# New houses should not have to meet high BER requirements



## Steven Barrett (16 Aug 2022)

A mate of mine is a builder and he said the cost of meeting BER requirements adds a massive cost to the price of building houses. He thinks that they should be allowed to build houses with a lower BER rating that is more affordable for people, but they obviously have higher ongoing heating costs. Having it on a tiered basis allows people to get the house that they can afford. 

BER is EU wide and part of their plan to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, so I can't see his plan being adopted.


----------



## VonHohenzollern (16 Aug 2022)

Steven Barrett said:


> A mate of mine is a builder and he said the cost of meeting BER requirements adds a massive cost to the price of building houses. He thinks that they should be allowed to build houses with a lower BER rating that is more affordable for people, but they obviously have higher ongoing heating costs. Having it on a tiered basis allows people to get the house that they can afford.


So your house would be intially cheaper to purchase but more expensive to heat? 

Sounds like a builder trying to offload his costs onto the buyer. I wouldn't be too keen to be buying from them.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Aug 2022)

As a home owner with an old house I can get grants to make my house energy efficient. And there is no obligation on me to make it energy efficient.

Yet a First Time Buyer is obliged to make it efficient and has to pay for it themselves.

Something wrong somewhere.


----------



## Leo (16 Aug 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> And there is no obligation on me to make it energy efficient.


There is if you want to carry out significant renovations.


----------



## Leo (16 Aug 2022)

Steven Barrett said:


> A mate of mine is a builder and he said the cost of meeting BER requirements adds a massive cost to the price of building houses.


I presume he's still using decades old building methods?


----------



## Protocol (16 Aug 2022)

Vested interests want the size / quality of the house to be cut.

They never seem to suggest cutting the following:

(1) land costs
(2) finance costs
(3) 15% profit margins / 66,000 per house


----------



## T McGibney (16 Aug 2022)

Protocol said:


> Vested interests want the size / quality of the house to be cut.


Down with cheaper and affordable housing!

I have no vested interest whatsoever but I still think it ridiculous that it would be illegal to build today the large, cosy and warm house we built circa 22 years ago for not much more than €100k.


----------



## The Horseman (16 Aug 2022)

Protocol said:


> Vested interests want the size / quality of the house to be cut.
> 
> They never seem to suggest cutting the following:
> 
> ...


Property building is a business out to make a profit. Why do people find this concept so hard to understand. 

The State is only to happy to blame the developer for the issues with the housing crisis. Ironically if the State actually took some difficult decisions we would not be where we are today. The housing crisis would still be around but not as bad as it currently is.


----------



## VonHohenzollern (16 Aug 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> As a home owner with an old house I can get grants to make my house energy efficient. And there is no obligation on me to make it energy efficient.
> 
> Yet a First Time Buyer is obliged to make it efficient and has to pay for it themselves.
> 
> Something wrong somewhere.


As demonstrated with Mica and the new report on Apartments in Dublin, letting standards slip is not a solution, it just foists the expense on the next generation. Employing a whole tranche of workers who are needed for the repairs rather than new builds, while the original builders make out without liability. 

High standards day 1 prevent having to subsidise more expensive renovations in the future. People are paying more than the price of a mortgage, clearly the problem is with supply and while lowering standards is solution; its one with an expensive future cost.  Unfortunately, the government needs to get more people into building houses. The profit is there, the skilled labour is not.


----------



## The Horseman (16 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Down with cheaper and affordable housing!
> 
> I have no vested interest whatsoever but I still think it ridiculous that it would be illegal to build today the large, cosy and warm house we built circa 22 years ago for not much more than €100k.


I don't have any vested interest either (I am involved in two rented properties both at well below market rent and I have no intention of selling for at least another 20 yrs or so). 

the cost of materials & labour is going up along with development levies etc. So who should fund these and stay within the €100k


----------



## T McGibney (16 Aug 2022)

VonHohenzollern said:


> As demonstrated with Mica and the new report on Apartments in Dublin, letting standards slip is not a solution, it just foists the expense on the next generation. Employing a whole tranche of workers who are needed for the repairs rather than new builds, while the original builders make out without liability.
> 
> High standards day 1 prevent having to subsidise more expensive renovations in the future. People are paying more than the price of a mortgage, clearly the problem is with supply and while lowering standards is solution; its one with an expensive future cost.  Unfortunately, the government needs to get more people into building houses. The profit is there, the skilled labour is not.


