# Priory Hall apartments: What went wrong and what can we learn from this?



## Sunny

Have to say it is a shocking story that I struggle to get my head around but I was very impressed with the judge in the case for not allowing the council and developer pass the buck at the expense of the residents. How was this ever allowed to happen?


----------



## RonanC

It has happened all over the country. Developers cutting corners and making huge profits. Fire safety certs are issued based on planning applications, not on the final build, unless any changes were made to the plans. The developers would have had their own structural engineers, and it looks like they ignored the problem. The blame lies solely with the greedy developers and they should be locked up.


----------



## Sunny

Not to this extent.     I find it hard to believe there is signing off and issuing of fire certs without inspection? Are you sure it is based on plans? Forget bad bank regulation. That would be criminally insane regulation. Who are the professional engineers and architects who signed off on this?


----------



## thedaras

And who is going to pick up the 200k tab for the unfortunate residents who have to stay in a hotel room for 5 weeks??

Very distressing for families, I couldn't  believe my ears today when I heard a woman on the Joe Duffy show ,saying she had to pay to have her stuff removed from the apartment..That is beyond belief..they should not have to pay a penny for anything involved in this fiasco,in fact they should all be compensated for the upset to their lives..


----------



## truthseeker

What happens if the building works fail to bring the properties to a safe standard - are these people all stuck with their mortgages anyway? They will never be able to sell those properties, even if they are repaired, after all this they are so devalued that no one sane would touch them.

Who is paying for the remedial works? And the tab for staying in a hotel?

Somebody, somewhere signed off on these properties, its an absolute disgrace.


----------



## RonanC

Sunny said:


> I find it hard to believe there is signing off and issuing of fire certs without inspection? Are you sure it is based on plans



From Dublin City Council [broken link removed]
*How does the Fire Safety Certificate process work?*



_An application is submitted to the Building Control Authority  _
_Valid applications are date stamped and an acknowledgement  stating date of receipt is sent to the applicant. Where an application  is incomplete and therefore not valid , the Building Control Authority  may request the applicant to submit the necessary documentation to  enable the application to be validated.   _
_*The application is examined* technically for compliance with the 'Fire' part of the Building Regulations.  _
_Where it is considered that additional information or  modifications are required to the application, the officer examining the  application may request such additional information/modification from  the applicant.   _
_*A Fire Safety Certificate will issue to the applicant as soon  as possible* after all required additional information has been  submitted.  _
_The Building Control Authority must notify the applicant of the  decision on the application within two months of the application date  or within such extended period of time as may be agreed between the  applicant and the Authority at any time._

*Will Dublin City Council inspect and certify my building when it is finished?*

_No. You should employ your fire safety consultant to oversee the fire  related issues of the works. When the works are finished, you should  request a certificate of compliance from your consultant. This should  certify that your building has been constructed in accordance with the  Fire Safety Certificate and the Building Regulations.
*A Fire Safety Certificate is granted based on the design and information submitted.*_



There are apartment blocks up and down the country that are far worse. My father is a recently retired senior Fire Officer with Dublin Fire Brigade. He has told me several cases of entering a building and not being able to find fire escapes, exits blocked, doors locked or leading to a building site. Fire protection missing, minimal fire proofing between units, basically all that is between one apartment and another is a piece of plasterboard.


----------



## Sunny

Thanks for that. That's mental. Why are the council inspecting it now and telling people it is a death trap if they didnt care when the complex was being built and finished? Who are these experts you are supposed to hire? There would be no insurance if nothing was signed off so someone signed off on it.


----------



## RonanC

I'm not 100% sure how the issue came to light. Was it the council? What is DFB? Was is a structural engineer looking at the building for a potential buyer? Was it a resident/owner?


----------



## horusd

There was serious verbals (including the comment that the builder couldn't build a snowman), in  the Court lobby. Apparently the builder lives on Ayslebury Road but was remonstrating with the owners about how hard his life was. I bet that went down well. 

The judge did put it up to the council to re-house people with young kids, but practically I don't see how they can do that in a few days. It will entail bumping others off a housing list of 8000 or so.


----------



## RMCF

This one example sort of sums up all that is wrong in this country.

Those at the top were supposed to regulate ans sign off on the plans, building work, completion etc.

But of course, no-one is responsible now and its the little man in the street that suffers and has to pick up the cost and suffer the pain and inconvenience.

Shocking. But not surprising.


----------



## NOAH

apparently the building started to deteriorate from day one and after watching the first part of the frontline I can see how it happened.

The numbers of people, who would be regarded as the professions,  involved in  the construction of that building is shocking but the fact they got it so badly wrong is in a word -  worrying,  no not worrying,  its disgraceful and shameful.  

noah


----------



## RMCF

Even more shocking is the total lack of accountability.


----------



## Leper

The only reason this story made front page headlines is that it happened in Dublin.  If this happened in say Limerick, it would never have made even page 10.


----------



## Sunny

If it happened in Leitrim, it would have made the headlines. Even the High Court Judge said this has never happened in modern Ireland.


----------



## Sunny

Unreal system. 

http://www.independent.ie/national-...never-checked-by-fire-inspectors-2908482.html


----------



## Bronte

If a firm of architects have signed off a fire safety certificate that is false are they not liable ?  Don't they have insurance for such eventualities.


----------



## Shawady

One wonders if it's just the tip of the iceberg.
How many more Priory Halls are there out there?


----------



## thedaras

Bronte said:


> If a firm of architects have signed off a fire safety certificate that is false are they not liable ?  Don't they have insurance for such eventualities.




Taken from the article posted by Sunny;

*"When asked whether the council would now inspect apartment blocks built during the boom, a spokesman said it couldn't comment due to the ongoing High Court case.

Under the current system, architects sign off on fire safety for developers, based on a visual inspection, backed up by statements from the developer and subcontractors.

"Architect Stephen Oppermann said yesterday his firm -- Oppermann and Associates, based at Foley Street in Dublin 1 -- carried out a visual inspection of Priory Hall after the apartments were finished.

"It is a visual inspection," he said. "I'm not going to get out a hammer and break a hole in the wall."*


----------



## terrontress

RonanC said:


> I'm not 100% sure how the issue came to light. Was it the council? What is DFB? Was is a structural engineer looking at the building for a potential buyer? Was it a resident/owner?


 
The council was looking to place some social housing tenants in to them and when they did their inspection prior to committing to them they realised that they are deathtraps.

Interesting how mortgage payers can live on in blissful ignorance of their predicament and it is only those receiving their home off the state who get assured of a safe place to live!


----------



## micmclo

There were houses built around Dublin in the thirties and still standing strong today, Marino is an example and not that far from Priory Hall

I can look out my window at the ex council houses in Ballyfermot built in the fifties and they're looking well

Some say the best built houses are council houses, built to last.

So much for progress, we're going backwards with standards and regulation 

DCC discovered the issue and are picking up the hotel bill, they better sue someone, DCC are broke as it is


----------



## Sunny

Sounds like NAMA spotted it as well so what kind of inspection was done by the architects? I love their comment that they are not going to take a hammer and knock a hole in the wall. Why not?? Or at least monitor it as it being built. 

There should be jail time for people if it can be proven that corners were cut when it comes to fire safety. I was talking to a friend who works in the fire brigade. Said it was horrific and that people would have had very little chance to get out if a fire had started.


----------



## Latrade

RonanC said:


> There are apartment blocks up and down the country that are far worse. My father is a recently retired senior Fire Officer with Dublin Fire Brigade. He has told me several cases of entering a building and not being able to find fire escapes, exits blocked, doors locked or leading to a building site. Fire protection missing, minimal fire proofing between units, basically all that is between one apartment and another is a piece of plasterboard.


 
I'v heard first hand accounts of a fire in appartments in Swords at the weekend. Residents were trapped inside.


----------



## T McGibney

Leper said:


> The only reason this story made front page headlines is that it happened in Dublin.  If this happened in say Limerick, it would never have made even page 10.





Sunny said:


> If it happened in Leitrim, it would have made the headlines. Even the  High Court Judge said this has never happened in modern Ireland.



But it has happened before, at Rossorry Quay in Enniskillen. And with so little media attention at the time that a decade later, there are now only a few references to the scandal on google.co.uk or google.ie including one from the NI courts service and this BBC report.

Compare this original view of the development to how its remnants look today.


----------



## csirl

I cant understand why DCC has to pick up the tab and make the arrangements for the unfortunate residents. Surely those involved in the construction of the apartments should be doing the running around and picking up the tab?


----------



## Sunny

csirl said:


> I cant understand why DCC has to pick up the tab and make the arrangements for the unfortunate residents. Surely those involved in the construction of the apartments should be doing the running around and picking up the tab?


 
Thay say they can afford the repairs but can't afford the alternative accomodation. The Court has asked for statement of affairs to prove it. I have no problem with the council paying the money if there is no other option but the full force of the law should brought down to bear on those involved.


----------



## TarfHead

T McGibney said:


> But it has happened before, at Rossorry Quay in Enniskillen. And with so little media attention at the time that a decade later, there are now only a few references to the scandal on google.co.uk or google.ie including one from the NI courts service and this BBC report.


 
I assume the judge was referring to Ireland the country, and not Ireland the island  There is a difference. Actually there is a load of differences, not that certain people admit to them.


----------



## Superman

Sunny said:


> Sounds like NAMA spotted it as well so what kind of inspection was done by the architects? I love their comment that they are not going to take a hammer and knock a hole in the wall. Why not??


Assuming this was a standard situation, then it is because they agree the level of service required with the client (i.e. developer) before the inspection - "do you want me to open up the walls or not?" - The answer here appears to have been no.



Sunny said:


> Or at least monitor it as it being built.


The client (developer) obviously didn't want that - they only wanted a Cert. that was sufficient for sale. Perhaps the buyers of the apartments should have required that something greater than a visual inspection was undertaken as part of the terms of the contract for purchase of the apartments.

Other countries have fully funded building regulation inspection authorities - who go around and inspect the construction of buildings. Ireland doesn't want to go to that expense. Either something like that is done or else a requirement that all construction is supervised by professionals who can be sued afterwards.  (The problem with even this is that given the current economic environment many of these companies have gone into liquidation also).  The third option would be to have decennial insurance purchased with the construction of a building - this covers any defects uncovered during the first 10 years of a building's life, though again it adds to the expense.


----------



## Sunny

Superman said:


> Assuming this was a standard situation, then it is because they agree the level of service required with the client (i.e. developer) before the inspection - "do you want me to open up the walls or not?" - The answer here appears to have been no.
> 
> 
> .


 
Exactly. You have a client that hasn't done the work so you ask them if they want you to open up the walls and they say no. Shock, horror! And then you hand out fire certs based on that. You can't blame buyers for this.


----------



## T McGibney

TarfHead said:


> I assume the judge was referring to Ireland the country, and not Ireland the island  There is a difference. Actually there is a load of differences, not that certain people admit to them.



If the Rossorry Quay scandal hadn't been ignored by the establishment south of the border, then the judge would have been well aware of it, and perhaps the Priory Hall scandal wouldn't have happened.


----------



## TarfHead

T McGibney said:


> If the Rossorry Quay scandal hadn't been ignored by the establishment south of the border, then the judge would have been well aware of it, and perhaps the Priory Hall scandal wouldn't have happened.


 
It might have merited a few lines in UK News. Even if it had had more prominence than that, it's still irrelevant as precedent for this country.

And the Priory Hall scandal would not have happened without a 'rogue' builder, regardless of the regulatory environment.


----------



## Superman

Sunny said:


> Exactly. You have a client that hasn't done the work so you ask them if they want you to open up the walls and they say no. Shock, horror! And then you hand out fire certs based on that. You can't blame buyers for this.


Well, actually you can.  The Fire Cert. will say "this was a visual inspection only and no opening up was undertaken". If that is insufficient for the buyer (or someone such as a solicitor on their behalf), they should say so before they buy the apartment.


----------



## terrontress

T McGibney said:


> If the Rossorry Quay scandal hadn't been ignored by the establishment south of the border, then the judge would have been well aware of it, and perhaps the Priory Hall scandal wouldn't have happened.


 
It doesn't seem entirely like a parallel to me. 

In Rossory Quay the property developers have got engineers in rather than having the council make a swoop as has happened in Priory Hall. 

The owners were then reimbursed for the full amount they paid and also compensated for "stress and inconvenience".

It most likely was filed under the inconvenience heading rather than the "scandal" heading.


----------



## Bronte

thedaras said:


> *"Architect Stephen Oppermann said yesterday his firm -- Oppermann and Associates, based at Foley Street in Dublin 1 -- carried out a visual inspection of Priory Hall after the apartments were finished.*
> 
> *"It is a visual inspection," he said. "I'm not going to get out a hammer and break a hole in the wall."*


 
I don't care what kind of inspection he conducted. He signed a fire cert and he should stand over it or pay the price.  Otherwise there is no point in a fire safety certificate.  

Mental note to self.  Should I ever buy another propety in Ireland make sure that the fire safety certificate is valid and can be acted upon by my solicitor if need be.


----------



## Superman

Bronte said:


> I don't care what kind of inspection he conducted. He signed a fire cert and he should stand over it or pay the price.  Otherwise there is no point in a fire safety certificate.


He will stand over it - or be required to stand over it.
However if it says "this was a visual inspection only and no opening up was undertaken" - then it is a very limited document. 
This is acceptable to people (banks, solicitors, purchasers) who look for the Fire Cert.
It is not in architects' interest that these things exist - they would prefer if the architect was involved in the entire construction process (more work and therefore money for them).


----------



## RonanC

Bronte said:


> I don't care what kind of inspection he conducted. He signed a fire cert and he should stand over it or pay the price. Otherwise there is no point in a fire safety certificate.
> 
> Mental note to self. Should I ever buy another propety in Ireland make sure that the fire safety certificate is valid and can be acted upon by my solicitor if need be.


 
Bronte, 

The Fire Safety Certificate is issued by Dublin City Council in advance of construction. The architect in this case would have issued a certificate of compliance to certify that the building had been constructed in accordance with the Fire Safety Certificate and the Building Regulations.


