual construction. It is insane.

This is not the first, and won't be the last issue for structures around the country.

Could not agree more. I trained as an architectural technician years ago in the UK and all site work had to be signed off by a building control officer at certain stages of construction (footings, DPC level, wall plate etc) and contractors waited for these sign off's prior to proceeding. In many cases a QS would make interim payments to contractors dependent on these BC approvals.

Not saying that it was perfect but regular inspection of building work by an independent person qualified to make sure it complies has to be infinitely better than self assessment (assuming it took place) by people with a vested interest in final cost and speed of build

Gumbo · 01-10-2015 1:17pm

Paulw wrote: »

The biggest issue, in the whole country, is lack of enforcement. Nothing is properly signed off and nothing is properly checked when completed.

In the boom, buildings were thrown up, and everything was signed off based on the designs, not on the actual construction. It is insane.

This is not the first, and won't be the last issue for structures around the country.

Just to clarify your post Paul, they are not signed off based on the design.

The local authority approve the plans based on the design and it will comply IF the project is built in accordance with the plans. That goes for planning and Fire Safety Compliance.

The problem is that the developers rushed so fast through the project that the private sector design team either didn't check the details as they were being built or didn't have time to check the details and signed off on the projects on completion.

They should be there on a more frequent basis and at key stages of the build to ensure it complies but they didn't do that. For the life of me, I don't understand why the PI insurance that was in place at the time can't be dipped into to remedy the situation.

You have people blaming the councils, people blaming regulators, people blaming politicians running around like lunatics with nonsense!

Bob24 · 01-10-2015 2:00pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

Is this still your view?

While of course there are serious issues, I'd say unless the building indeed is evacuated it is still not appropriate to say the situations are comparable.

My understanding is that the issues in Longboat Quay are easier to fix than in Priory Hall. While I wouldn't completely rule it out, given the prime location of the development and the fact that it is a bad time for the government to be seeing too much negative news in the media, I personally think something will be done to avoid an evacuation.

Also, between the management company which might have downplayed some issues and the media blowing some things out of proportion to attract more audience, it is probably difficult know where the situation really stands.

Carawaystick · 01-10-2015 3:38pm

Victor wrote: »

The developer doesn't have the money. Where do you expect the money to come from?
He doesn't have the money.

Has anyone checked his bath?

expectationlost · 01-10-2015 10:38pm

JTMan wrote: »

I am very close to a resident there. Know the story.

Multiple emails, 3 postal letters and 2 in-person meetings.

The first issue is the fire alarm system was not up to scratch. That is now completely fixed. A new fire alarm has been installed in every room in every apartment. There were about 1,000 alarms installed. This took time as it required access to 200 apartments. The fire alarm system, excluding the vents, is now state of the art of the highest possible standard and fixed.

The second issue is the DDDA, the receiver, the residents and owners simply do not know exactly all the other requirements, although they have an idea. This requires a full survey of all apartments. This survey is starting in this month.

The delays were not about getting something done. The delays were due to the huge number of parties involved including several government bodies. It is a credit to the management company that they were able to coordinate this.

Exactly but it all seems to be fixable, at a high cost.

This whole saga, which is now part resolved, will hopefully fully be behind Longboat Quay soon.

Bernie McNamara has a lot to answer for.

when did these fire safety issues become apparent?

brooke 2 · 02-10-2015 2:35am

Carawaystick wrote: »

Has anyone checked his bath?

:):)

Victor · 02-10-2015 2:46am

Snickers Man wrote: »

What are the implications for a "receiver" taking hold of the properties of another bust developer if they are likely to find, and become liable for, a host of expensive problems such as have been found here?

The receiver isn't personally liable for the debts of the insolvent party. Just like they don't benefit from the proceeds, other than their (often substantial) fee.

kceire wrote: »

The problem is that the developers rushed so fast through the project that the private sector design team either didn't check the details as they were being built or didn't have time to check the details and signed off on the projects on completion.

Who is to say the design team were retained past the design stage?