Lower energy efficiency standards have nothing to do with repairs - for mica or anything else.


----------



## T McGibney (16 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> I don't have any vested interest either (I am involved in two rented properties both at well below market rent and I have no intention of selling for at least another 20 yrs or so).
> 
> the cost of materials & labour is going up along with development levies etc. So who should fund these and stay within the €100k


Nobody mentioned staying within 100k or any figure.

And development levies are part of the problem. New homeowners shouldn't be financing councils to run festivals and events.


----------



## VonHohenzollern (16 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Lower energy efficiency standards have nothing to do with repairs - for mica or anything else.


Does have something to do with the expensive cost of renovation.


----------



## T McGibney (16 Aug 2022)

VonHohenzollern said:


> Does have something to do with the expensive cost of renovation.


That's the point, a scaling back of energy efficiency standards, say to early Celtic Tiger era levels, would mean lower renovation costs.


----------



## The Horseman (16 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Nobody mentioned staying within 100k or any figure.
> 
> And development levies are part of the problem. New homeowners shouldn't be financing councils to run festivals and events.


You did in post 7 above. New home owners are required to pay development levies for the supply of public lighting etc. This is the council "taking the development in hand".


----------



## T McGibney (16 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> You did in post 7 above.


No I didn't.  Read again what I said. I made no suggestion that the cost 22 years ago is achievable today. But the fact remains that my house is large, cosy and warm even if built (competently) for a relative pittance 22 years ago.


The Horseman said:


> New home owners are required to pay development levies for the supply of public lighting etc.


They charge development levies even when there is no prospect of public lighting etc ever being provided.


----------



## Early Riser (16 Aug 2022)

Whatever about energy efficiency (and how accurate BER is as a measurement) building/planning standards certainly need to be revised:

_"Just how outdated are our planning standards? They are a legacy of moral values originally intended to protect the modesty of Edwardian women. Their origins date from 1902 when planners Raymond Unwin and Barry Parker walked apart in a field until they could no longer see each other’s nipples through their shirts. They determined that the 70ft between them was an appropriate separation distance to achieve privacy in housing layouts........
...Subsequently, these guidelines were adopted throughout the English-speaking world. Unwin later made recommendations to cater for the motor car, which led to the typical form of suburban housing, based on low densities and significant car ownership, which became the dominant form of residential development of the 20th century. Incredibly, 120 years later, our development plans are still being influenced by these outmoded and restrictive standards."_
Tony Reddy, IT, 13 Aug, 2022.


----------



## PGF2016 (16 Aug 2022)

Steven Barrett said:


> A mate of mine is a builder and he said the cost of meeting BER requirements adds a massive cost to the price of building houses. He thinks that they should be allowed to build houses with a lower BER rating that is more affordable for people, but they obviously have higher ongoing heating costs. Having it on a tiered basis allows people to get the house that they can afford.
> 
> BER is EU wide and part of their plan to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, so I can't see his plan being adopted.


Is this not just kicking the (climate change) can down the road? Is there nothing we can do in Ireland with a long term view?


----------



## noproblem (16 Aug 2022)

I've been in an A2 rated home and also C1 rated home. I stayed for some nights in both during cold and mild weather, they were roughly the same size. I can honestly say the C1 rated house was more comfortable for me, not too hot/clammy, not cold by any means, was reasonable to heat and produce hot water, the A2 house was indeed cheaper to heat and produce hot water. On the other hand the A 2 rated home was wonderful to enter on a very cold night but became too warm after a short time. Both were on the outskirts of a big town and price difference in this case was aprox €50k. I wonder if an extension or renovation to the A rated house was needed, would it be more difficult with all the stuff installed to get it to the A standard,  to me it seems that to renovate or extend the C rated house would be a lot more straight forward and possibly cheaper? In any case it seems that all new house are going to be very highly insulated here in the future. That's fine, but with our climate who came up with the system we in Ireland use to get to A rating, as against what they might use in Finland and colder countries to get an A rated dwelling?