----------



## Bronte

RonanC said:


> Bronte,
> 
> The Fire Safety Certificate is issued by Dublin City Council in advance of construction. The architect in this case would have issued a certificate of compliance to certify that the building had been constructed in accordance with the Fire Safety Certificate and the Building Regulations.


 

That doesn't make sense, how can you certify something has been built in compliance with Fire safety rules before construction.

Is it a two step procedure?  One by DCC and one by the architect?


----------



## Sunny

Bronte said:


> That doesn't make sense, how can you certify something has been built in compliance with Fire safety rules before construction.
> 
> Is it a two step procedure? One by DCC and one by the architect?


 
It wasn't even light touch regulation. 

http://www.independent.ie/national-...ificate-system-works-in-practice-2908501.html

Does anyone know what the potential penalties are for the developers and sub-contrctors who certified they did the work but didn't.


----------



## thedaras

Bronte said:


> I don't care what kind of inspection he conducted. He signed a fire cert and he should stand over it or pay the price.  Otherwise there is no point in a fire safety certificate.
> 
> Mental note to self.  Should I ever buy another propety in Ireland make sure that the fire safety certificate is valid and can be acted upon by my solicitor if need be.[/QUOTE
> 
> If he signed a fire cert based on a visual inspection and that was/is all that is required, he has done his job.


----------



## Superman

Bronte said:


> That doesn't make sense, how can you certify something has been built in compliance with Fire safety rules before construction.
> 
> Is it a two step procedure?  One by DCC and one by the architect?


The Fire Cert is issued that the building IF BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATION SUBMITTED will comply with the Fire regulations.
The opinion on compliance says "based on a visual inspection only, this appears to comply with the Fire Certificate".
There is a big gap between the two - if a visual inspection only is what is done.


----------



## RonanC

Bronte said:


> That doesn't make sense, how can you certify something has been built in compliance with Fire safety rules before construction.
> 
> Is it a two step procedure? One by DCC and one by the architect?


 
Yes it is a two step procedure. 

DCC would view the plans and based on the specification of the build, would issue a fire safety certificate if they are satisfied with the proposed plans. Sometimes they insist on alterations to the plans and only then will issue a certificate. 

Here is the link I posted on page one which describes the process in full

[broken link removed]


----------



## Shawady

The big losers in this are going to be aprtment owners everywhere.
I heard a bit of Liveline yesterday and there were tradesmen on giving their account of all the shody workmanship during the boom. Some of them said it could be up to 10 years before some of the problems filter through.
Don't know whether it was just scarmongering but even if there is some recovery in prices, very few people will touch apartments in the future.


----------



## Bronte

RonanC said:


> The architect in this case would have issued a certificate of compliance to certify that the building had been constructed in accordance with the Fire Safety Certificate and the Building Regulations.


 
Then is the architect not liable if the building is not built in accordance wth Fire Safety?


----------



## Complainer

What is the role of solicitors and conveyancing in this? Don't they have a responsibility to protect their clients? Why did they accept a cert based on 'visual inspection only'?


----------



## thedaras

Because they could Perhaps?
Thanks to  self regulation brought in by Fianna Fail in 1990,


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> What is the role of solicitors and conveyancing in this? Don't they have a responsibility to protect their clients? Why did they accept a cert based on 'visual inspection only'?



That's a good question.


----------



## Sunny

Even going past the whole visual inspection thing and I agree that Architects, Engineers, Solicitors all have questions to answer, the simple fact is that work clearly wasn't done by the builder/sub-contractors even if they certified to the architect that it was. What is the penalty for recklessy endangering peoples lives like in this case? I am guessing a small fine possibly?


----------



## Pique318

Superman said:


> The Fire Cert. will say "this was a visual inspection only and no opening up was undertaken". If that is insufficient for the buyer (or someone such as a solicitor on their behalf), they should say so before they buy the apartment.


I totally disagree. If a compliance certificate is issued, then the building is deemed to be compliant by a member of a professional body who has the expertise and training and authority to certify said building. If he is on-site to view the progress of the building and knows/trusts the builder implicitly, then a visual inspection 'may' be OK. However, he is putting his reputation and also the lives of the tenants on the line. So any compliance cert issued should have no assumptions made in it's issue.



Bronte said:


> He signed a fire cert and he should stand over it or pay the price.  Otherwise there is no point in a fire safety certificate.


 Agreed.



Superman said:


> He will stand over it - or be required to stand over it.
> However if it says "this was a visual inspection only and no opening up was undertaken" - then it is a very limited document.
> This is acceptable to people (banks, solicitors, purchasers) who look for the Fire Cert.
> It is not in architects' interest that these things exist - they would prefer if the architect was involved in the entire construction process (more work and therefore money for them).


 Architects can charge for driving to a building, have 'a look around' and sign a form confirming life-saving measures are in place (when there is no way they can be sure of this, visually). This is presumably the subject of some agreement by their professional body. It's shocking that this was allowed. Whatever piece of documentation that will be waved around (stating that the architect in this case did no wrong and that a visual inspection was all that was necessary) should be edited to remove the 'visual' aspect. No renegotiation of fees should occur either.



Sunny said:


> Even going past the whole visual inspection thing  and I agree that Architects, Engineers, Solicitors all have questions to  answer, the simple fact is that work clearly wasn't done by the  builder/sub-contractors even if they certified to the architect that it  was. What is the penalty for recklessy endangering peoples lives like in  this case? I am guessing a small fine possibly?



As ever in Ireland, no-one will be held ultimately responsible. 
A committee will be formed. Platitudes will be uttered that "this must never happen again". 
Architects or someone else will be forced to inspect buildings properly but fees will probably increase exponentially as a result. 
Professional Indemnity Insurance will never have to be claimed as no-one will be charged with negligence. 
The Developers will not be held accountable. 
The LA will not be held accountable. 
Politicians will voice their horror at the slip in standards and blame each other (or FF) while having photos taken with the poor unfortunates who are gonna be stuck with unsaleable properties.
And the world keeps turning until the next scandal.

The more things change...etc.etc.etc...


----------



## Superman

Pique318 said:


> I totally disagree. If a compliance certificate is issued, then the building is deemed to be compliant by a member of a professional body who has the expertise and training and authority to certify said building. If he is on-site to view the progress of the building and knows/trusts the builder implicitly, then a visual inspection 'may' be OK. However, he is putting his reputation and also the lives of the tenants on the line. So any compliance cert issued should have no assumptions made in it's issue.


You should actually read the document before you comment on it - and perhaps lobby the Dept. of Environment for a change to the Building Regulations if you feel that standards should be improved. 
At present, it is for the purchaser (or their representatives) to ensure that they are satisfied with the documents provided. In this case, the purchasers were happy to accept an Opinion after the fact based on a visual inspection only and a promise from the developer.



Pique318 said:


> This is presumably the subject of some agreement by their professional body. It's shocking that this was allowed. Whatever piece of documentation that will be waved around (stating that the architect in this case did no wrong and that a visual inspection was all that was necessary) should be edited to remove the 'visual' aspect. No renegotiation of fees should occur either.


I'm rather flabbergasted that you wish to assign responsibility for this to someone who specifically says that what they are doing and what they are not doing.  We might as well assign responsibility to you - and I suggest that no negotiation of fees with you should occur either. 



Pique318 said:


> As ever in Ireland, no-one will be held ultimately responsible.
> A committee will be formed. Platitudes will be uttered that "this must never happen again".
> Architects or someone else will be forced to inspect buildings properly but fees will probably increase exponentially as a result.


There appears not to have been a supervising architect in this case - all there appears to have been is the requirement that "someone sign a bit of paper so we can hand this over" and someone who said "that's grand, we won't actually read the bit of paper and see what it says".  


Pique318 said:


> Professional Indemnity Insurance will never have to be claimed as no-one will be charged with negligence.
> The Developers will not be held accountable.
> The LA will not be held accountable.
> Politicians will voice their horror at the slip in standards and blame each other (or FF) while having photos taken with the poor unfortunates who are gonna be stuck with unsaleable properties.
> And the world keeps turning until the next scandal.
> 
> The more things change...etc.etc.etc...


Most other countries (e.g. UK, US, most European countries) have inspections carried out by the Building Inspectors employed by the Local Authorities during the construction process. Ireland has decided that this was an unnecessary expense - accept that or change it.


----------



## Superman

Bronte said:


> Then is the architect not liable if the building is not built in accordance wth Fire Safety?


No, he is liable if he is *negligent*.
If the architect says:
"This building was built in accordance with Fire Safety Regulations" and it is not, then he is liable.

If the architect says:
"I only had a visual inspection of this, and everything I saw appeared to be in compliance with the drawings submitted for the Fire Safety Certificate and there were no particular issues which made me question that" - then the architect is only liable if what he says is negligently made.

If the purchaser has a problem with this, they should require a higher level of testing.
If people have a problem with the fact that it is up to the purchaser to be satisfied with the wording, then pressure should be put on the government to change the system.


----------



## Sunny

Superman said:


> No, he is liable if he is *negligent*.
> If the architect says:
> "This building was built in accordance with Fire Safety Regulations" and it is not, then he is liable.
> 
> If the architect says:
> "I only had a visual inspection of this, and everything I saw appeared to be in compliance with the drawings submitted for the Fire Safety Certificate and there were no particular issues which made me question that" - then the architect is only liable if what he says is negligently made.
> 
> If the purchaser has a problem with this, they should require a higher level of testing.
> If people have a problem with the fact that it is up to the purchaser to be satisfied with the wording, then pressure should be put on the government to change the system.


 
If professional architects can't see the shortfall in the system, they are idiots. If as professionals, they along with their professional bodies did not make noise over the years with regards to this potential problem, they are a disgrace. When did they point out the dangers that they must have known was going on to some extent? Did they campaign against such a system back in the 1990's? Using phrases like

[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘visual inspection’ 
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘no opening up’ 
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘substantial compliance‘ 
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘providing evidence for title purposes’ 
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘not a report on the condition’ [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘we were not retained to supervise construction [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT] 
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]is a way for covering one's behind and does not portray a so called profession a very good light.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT] 
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]No different to solicitors doing incompetent conveyance work but still being within the law. 
[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## Superman

Sunny said:


> If professional architects can't see the shortfall in the system, they are idiots. If as professionals, they along with their professional bodies did not make noise over the years with regards to this potential problem, they are a disgrace. When did they point out the dangers that they must have known was going on to some extent? Did they campaign against such a system back in the 1990's? Using phrases like
> 
> [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘visual inspection’
> [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘no opening up’
> [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘substantial compliance‘
> [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘providing evidence for title purposes’
> [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘not a report on the condition’ [/FONT][/FONT]
> [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘we were not retained to supervise construction [/FONT][/FONT]
> [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT]
> [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]is a way for covering one's behind and does not portray a so called profession a very good light.[/FONT][/FONT]
> [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT]
> [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]No different to solicitors doing incompetent conveyance work but still being within the law.
> [/FONT][/FONT]


Of course they are aware of the dysfunction. 
They have campaigned to increase standards - yet are and have been ignored. (The fact that you don't know about it shows that this is the case).

A system that involved higher standards would require a lot more architects on projects - which even from a purely self-interested point of view they would like to see happen.


----------



## Complainer

Superman said:


> You should actually read the document before you comment on it - and perhaps lobby the Dept. of Environment for a change to the Building Regulations if you feel that standards should be improved.
> At present, it is for the purchaser (or their representatives) to ensure that they are satisfied with the documents provided. In this case, the purchasers were happy to accept an Opinion after the fact based on a visual inspection only and a promise from the developer.


When buying a house or apartment, all purchasers are heavily dependant on what their expert advisers (surveyor and solicitor) tell them. I would have expected more rigor from the solicitors involved in these cases.


----------



## Firefly

Complainer said:


> When buying a house or apartment, all purchasers are heavily dependant on what their expert advisers (surveyor and solicitor) tell them. I would have expected more rigor from the solicitors involved in these cases.



I agree with Complainer here. Having said that, it does seem strange that with presumably so many different solicitors involved (many individual purchasers) that none of them spotted this.


----------



## Superman

Complainer said:


> When buying a house or apartment, all purchasers are heavily dependant on what their expert advisers (surveyor and solicitor) tell them. I would have expected more rigor from the solicitors involved in these cases.


Possibly - it was generally acceptable to the profession and to banks generally. 

It may be for the courts to determine whether that generally accepted practice is negligent or not.  If it is determined to be negligent, then there may be a whole world of liability attached to solicitors generally.


----------



## Black Sheep

Isn't it unbelievable that a fire certificate can be issued on "visual Inspection" only without any staged inspections.

Can one inspect foundations, damp courses, underfloor heating etc after house is completed


----------



## Superman

Black Sheep said:


> Can one inspect foundations, damp courses, underfloor heating etc after house is completed


Yes one can - there are only 2 opinions given - one on compliance with Planning and one on compliance with Building Regulations. The Building Regulations compliance addresses all of that foundations, damp courses, underfloor heating etc. thing.

Yes, it is madness.


----------



## Complainer

Yorky said:


> They are but the level of ignorance is astounding - people generally don't bother to inform themselves and have unquestioning faith in their builder, architect, solicitor et al.


The solicitor is working directly for the purchaser. You can't expect a purchaser to understand the detail of building regs, title, conveyancing, planning etc. Purchasers pay experts to advise them on this.

I'd be interested to learn why solicitors generally accept the 'visual inspection only' certs. Is there any guidance from the Law Society around this?


----------



## Complainer

Yorky said:


> All purchasers are consumers and while not having expertise they should inform themselves in order to have a working knowledge. As a minimum, if advice isn't forthcoming they should ask the advocate in their pay to explain all details fully.



I'd be a fairly active consumer. I remember the car sales guy being amazed that I read the terms and conditions on the back of the order form before signing. He told me I was his first customer ever to do this.

I have no idea about the extent of confirmation that my solicitor got from my builder when buying our house. I'd hazard a guess that 99% of buyers would be the same, with the possible exception of construction professionals.


----------



## Pique318

Right, let's change the wording to "Building X looks like it's compliant, but I'm not promising anything".

After all, that's what it currently appears to mean.


