New Building Control Regs

Penn · 12-05-2014 6:59pm

martinn123 wrote: »

That's a lot of " Legal Advice" in that post.
As opposed to an Opinion.

This has not been tested in any Court, as far as I am aware, and the Minister, and Department, have stated it's still possible to self-build.
As Syd said in a previous post, no-one wants to be the Guinea Pig, but nevertheless, issuing such a stark opinion, based on such a lack of clarity, is misleading, in my opinion.

Hence why I ended with "Legal advice should always be sought in these cases". Legal advice can neither be sought nor given on this forum. I am not giving legal advice. I am pointing out the inconsistencies and contradictions, and saying that neither galwaytt or myself are correct, because we don't know. Legal advice should always be sought in these cases. But I accept my post was worded unclearly so I'm happy to clarify what I meant. However, I would ask that you report posts you feel break the Legal Advice section of the charter in future rather than bringing it up on thread.

mandy gall · 12-05-2014 7:18pm

galwaytt wrote: »

Where on earth are you getting that self-build is 'illegal'. Such stuff'n'nonsense, frankly. Self build is legal and possible. Just do your homework.

As for waiting, well............it's like buying a PC. if you wait for the 'perfect' one to come along.....you'll be permanently prevaricating. There comes a time when a commitment must be made, one way or the other.

Aah now - I think you should do your homework - self building is 100% illegal now in Ireland...to go ahead at this time with an illegal build is akin to playing Russian Roulette - YOU JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT...btw absolutely nothing like buying a PC. fyi Minister & Dept are lunatics...:)

martinn123 · 12-05-2014 7:24pm

Penn wrote: »

Hence why I ended with "Legal advice should always be sought in these cases". Legal advice can neither be sought nor given on this forum. I am not giving legal advice. I am pointing out the inconsistencies and contradictions, and saying that neither galwaytt or myself are correct, because we don't know. Legal advice should always be sought in these cases. But I accept my post was worded unclearly so I'm happy to clarify what I meant. However, I would ask that you report posts you feel break the Legal Advice section of the charter in future rather than bringing it up on thread.

I think you mis-read, or mis-interpreted the reasons behind my post.
It was not to criticise any opinions you might give, but to point out that, throughout the debate on this topic, in various threads, opinions have been posted as Statments of Fact.
This document to be signed by a Co Director, or Principal, in the view of the Minister and Department, " Should" not pose a problem, are they right, I do not know, but my opinion, is "proceed if the Bank are happy to release Funds"

Conveyancing issues may arise in the future, that's a risk, but is is worth stalling all Self-Building in the Country......that's a decision each builder will have to weigh up......with Legal Advice, I agree.

Poor Uncle Tom · 12-05-2014 7:38pm

martinn123 wrote: »

This document to be signed by a Co Director, or Principal, in the view of the Minister and Department, " Should" not pose a problem, are they right, I do not know, but my opinion, is "proceed if the Bank are happy to release Funds"

Conveyancing issues may arise in the future, that's a risk, but is is worth stalling all Self-Building in the Country......that's a decision each builder will have to weigh up......with Legal Advice, I agree.

I think you are not viewing this issue from the correct perspective. It isn't the minister or the bank or the builder who will have to provide professional indemnity insurance cover and sign on the dotted line as Assigned Certifyer.

Any of the paid for legal advice I have read (about 6 different firms at this stage) on this very issue are stating the same thing. While nobody is stopping any Assigned Certifyer from signing off on a self build, from an insurance point of view they are being advised not to.

martinn123 · 12-05-2014 7:48pm

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

I think you are not viewing this issue from the correct perspective. It isn't the minister or the bank or the builder who will have to provide professional indemnity insurance cover and sign on the dotted line as Assigned Certifyer.

Any of the paid for legal advice I have read (about 6 different firms at this stage) on this very issue are stating the same thing. While nobody is stopping any Assigned Certifyer from signing off on a self build, from an insurance point of view they are being advised not to.

That's a fair comment, but can you clarify, you seem to be saying Legal Advice says not to sign, for Insurance reasons,
what do the Insurance Co say, after all they are carrying the risk, not the Legal Firms

Poor Uncle Tom · 12-05-2014 7:55pm

martinn123 wrote: »

That's a fair comment, but can you clarify, you seem to be saying Legal Advice says not to sign, for Insurance reasons,
what do the Insurance Co say, after all they are carrying the risk, not the Legal Firms

They have been unusually silent on this issue to date, that I am aware of, I know there are talks underway at present between the representative bodies and the insurance underwriters/providers but nothing has been finalised yet, that I am aware of and whether self builds specifically are being discussed I do not know.

martinn123 · 12-05-2014 8:09pm

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

They have been unusually silent on this issue to date, that I am aware of, I know there are talks underway at present between the representative bodies and the insurance underwriters/providers but nothing has been finalised yet, that I am aware of and whether self builds specifically are being discussed I do not know.