----------



## odyssey06 (16 Aug 2022)

noproblem said:


> I've been in an A2 rated home and also C1 rated home. I stayed for some nights in both during cold and mild weather, they were roughly the same size. I can honestly say the C1 rated house was more comfortable for me, not too hot/clammy, not cold by any means, was reasonable to heat and produce hot water, the A2 house was indeed cheaper to heat and produce hot water. On the other hand the A 2 rated home was wonderful to enter on a very cold night but became too warm after a short time. Both were on the outskirts of a big town and price difference in this case was aprox €50k. I wonder if an extension or renovation to the A rated house was needed, would it be more difficult with all the stuff installed to get it to the A standard,  to me it seems that to renovate or extend the C rated house would be a lot more straight forward and possibly cheaper? In any case it seems that all new house are going to be very highly insulated here in the future. That's fine, but with our climate who came up with the system we in Ireland use to get to A rating, as against what they might use in Finland and colder countries to get an A rated dwelling?


If you extensively renovate the C1 house you are supposed to get it up to B2 standard which is a deterrent to upgrading older houses. It would seem more reasonable to insist that you go up X levels.


----------



## PGF2016 (16 Aug 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> If you extensively renovate the C1 house you are supposed to get it up to B2 standard which is a deterrent to upgrading older houses. It would seem more reasonable to insist that you go up X levels.


Does it in practice deter anyone? Is there anyone who decided "We need a new bedroom for the kids but decided against it because of the building regulations"?


----------



## Purple (16 Aug 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> Does it in practice deter anyone? Is there anyone who decided "We need a new bedroom for the kids but decided against it because of the building regulations"?


It does if they can't afford it due to the extra cost of improving the BER.


----------



## PGF2016 (16 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> It does if they can't afford it due to the extra cost of improving the BER.


Same question again. Does it actually happen? Is there any anecdotal evidence of people shelving plans due to the requirement?


----------



## The Horseman (16 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> No I didn't.  Read again what I said. I made no suggestion that the cost 22 years ago is achievable today. But the fact remains that my house is large, cosy and warm even if built (competently) for a relative pittance 22 years ago.
> 
> They charge development levies even when there is no prospect of public lighting etc ever being provided.


The building of a property outside the major urban areas is achievable for a relatively modest figure. Land and labour is notably less expensive outside of the urban areas. 

The development levies are used to fund a host of council public services related to property. Some of those who pay levies gain more from them than others. 

My levies (living in Dublin) has no doubt subsidised the support of public lighting for example in areas where the levies are not sufficient to cover them.


----------



## Purple (16 Aug 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> Same question again. Does it actually happen? Is there any anecdotal evidence of people shelving plans due to the requirement?


I've no idea but it's reasonable to think that cost influences purchasing decisions.

@Leo's point above is the real issue though; with the improvement in materials and manufacturing methods how on earth is it so much more expensive to build a house now than it was 20 years ago?


----------



## newirishman (16 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> I've no idea but it's reasonable to think that cost influences purchasing decisions.
> 
> @Leo's point above is the real issue though; with the improvement in materials and manufacturing methods how on earth is it so much more expensive to build a house now than it was 20 years ago?


From my (layman) observations of the Irish Building Industry, whatever improvements in materials and manufacturing methods happened since say the 1980ies have yet to make it into the handbook for Irish Builders.
There is zero reason or motivation for the building industry to make housing cheaper in Ireland. Zero.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (16 Aug 2022)

Energy efficiency requirements are onerous for new builds and add to cost. But houses last for a very long time in Ireland so it makes sense to get it right at the start.

For me the main policy problem is not build quality but *where* and *how much* developers can build. I've rarely seen a new development where another 25% floor space couldn't have gone in through some combination of building higher or less garden space. 

Land is also very inefficiently used. A school near my parents' house has sold off land parcels but by bit over the last half century,  the fourth is now being developed. Each development has its own access roads and is completely inaccessible from the others. This has led to far more road space than actually needed for the volume of dwellings.


----------



## Clueless Clive (16 Aug 2022)

Houses wont last as long asthey did once the full extent of mica pyrrhite comes out.

a lot of apartments in Dublin will have to come down


----------



## Leo (17 Aug 2022)

Clueless Clive said:


> Houses wont last as long asthey did once the full extent of mica pyrrhite comes out.
> 
> a lot of apartments in Dublin will have to come down


What apartments were built with contaminated blocks?   

When the cores of these are cast on-site and steel reinforced, why would they have to come down?