----------



## cork

Yorky said:


> And then people bizarrely complain when things go wrong, pleading 'no-one told me'.



Consumers never had such access to consumer legalislation as they do today.

But when things go wrong - they easily claim victimhood.


----------



## Latrade

Yorky said:


> And then people bizarrely complain when things go wrong, pleading 'no-one told me'. That is representative of general consumer inertia - enthralled by what someone else decides is acceptable- which I find disconcerting as big business are well aware of it.


 
I think there's a slight difference in buying a house for most people. In all other consumer activities it is on you and you alone to perform any reasonable checks to be confident it is a reasonable sale. Caveat Emptor and all that.

However, with purchasing a house you have to go through a solicitor and they perform the searches and checks for you. It's not an excuse as, like you, I had asked for specific confirmation on certain issues, but only issues and processes I was aware of. 

The entire process isn't clouded in mystery as such, but it isn't as simple as sitting down and reading the small print. For starters, you aren't given the small print unless you specifically ask for it (even then it's only the specific document you ask for) and second you are obliged to pay someone to check all the small print for you anyway. 

As such it's natural and reasonable to defer to the judgement and knowledge of an individual you are obliged to employ. If it isn't their duty or job to analyse the documents to that extent (i.e. they just collate and make sure they're there) then:

a) this should be made clear when engaging the solicitor. 
b) the fees for simply collating and not analysing a set of documents should not be so high.

I would agree that in all other consumer activities, there is plenty of information and advice available to make reasoned judgements on purchases. But house buying is probably one area where there is a lack of sufficient information or access to information because it is all through a middle man. 

There are more consumer rights and information sources for buying a television than there is on the one biggest monetary and personal purchase you will make in your life. 

Whether it's this, the pyrite issue or any other problem, it just seems that there's infinite recourse for a lemon of a television, but when it's your home and when you've had several individuals involved in a process outside of your control and/or knowledge you're just left high and dry.


----------



## thedaras

Latrade said:


> Whether it's this, the pyrite issue or any other problem, it just seems that there's infinite recourse for a lemon of a television, but when it's your home and when you've had several individuals involved in a process outside of your control and/or knowledge you're just left high and dry.



I agree , there needs to be a clear consumer rights charter when buying a house..
An example would be the recent revelation that a visual inspection was the only thing required by the professionals involved.I don't think many people were made aware of this.

The self regulation is also news to a lot of people.

And even if they are aware ,how many people are in a position/have the money, to have a full inspection done,for example;
I know someone who purchased a house with  a septic tank,they had the usual house survey done and the were given a cert of compliance,however the septic tank caused massive problems.

When they ask the guy who signed the cert of compliance to stand over it, he said it was a visual inspection only,and there was no other way to check a septic tank without doing extensive work.

I doubt many people would do that,so we are in some ways relying on the seller to tell the truth,perhaps then the onus should be on the seller to have a cert of full( not just visual ) compliance before the house is sold,that way every buyer is assured that the house is in correct/proper compliance.

However the real fault in my opinion is that in 1990,(another hair brained Fianna fail idea) ,self regulation was brought in,this was a recipe for disaster.


----------



## T McGibney

thedaras said:


> I know someone who purchased a house with  a septic tank,they had the usual house survey done and the were given a cert of compliance,however the septic tank caused massive problems.
> 
> When they ask the guy who signed the cert of compliance to stand over it, he said it was a visual inspection only,and there was no other way to check a septic tank without doing extensive work.



What did you expect him to do? Get in to it himself? Dig up the entire septic tank system? Flush a small animal down a toilet and wait for him to emerge in the percolation area?

While we need improvements to building certification procedures, we also need a dose of realism.


----------



## thedaras

T McGibney said:


> What did you expect him to do? Get in to it himself? Dig up the entire septic tank system?
> 
> While we need improvements to building certification procedures, we also need a dose of realism.



Whoa, Calm down..
The point I was making is that the couple thought that when a compliance cert was given,that things were in fact compliant..it became obvious pretty quickly that this is not the case,that most of these certs are in fact visual only.

The fact  that inspections are visual only is not being brought to the notice of people who may have no idea how a house should be built or in what way it should comply,and if they get a cert of compliance they believe it does comply.
And why would they think anything else,they have done what they can ,with their limited experience.The fact is that people are NOT aware what needs to be checked,and this is where consumers need to be protected from unscrupulous sellers.

And once again as I've posted ,this is what needs to change..The onus should be on the seller to make sure everything is compliant and not just visually.

I wonder how many of those who give compliance certs actually say to their client," you do know,that I can only certify what I can see and that to fully investigate requires extensive work,that the visual inspection means I cannot tell if the septic tank will collapse,it means I have no idea if the insulation is correct ,I have no idea if the fire protection is safe,the electrics etc.

Fact is,as has been seen at Priory Hall and many others,people rely on these certs and the fact that the certs are really not sufficient is not being brought to their attention..


----------



## T McGibney

thedaras said:


> The onus should be on the seller to make sure everything is compliant and not just visually.



But how do you expect a seller to be in a position to confirm this, if its unfeasible for a professional to do so?

If you sell me your house, do you think it is reasonable for you to have to indemnify me against problems afterwards in the septic tank and elsewhere? How is the average householder going to finance this potentially significant contingent liability?


----------



## Ceist Beag

Isn't it absolutely crazy that a signature on a piece of paper saying "Ah yeah sure it looks grand from where I stand" can be regarded as a certificate of compliance!


----------



## Latrade

T McGibney said:


> But how do you expect a seller to be in a position to confirm this, if its unfeasible for a professional to do so?
> 
> If you sell me your house, do you think it is reasonable for you to have to indemnify me against problems afterwards in the septic tank and elsewhere? How is the average householder going to finance this potentially significant contingent liability?


 
I don't want to speak for thedaras, but what I got from the post was that it wasn't clear to people what the limitiations of many of these certificates are. 

There are clear limitations to inspecting a house and what can actually be done in any reasonable survey. However, this and other essential documentation in a house purchase is shrouded in a lack of clarity. Why call it a certificate of conformity if it can't actually confirm that?

For example, in order to assign a certificate of conformity for CE marking, you can't just do a visual inspection and say it seems ok. 

In order to certify for licencing for medical boards across the world, pharmachem can't just say it seems ok. 

If I were to sell a corporate governance audit and just say it involves a quick walkaround, no inspection, no testing, and you get a certificate of compliance based that doesn't actually certify compliance, I'd be laughed at.

Yes, you get what you pay for, but given that there is a huge lack of understanding and knowledge around the process and a lack of involvement in the process, surely, on the biggest purchase of an individual's life, there has to be a better system and a better information system.

Again, I have more protection based on buying a sandwich from Tescos than I do a house.


----------



## thedaras

Leper has summed it up very well.thanks.
If I buy a product for 20 euro, I expect it to be in perfect condition.If it isnt I have numerous consumer protections.I pay for a perfect product not an imperfect one,and thats what I expect.

However if I pay 500 thousand euro for a house,the same logic doesnt apply.
And that is the basis of my argument.

There should be an onus on the seller to ensure the product they are selling (ie a house)is in the condition it is advertised as, and to ensure they are not hiding faults..

To take that further,if no one can certify that a product is not perfect or in the condition that the seller says it is, then it should be sold as such and brought to the attention of the buyer.

At the very least the buyer then has a choice to proceed with the purchase or not.


----------



## dereko1969

thedaras said:


> Whoa, Calm down..
> The point I was making is that the couple thought that when a compliance cert was given,that things were in fact compliant..it became obvious pretty quickly that this is not the case,that most of these certs are in fact visual only.
> 
> The fact that inspections are visual only is not being brought to the notice of people who may have no idea how a house should be built or in what way it should comply,and if they get a cert of compliance they believe it does comply.
> And why would they think anything else,they have done what they can ,with their limited experience.The fact is that people are NOT aware what needs to be checked,and this is where consumers need to be protected from unscrupulous sellers.
> 
> And once again as I've posted ,this is what needs to change..The onus should be on the seller to make sure everything is compliant and not just visually.
> 
> I wonder how many of those who give compliance certs actually say to their client," you do know,that I can only certify what I can see and that to fully investigate requires extensive work,that the visual inspection means I cannot tell if the septic tank will collapse,it means I have no idea if the insulation is correct ,I have no idea if the fire protection is safe,the electrics etc.
> 
> Fact is,as has been seen at Priory Hall and many others,people rely on these certs and the fact that the certs are really not sufficient is not being brought to their attention..


 
I know my Engineers report on my house had in big block letters - this is based on a visual examination only - i'm trying to figure out what kind of examination you think would work completely? You'd have your house half dug up with samples of concrete/wood, I can't imagine people going for that.


----------



## T McGibney

thedaras said:


> Leper has summed it up very well.thanks.
> If I buy a product for 20 euro, I expect it to be in perfect  condition.If it isnt I have numerous consumer protections.I pay for a  perfect product not an imperfect one,and thats what I expect.
> 
> However if I pay 500 thousand euro for a house,the same logic doesnt apply.
> And that is the basis of my argument.
> 
> There should be an onus on the seller to ensure the product they are  selling (ie a house)is in the condition it is advertised as, and to  ensure they are not hiding faults..
> 
> To take that further,if no one can certify that a product is not perfect  or in the condition that the seller says it is, then it should be sold  as such and brought to the attention of the buyer.
> 
> At the very least the buyer then has a choice to proceed with the purchase or not.



To repeat my question so, in the context of a house sale, how is the average householder going to finance this potentially significant contingent liability?


----------



## thedaras

dereko1969; 

Ask most people what they believe a complience cert to be and you can be assured most will believe that it means ,things that should comply do comply.

Perhaps there is a need for certifaction that is a true reflection of things,rather than a somewhat cloudy one.

There are many countries where certification must be done in stages.

If a visual inspection is all that is required then it is not worth the paper it is written on. What is the point of it?


----------



## thedaras

T McGibney said:


> To repeat my question so, in the context of a house sale, how is the average householder going to finance this potentially significant contingent liability?



Those who are selling a very expensive product should by law have to tell of problems they are having with the house.

I suggest that if the seller cannot stand over the safety of their product, then it should be clearly stated.

Something like this;"This house was built in 1997, although it has a compliance cert it really may not comply as it was a visual inspection only.
To be absolutely assured of your safety ,you must satisfy yourself as to the safety of the building.".

That way the buyer is aware of what he needs to do,and if he chooses to proceed then there is no come back.

However it may be a selling point for the seller to have a cert which can show the foundations,electrics etc are in compliance not pretend compliance.
This obviously wont be possible for houses build in the past,but it could be the way to go in the future.


----------



## T McGibney

Disclaimers are hardly the answer.  has already pointed out that engineers reports already have disclaimers.

You said earlier that "The onus should be on the seller to make sure everything is compliant" but you still haven't demonstrated 

- how it can be feasible for householders to prove this, when its not feasible for professionals to do so.

- how can the average householder be expected to finance the potentially significant contingent liability attaching to the risk of non compliance.


----------



## thedaras

T McGibney said:


> Disclaimers are hardly the answer.  has already pointed out that engineers reports already have disclaimers.
> 
> You said earlier that "The onus should be on the seller to make sure everything is compliant" but you still haven't demonstrated
> 
> - how it can be feasible for householders to prove this, when its not feasible for professionals to do so.
> 
> - how can the average householder be expected to finance the potentially significant contingent liability attaching to the risk of non compliance.



How can the buyer be expected to finance the potentially significant contingent liability attaching to the risk of non compliance?

You seem to be saying that those who sell a very expensive product should have no onus on them to protect those who are buying?

It is not my job and nor am I qualified to know how to proceed with the implementation of same,I would suggest you take a look at my last post to see how I suggest an idea of  things should be in all future builds.


----------



## Bronte

This issue is very serious indeed. A matter of life or death. So a summary of who does what might be helpful. 

City councils

Their job is to ensure that buildings are built in compliance with Fire safety rules. This they do by accepting a self certification coming from an architect hired by the builder. From a legal stand point they are covered on their duties by accepting and not questioning the self certification. Is this correct?

In addition they do spot checks on about 10% of properties. 

The current case only came to light because the residents complained. Is this the only complaint of it's kind with DCC, it now appears that this developer/builder has a certain reputation, as a matter of urgency why has DCC not sent in their fire officer/survery/engineer to inspect apartment blocks in particular. 

Architect

He signs a visual cert based on the documents he receives from sub contractors and the developers wherein they state the building complies with the building regulations/fire rules. 

Does he have any liablity if it later turns out that in fact the property has not been built with fire regulations. What does his professional indemnity insurance cover him for in this situation. 

As he is hired by the builder, what duty has he to the ultimate purchaser?  As he is paid by the developer, that is not a good enough distance between them.  Too open to all sorts of abuses.   

Sub contractors

Are they liable for incorrectly stating that something has been done when clearly it has not. Are they a mark, probably not as they have long since ceased trading and they are in Oz. 

Developer

Are they liable for incorrectly stating that something has been done when clearly it has not. Are they a mark, probably not as they have long since ceased trading and they are in Oz or Nama, or both.

Architects professional body

Did they know, did they discuss that the certificates were worthless. If they did discuss and if they knew that properties were not being built correctly did they bring it to the attention of city councils.

Solicitors

Did they know that certificates were worthless. What did the Law society say in their guidelines on these certificates. Banks made it a requirement for conveyancing that these certs were included? 

Did solicitors read the certs and did anyone question or realise that they are worthless pieces of paper?

Whose responsibility is it to read the certificates and to decide if they are correct and valid and can be held up in a court of law to tie liability to someone if what they state is incorrect.  In the particular case to hand the certificates themselves seem to be valid but have no legal standing as they are worthless.   

Building regulations

Who decided on the building regulations since the 1990's and who agreed to self regulation. Presumable it was a fudge between architects/city planners and government? 

Dublin Fire brigade

What experience have they had of fires in new appartments. Did they come to realise that some/many were not built in accordance with fire safety and did they notify the city council

Purchaser

Here I'm trying to think what I would have done and in all honesty, I would probably have read the fire certificate, but then again maybe not. It might be something that was required by the bank for the conveyance to be done by the solicitor and gets sent directly via one solicitor to another. It's different for engineeers reports, those I've always read carefully. 