For the life of me, I don't understand why the PI insurance that was in place at the time can't be dipped into to remedy the situation.

That may be a bit late at this stage, if the insurance existed in the first place.

handlemaster · 02-10-2015 7:18am

Sinn fein have jumped in this... demanding Kenny talk to the developer . There was no such demand for priory hall ... I Wonder why ?

The issue is with the owners I dont see why the public tax payer should pay. If the government pay to fix this then they should pay to fix all issues with private housing whether its apt blocks or one off housing

Bob24 · 02-10-2015 7:30am

handlemaster wrote: »

The issue is with the owners I dont see why the public tax payer should pay. If the government pay to fix this then they should pay to fix all issues with private housing whether its apt blocks or one off housing

Neither taxpayers nor the owners should have to pay.

But as the government doesn't have the balls/means to hold anyone accountable and doesn't want a scandal - this is what is going to happen.

handlemaster · 02-10-2015 9:00am

Bob24 wrote: »

Neither taxpayers nor the owners should have to pay.

But as the government doesn't have the balls/means to hold anyone accountable and doesn't want a scandal - this is what is going to happen.

The owners yes . Because they are the owners. If I buy a car and the car has a fault qnd in thé same time the car company goes out of business why should my neighbours pay to fix it ?

Peregrinus · 02-10-2015 9:05am

Bob24 wrote: »

Neither taxpayers nor the owners should have to pay.

But as the government doesn't have the balls/means to hold anyone accountable and doesn't want a scandal - this is what is going to happen.

Why is it the government's job to hold the developer/builder accountable? The owners are the ones with an obvious interest in doing so. Plus, they are the people who chose to buy the apartments.

You buy something that turns out to be not as described/not fit for purpose - you have an action against the person that sold it to you. It's up to you to bring that action, not the government. And if the person who sold it to you is not worth suing, you may decide not to bring the action. But that doesn't make it the government's job to step in and magic the money up from somewhere.

mickdw · 02-10-2015 9:32am

As an Engineer who would have been signing of works for the last 10 years, I would have a few comments on this.
Firstly, even if the bare minimum of certification was provided - a visual inspection on completion, the defects we are hearing about should have been spotted. Mechanical ventilation not present. The person signing off doesn't have a leg to stand on. Did they seek commissioning cert for this system. Obviously not. Similarly with fire alarm system.
Secondly, the general public and even government don't appear to understand PI Insurance. It is not a defects cover, it's a cover against profession negligence. Fair enough, that should be easily proved here. The main issue with PI is that it is policy in force at time of claim that pays out. Having PI at time of construction means little. If the engineer who signed off stopped paying his insurance the year after completion, there is then no cover for any future claims.
I'm along time supporter of a system being introduced where a policy is taken out against each property at time of sign off, paid up front to cover property for 10 years or so. That way if Engineer is in business or not has no relevance.
Im not talking a homebond type system. I'm talking about a robust, insurance product likely at significant cost at time of construction that will cover each property, ideally a government backed offering. The ideal setup is a government building inspector, a government levy of say 10k per unit to cover defects and this levy then used to fund repairs.
Clearly the government have moved in the opposite direction to relieve themselves of all liability but that is of no use when they end up funding much of these repairs in the end.

Bob24 · 02-10-2015 9:55am

handlemaster wrote: »

The owners yes . Because they are the owners. If I buy a car and the car has a fault qnd in thé same time the car company goes out of business why should my neighbours pay to fix it ?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why is it the government's job to hold the developer/builder accountable? The owners are the ones with an obvious interest in doing so. Plus, they are the people who chose to buy the apartments.

Firstly it is not a car we are talking about here, but something which can have a much larger impact on someone's life (i.e. it makes sense to give more consumer protection as issues can have a much larger impact).

Secondly the car exemple is not very timely after the VW scandal, as at least the American government (and likely some European ones after it) is indeed in the process of holding the manufacturer accountable and defending consumer's interest against it.