So until you get a call from your Insurance Co, stating, you are no longer covered, for Certyfing, on a self build, what do you propose.

The consensus here seems to be to turn away the work, but someone is doing it.

Seems those willing to take on this work, will be busy, while everyone else, waits, for clarification which will perhaps take years to sort out.

mandy gall · 12-05-2014 8:20pm

What about this scenario - we proceed with the build, everything goes well, completion cert issued etc.. we insure new house and move in.. Six years later the house burns down.. insurance company wants all documents etc.. they have an immediate get out clause because a 'housewife' signed herself off as a principal or director of a building company only...this is just 1 scenario.. the S.I. 9 is awful..

Poor Uncle Tom · 12-05-2014 8:25pm

martinn123 wrote: »

So until you get a call from your Insurance Co, stating, you are no longer covered, for Certyfing, on a self build, what do you propose.

The consensus here seems to be to turn away the work, but someone is doing it.

Seems those willing to take on this work, will be busy, while everyone else, waits, for clarification which will perhaps take years to sort out.

Personally, I will not sign any self build under the current building regulations in their present state regardless of insurances.

We've had this conversation before about the charges needed to adequately supervise a build under those regulations. Nobody I know of would be willing to pay what it actually costs to provide adequate and proper supervision to sign off under the current building regulations with any degree of comfort knowing that you have done all possible to protect your client, yourself and your insurance.

martinn123 · 12-05-2014 8:28pm

mandy gall wrote: »

What about this scenario - we proceed with the build, everything goes well, completion cert issued etc.. we insure new house and move in.. Six years later the house burns down.. insurance company wants all documents etc.. they have an immediate get out clause because a 'housewife' signed herself off as a principal or director of a building company only...this is just 1 scenario.. the S.I. 9 is awful..

Well with that attitude, it's a wonder you leave the house of a morning, what if I get hit by a Bus.

In your unfortunate circumstance of the house burning down, I would say, Completion Cert Issued, Assagned Certfyer Cert Issued, Bank release Funds, as advised by Their Solicitor, no issue.

ryan101 · 12-05-2014 8:35pm

As usual, this country is a joke.

martinn123 · 12-05-2014 8:42pm

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Personally, I will not sign any self build under the current building regulations in their present state regardless of insurances.

OK you are out, that's your decision to make, and I respect that.

We've had this conversation before about the charges needed to adequately supervise a build under those regulations. Nobody I know of would be willing to pay what it actually costs to provide adequate and proper supervision to sign off under the current building regulations with any degree of comfort knowing that you have done all possible to protect your client, yourself and your insurance.

Yes and I accept that Fees need to reflect the input, in time, and expertise,
I started to post tonight on the Topic of the " Document " causing an issue, Co Director,/Principal, etc. Not to regurgitate previous conversations on Fees.
The issue of Insurance was then introduced, but I now know the Insurance Co's are silent on this issue,

Anyone out there, actually building a house under these Reg's......if so please let us know the secret.

mandy gall · 12-05-2014 9:10pm

martinn123 wrote: »

Well with that attitude, it's a wonder you leave the house of a morning, what if I get hit by a Bus.

In your unfortunate circumstance of the house burning down, I would say, Completion Cert Issued, Assagned Certfyer Cert Issued, Bank release Funds, as advised by Their Solicitor, no issue.

This isn't a 'what if' situation - it is still legal I think to walk across the road and get hit by a bus! - you don't seem to understand what I mean regarding S.I.9 - How on earth can one proceed with a self build when it is now illegal to do so? Please I am being serious...would you sign a legal document which states to be signed by a High or Supreme Court Judge ONLY?

mandy gall · 12-05-2014 9:11pm

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Personally, I will not sign any self build under the current building regulations in their present state regardless of insurances.

We've had this conversation before about the charges needed to adequately supervise a build under those regulations. Nobody I know of would be willing to pay what it actually costs to provide adequate and proper supervision to sign off under the current building regulations with any degree of comfort knowing that you have done all possible to protect your client, yourself and your insurance.

You should change your name to Wise Uncle Tom...;)

martinn123 · 12-05-2014 9:17pm

mandy gall wrote: »

This isn't a 'what if' situation - it is still legal I think to walk across the road and get hit by a bus! - you don't seem to understand what I mean regarding S.I.9 - How on earth can one proceed with a self build when it is now illegal to do so? Please I am being serious...would you sign a legal document which states to be signed by a High or Supreme Court Judge ONLY?