Is it right to assume that purchasers would think that a building was built in accordance with regulations and fire safety if solicitor said everything was ok for the sale. 

How would a consumer be competent enough to know if a certificate was correct, there would be no way an ordinary consumer would know about firewalls and would have relied on city planners/enforcers/builders and architects.

Engineer's report

When you purchase you get an engineer's report, but normally they is a disclaimer about it being a visual inspection. Do they have any role to play in relation to a building complying with building regulations and fire regulations.

The Judge (name?)

Well done the judge. He's a class act. No dithering or pussy footing around for him. Just orders and follow through and action.

Nobody at fault

Which is where we seem to be at, though the judge is making the builder/developer pay and if not him DCC.   

There should be a clear chain in the purchase of a house where someone is liable at each step.  How hard is that?


----------



## Complainer

^^^ Don't forget the role of the solicitor - Why did they accept a visual inspection cert on behalf of the buyer?


----------



## Bronte

Complainer said:


> ^^^ Don't forget the role of the solicitor - Why did they accept a visual inspection cert on behalf of the buyer?


 
Just give me a few more minutes I'm still composing the post. But any ideas are welcome. This topic has made me very cross indeed.

I've finished for now.  I have to read this thread again as I don't have time now and also need to think about it over the weekend.


----------



## Superman

Bronte said:


> Architect
> 
> He signs a visual cert based on the documents he receives from sub contractors and the developers wherein they state the building complies with the building regulations/fire rules.
> 
> Does he have any liablity if it later turns out that in fact the property has not been built with fire regulations. What does his professional indemnity insurance cover him for in this situation.


He confirms that the visible signs of the building conform with that required and specified conditions as set out in the Fire Safety Cert., drawings and specification.

That means the Fire Alarm works (or appears to work - depending on how much testing is done), the correct number and type of detector heads are installed in the correct locations, Fire extinguishers are present, correct and maintained, Fire doors are appropriately located and in working order, doors have Fire Reg compliant locks and closing mechanisms, corridors and enclosures are correctly located - as indicated on the drawings, doors are the correct widths and open in the correct directions, escape signs and equipment is installed as indicated, fire glazing and fire shutters are located as indicated, minimum and maximum dimensions are correct, all relevant signs are in place etc. etc.
Note that the Opinion on Compliance with B. Regs. covers not only this, but all other parts - i.e. part A and parts C-M.

That is to say, it does involve a lot of work to even do a visual inspection.

If it turns out that the visual inspection was carried out negligently (e.g. there is something he sees which would put a competent professional on notice that there is a problem somewhere), then he will be liable for that.
He is not liable if the non-compliance could not be reasonably detected on a visual inspection. 
His insurance would cover negligence.


----------



## Bronte

Superman, I've not had a chance to go into what you've said yet.

AAMers in general. About 2 to 3 years ago we were having a debate on Homebond. Nothing to do with Pyrite (I don't think) but it came up and there was a debate with myself and MF1 and my conclusion was that Homebond was useless. How can I easily search for that. We have too many posts for me to check that way. And I'm useless at searching/technology etc.

Seems like a good time to do a key post on what potential purchasers should watch out. And no BB I do not want to do it but will contribute. Maybe it already exists.

And why on earth is this in letting off steam.  It's a very serious topic, in addtion there may be residents who are not on AAM who might want to give their input.


----------



## Superman

> City Councils: Their job is to ensure that buildings are built in compliance with Fire safety rules. This they do by accepting a self certification coming from an architect hired by the builder. From a legal stand point they are covered on their duties by accepting and not questioning the self certification. Is this correct?


No. They do not have to ensure that the building is built in accordance with Fire Safety Rules. They are to ensure the building is designed in accordance with the rules, and they have a power to inspect.  It is a rather bare bones approach brought about by a government looking to cut costs and push responsibility onto the private sector. 



> As he is hired by the builder, what duty has he to the ultimate purchaser?  As he is paid by the developer, that is not a good enough distance between them.  Too open to all sorts of abuses.


He would be covered by the law of negligent misstatement with regard to third parties.



> Sub contractors
> 
> Are they liable for incorrectly stating that something has been done when clearly it has not. Are they a mark, probably not as they have long since ceased trading and they are in Oz.


Yes. 



Bronte said:


> Developer
> 
> Are they liable for incorrectly stating that something has been done when clearly it has not. Are they a mark, probably not as they have long since ceased trading and they are in Oz or Nama, or both.


If the developer states that the building is built in accordance with B. Regs., he is liable. In any case, Builders generally have to build in accordance with B. Regs.


----------



## Leo

Bronte said:


> About 2 to 3 years ago we were having a debate on Homebond. ...How can I easily search for that.


 
This it? 

Found by googling "homebond bronte mf1 site:askaboutmoney.com"
Leo


----------



## thedaras

Bronte, is this the thread you are looking for,it has posts from mf1;
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=148207&highlight=compliance+cert


----------



## Mpsox

Surely the issue here is that it's another example of light touch regulation not being effective. We've seen it with the banks and other financial institutions, we've seen it with the Church where they were basically a law onto themselves and now we're seeing it with developers and builders. 

I remember a few years back at the height of the boom, I used to pass an appartment block on the southside of Dublin, and whilst I am no expert in construction, I know enough to know when something looks shoddy. Plaster covered up a million sins. I fear Priory Hall and pyrite is the tip of the iceberg, I can't help wondering how many of the Celtic Tiger boom estates will actually have fallen down in 20 years time


----------



## thedaras

Searching for information on Priory Hall,I came across this on AAM ,Dated 30/06/2006.

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=27536

And from that thread;

bigchicken  
Frequent Poster
Posts: 156


> Re: Buying in Donaghmede area (Priory Hall)
> Does anyone know anything about the problem with the builders here? There was an article in the paper the other day saying building work has been suspended because the health and safety authority closed down the site. Just wondernig how long its going to be stalled for.


----------



## ang1170

I think there are two fundamental problems here:

-          Fire-safety, which as someone pointed out is literally a matter of life and death, is placed into what is essentially a self-regulating environment, where there is a clear conflict of interest where an architect is employed by a developer rather than purchaser

-          A complete lack of professional integrity by the (surprise, surprise) self-regulated architecture profession. If a visual inspection is not an adequate means of determining conformance (and surely anybody can see that it cannot possibly be), then they should not sign the cert: pure and simple.

It’s an absolute joke: if I was developing a product and sent it to a lab to get certified for a CE mark, and they sent it back “looks OK to me, gov! (based on a visual inspection)”, what do you think would happen if it subsequently killed someone? Standards, regulations and certification are there to protect people: in this case their lives, not just their consumer rights. It is absolutely not reasonable for consumers to have to find this out for themselves. If you see a product with a CE mark, do you take steps to find out about the integrity of the process that led it to get it? If you buy an apartment with a certificate of conformance to building regulations and a fire safety cert why on earth should you be expected to question it? The system is fundamentally flawed and the “professional integrity” of the so-called professionals involved an absolute joke!


All this of course overseen by a council that was absolutely raking it in with development fees during the relevant period. All I can say is hats off the the judge involved in this case: someone who actually puts people and the interests of justice first.


----------



## Superman

ang1170 said:


> It’s an absolute joke: if I was developing a product and sent it to a lab to get certified for a CE mark, and they sent it back “looks OK to me, gov! (based on a visual inspection)”, what do you think would happen if it subsequently killed someone? Standards, regulations and certification are there to protect people: in this case their lives, not just their consumer rights. It is absolutely not reasonable for consumers to have to find this out for themselves. If you see a product with a CE mark, do you take steps to find out about the integrity of the process that led it to get it? If you buy an apartment with a certificate of conformance to building regulations and a fire safety cert why on earth should you be expected to question it? The system is fundamentally flawed and the “professional integrity” of the so-called professionals involved an absolute joke!


Not exactly a similar analogy though - how many of those products are tested? If you make a "widget A" - do you make sure to test each and every one to destruction before you give it to your customers?
A building is a once off. There is no requirement to have buildings supervised by professionals, there is also no requirement to have buildings periodically inspected by professionals.


----------



## onq

The quality of self certification depends absolutely on the integrity of the certifying architect.
I have posted extensively about this issues on Archiseek, Boards.ie and Askaboutmoney in relation to the provisions of the Building Control Act 2007.

This Act granted an automatic right of Registration to Members of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, but nobody else.
The irony of this was not lost on non-members (such as myself) who had quite legally practised as architects for the previous twenty years.
I have come across many instances where MRIAI's had erred - sometimes very seriously - in terms of their design or their on site inspections or their certification of the built work.

It is incorrect to suggest that merely because someone passes an exam which shows he knows how to administer a contract or certify a completed building, that said person will act with integrity in administering that contract or certifying that building.

We see the truth of this in the legal profession, which has seen a significant number of solicitors taken to court for a range of offences committed during the Celtic Tiger years.
This reflects poorly on those solicitors who are utterly blameless and who hold themselves to high standards.

------------------------------------------------------------

The current target for criticism is the self-certification system.
This is a nonsense put about by those why believe in the power of regulators.

Regulators are utterly useless in ensuring competent compliant work is carried out on a building site.
The only people inherently suited to this task are the several building professions which are well known to all.

The problem is that in the name of GREED by some developers, the required professionals are not appointed to the job.
Without proper site inspection by the architect and engineers, the fig leaf of visual inspection, correct in other ways is stretched too far.

Limited Site Inspections are just that, visual inspection, but good architects and engineers will see most things and can ask for limited opening up to be done.
They are not the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" fools that any layperson listening to Mick Wallace TC recently might have thought they are, not by any means.

Thus there is nothing inherently wrong with self-certification - just so long as the people certifying monies and the built work - architect and engineers - act with integrity.
This is not an easy station to man or hold - there are many pressures on both architect and contractor that can affect completion and many temptations offered to the unwary.

------------------------------------------------------------

But just as its down to the contractor to build in accordance with the building regulations and the several design professionals to design in accordance with the building regulations, it falls to the architect, as head of the Design Team and Administrator of the building contract (if there is one) to set the standard for the work and NOT CERTIFY NON-COMPLIANT OR INCOMPLETE WORK.

I cannot stress this enough.
If the architect fails in this duty the whole system may fall apart.
Here, therefore is a point in which additional oversight would be welcomed by good architects - to support them on site.
Again, there is no need to reinvent the wheel - merely require the local authority to inspect 100% of buildings being built!

A correctly trained and competent architect AND M&E and structural engineer should be appointed to every building programme going to site.
Building regulation compliance documents should be requested by the local authority - they need no new powers to do this.
The drawings should show the Fire Safety Measures to be installed, including details like smoke alarm positions etc.

If the current Minister Phil Hogan imposes a load of  New Legislation as the answer, this is just as smoke screen.
The existing legislation is fine, the local authorities and building professionals need to step up to the mark.
The only legislation required is the Formal Appointment of a Design Team to every job going to site.

Their fees are relatively small in comparison to the building cost but their documents are needed.
Their site presence lifts both the builder and sub-contractors to a new level of performance.

I would also ask why this is in Letting Off Steam - this is an important debate.
I would also advise that names be kept out of it unless the matter is factual.


ONQ.

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                         as a defence or support - in and of itself -    should       legal        action    be      taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                         Real Life with rights to inspect and issue  reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## onq

Regarding Priory Hall, documents were shown on RTE recently that suggested the a bedroom opening off the kitchen - an inner room - was required to be omitted by condition of the fire safety certificate.
This is a very significant request and if this is correct (I have not reviewed the documents myself yet) it seems to be a matter that goes to both the heart of fire safety and certification.

I am at a loss to understand how the inspecting architect could certify any apartment covered by said fire safety certificate which was built with the inner room/bedroom.
It cannot be explained away by using the term "visual inspection" - since it was visible - or the term "substantial compliance", since compliance required its omission.

This was one of several issues raised during the course of the recent RTE programme but it caught my ear and eye as being something incontrovertible.
If this bedroom/inner room was built in defiance of the fire safety certificate condition without a revised fire cert amending it, it was not compliant.

To suggest that the developers of Priory Hall acted out of character on this particular scheme remains to be proven.
To suggest they acted alone and there are no others like them seems to be wishful thinking.

I think we may expect more horror stories and the RIAI and Councils need to act!


ONQ.

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                         as a defence or support - in and of itself -    should       legal        action    be      taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                         Real Life with rights to inspect and issue  reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## onq

T McGibney said:


> If the Rossorry Quay scandal hadn't been ignored by the establishment south of the border, then the judge would have been well aware of it, and perhaps the Priory Hall scandal wouldn't have happened.



Before Priory Hall there was Shangan Hall in Ballymun Civic Centre.

Covered in a Prime Time exposé on Fire Safety circa May 22 2006 (?)

Archiseek.com Forums are down so I don't have a lot of my links to hand.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Update:

Archiseek is back up

The old link is here

[broken link removed]

However RTE have updated their site and the link changed but I believe this is the current link.

[broken link removed]

I don't have RealPlayer on my system so I cannot play it to verify.

Assuming it is the same link as previously the following comment mau still apply

The section on Shangan Hall starts at timestamp 38:50 and in particular 44:14 - it finshes at 48:28


ONQ.

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                         as a defence or support - in and of itself -    should       legal        action    be      taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                         Real Life with rights to inspect and issue  reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## Sunny

Superman said:


> Not exactly a similar analogy though - how many of those products are tested? If you make a "widget A" - do you make sure to test each and every one to destruction before you give it to your customers?
> A building is a once off. There is no requirement to have buildings supervised by professionals, there is also no requirement to have buildings periodically inspected by professionals.



Indeed. There werent many requirements in banking either but I agree completely with ONQ when he says regulation is not always the answer. The lack of professionalism, responsibility and ethics in this country continues to amaze me.


----------



## onq

ang1170 said:


> -          A complete lack of professional integrity by the (surprise, surprise) self-regulated architecture profession.



As was pointed out to me in the askaboutlaw forum, don't lets slate an entire profession for the actions of one or two individuals. 
I agree its a difficult pill to swallow when a professional drops the ball, but that's why we have the Institute (the RIAI).