----------



## Purple (17 Aug 2022)

Leo said:


> What apartments were built with contaminated blocks?
> 
> When the cores of these are cast on-site and steel reinforced, why would they have to come down?


I'm far from being a Civil Engineer but I don't think any apartments in Ireland have a core structure that is block built.


----------



## Leo (17 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> I'm far from being a Civil Engineer but I don't think any apartments in Ireland have a core structure that is block built.


Yeah, no way they meet the structural loading requirements for that purpose. I was just wondering what Clive knew about developments that will need to come down


----------



## Peanuts20 (17 Aug 2022)

I wond


Steven Barrett said:


> A mate of mine is a builder and he said the cost of meeting BER requirements adds a massive cost to the price of building houses. He thinks that they should be allowed to build houses with a lower BER rating that is more affordable for people, but they obviously have higher ongoing heating costs. Having it on a tiered basis allows people to get the house that they can afford.
> 
> BER is EU wide and part of their plan to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, so I can't see his plan being adopted.



I can't help but wonder if your builder is altruistic or if he wants to build more houses at a lower cost so he can maximise the return on the land investment he's made. What's better for him, 20 houses on a plot sold for €500k or 40 smaller and lower rated houses sold @ €400k.?

My first house was a badly built timber frame new build. We learnt quickly that the neighbours  were Abba fans and that he used to belt his girlfriend after a few beers. How?, because we could hear them easily through the dividing wall that we were afraid to even hammer a nail into in case it damaged it.  The garden was small and fine for me and my wife, totally unsuitable once kids, pets etc came along, far too small. 

2 houses later, and in my forever (hopefully) home, a 1970's cavity block build I can recall looking at other new builds where the 5th "bedroom" was too small to put a bed. I saw apartments being built in Dublin during the tiger that even to my laymans eyes, the blockwork was appaling. Plaster has covered a lot of issues.

There is an arguement for cheaper, starter homes and perhaps some people starting out have unrealistic expectations. However and forgive me for lumping all builders into the one bucket but having seeing, first and second hand, the appalling builds Irish builders have erected over the last 25 years. I'd take anything they say with a large pinch of salt.


----------



## T McGibney (17 Aug 2022)

Peanuts20 said:


> I can't help but wonder if your builder is altruistic or if he wants to build more houses at a lower cost so he can maximise the return on the land investment he's made. What's better for him, 20 houses on a plot sold for €500k or 40 smaller and lower rated houses sold @ €400k.?


What land investment? He's a builder. If he was a developer, Steven would presumably have described him as such.


----------



## Purple (17 Aug 2022)

Peanuts20 said:


> My first house was a badly built timber frame new build.


What we need are well built timber frames houses. They'll last 100 years, can be mainly pre-fabricated in a factory so will be of a much higher quality, are considerably cheaper, have a much lower carbon footprint and can be produced faster. Unfortunately our existing building regulations and our incompetent construction sector mitigate against this. If builders were as good at building as they are at moaning we'd have no shortage of housing.


Peanuts20 said:


> I saw apartments being built in Dublin during the tiger that even to my laymans eyes, the blockwork was appaling. Plaster has covered a lot of issues.


Yes, there was a systematic failure by the State to enforce regulations and by the so called professionals to ensure that standards were met. Even a desk-top audit would have shown that fire safety standards were not being met. 
Thankfully most builders are honest people and did what they were meant to do, despite the failures of the State.


----------



## Clueless Clive (17 Aug 2022)

Leo said:


> Yeah, no way they meet the structural loading requirements for that purpose. I was just wondering what Clive knew about developments that will need to come down


As I understand it, quite a significant number of concrete slabs (floor / ceiling between stories etc) were made by cassidys and sent to Dublin. For years.


----------



## noproblem (17 Aug 2022)

Clueless Clive said:


> As I understand it, quite a significant number of concrete slabs (floor / ceiling between stories etc) were made by cassidys and sent to Dublin. For years.


And your point is?


----------



## lff12 (18 Aug 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> As a home owner with an old house I can get grants to make my house energy efficient. And there is no obligation on me to make it energy efficient.
> 
> Yet a First Time Buyer is obliged to make it efficient and has to pay for it themselves.
> 
> Something wrong somewhere.


Fully agreed - you are effectively demanding that the FTB also second guesses the potential new technologies in the market and installs best in class now, without having choices later on if a better technology comes along. FTBs are effectively paying 45k extra for what they would get a 50% SEAI grant for if they did on an older home with a cheaper price.