You keep using the word "illegal "

It's illegal to drive without Insurance, punishable by a fine or prison
It's illegal to rob a bank, punishable by prison

Do tell me under what statute is Self-building " illegal " and does it involve Prison, or just a Fine.

mandy gall · 12-05-2014 9:28pm

martinn123 wrote: »

You keep using the word "illegal "

It's illegal to drive without Insurance, punishable by a fine or prison
It's illegal to rob a bank, punishable by prison

Do tell me under what statute is Self-building " illegal " and does it involve Prison, or just a Fine.

Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 - Statutory Instrument No. 9

Failure to comply with these regulations is punishable by two years imprisonment of €50,000 fine - whichever the Judge of the Day wants to dish out...Mr Conor Taaffe of Homebond was given great pleasure in informing us of this fact..

miss no stars · 12-05-2014 9:42pm

mandy gall wrote: »

Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 - Statutory Instrument No. 9

Failure to comply with these regulations is punishable by two years imprisonment of €50,000 fine - whichever the Judge of the Day wants to dish out...Mr Conor Taaffe of Homebond was given great pleasure in informing us of this fact..

Jesus, you'd swear it was the worst thing in the world to require people to have people who know what they're doing involved.

Self builders seem to hear all the great stories about how much money other self builders saved and how wonderful it all is. The problem is, you don't hear about the guy who self built and brought in a sub contractor to do the basement but the sub contractor never supplied reinforcement drawings or schedules or construction drawings and details and the paperwork trail was a mess and now the whole thing's leaking like crazy and there's absolutely no recourse and it's entirely the fault of the self-builder for being so arrogant as to think that they (with reading a homebond manual) can do what qualified people - i.e. people who spent years going to college for, training as apprentices for and working for years for - can do.

I'm not having a go at you but the new regs are actually decent enough for savvy self-builders. It gives you recourse. You can't sue yourself if it all goes wrong...

Approach a builder. Appoint them to be the assigned builder. In their letter of appointment, contract only their oversight. You will notify them at key stages of construction, they come and inspect before allowing you on to the next stage. You're still self-building, you're still within the law, you're basically acting as labour for a builder who's supervising.

If you're so indignant that you don't want any professional oversight of your project well then, you're welcome to the construction faults any day.

The people this really sucks for are assigned certifiers. How in the name of god should a structural engineer be held responsible for the plumbing?!

martinn123 · 12-05-2014 9:44pm

mandy gall wrote: »

Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 - Statutory Instrument No. 9

Failure to comply with these regulations is punishable by two years imprisonment of €50,000 fine - whichever the Judge of the Day wants to dish out...Mr Conor Taaffe of Homebond was given great pleasure in informing us of this fact..

Ah yes Homebond, an excellent source of information, as attested to by Pyrite Sufferers.

While the Department, and the Minister, say build away,

martinn123 · 12-05-2014 9:58pm

miss no stars wrote: »

Jesus, you'd swear it was the worst thing in the world to require people to have people who know what they're doing involved.

Self builders seem to hear all the great stories about how much money other self builders saved and how wonderful it all is. The problem is, you don't hear about the guy who self built and brought in a sub contractor to do the basement but the sub contractor never supplied reinforcement drawings or schedules or construction drawings and details and the paperwork trail was a mess and now the whole thing's leaking like crazy and there's absolutely no recourse and it's entirely the fault of the self-builder for being so arrogant as to think that they (with reading a homebond manual) can do what qualified people - i.e. people who spent years going to college for, training as apprentices for and working for years for - can do.

I'm not having a go at you but the new regs are actually decent enough for savvy self-builders. It gives you recourse. You can't sue yourself if it all goes wrong...

Approach a builder. Appoint them to be the assigned builder. In their letter of appointment, contract only their oversight. You will notify them at key stages of construction, they come and inspect before allowing you on to the next stage. You're still self-building, you're still within the law, you're basically acting as labour for a builder who's supervising.

If you're so indignant that you don't want any professional oversight of your project well then, you're welcome to the construction faults any day.

The people this really sucks for are assigned certifiers. How in the name of god should a structural engineer be held responsible for the plumbing?!

Congratulations, in the months, or is it years, we have been debating this issue, that is the most reasoned, sensible, and well thought out, potential solution to this issue, I have seen on Boards.
It cuts through all the hype, hysteria, and overreaction so often reflected here.

Well apart from the final sentence which reverts to type.

mandy gall · 12-05-2014 9:58pm

miss no stars wrote: »

Jesus, you'd swear it was the worst thing in the world to require people to have people who know what they're doing involved.

Self builders seem to hear all the great stories about how much money other self builders saved and how wonderful it all is. The problem is, you don't hear about the guy who self built and brought in a sub contractor to do the basement but the sub contractor never supplied reinforcement drawings or schedules or construction drawings and details and the paperwork trail was a mess and now the whole thing's leaking like crazy and there's absolutely no recourse and it's entirely the fault of the self-builder for being so arrogant as to think that they (with reading a homebond manual) can do what qualified people - i.e. people who spent years going to college for, training as apprentices for and working for years for - can do.