However all professions are self-regulated and in the main this works very well.
It will be interesting to learn what the RIAI intend to do about this.


----------



## onq

Sunny said:


> Indeed. There werent many requirements in banking either but I agree completely with ONQ when he says regulation is not always the answer. The lack of professionalism, responsibility and ethics in this country continues to amaze me.



Well, what I meant was MORE regulation isn't necessarily the answer. 

The point is that we're not using the regulatory powers we have and Building Control Offices throughout the contrary were totally understaffed during the Tiger years and are still relatively understaffed if you're trying to cover 100% of new builds.

I have to tip my hat to John Sweeney of Meath County Council, one of the few Building Control Officers who developed policies of engagement prior to commencement to set the course of builders and developers and tell them what he wanted to see in developments and the standard he would work to - I think he achieved something like 88% one year, some enormous figure.

He was able to do this partly because he was out doing his job and not swanning around going to non-productive seminars and conference like so many public servants.
The other part of his accomplishment centred on the man himself, one of the most dedicated people I have met in the Building Control  Officer position.

---------------------------------------------

We need an approachable system of governance that is enforced in a reasonable manner, not islands of autocracy whose word cannot be questioned. In this the Technical Guidance Documents allow us some leeway in that regulations are note suited to try to control new forms of building or even straitjacket existing forms.

Building forms and details are a developmental process and architecture is changing all the time, so a rigid autocracy would not be not helpful. Equally an absentee Site Architect or NO Site Architect at all is totally useless where the protection of the public is paramount.

In this regard, schemes which have neither Architect nor engineers carrying out limited inspections during the building programme are suspect, whatever the exuse offered by the developer. This is a base cost-cutting exercise that nobody benefits from except crooked developers and builders who intend to cut corners.

I have seen both in my 21 years practising and have carried out remedial works following the involvement of well known firms. Winning awards for design, like being Registered as having passed an assessment, is no guarantee of competence in building or of integrity in issuing certification.


ONQ.

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                         as a defence or support - in and of itself -    should       legal        action    be      taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                         Real Life with rights to inspect and issue  reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## ang1170

Sunny said:


> Indeed. There werent many requirements in banking either but I agree completely with ONQ when he says regulation is not always the answer. The lack of professionalism, responsibility and ethics in this country continues to amaze me.


 
And just how to you tackle the lack of professionalism and resposibility if not by (enforced) regulation?

That's the point: we are very good in this country at passing laws (and establishing building regulations) but abysmal at regulating and enforcing them.


----------



## onq

ang1170 said:


> And just how to you tackle the lack of professionalism and resposibility if not by (enforced) regulation?


The same way the Incorporated Law Society tackles it.

If the unprofessional behaviour of the Member is sufficient to warrant it -(i) take independent legal  action through the Courts.

(ii) strike the Member in question off  the Register of Architects.

(iii) restrict the member from working independently - i.e. he must be supervised.
​These are very serious measures for any professional to contemplate facing.



> That's the point: we are very good in this country at passing laws (and establishing building regulations) but abysmal at regulating and enforcing them.


I totally agree that more regulations laws are not necessarily the answer, especially if we are not already rigorously applying existing laws and measures.

It would be useful to discover if the RIAI has re-constituted its professional practice committee and whether it is free to accept referrals yet.


ONQ.

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                         as a defence or support - in and of itself -    should       legal        action    be      taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                         Real Life with rights to inspect and issue  reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## ang1170

onq said:


> The same way the Incorporated Law Society tackles it.
> 
> If the unprofessional behaviour of the Member is sufficient to warrant it -
> (i) take independent legal action through the Courts.
> 
> (ii) strike the Member in question off the Register of Architects.
> 
> (iii) restrict the member from working independently - i.e. he must be supervised.
> ​These are very serious measures for any professional to contemplate facing.
> 
> I totally agree that more regulations laws are not necessarily the answer, especially if we are not already rigorously applying existing laws and measures.
> 
> It would be useful to discover if the RIAI has re-constituted its professional practice committee and whether it is free to accept referrals yet.




I’d be curious to know just how common it is for certs to be signed with what is essentially a disclaimer.

To my way of thinking either a suitably qualified person takes the necessary steps to ensure the cert is valid, which I would assume would involve site visits during construction and not just visual inspection after, and they sign, or they don’t take those steps, in which case they don’t sign. That’s where regulation should come in: anyone who didn’t take those steps or were incompetent should be sanctioned as you suggest.

Signing something and attaching what is essentially a disclaimer would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious: it in itself should be grounds for sanctions to be applied. What is the point of the cert in that case?

What bothers me is the suggestion from some posts that it is somehow up to the purchaser to validate the cert. I used the analogy above of purchasing something with a CE mark, which indicates a product meets all relevant standards (usually safety) for the particular class of product. A consumer shouldn’t have to worry about the validity of the mark or the process by which it was awarded (other than to know they have some very serious actions they can take if either is deficient). It should be the same with a fire safety cert: once it exists, it shouldn’t have to be questioned. 

For that to work there has to be strong regulations backed by strict enforcement and serious sanctions so that everyone can have confidence in the system.

If it’s just a matter of enforcement and sanctions then it’s conceivable to see this being fixed. However if, and this is what I fear, there’s an acceptance in the relevant professions that the status quo is quite OK and it’s acceptable to certify something at the same time as disclaiming responsibility for it, then the whole system is rotten to the core.


----------



## Sunny

ang1170 said:


> And just how to you tackle the lack of professionalism and resposibility if not by (enforced) regulation?
> 
> That's the point: we are very good in this country at passing laws (and establishing building regulations) but abysmal at regulating and enforcing them.



No what we are good at is passing rubbish laws with rubbish consequences. All the regulation in the world will not stop the type of behaviour we have seen across sectors in this country for the past few years. People and businesses need to start acting ethically and with social responsibility. If they don't, they should be made pay. Unfortunately, in this country people hide behide poor laws and regulations.


----------



## onq

ang1170 said:


> I’d be curious to know just how common it is for certs to be signed with what is essentially a disclaimer.



I presume you mean all the qualifications in the standard cert wording and if you don't please clarify .

You should first realize where this level of disclaimer comes from.
Architects are hugely liable in the event something goes wrong with a building.

The most recent story is one about the architect on his way to a meeting who stopped in to a site to advise a workman about a practice he noted passing by which could give rise to hazard. He was successfully sued when the hazard occurred because he had not told someone in charge of the works but trusted the operative to do so. (cannot find case reference on this).

Then there is the well-known case of the boys playing football on the flat roof of the bank where a fall occurred and serious injury followed. Again the architect was sued and found negligent.


> To my way of thinking either a suitably qualified person takes the necessary steps to ensure the cert is valid, which I would assume would involve site visits during construction and not just visual inspection after, and they sign, or they don’t take those steps, in which case they don’t sign. That’s where regulation should come in: anyone who didn’t take those steps or were incompetent should be sanctioned as you suggest.




I agree, and that is the way I work, backed up by copious photographs to record what I do see on site. This way there is no dispute afterward and you would be surprised what a camera thrust into a structural cavity can record. This is what I means when I say that, properly executed, limited inspections are an adequate means of assessing the progress and compliance of the work on site.

However, signing certs is a serious business in a country  where developers are not obliged to appoint a design team for the  duration of the building works. Without a presence on site representing  the employer - such as the Clerk of Works - the architect can only rely  on an inspection at the end, which in my opinion may be grossly  inadequate.

Even where the architect is appointed to carry out limited inspections,  clients are seldom willing to appoint a site architect for the duration  and even where they are, the architect will usually not attend more than  weekly or bi-weekly as per the norm. During his absence work can get  covered up.

This is where the term "visual inspection" is quite properly applied to  Opinions of Compliance where periodic inspection occurs. It is a  statement of fact that the architect is limited to what he can see on  the day he attends. It is not an attempt to ease out of the considerably  liability that attaches to his Opinion.



> Signing something and attaching what is essentially a disclaimer would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious: it in itself should be grounds for sanctions to be applied. What is the point of the cert in that case?



Signing certificates is what defines the architect during the building contract. Under the classical RIAI contract, there is an employer and a contractor  and there are checks and balances like site engineers, site architects  and clerks of works. Clerks of works were going out of fashion when I  was getting qualified and its seldom you will see one these days. The  nearest thing is a project manager, but some of these are merely schedulers who do not have a broad grasp of building  details and methods.

In the absence of the clerk of works, there is the Design Team.
The architect and structural engineer, mechanical and electrical engineer and quantity surveyor must fill the gap.
There is very little four competent professionals operating diligently at the top of their game would not be able to see.
They have powers to request further opening up works and carry out further detail inspections, even where the initial inspection may have been limited to "visual inspection only".

However the difficulty arises in the newer forms of building contract [Design Build and GCCC] and the situation where the developer is the builder AND the client.
There the architect is not balancing fairness to a client/employer and a contractor in administering a classical RIAI contract - pessure comes from one side only to perform
Thus the side falling behind in the programme may be the same side that is paying the architect's fee AND demanding early release of certificates to benefit cashflow in the development company.

In such cases, the architect is tested to the limit.
However, his only logical response is to stick to his guns, because if he compromises once, his integrity is shattered and his authority is lost.
The architect must be prepared to walk away from a job if the client starts acting up and building beyond the permission or not in accordance with the terms of the fire safety certificate. 

This has happened to me and I walked because it was the only response.
And yes, the client came back asking me to sort out the huge problems that developed in my absence.
I sorted them out to his reasonable satisfaction, but they were sorted on my terms, which were and are - do it by the book!


> What bothers me is the suggestion from some posts that it is somehow up to the purchaser to validate the cert. I used the analogy above of purchasing something with a CE mark, which indicates a product meets all relevant standards (usually safety) for the particular class of product. A consumer shouldn’t have to worry about the validity of the mark or the process by which it was awarded (other than to know they have some very serious actions they can take if either is deficient). It should be the same with a fire safety cert: once it exists, it shouldn’t have to be questioned.



I have to say I totally agree, and part of the way we approach this is to ensure that we get what are called Schedule A Assurances from EVERYONE!
Schedule A assurances are supporting certificates and documentation for a modern building can arise from a variety of sources and I offer a list below from the following sources:

Design of Building or Element:


Structural and Civil Engineer
Roads Traffic Consultant

Mechanical Engineer
Fire Safety Consultant
Interior Designer
Etc.
 Built Work:


Main Contractor (cert included EVERYTHING except specialist certs listed below)
Groundworks Sub-Contractor
Specialist Foundation Sub-Contractor
Mechanical (heating and plumbing) Sub-Contractor
Mechanical (air conditioning) Sub-Contractor
Sustainable Heating Control Systems Installer
Lift Installation Sub-Contractor
Electrical Sub-Contractor
Fire Detection and Alarm System Sub-Contractor
Glazing System (if applicable)
Roofing System (if applicable)
Atrium Venting System (if applicable)
Communications System Installer (if applicable)
I.T. System Installer (if applicable)
Fire Sealing Sub-Contractor (if applicable)
Specialist Equipment (if applicable)
Etc.
We operate on the principle that if these boys realize they are going to have to offer a piece of paper with a senior person named as being an officer representing the company, this concentrates their mind.

You would be surprised how some of then try to throw back the design end of their work on the architect, for example the Fire Detection and Alarm System Sub-Contractor, who supplies much of the detail work fleshing out the bare fire safety certificate and who may have to carry P.I. cover as a result.

Even where the builder-developer doesn't shell out for a full service on site, with the above patchwork of certificates requested at the start, you don't just have one lone pair of eyes coming in once or twice and at the end - each of these sub-contractors knows you can question their cert based on a suspicion they have not done their work.



> For that to work there has to be strong regulations backed by strict enforcement and serious sanctions so that everyone can have confidence in the system.



Don't place you faith in regulations or sanctions. Sanctions don't work with criminal contractors intent on undermining their architect. Sanctions cannot inspire integrity in negligent architects.

The measures I have outlined in relation to comprehensive certification above go some way to identifying the roles in relation to building work and put every contributor to the built and design work under pressure to perform.

However my favourite measure of all, one I would employ even where I had no fees agreed to attend on site - is the surprise site visit! Surprise site visits frighten the bejapers out of everyone and really, REALLY sharpen up builders. They don't need a constant presence, they keep people looking over their shoulders, and backed up with photographic records are really a good motivator to keep people competent and honest.



> If it’s just a matter of enforcement and sanctions then it’s conceivable to see this being fixed. However if, and this is what I fear, there’s an acceptance in the relevant professions that the status quo is quite OK and it’s acceptable to certify something at the same time as disclaiming responsibility for it, then the whole system is rotten to the core.


I don't think there is widespread acceptance in the profession of lax standards. Architects know the penalties of getting sued. I think a certain level of re-education may be needed post-Tiger as to how to inspect and certify, and better support structures for architects working for builder developers.

However I think that given the current staffing levels and existing powers of the planning officers, building control officers and fire officers to attend, inspect and request drawings showing compliance, there are some very simple and cost effective ways to up people's game.

(A) Each Council and the Health and Safety Authority working together should immediately -


 Draw up a list of all projects on site
 Determine which professionals were involved in the Design of the Building
 Ask for confirmation of which professionals are involved during the Building Process.
 Where there are no professionals involved, request the submission of Building regulation Compliance Drawings.
 This alone would set the cat amongst the pigeons and was a measure any Council could have done at any time during the Tiger.


(B) Each Planning Officer, Building Control Officer, Health  and Safety Officer and Fire Officer should co-ordinate between them, at least one surprise site visit for every building under construction in their area of operation.
The current policy of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" is operated even among planning officers on their way into work in the morning, which means they rely on people to report their neighbours.
It gives the impression that our public servants, those charged with ensuring that the built work is executed compliantly and safely, walk around with blinkers on in case they see anything amiss!

(C) However nothing beats the Golden Rule of development, whether under the  classical RIAI contract or newer Design Build or GCCC Contracts - "First, employ a good builder."


ONQ.