Thirdly and most importantly, there is an expectation for the government/regulators to enforce legislation, and certificates of compliance have been delivered based on the laws and processes laid out by the government. Obviously these processes didn't work here and the certificates were worthless. So whether it wants it or not the government is a stakeholder in this and has to show that having a certificate gives some sort of peace of mind that a lifetime investement such as this one will not turn into a financial hell. If they don't, what is the point in issuing these certificates anymore?

Bob24 · 02-10-2015 10:14am

mickdw wrote: »

As an Engineer who would have been signing of works for the last 10 years, I would have a few comments on this.
Firstly, even if the bare minimum of certification was provided - a visual inspection on completion, the defects we are hearing about should have been spotted. Mechanical ventilation not present. The person signing off doesn't have a leg to stand on. Did they seek commissioning cert for this system. Obviously not. Similarly with fire alarm system.
Secondly, the general public and even government don't appear to understand PI Insurance. It is not a defects cover, it's a cover against profession negligence. Fair enough, that should be easily proved here. The main issue with PI is that it is policy in force at time of claim that pays out. Having PI at time of construction means little. If the engineer who signed off stopped paying his insurance the year after completion, there is then no cover for any future claims.
I'm along time supporter of a system being introduced where a policy is taken out against each property at time of sign off, paid up front to cover property for 10 years or so. That way if Engineer is in business or not has no relevance.
Im not talking a homebond type system. I'm talking about a robust, insurance product likely at significant cost at time of construction that will cover each property, ideally a government backed offering. The ideal setup is a government building inspector, a government levy of say 10k per unit to cover defects and this levy then used to fund repairs.
Clearly the government have moved in the opposite direction to relieve themselves of all liability but that is of no use when they end up funding much of these repairs in the end.

Yes it makes perfect sense, and with what you are describing, whoever is insuring the building insurance would have a strong interest in properly inspecting each development to ensure it is compliant, as they would know any issue could cost them a lot.

my friend · 02-10-2015 10:23am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why is it the government's job to hold the developer/builder accountable? The owners are the ones with an obvious interest in doing so. Plus, they are the people who chose to buy the apartments.

You buy something that turns out to be not as described/not fit for purpose - you have an action against the person that sold it to you. It's up to you to bring that action, not the government. And if the person who sold it to you is not worth suing, you may decide not to bring the action. But that doesn't make it the government's job to step in and magic the money up from somewhere.

Plus the fact that the owners are idiots, their building is now 'toxic' with respect to sales, they should have quietly arrived at their deal with NAMA etc and put their hands in their own pockets for what is a single digit % of what they paid for their units , spend the money, bring safety issues up to standard, growing economy, saleable apartment or easy renter or great home, but no, now Longboat Quay Apartments = Toxic

Paulw · 02-10-2015 10:29am

my friend wrote: »

Plus the fact that the owners are idiots, their building is now 'toxic' with respect to sales, they should have quietly arrived at their deal with NAMA etc and put their hands in their own pockets for what is a single digit % of what they paid for their units , spend the money, bring safety issues up to standard, growing economy, saleable apartment or easy renter or great home, but no, now Longboat Quay Apartments = Toxic

I would say that a lot of residents just wouldn't have that money in their pockets to just cough up. You are talking about thousands of euro. :eek: I'm sure that they did what they could, to remedy the issues, until the exact cost became clear and they realised how much was needed.

Bob24 · 02-10-2015 10:32am

my friend wrote: »

Plus the fact that the owners are idiots, their building is now 'toxic' with respect to sales, they should have quietly arrived at their deal with NAMA etc and put their hands in their own pockets for what is a single digit % of what they paid for their units , spend the money, bring safety issues up to standard, growing economy, saleable apartment or easy renter or great home, but no, now Longboat Quay Apartments = Toxic

They might just be negotiating to get more funding. On one hand they have a weak hand because they will be the only ones financially impacted if no deal is reached and nothing is done. But on the other hand with the current media coverage and the fact that elections are coming - there will be no better time in the future for them to try and get more outside funding to sort the issues.