I'm not having a go at you but the new regs are actually decent enough for savvy self-builders. It gives you recourse. You can't sue yourself if it all goes wrong...

Approach a builder. Appoint them to be the assigned builder. In their letter of appointment, contract only their oversight. You will notify them at key stages of construction, they come and inspect before allowing you on to the next stage. You're still self-building, you're still within the law, you're basically acting as labour for a builder who's supervising.

If you're so indignant that you don't want any professional oversight of your project well then, you're welcome to the construction faults any day.

The people this really sucks for are assigned certifiers. How in the name of god should a structural engineer be held responsible for the plumbing?!

I agree with you on one point - Assigned Certifiers are in a terrible position - but I disagree with you on the rest. There is no way in the world that self builders should be forced to even pick up the phone to call a building contractor - he may not know a hammer from a nail - he was probably a butcher before he decided to call himself a 'builder - the S.I. 9 is 'codswallop', formulated by CIF cowboys and anyone who thinks they are 'decent enough' regs needs to think seriously as how they can justify banning self building.
At no stage did I ever say we didn't want professional insight - in fact professional insight is essential. I cannot wait until, S.I.9 are in the shredder...:rolleyes:

BryanF · 12-05-2014 10:00pm

martinn123 wrote: »

Congratulations, in the months, or is it years, we have been debating this issue, that is the most reasoned, sensible, and well thought out, potential solution to this issue, I have seen on Boards.
It cuts through all the hype, hysteria, and overreaction so often reflected here.

Well apart from the final sentence which reverts to type.

Martin, it assumes the certifier is willing to accept these terms.

martinn123 · 12-05-2014 10:06pm

BryanF wrote: »

Martin, it assumes the certifier is willing to accept these terms.

True, but we are getting there.

BryanF · 12-05-2014 10:06pm

mandy gall wrote: »

I agree with you on one point - Assigned Certifiers are in a terrible position - but I disagree with you on the rest. There is no way in the world that self builders should be forced to even pick up the phone to call a building contractor - he may not know a hammer from a nail - he was probably a butcher before he decided to call himself a 'builder - the S.I. 9 is 'codswallop', formulated by CIF cowboys and anyone who thinks they are 'decent enough' regs needs to think seriously as how they can justify banning self building.
At no stage did I ever say we didn't want professional insight - in fact professional insight is essential. I cannot wait until, S.I.9 are in the shredder...:rolleyes:

It thought it was the fault of the bullish cowboy from North Kilkenny? When did the CIF become the instigators.

@ miss no stars
Are you honestly suggesting a main contractor is appointed to give his/her blessing in return for a fee?

martinn123 · 12-05-2014 10:14pm

BryanF wrote: »

@ miss no stars
Are you honestly suggesting a main contractor is appointed to give his/her blessing in return for a fee?

Now there is something ironic in that post, considering the Certifyers, justifiable claim that Fees would be increased, to give their blessing.

martinn123 · 12-05-2014 10:47pm

he may not know a hammer from a nail - he was probably a butcher before he decided to call himself a 'builder -

Well if he was a member of the "Association of Master Butchers "

At least it won't cost him a lot to change his Signs.

BryanF · 12-05-2014 10:59pm

martinn123 wrote: »

Now there is something ironic in that post, considering the Certifyers, justifiable claim that Fees would be increased, to give their blessing.

'i certify this building compiles' as opposed to 'im a builder ltd'

4Sticks · 12-05-2014 11:56pm

martinn123 wrote: »

Well apart from the final sentence which reverts to type.

.... and that's my cue

4Sticks · 13-05-2014 6:59am

martinn123 wrote: »

Anyone out there, actually building a house under these Reg's......if so please let us know the secret.

You can see here evidence that people have rushed to avoid the regs not participate. We may have to wait awhile for "the secret" Martin - keep an eye here

4Sticks · 13-05-2014 7:00am

martinn123 wrote: »

Congratulations, in the months, or is it years, we have been debating this issue, that is the most reasoned, sensible, and well thought out, potential solution to this issue, I have seen on Boards.

You will be that assigned builder then ? You could be.

4Sticks · 13-05-2014 7:05am

martinn123 wrote: »

That's a lot of " Legal Advice" in that post.
As opposed to an Opinion.

This has not been tested in any Court, as far as I am aware, and the Minister, and Department, have stated it's still possible to self-build.

How about "The Law Society" and their "advice" to professionals not to act for self builders. Perhaps you disdain them too.

New Building Control Regs

Comments