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                         as a defence or support - in and of itself -    should       legal        action    be      taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                         Real Life with rights to inspect and issue  reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## Superman

ang1170 said:


> I’d be curious to know just how common it is for certs to be signed with what is essentially a disclaimer.To my way of thinking either a suitably qualified person takes the necessary steps to ensure the cert is valid, which I would assume would involve site visits during construction and not just visual inspection after, and they sign, or they don’t take those steps, in which case they don’t sign
> ]Signing something and attaching what is essentially a disclaimer would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious: it in itself should be grounds for sanctions to be applied. What is the point of the cert
> 
> I fear, there’s an acceptance in the relevant professions that the status quo is quite OK and it’s acceptable to certify something at the same time as disclaiming responsibility for it, then the whole system is rotten to the


 You don't seem to understand the situation. Effectively, the purchasers do get a guarantee on the building - that guarantee is from the builder. Whether that is worth much is a separate question. An architect is a professional and generally professionals can only be sued for negligence. If the architect provides a service and does so in a non- negligent fashion then he cannot be sued- excluding unusual situations. If the architect is employed to carry out a visual inspection only, it would be negligent of him not to state this is the case. If you want to purchase a company and it is audited by a third party before the purchase, but the auditor is prevented from carrying out a full audit and he explicitly states in his audit that this is the case - why do you blame him for not catching something which could not be discovered by the only means at his disposal - which he explicitly states the limits of? The architect doesn't purport to 'certify' a building - he merely gives an opinion- an opinion that will always be limited by the limits of the law of negligence.


----------



## ajapale

Bronte said:


> And why on earth is this in letting off steam.  It's a very serious topic, in addtion there may be residents who are not on AAM who might want to give their input.



Its on LOS because this is where the OP posted it.

If you think the thread metrits promotion to an above the line sub forum then use the report post facility to bring it to the attention of the mods.


----------



## onq

Superman said:


> ...why do you blame him for not catching something which could not be discovered by the only means at his disposal - which he explicitly states the limits of?


But he doesn't explicitly state his limits.
The implication is that he cannot see things covered up, but this forgets that he can infer quite a lot.
My limits in terms of visual inspection are considerably greater most laypersons I know when it comes to inspecting buildings.


> The architect doesn't purport to 'certify' a building - he merely gives an opinion- an opinion that will always be limited by the limits of the law of negligence.


Not in the case of the RIAI Opinion of Compliance.
This doesn't just rest on the law of negligence, far from it.
It tries to weasel away from what any purchaser would think he/she has the right to expect the Opinion to offer.
In other words, it sounds like it is, but actually isn't, stating that the Building or part of the building is substantial compliant.

The major escape clause is the one wherein it refers to itself being "issued solely in the matter of titles and consents for the purposes of conveyance. Except in relation to such consents, it is not a comment in relation to the condition of the building."

Or words to that effect - please correct me if I'm wrong on these quotations - I'm writing them from memory.

---------------------------------

Here is what was reported in 2010


> http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2010/mar/07/dreams-go-up-in-flame/
> 
> _In the case of Priory Hall, the architect was the long-established firm, Oppermann Associates. The firm signed off on Priory Hall   in March 2008. Included in the compliance document is a clause with  regard to the fire safety regulations. It is unclear whether anybody  from the architects actually inspected the facilities that the council  subsequently found to be dangerous. _
> 
> _Stephen  Oppermann says that he has had absolutely no indication from Coalport  that he is being held responsible for signing off on the development.
> "I  want to be clear about this," Oppermann said. "I inspected some of the  units and we issued certs of compliance for those units. We did not  issue compliance certs for the common areas, the carpark or the overall  development."
> 
> The question thus arises about the extent of the certification process.
> _


---------------------------------

This is a nonsense statement, howsoever it may reflect the facts as Oppermann claims to understand them.

Residential Apartment Developments are not composed of unrelated, isolated units which can be certified in isolationFor the Apartment to be fit for purpose in general, the services supporting human activities must be complete and commissioned.

For the Apartment to be complete per the Building Contract, it must be free from defects apart from Minor Items under the Contract.

For the Apartment to be compliant with the Fire Cert and Part B of the  Building Regulations as it relates to it, the access to it and fire  egress from it, together with the Fire Detection and Alarm System for  the parts that might affect the escape route, must be complete and  commissioned.

For the Apartment to be substantially compliant under the terms of the  Architect's Opinion of Compliance, it must be complete, "saving and  excepting such minor snag items that would not, in the opinion of the  architect, give rise to the issuing of enforcement proceedings by the  local authority."
​The fact that Coalport weren't holding Oppermann to account in 2010 is neither here nor there.
The fact that Coalport appear to have included an additional bedroom in their apartments which they shouldn't have is the issue.
It remains to be seen whether the people who bought partly on the strength of the Opinions offered will attempt to purse the architect for negligent mis-statement and/or fraud.
If the said bedroom or inner room was removed by condition and Opinions issued on Apartments built with this room included in them, it may be difficult to mount a defense relying on a "visual inspection only" disclaimer.


ONQ.

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                         as a defence or support - in and of itself -    should       legal        action    be      taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                         Real Life with rights to inspect and issue  reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## ang1170

onq said:


> Even where the architect is appointed to carry out limited inspections, clients are seldom willing to appoint a site architect for the duration and even where they are, the architect will usually not attend more than weekly or bi-weekly as per the norm. During his absence work can get covered up.
> 
> This is where the term "visual inspection" is quite properly applied to Opinions of Compliance where periodic inspection occurs. It is a statement of fact that the architect is limited to what he can see on the day he attends. It is not an attempt to ease out of the considerably liability that attaches to his Opinion.


 
That's where I think the system is broken: if visual inspection is insufficient to determine compliance, then no cert should be issued.




onq said:


> Signing certificates is what defines the architect during the building contract.





onq said:


> Under the classical RIAI contract, there is an employer and a contractor and there are checks and balances like site engineers, site architects and clerks of works. Clerks of works were going out of fashion when I was getting qualified and its seldom you will see one these days. The nearest thing is a project manager, but some of these are merely schedulers who do not have a broad grasp of building details and methods.
> 
> In the absence of the clerk of works, there is the Design Team.
> The architect and structural engineer, mechanical and electrical engineer and quantity surveyor must fill the gap.
> There is very little four competent professionals operating diligently at the top of their game would not be able to see.
> They have powers to request further opening up works and carry out further detail inspections, even where the initial inspection may have been limited to "visual inspection only".


 
This sounds like a completely acceptable basis for undertaking something that ultimately has people's safety and lives at stake, provided there are appropriate standards and sanctions (which there are, from what you say). No different from other industries: medical, aviation, pharma, or indeed the example I used of normal product development of any one of hundreds of products (child car seats for example).



onq said:


> However the difficulty arises in the newer forms of building contract [Design Build and GCCC] and the situation where the developer is the builder AND the client.


 
I smell a conflict of interest.....



onq said:


> There the architect is not balancing fairness to a client/employer and a contractor in administering a classical RIAI contract - pessure comes from one side only to perform
> Thus the side falling behind in the programme may be the same side that is paying the architect's fee AND demanding early release of certificates to benefit cashflow in the development company.
> 
> In such cases, the architect is tested to the limit.
> However, his only logical response is to stick to his guns, because if he compromises once, his integrity is shattered and his authority is lost.
> The architect must be prepared to walk away from a job if the client starts acting up and building beyond the permission or not in accordance with the terms of the fire safety certificate.
> 
> 
> This has happened to me and I walked because it was the only response.
> And yes, the client came back asking me to sort out the huge problems that developed in my absence.
> I sorted them out to his reasonable satisfaction, but they were sorted on my terms, which were and are - do it by the book!
> 
> I have to say I totally agree, and part of the way we approach this is to ensure that we get what are called Schedule A Assurances from EVERYONE!




You may well do the right thing, and be prepared to walk away, but what's to stop someone else from not doing so?

This is the exact problem: conflicts of interest that rely on people doing the right thing. Offering them a get-out clause ("visual inspection") that facilitates developers walking from their responsibilities makes the whole idea of certification a nonsense. If the cert can't be relied on, what value does it have? I take that back: clearly the value it has is to facilitate developers from getting their sale, banks their customers and the council from getting their development levy. The only slight problem is that 10s or even 100s of people might just loose their lives, but hey, everyone was only doing what others do all the time...




onq said:


> We operate on the principle that if these boys realize they are going to have to offer a piece of paper with a senior person named as being an officer representing the company, this concentrates their mind.


 
As I said, sounds like a reasonable system to operate: the problem as you outline it is that it, or an equivalent, is not mandatory.



onq said:


> Don't place you faith in regulations or sanctions. Sanctions don't work with criminal contractors intent on undermining their architect. Sanctions cannot inspire integrity in negligent architects.


 
Understood: there will always be cases of failures.



onq said:


> However I think that given the current staffing levels and existing powers of the planning officers, building control officers and fire officers to attend, inspect and request drawings showing compliance, there are some very simple and cost effective ways to up people's game.
> 
> (A) Each Council and the Health and Safety Authority working together should immediately -
> 
> 
> Draw up a list of all projects on site
> Determine which professionals were involved in the Design of the Building
> Ask for confirmation of which professionals are involved during the Building Process.
> Where there are no professionals involved, request the submission of Building regulation Compliance Drawings.
> This alone would set the cat amongst the pigeons and was a measure any Council could have done at any time during the Tiger.
> 
> (B) Each Planning Officer, Building Control Officer, Health and Safety Officer and Fire Officer should co-ordinate between them, at least one surprise site visit for every building under construction in their area of operation.
> The current policy of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" is operated even among planning officers on their way into work in the morning, which means they rely on people to report their neighbours.
> It gives the impression that our public servants, those charged with ensuring that the built work is executed compliantly and safely, walk around with blinkers on in case they see anything amiss!


 
That's getting back to my point: we're good at introducing laws and regulations but useless at enforcing them. Presumably there's nothing stopping what you describe from happening, other than a lack of willingness to take responsibilities seriously?  



onq said:


> (C) However nothing beats the Golden Rule of development, whether under the classical RIAI contract or newer Design Build or GCCC Contracts - "First, employ a good builder."
> 
> 
> ONQ.


 
And how is the person in the street to determine that? Not by looking at any official documentation/compliance certs, that's for sure! Just ask the people at Priory Hall....


----------



## onq

ang1170 said:


> And how is the person in the street to determine that? Not by looking at any official documentation/compliance certs, that's for sure! Just ask the people at Priory Hall....



We're on the same page here ang1170

[broken link removed]

5:24-7:12 seems to cover the substantive issues in this case.

This is where I believe the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland needs to step in.

It needs to set standards for its Members and lobby government for necessary legislation to make it mandatory for a design team to be appointed for site work.

Otherwise this won't get sorted for the benefit of the public.


ONQ.

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                         as a defence or support - in and of itself -    should       legal        action    be      taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                         Real Life with rights to inspect and issue  reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## Superman

ang1170 said:


> That's where I think the system is broken: if visual inspection is insufficient to determine compliance, then no cert should be issued.


No Certs. are issued. What are issued are Opinions on Compliance.
Either you have a system where someone takes full liability for everything (currently the developer does so) or you have a system based on negligence.
Under the current system, even if you require that all projects have a design team appointed and that they carry out standard services on a project (periodic inspections etc.), that service will still only be bound by the law on negligence. 
They will not be taking responsibility for the manufacture of fire seals; ensuring that the hardcore does not contain pyrite; ensuring that all fire sealing is in place etc. - only for what a non-negligent professional would see in the circumstances.

If you want someone, other than the developer, to now take full liability for a building it should probably be an insurer or similar - allow them to employ architects or surveyors to carry out what investigations they wish (with the cost passed on to the buyer as necessary - so that the buyer determines the cost of insurance vs. the level of investigation/destruction required on the existing building).  The insurer would be in a better place to calculate the cost of what it is you seem to be looking for - and is more likely to be around afterwards.  



> This is the exact problem: conflicts of interest that rely on people doing the right thing. Offering them a get-out clause ("visual inspection") that facilitates developers walking from their responsibilities makes the whole idea of certification a nonsense.


The developer isn't allowed to walk away from his responsibilities -he is liable in this case.  Whether he will be able to fund this or not is a separate issue.


----------



## Superman

onq said:


> It needs to set standards for its Members and lobby government for necessary legislation to make it mandatory for a design team to be appointed for site work.
> 
> Otherwise this won't get sorted for the benefit of the public.


If a design team is mandatory (a protection of function), how many will be required - are a fire engineer and M&E engineer required for a domestic extensions? Should the architect be RIAI qualified/on the architects register only? Is the design team going to take full "fit for purpose" liability for the building?


----------



## onq

I think I see where you are coming from Superman, but merely saying it may be hard to do won't get it done.
Like any problem it can be broken down into a serious of component issues.

==================

Guidelines need to be developed for a range of building types and sizes.
Houses and extensions certainly need some input because the Self-Build market was 30-40% of the total even in the Tiger years and its largely unregulated.
Consider if we extend the fit-for-purpose comment to become a concept of "adequate advice required from design professionals and project management professionals".

I say "design" and "management" because those two strands apply to any building job, just as every business has its core business and its property portfolio.
Support this concept with the requirement that a minimum of one building professional is required for every job proceeding to site.

==================

This fitness for purpose theme is echoed in the Safety Health and Welfare  Regulations, but its not properly instituted even there.
Designers are supposed to be competent to carry out their duties but no objective standard of competence is required by law.

The current requirement to Register architects in the Building Control Act 2007 is not a complete solution - it excludes many fine building professionals, while allowing in MRIAI's with building failures to their names.
But even if the standard was achieved across the board for Registered architects, the public (as in developers) wouldn't be protected from itself because the provision of architectural services isn't regulated,

==================

Back to the workability of it, and on smaller jobs one professional could encompass most of the requirements with minor inputs from others, but personally speaking I have never gone to site without a structural engineer, even on an extension.
Advice from a Fire Safety Consultant was sought in relation to a Small Shop change of use recently, and when I certified remedial works to houses in the Noughties, we had a barrage of Certs including both Structural and Mechanical & Electrical Engineers.

Oddly enough the presence of professionals doesn't multiply fees by a factor, more like a percentage and in some cases savings can occur, because you trade (for example) an architect waffling for a couple of days around an M&E issue or detail for a definitive comment from an experienced consultant.