Hopefully they are not that stupid and know they eventually need to stop negotiating and take part of the burden.

Lods1969 · 02-10-2015 10:38am

Paulw wrote: »

I would say that a lot of residents just wouldn't have that money in their pockets to just cough up. You are talking about thousands of euro. :eek: I'm sure that they did what they could, to remedy the issues, until the exact cost became clear and they realised how much was needed.

The Taxpayer should not have to fund this. With the contribution by the DAA ,I think an extra €18k per apartment is a small amount overall to sort the issue. A loan could be organised, maybe guaranteed by the DAA as I doubt anyone would have the money available. As stated by other posters , these are private individuals. its not acceptable that they pay nothing . Its a disgrace & it shouldn't have happened.

ted1 · 02-10-2015 11:18am

Lods1969 wrote: »

The Taxpayer should not have to fund this. With the contribution by the DAA ,I think an extra €18k per apartment is a small amount overall to sort the issue. A loan could be organised, maybe guaranteed by the DAA as I doubt anyone would have the money available. As stated by other posters , these are private individuals. its not acceptable that they pay nothing . Its a disgrace & it shouldn't have happened.

I agree they should provide some funding themselves.

my concern is that if the state fund it to bring it up the latest regulations, then the precedence is set and they will have to do the same for every dwelling in the state. which could be a couple of billion euros.

ted1 · 02-10-2015 11:20am

Paulw wrote: »

I would say that a lot of residents just wouldn't have that money in their pockets to just cough up. You are talking about thousands of euro. :eek: I'm sure that they did what they could, to remedy the issues, until the exact cost became clear and they realised how much was needed.

A low cost loan should be offered to the MC and this could be paid back of the next 50 years or so through the annual fee.

Paulw · 02-10-2015 11:35am

Lods1969 wrote: »

The Taxpayer should not have to fund this. With the contribution by the DAA ,I think an extra €18k per apartment is a small amount overall to sort the issue. A loan could be organised, maybe guaranteed by the DAA as I doubt anyone would have the money available. Its a disgrace & it shouldn't have happened.

I never said that the taxpayer should have to pay. Not sure where you read that from. All I said was that I doubt the owners had that amount of money to hand. Many are struggling to pay their mortgage and bills, so an up front 18k is not easy.

Something has to be done. The situation is just not right at all. The funds for repair need to be found and agreed.

A lot of people are at fault for causing the situation - the builder, those who signed off on work that was not completed properly, etc.

JD1763 · 02-10-2015 11:49am

You want to know why the Government should help these people? It is quite simple - the Government has presided over a system with a complete lack of consequences for cowboy builders. Build a load of sh*** houses stuff them full of pyrite with no fire proofing and that don't meet minimum safety standards - no problem liquidate the company and walk away. Don't worry mate you can just set up a new company or better yet set up ten of them and keep doing the same thing. Isn't Ireland amazing - best country in the world in which to do business if you didn't know. This is what self and light touch regulation have given us.

If the builder was being held to account and criminally prosecuted with his insurance policies paying out to compensate his victims - then fine no need for the taxpayer to step in. But that is not the system our Government (past and present) have gifted to us. The Irish regulatory system is a complete joke with zero accountability for anyone. Until something is done (and the lobbying power of the CIF overcome) situations such as this will keep happening.

And the system leaves the victims to right the wrongs. It's akin to someone breaking into your house, kicking the living sh** out of you, taking all your stuff and then you have to buy them dinner and pay their taxi fare home as a thank you. Because who else can fix the problems but another builder!

Posters here need to stop blaming the victims and look at who is really responsible for what has happened. And you can shove the whole thing about being a taxpayer and this not being your problem where the sun don't shine. I am a taxpayer as well but at least I have some empathy and compassion for the victims of Ireland's corrupt system.

mickmmc · 02-10-2015 12:23pm

According to Frank Mc Donald in the Irish Times, the Architect who certified that Longboat Quay was in compliance was a direct employee of Bernard Mc Namara company. He was a foreign national and no longer in the country.