ONQ.

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                         as a defence or support - in and of itself -    should       legal        action    be      taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                         Real Life with rights to inspect and issue  reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## Superman

onq said:


> "adequate advice required from design professionals and project management professionals".


i.e. a negligence based professional system. 
This means that the Opinions of Compliance will remain of the "visual inspection only" variety (which ang1170 seems to dislike) - though it will be based on a  more comprehensive (but not complete) inspection system.

It also doesn't address the problem that while you have increased the potential marks from 1 (the developer) to 2 (the architect as well) or more, you still potentially face the problem that both can go out of business.


----------



## Bronte

ajapale said:


> Its on LOS because this is where the OP posted it.
> 
> If you think the thread metrits promotion to an above the line sub forum then use the report post facility to bring it to the attention of the mods.


 
Sorry I didn't think of doing it but have now done so. Hopefully we might get one of the residents from Priory Hall who may give a unique insight into the situation.  

As an aside Onq has put so much information in the thread it's hard to now understand where it is going.


----------



## ajapale

At the request of several posters Ive moved this thread from LOS to Mortgages and buying and selling homes (this is the closest sub forum I could find for it).

At this stage if any poster who is following the thread would care to summarise it then that would be great!

aj
moderator


----------



## onq

Bronte said:


> Sorry I didn't think of doing it but have now done so. Hopefully we might get one of the residents from Priory Hall who may give a unique insight into the situation.
> 
> As an aside Onq has put so much information in the thread it's hard to now understand where it is going.



There are no simple solutions for any of this.
I'm trying to point a way forward out of the self-regulatory mess we're in.
I am proposing solutions and Superman is critiquing them from a professional and legal standpoint.


----------



## Bronte

I know you are Ong, it is just probably that this architecture stuff that you are so passionate about is not the most titillating to someone like me.


----------



## Complainer

This guy's posts on this topic are worth reading. He is sometimes a tad OTT, but he knows his stuff; http://www.cjwalsh.ie/2011/10/priory-hall-fire-engineering-protecting-societys-interests/


----------



## onq

Brief Summary -

The recent High Court action resulting in the relocation of all remaining Priory Hall Residents out of their homes into temporary accommodation on safety grounds has called into question the effectiveness of the current practice of self certification by professionals and contractors working in the building industry as well as minimal inspections by officers of local authorities.

=============================

Concerns have arisen because of - 

- the alleged negligent or fraudulent certification of non-compliant developments by a registered architect
- the alleged use of the "visual inspection only" disclaimer by a registered architect to divert or blur issues of accountability and liability
- the manifest lack of competence and integrity in contractors who are required by law to build in compliance with the Building Regulations
- the alleged inclusion in multiple apartments of an inner room which was apparently removed by condition of the relevant Fire Safety Certificate being visible evidence of non-compliance
- the manifestly inadequate level of Local Authority Officer's inspections which currently stands at 10-15% of projects on site.


Cost effective solutions within the existing framework are being contemplated including -

- random checks by both professionals and local authority officials
- co-operation and sharing of information between the Councils and the  Health and Safety Authority to determine which schemes have Building  Professionals appointed for the duration of the building programme.
- where no building professional is appointed, the immediate request  from the developer of full sets of building regulation compliance  drawings by Building Control.
- pro-active briefing meetings with the Building Control Officer and Fire Office before commencement of each building project.
- the requirement for every contributor to the design or major building elements to offer certification.
- the recording of the work stages by photographs, including works that had to be re-done.


Robust new solutions are being contemplated including -

- the mandatory requirement for projects going to site to be regularly inspected and recorded by competent building professionals 
- the mandatory requirement for local authority officials to undertake inspections of every job on site at least once during the building programme
- the rigorous policing of the professions by their respective representative bodies
- the taking of decisive, corrective action by representative bodies to protect the public when fraudulent or negligent behavior is discovered
- the exercise of powers by the representative bodies to investigate, restrict and/or strike from the register previously registered professionals whose misconduct warrants such censure to both send a message and protect the public.
- the establishment of a Register for Building Contractors to establish their competence to carry out compliant work in accordance with all legislation affecting Building Works in Ireland.

=============================

There is more commentary, but I think that sums up the main points.
Anyone care to add more feel free or follow up and I'll amend this post or perhaps one of the moderators may wish to do so.

Thanks for moving this AJ.


ONQ.

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                         as a defence or support - in and of itself -    should       legal        action    be      taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                         Real Life with rights to inspect and issue  reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## ang1170

Bronte said:


> I know you are Ong, it is just probably that this architecture stuff that you are so passionate about is not the most titillating to someone like me.


 
The issues raised here are extremely serious. One thing is clear enough: if a fire had broken out at Priory Hall (or indeed did so tomorrow at some other location with similar issues) and 40 or 50 people lost their lives, something would probably be done about this. There is an opportunity here to change matters before rather than after the event.

It's ironic that this has happened on the Northside of Dublin: do people not remember or learn anything?


----------



## onq

Complainer said:


> This guy's posts on this topic are worth reading. He is sometimes a tad OTT, but he knows his stuff; http://www.cjwalsh.ie/2011/10/priory-hall-fire-engineering-protecting-societys-interests/




The implication in the blog above is that the construction of Priory Hall may be systemically non-compliant due to the lack of competence of the builders working in the Tiger years in general - a degree of speculation that I have no problems with in principle.

This is his point about Priory Hall.



> BUT … it would be possible to achieve a *Proper Level of Fire Safety in ‘Priory Hall’* … by installing a *Fire Suppression System* (sprinklers or mist) throughout the development.  That’s what it will take !


I'm concerned about someone with his supposed level of competence stating that on a blog - becasue that's NOT ALL it will take!
Part of the problems with fire development in a perforated construction is the transmission of cold smoke and fumes to other occupancies, escape routes and sleeping occupancies.
If the development is not fully sealed against the passage of such gases, they can build up over time and cause health problems and even death through poisoning the air the occupants breath.

A sprinkler system is an add-on solution to _symptoms_.
It is not in my opinion the correct approach to deal with _causes_.
By itself it may be just another high-tech "visible" way of papering over the cracks.
Opening up, borescope inspection and sealing works may all be necessary to establish condition and achieve compliance.

What the blog above suggests, but never develops, is that may Irish Builders approached multi-storey buildings from a heritage of rural bungalow building.
Such builders, it is inferred, are simply not prepared to deal with the complexity and compliance levels required to construct such buildings competently.
The implication of this is the Contractors and/or Contracting Companies should be assessed as to their competence level and Registered accordingly.

I have amended the Summary Post above to reflect this.


ONQ.

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                          as a defence or support - in and of itself -     should       legal        action    be      taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                          Real Life with rights to inspect and issue   reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## Bronte

Is there an easy way to print this thead, I cannot read it easily.  I can't see any button that says print?


----------



## elcato

> Is there an easy way to print this thead, I cannot read it easily.  I can't see any button that says print?


Top right beside search button, select Thread Tools and click on Show Printable version. Get to the page you are interested in by clicking as normal in the bottom right. It's not great but is a bit more reader friendly.


----------



## Superman

onq said:


> Part of the problems with fire development in a perforated construction is the transmission of cold smoke and fumes to other occupancies, escape routes and sleeping occupancies.
> If the development is not fully sealed against the passage of such gases, they can build up over time and cause health problems and even death through poisoning the air the occupants breath.
> 
> A sprinkler system is an add-on solution to _symptoms_.
> It is not in my opinion the correct approach to deal with _causes_.
> By itself it may be just another high-tech "visible" way of papering over the cracks.


I don't understand what you are trying to say.  Sprinkler systems are installed often in conservation projects as part of Fire Engineering solutions which demonstrably surpass the equivalent of the TGD.  "Death through poisoning the air" cannot happen if a Fire Engineering solution is correctly installed. "Health problems" are even less likely - it is not like fires are constantly going on in various parts of the building and the occupants getting smoke wafting into their faces as they walk by.


----------



## onq

Superman,

What I am saying is that unless the standard of construction and interstitial fire sealing of joints and penetrations is compliant, then merely adding a sprinkler system may not be adequate to address pre-fire conditions.

In the Prime Time interview both the resident and the Fire Inspector  commented on the poor quality of the build. This is all that creates a  surface seal. The interstitial penetrations were not looked at. Someone  didn't want to put even a specimen hole in a wall to heck them.

I accept what you say in terms of addressing a fire. I am talking about pre-fire conditions which may be health and life threatening. Being overcome by smoke and fumes in the early stages of a fire development is a well known cause of death.

It greatly exercised one Building Control Office I know and respect and was one of the major investigative issues in two storey detached houses in an estate we investigated.

Spraying water on people who may apready be insensible or dying from asphyxiation doesn't even clear away the bad air that's killing them. It may create worse smoke in the short term as the fire components sputter and go out.

I would not therefore rest on the assumption that a sprinkler system is adequate where a sleeping occupancy is involved. What might do for offices in old buildings isn't good enough for apartments.


ONQ.

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied  upon                         as a defence or support - in and of itself -     should       legal        action    be      taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                          Real Life with rights to inspect and issue   reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## Superman

onq said:


> I am talking about pre-fire conditions which may be health and life threatening. Being overcome by smoke and fumes in the early stages of a fire development is a well known cause of death.
> 
> Spraying water on people who may apready be insensible or dying from asphyxiation doesn't even clear away the bad air that's killing them. It may create worse smoke in the short term as the fire components sputter and go out.
> 
> I would not therefore rest on the assumption that a sprinkler system is adequate where a sleeping occupancy is involved. What might do for offices in old buildings isn't good enough for apartments.


The sprinkler system will prevent the fire from spreading/smoking if it is properly installed - it is not meant to do anything for smoke or clearing the air. The occupants will have a further protection most likely by having an L1 fire alarm system and fire alarm flashers etc.. I've been involved in retrofitting old buildings for near hospital conditions - it can be done.


----------



## onq

Perhaps you should be involved in the works on Priory Hall Superman.
Because it certainly needs someone with experience and competence to do it.

Not the certifying architect of record, who appears not to have noticed an entire ROOM.
Nor the builders who built it so badly in the first place and whom several residents appear to have no faith in.
I mean, is there - even NOW - a competent architect employed on the site to oversee, record and issue Opinions on the Remedial Works?

In relation to your comments above, I accept that you're offering these assurances in good faith.
However, only this past year I have heard horror stories about Fire Specialists going into institutional builders to retrofit seals on service ducts.
It all comes down to the integrity and competence of the people carrying out the work and we shouldn't be asked to rest on assurances - there should be a photographic record!

(summary amended to suit)

ONQ.

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied   upon                         as a defence or support - in and of itself -      should       legal        action    be      taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                           Real Life with rights to inspect and issue    reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## itsmandymoo

*coalport*

I wonder can anyone help!!!. I live beside a block of appartments that coalport built. They did extensive damage to my house and left me no option other than to get a solicitor. He dragged his heels so much that we were recommended to mover to another solicitor who a couple of months ago told us they could not keep the case going unless we paid up front, which we cant. With all the coalport business up in the air at the moment i thought someone out there might be able to help as to where i turn now. Its been going on 8 years. 

Thanks 

itsmandymoo


----------



## onq

A solicitor alone will find it difficult to move forward.
The first thing to do is quantify the substantive issue.

This is likely to be damage or trespass to your building.
This has costed you some sort of financial or personal loss.

The amounts involved may required the case to be taken to the High Court.
If so, you need a team competent experienced building professional to make a case.
As a bare minimum he will need some sort of assessment of damage and cost of repairs.

- An inspecting architect
- An inspecting civil and structural engineer
- An inspecting Quantity Surveyor.

The first two inspect the damage and assess likely causes (any contemporaneous, notes or photographs would be a help any correspondence etc.)
They will then propose remedial action, which may or may not involve liaising with the Building Control officer.

The latter draws up a Cost Estimate for the works based on the assessment and recommended remedial action.

If there is a trespass or boundary dispute you may need the extent of this surveyed by a Chartered Surveyor.
This may result in a financial award as opposed to reinstatement of the boundary.

If there is an implication for services you may need the services of an Mechanical and Electrical Consulting Engineer.

The reason you go for competent and experienced building professionals is that they are able to face off against anyone the other side puts up.
They can only be "trumped" in court by someone more expert than they, and then usually only on a specialist subject.

This would arise in the case of say, deposition of waste and remediation of landfill areas, for example, in which case you get in an opposing specialist.
One specialist that is may be required in apartment cases is a fire safety consultant, perhaps more than and M&E - if this is so, your architect and solicitor can advise.

This does not multiply costs as much as you might think, because each member of the inspection team only does their own specialist niche.

Against this at the moment you have to weigh the fact that Coalport may be a man of straw.
this may be the reason that your current solicitor has requested that you pay costs up front - has he advised you on this?

This may mean you will not recover costs and just reading your post, but the way your solicitors have acted on this cause concern.
The case you may be taking is against your solicitors for not having moved this forward in a competent or timely manner, if that is shown to be the case.


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                                             as a defence or support - in     and    of        itself  -         should       legal        action        be           taken.
Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                                             Real Life with rights to    inspect     and       issue         reports    on     the         matter    at  hand.


----------



## onq

Given the seriousness of the situation facing the Architectural profession and the fact this this is not new ground, I think it is as well that we all face known facts.

This is the Priory Hall Report
[broken link removed]

Before Priory Hall there there was Shangan Hall.
The building was commissioned by Dublin City Council.
Shangan Hall Apartments were certified by Anthony Reddy & Associates in 2005.

Prime Time
Presented by Rita O'Reilly
Broadcast on: 22 May 2006

[broken link removed]

The Section on Shangan Hall starts at timestamp 38:50 - it finshes at 48:28 and I draw your attention to the section commencing at 44:14

This link requires Realplayer
[broken link removed]

OR

Media Player Classic with the necessary codec.
http://mpc-hc.sourceforge.net/media-player-features.html

Tony Reddy's comment was
"I wasn't personally involved in the design."
Tony Reddy was President of the RIAI in 2005 and is a current fellow of the RIAI.

I have met Tony on several occasions.
He is one of the nicest men you could meet.
His office in Dublin has done some interesting design work.
Yet we see him mired in controversy in the above Prime Time Report.

What message do Shangan Hall and Priory Hall send to the public and the Minister?
Here are Phil Hogan's comments as previously reported
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]

Here is a view on his comments.
[broken link removed]

I agree that the current regulatory situation can be improved, but this does not justify the actions of architects who may have issued Opinions at variance with the facts.

The RIAI have to step up to the mark on this one.


For those who may be interested, there is also an ongoing discussion on Mark Stephens Archtiect's Blog about Priory Hall and Architects Certification.



I have no relation or professional connection to Mark Stephens other than we may both be Member of the Architectural Association of Ireland, but I'm not certain.


ONQ.

[broken link removed]

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied upon                         as a defence or support - in and of itself -    should       legal        action    be      taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                         Real Life with rights to inspect and issue  reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## onq

Some images which may be helpful the debate were posted [broken link removed]
from /www.archiseek.com/forum/
[broken link removed]
These appear to show the bedrooms which were removed by condition


----------



## onq

Just a note on certification and its implication - where we came from on this.
Back  in the 'Nineties when I started certifying and the RIAI new form of  words came out I initially resisted the inclusion of Main Contractors  and Sub-Contractors certs in my Schedule A appendices on a matter of  principle.

I felt it  was my job to certify the design was compliant according to visual inspection or limited inspection on site.
It was the contractor and sub-contractors job to certify the built works.

I  felt that by including their cert in mine I was taking on  responsibility for the built works that simply wasn't justified by the  money we were making out of it.
After all, they got the lion's  share of the profit for the built work - many, many multiples of our  fees - so they should carry the can.

I was of the opinion that  two separate booklets of certification should be issued, with the  contractors certification being independently verified by Building  Control.
Nobody wanted to listen - most Building Control people  weren't interested in stepping out of their offices unless it was to go  to a career-enhancing seminar or course.

Thus I made the best of it  in the following way -

ALL the contractors, sub-contractors and  specialist suppliers had to offer their certificates for the built work  before I would begin the final inspection.
These certificates  would be included in my Schedule A assurances AFTER the design team  and/or specialist designers (e.g. Fire Safety Consultants) assurances.
My  file was backed up with site minutes, faxes and photographs from the  appointed technical person in the office looking after the work PLUS my  own site visits.

The "visual inspection system" worked well, used in that way.

However  if the implications of the Coalport Saga hold true it has been totally  abused in the decade since the end of the 'Nineties. That suggests that  in our most productive period of building in Ireland, the most egregious  errors may have crept in through lax standards set by architects and no  inspections by Building Control Officers.
Yet one local  authority where credit is due on Building Standards (whatever about  other issues on which I may be at loggerheads with them) is Meath Co Co.  John Sweeney is the BCO there and runs a tight and efficient ship, with  an amazing 100% inspections achieved in one year (2003)!

http://www.nda.ie/cntmgmtnew.nsf/0/D7B9326DE8BF2CBA802570CF00348A4C/$File/07_part_m.htm

This is how it should be done.

Both  examples above show how compliant building standards could be set and  achieved using available methods and staffing - no additional laws are needed.
Now let's see if the RIAI and Minister Phil Hogan can come together and agree a way forward and not simply ineffective new legislation and re-wording of Opinions that may not be well thought through.


ONQ

[broken link removed]

 All advice on AAM is remote from the situation and cannot be relied  upon                         as a defence or support - in and of itself -     should       legal        action    be      taken.
 Competent legal and building professionals should be asked to advise in                          Real Life with rights to inspect and issue   reports    on     the         matters    at      hand.


----------



## Lecorbusier

Watching the Prime Time program on Priory Hall and reading press articles on this subject, I understand that the main failure from the architect is to have issued his certificate without properly inspecting the development. 

It is more likely that the problems related to this development and others have motivated the enactment of S.I. No. 96/2011 - Multi-Unit Developments Act 2011, which now prevents some professionals to certify compliance with their own design or TGD 008 which now prevents them to supervise the design of extensions or refurbishments of school extensions. However, these professionals are not the cause of the problem. The cause is deeply rooted within certificates of compliance drafted and approved by the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland and other engineering institutes. These certificates are inadequate to protect consumers. 

Considering the Multi-units development Act 2011, which was drafted to help preventing similar debacle in the future; I am wondering how the public is currently protected from a similar problem to happen again. There are now 3 different groups of professionals qualified to issue these certificates: registered architects, registered surveyors and registered engineers. The Act is preventing many professionals such as chartered architectural technologists, fire safety consultants, architectural consultants and others, to issue these certificates. Why? Priory Hall demonstrates that RIAI architects are not up to the task?

In respect of fire safety, the Multi-units development Act 2011 does not represent an additional protection to the public. If Priory Hall had to be built tomorrow, the same scenario could happen again. Let's not forget that the Priory Hall architect is still able to issue similar certificates today.

The actual system of certification is a business that is not designed to serve consumers. The failure of the system is not caused by under-qualified professionals as some institutions want us to believe; it is caused by an absence of professional ethic, by a system that relies on self-certification. If the government does not decide to implement a state certification system similar to the one in place in the United Kingdom, then who shall certify in the future and how? After Priory Hall, it is clear that membership of an institute does not represent sufficient protection to consumers, specially when this institute represents and defends its members instead of protecting the public.

Many self-taught architects have been prevented to continue practising with the Building Control Act 2007. This was obviously a way for the RIAI to cut competition in the name of public safety. The future will show that most defective structures built in Ireland were designed by RIAI architects not by the self-taught who are now prevented to practice as architects. I have inspected apartments in Dublin 18 that the media never talked about. Apartments built during the last decades with major problem of water infiltration. We heard about apartment roofs taken by the wind. Houses in Lucan without proper fire rescue access... And so on...

Beware consumers, the prefix MRIAI does not implicate quality as the institute wants you to believe. Instead of working for public safety, the RIAI is working to restrict the practice of architecture to their own members, working to deprive consumers from being able to choose their architect outside of their institute. Refer to the Architects' Alliance of Ireland (AAoI) for more information.


----------



## onq

I agree that neither legislation nor RIAI membership alone cannot guarantee certification with integrity.
It also seems to be the case that the RIAI doesn't appear to censure its members in public for infractions.
Yet the implication that the RIAI or their members are systemically incompetent re certification doesn't hold water.

The RIAI have the largest affiliation of qualified architects in Ireland 2,850 in 2010 and probably less in 2011 - I don't have the figures to hand.
You suggest that self-trained architects are as competent as MRIAI's, but I seem to recall the AAoI spokesperson suggesting their numbers are only around 400?.
Does it not follow that the largest number of architects, who may also attract the larger schemes to their offices, may have a proportionately greater number of building defects to their name?

The existence of one architect who has certified compliance of a building that is defective does not mean that a significant percentage of RIAI members have done likewise.
Also just because an architect has apparently mis-certified one building for one client doesn't mean that he has done so on all his buildings or for all his other clients.


ONQ.


----------



## Lecorbusier

I am Lecorbusier,

The architect who has set the 5 points of modern architecture.

You may know that one of the points that I theorised is to build on pilotis. My futuristic vision had help me to anticipate climate change and tsunamis. However, corrupted systems in place today have allowed otherwise (refer to recent flooded RIAI design building in Dublin).

I am Lecorbusier, I am an utopist... What I have seen in Irish architecture recently is a disgrace. It is in line with the financial market, an obvious lack of humanism, an institute which has focussed its effort in enlarging its monopoly instead of working for a better architecture, an institute that claims acting for public interests when only working in the interests of its members. 

My previous post never stated that RIAI members were all incompetents. Many MRIAI are members of the institute because they do not have the choice to do otherwise. my previous post stated that RIAI members have probably designed more defective buildings than self-taughts architects or technicians.  

There are 2 reasons for that. 1) Most RIAI architects are businessmen. Many do not design their building but just put their name on it. 2) Many have stopped keeping up to date with regulations when they became MRIAI, and since they were given the title they never been assessed. 3) Most MRIAI became architects hoping to be rich and famous. They design building for their own glory rather than for public comfort. 

Self-taught architects entered the profession as draughtsmen or assistants, they did not aspire to become famous but to make an average earning. Technologists are interested in the design and generally stick to it. They do not aspire to glory when they design but to perfection.

The RIAI wants the public to believe that membership of their institute implicate quality, but the past, the present and the future will prove their lies. 

The RIAI is trying to restrict the provision of architectural services to its members. However, many competent practitioners can produce quality services, can survey and certify compliance adequately.

The RIAI is always using the first opportunity to discredit self-taught architects or technicians... Why shouldn't we do the same?

the Multi-units development Act 2011 as part 3 of the Building Control Act 2007 is a disgrace. It is a result of RIAI propaganda to expand its monopoly and to prevent competent professionals from different horizons to compete with RIAI members.

I repeat the RIAI is not working for the consumers it is working to improve the privileges of its members. Priory Hall is a proof and many other development prove that membership of the institute does not guaranty services quality. Every self-taughts aren't David Grant. The question is why have they all been condemned? Should we do the same with MRIAI now that it is proven that some of their members are also making mistakes?


----------



## onq

I'm not in a position to defend the RIAI or to speak on their behalf "Le Corbusier".
I don't need to claim to be a long-dead Frenchman to lend weight to my comments.

I didn't suggest that your previous post stated that all MRIAI's were incompetents.
I pointed out that you couldn't logically infer this from the facts to hand about Priory Hall.

I also pointed out that you couldn't even for an opinion on the other work done or certified by the same architect.
Stephen Oppermann has been around a long time, yet I'm not aware of a slew of building defects to his name.


ONQ.


----------



## Lecorbusier

Lecorbusier is not dead... Lecorbusier will still exist when you will be long dead.

I was not referring to Stephen Oppermann's work, but to a long list of RIAI defective design that never made the headlines...

My point is that Priory Hall is not an exception... My problem is that the RIAI discredited all self-taught architects <mod snip> on TV, but of course when one of their members fails to provide adequate services, they cover the mess.

The RIAI spend money to discredit self-taught and technician services. Maybe they should use their money to keep registration fees and exam down... This would be wiser


----------



## ajapale

This thread is being closed for a week or so pending discussion by the moderators and administrators.

aj
moderator


----------



## Bronte

*LONGBOAT QUAY - ANOTHER COWBOY BUILDER - BERNARD McNAMARA*


In light of the current debacle at Longboat Quay this thread might be of relevance to those who are owners or tenants there.  There was a good debate on here and a few other threads about building practices in light of what happened with Priory Hall.

A few newspaper articles:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpo...s-went-to-work-on-apartment-block-357515.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpo...ink&utm_medium=click&utm_campaign=nextandprev

_The confirmation that the 299-unit development on Dublin’s Sir John Rogerson Quay was a fire trap threw McNamara’s activity into a different light. The six-storey blocks were built in an appalling manner in 2006, at the height of the property madness. Corners were cut. Walls were not built with proper fire stops. Vital smoke vents were not installed. There was a total disregard for fire safety in a multi-occupancy building where a fire could have meant multiple fatalities.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpo...ink&utm_medium=click&utm_campaign=nextandprev
_
PRIMETIME

There was a broadcast last week on this story.  In addition to fire safety issues it was also stated by one resident that he had damp issues from the beginning.  These were supposed to be top notch appartments, they certainly cost top dollar with the three beds being sold for 750K.


----------



## Bronte

What is different about this and Priory hall and how might this be of use to the Longboat tenants.

Three things.

1.  Nama owns 18 apartments (via the receiver of McNamara)

Right now these are unsaleable, in my opinion, at nearly any price.  If the place is fixed they would sell for maybe 300K each.  (someone better than me have a value for two bed nice apartments in that area if they were ok)  That's nearly five and a half million.  Serious bucks.  Leverage against Nama, Nama wants them sold, Nama know they can't sell them now, bad publicity to Nama again.

2. DDAA owns the common areas and is liable for 37 apartments via the affordable housing scheme.

I imagine these owners are the ones with practically zero money for repairs.  DDAA knows this and if the tenants are pushed too much they might default on their mortgages and then I assume the DDAA would really be the ones to lose out.  (anyone know how affordable housing schme works, is the DDAA a co signatory on the mortgage, how is the ownereship worked out)

3. Eviction unlikely. Can you imagine this.  The images.  Who is going to physically evict them.  And the residents saw the hell Priory Hall people had to live through after they left their properties.  Personally I'd take my chances in a fire trap building, that I'd been living in for years over putting my family out.  And how on earth can some people pay a very large mortgage and pay rent.

- I advise though the installation of multiple smoke alarms and some kind of ladder and expert knowledge of the fire escapes and lots of fire drills.  This is less important for those on the ground floor and first floor, and even the second floor isn't so difficult to get out of.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/envi...longboat-quay-residents-says-keegan-1.2380071


----------



## Asphyxia

No regulation, and still no regulation, what did we expect. Tom Parlon and the C.F.I. must have serious clout. State building regulation would be self financing after initial set up costs. We always look to other Countries when in comes healthcare, childcare models. There is third party regulation in most Member States in the E.U. why do we not implement one of these models. Fianna Fail shame on you. Fine Gael and Labour shame on you.


----------



## T McGibney

Asphyxia said:


> We always look to other Countries when in comes healthcare, childcare models.



And look at the state of our healthcare & childcare systems...


----------



## Rebuttal

T McGibney said:


> And look at the state of our healthcare & childcare systems...


That's because we are still looking and not implementing.


----------



## thedaddyman

I moved back to Ireland in the early noughties and  for a while I used to walk past a small apartment complex in South County Dublin daily. Even to my laymans eyes the quality looked appaling, however, it then got plastered and tarted up and the apartments sold for a small fortune

What have learnt?, it's simple, don't buy any house in an estate or an apartment built in Ireland in the last 15 or 20 years, it's too risky


----------



## T McGibney

thedaddyman said:


> What have learnt?, it's simple, don't buy any house in an estate or an apartment built in Ireland in the last 15 or 20 years, it's too risky



I recall a similar caution being expressed in the FT earlier this year in relation to apartments built in London during the past decade.


----------