Victor · 02-10-2015 7:01pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why is it the government's job to hold the developer/builder accountable? The owners are the ones with an obvious interest in doing so. Plus, they are the people who chose to buy the apartments.

You buy something that turns out to be not as described/not fit for purpose - you have an action against the person that sold it to you. It's up to you to bring that action, not the government. And if the person who sold it to you is not worth suing, you may decide not to bring the action. But that doesn't make it the government's job to step in and magic the money up from somewhere.

In a matter of public safety - affecting hundreds of people - the government should involve itself, just as it involves itself in the safety of medicines, food, cars, etc.

The government created light regulation, it is now reaping what it sowed.

Bob24 · 02-10-2015 8:55pm

btw a simple illustration of how the media make things more dramatic than they really are: on Wednesday they were all claiming that if the work was not started by Thursday the building would be evacuated. Yesterday they slightly changed the story and said funding has to be secured by the evening to avoid evacuation.

We are now Friday - no funding found and of course no works started - and has there been an evacuation?

waxon-waxoff · 02-10-2015 9:19pm

Bob24 wrote: »

btw a simple illustration of how the media make things more dramatic than they really are: on Wednesday they were all claiming that if the work was not started by Thursday the building would be evacuated. Yesterday they slightly changed the story and said funding has to be secured by the evening to avoid evacuation.

We are now Friday - no funding found and of course no works started - and has there been an evacuation?

Thats how things work in this country, if you dont have a legal claim you turn to the media to fight for you, create a big fuss, get the publics sympathy and wait for the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

Bob24 · 02-10-2015 9:43pm

waxon-waxoff wrote: »

Thats how things work in this country, if you dont have a legal claim you turn to the media to fight for you, create a big fuss, get the publics sympathy and wait for the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

Although I do think the owners deserve much sympathy and are victims of both the developer AND incompetent officials who issued worthless certificates, I do agree this is what is likely at play here. Funny coincidence that an issue which has been known for months if not years suddenly becomes an emergency and comes under the media spotlight just when serious talks about elections are starting ...

my friend · 02-10-2015 11:23pm

Caveat emptor

No taxpayer bailout.

Schadenfreude that Mary Mc the queen of Fianna Fáil owns two of the apartments,

Very well timed tantrums and threats from the owners, my advice? deal with good builders and professionals in future

NAMA by any offers they make are only spending taxpayers cash, No increased offers. Let the owners chase the experts that surveyed the units for them prior to closing.

Hillybilly4 · 03-10-2015 7:31am

From the Irish Examiner earlier this year:

The fire consultant on the development was John Greaney and Associates. He confirmed his role in a statement to the Irish Examiner.

“Greaney Fire Safety was engaged as a fire safety consultants on the project by (the then) Michael McNamara & Co to oversee design and construction in terms of each structure’s compliance with the requirements of the building control regulations.

“I prepared the fire safety design strategies and submitted applications for the requisite fire safety certificates which were granted in 2004. The requirements were satisfied at this point. I supervised the construction works at the stages relevant to the fire safety design strategies; and certificates of fire safety compliance were issued at the practical completion stages in 2006.”

Curious as to why there is no comeback on this company/person? Or have they conveniently gone out of business too?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/longboat-quay-taxpayer-to-foot-part-of-bill-for-works-at-controversial-housing-complex-314229.html

brooke 2 · 03-10-2015 8:37am

mickmmc wrote: »

According to Frank Mc Donald in the Irish Times, the Architect who certified that Longboat Quay was in compliance was a direct employee of Bernard Mc Namara company. He was a foreign national and no longer in the country.

In Ghana, I believe!

listermint · 03-10-2015 8:47am

Very simple, The same lax regulation was deployed in the construction sector since the mid 90s here as was deployed in the financial sector.

In the scramble to make the most money the Government cut requirements for inspection across the board cut inspector positions and let the industry self regulate pretty much carbon copy of what went on in the banks.

When this happens those inside chase after profit, standards are simply not deployed and there are many such developments that have the same issues country wide only they are not in individual private hands so have yet to be uncovered. Id imagine if one went through some of the nama developments you may see some fire regulation work being done 10 years post construction otherwise they wouldnt find buyers.

This stuff is only coming to light now because people are having to inspect the buildings for works OR pre sale.

Its rampant is government policy and you know what nothing has changed, same number of inspectors i believe there might not even be a head count of 6 or so across the country and they are looking over maybe 3% of builds. Hilarious stuff altogether and we have the government again trying to light a fire excuse the pun under the flames of a construction boom.

Round Two, we are back baby.

brooke 2 · 03-10-2015 8:47am

my friend wrote: »

Caveat emptor

No taxpayer bailout.

Schadenfreude that Mary Mc the queen of Fianna Fáil owns two of the apartments,

Very well timed tantrums and threats from the owners, my advice? deal with good builders and professionals in future

NAMA by any offers they make are only spending taxpayers cash, No increased offers. Let the owners chase the experts that surveyed the units for them prior to closing.

Deal with good builders......? But..but..but..
according to many in the media, even RTE'S
Seán O'Rourke, Bernard McNamara was a 'reputable builder'!! They must have never heard of roofs blowing off, leaking roofs, flooded hospitals (Letterkenny, anyone?) in many of this builder's projects!!

listermint · 03-10-2015 8:48am

brooke 2 wrote: »

Deal with good builders......? But..but..but..
according to many in the media, even RTE'S
Seán O'Rourke, Bernard McNamara was a 'reputable builder'!! They must have never heard of roofs blowing off, leaking roofs, flooded hospitals (Letterkenny, anyone?) in many of this builder's projects!!

Poster is clearly trying to wind people up.

They would be straight back to the dealer if they found something wrong with their new car.

Bob24 · 03-10-2015 9:02am

my friend wrote: »

deal with good builders and professionals in future

I assume you are defining "good builder" as a builder who follows regulations?

If yes, do you find it acceptable that someone who is not a "good builder" was even allowed to operate in this country?

And 10 years ago (before any of these issues had ever been mentioned), how exactly was the public expected to tell which appartement builders were good and bad ones?

my friend · 03-10-2015 9:05am

brooke 2 wrote: »

Deal with good builders......? But..but..but..
according to many in the media, even RTE'S
Seán O'Rourke, Bernard McNamara was a 'reputable builder'!! They must have never heard of roofs blowing off, leaking roofs, flooded hospitals (Letterkenny, anyone?) in many of this builder's projects!!

What would S O'R or any of the RTE sheep know about quality builders?
McNamara may have had a huge operation but delivered projects with defects around the country, don't forget his roots as a one time Fianna Fáil councillor in Clare and you might trace his growth from there.

April 73 · 03-10-2015 9:50am

Hillybilly4 wrote: »

From the Irish Examiner earlier this year:

The fire consultant on the development was John Greaney and Associates. He confirmed his role in a statement to the Irish Examiner.

“Greaney Fire Safety was engaged as a fire safety consultants on the project by (the then) Michael McNamara & Co to oversee design and construction in terms of each structure’s compliance with the requirements of the building control regulations.

“I prepared the fire safety design strategies and submitted applications for the requisite fire safety certificates which were granted in 2004. The requirements were satisfied at this point. I supervised the construction works at the stages relevant to the fire safety design strategies; and certificates of fire safety compliance were issued at the practical completion stages in 2006.”

Curious as to why there is no comeback on this company/person? Or have they conveniently gone out of business too?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/longboat-quay-taxpayer-to-foot-part-of-bill-for-works-at-controversial-housing-complex-314229.html

I must be naive. Is this company not responsible for defects in the fire safety design & compliance? Would they not have indemnity insurance?

April 73 · 03-10-2015 9:52am

When you google the company - it looks like a it's a one-man band operating from his home office ðŸ˜³

Gumbo · 03-10-2015 10:53am

Still in operation today and actively lodging fire safety certificates.

Another Priory Hall? Longboat Quay, Dublin Docklands

Comments