I recall that 15 years ago pellet burners were the "in" thing, and most of my parents neighbours have switched over to natural gas from oil.


----------



## lff12 (18 Aug 2022)

VonHohenzollern said:


> As demonstrated with Mica and the new report on Apartments in Dublin, letting standards slip is not a solution, it just foists the expense on the next generation. Employing a whole tranche of workers who are needed for the repairs rather than new builds, while the original builders make out without liability.


Where do you think the builders have gone who were responsible for poor quality builds in the first place? Its only 10 years later in many cases, and lots of the contractors responsible for poor workmanship then will still be in business now, and get to benefit a second time with the scale of work out there. The developer would have used sub contracted labour rather than in house in many cases, and people will have moved around. McFeely etc didn't go around building homes personally - its the contractors who carried out poor quality work, and site foremen who were not doing their jobs, compounded by self-certification which again would have been down to what were likely to be contracted engineers. And all topped off by the state leaving them to get on with it before 2014, when self certification ended.


----------



## lff12 (18 Aug 2022)

newirishman said:


> From my (layman) observations of the Irish Building Industry, whatever improvements in materials and manufacturing methods happened since say the 1980ies have yet to make it into the handbook for Irish Builders.
> There is zero reason or motivation for the building industry to make housing cheaper in Ireland. Zero.


Which is largely because we still haven't professionalised our construction workforce to the point that you can no longer leave school at 15, do a safe pass and rise through the ranks. Doing so would eliminate the cheap labour element while also improving standards, but at significant cost, as then you are trying to only hire professionally trained staff at entry level, but 55 year old Jimmy the ex brickie who left school at 15 to work on city building sites is now senior manager on account of "experience" and hasn't a bulls notion what all this new stuff is, but can talk the talk - and him, take a pay cut, with all his "experience"?


----------



## lff12 (18 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> What we need are well built timber frames houses. They'll last 100 years, can be mainly pre-fabricated in a factory so will be of a much higher quality, are considerably cheaper, have a much lower carbon footprint and can be produced faster. Unfortunately our existing building regulations and our incompetent construction sector mitigate against this. If builders were as good at building as they are at moaning we'd have no shortage of housing.
> 
> Yes, there was a systematic failure by the State to enforce regulations and by the so called professionals to ensure that standards were met. Even a desk-top audit would have shown that fire safety standards were not being met.
> Thankfully most builders are honest people and did what they were meant to do, despite the failures of the State.


We also have one of the largest concrete businesses here in the world, determined to keep our house building methods at somewhere around 1885.


----------



## lff12 (18 Aug 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> If you extensively renovate the C1 house you are supposed to get it up to B2 standard which is a deterrent to upgrading older houses. It would seem more reasonable to insist that you go up X levels.


That doesn't mean its easier. The actual renovations necessary can vary widely even in homes considered low ratings, which is often due to something as simple as use of electric heating. The concern I would have is that we are railroading in technologies which will appear just as dated in 20 years time as oil fired central heating is now. What we should be focusing on is creating buildings that are built to last and modifiable, which is why timber framing is so popular elsewhere - if your beams rot on your 19th century Fachwerk home in Franconia, you replace the beam with an appropriate load bearing beam of similar type and take it from there.
What I do find strange here is our lack of appropriate use of basements, ground floor space and rooms under gable roofs, like I've seen in Germany, Luxembourg and Switzerland.


----------



## Peanuts20 (18 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> What we need are well built timber frames houses. They'll last 100 years, can be mainly pre-fabricated in a factory so will be of a much higher quality, are considerably cheaper, have a much lower carbon footprint and can be produced faster. Unfortunately our existing building regulations and our incompetent construction sector mitigate against this. If builders were as good at building as they are at moaning we'd have no shortage of housing.
> 
> Yes, there was a systematic failure by the State to enforce regulations and by the so called professionals to ensure that standards were met. Even a desk-top audit would have shown that fire safety standards were not being met.
> Thankfully most builders are honest people and did what they were meant to do, despite the failures of the State.


Glenveigh properties are planning on opening a new Timber Frame factory in Carlow on the site of the old Braun plant, they've also recently bought a timber frame company in wicklow so that may be the way some of the developers are going


----------



## Purple (18 Aug 2022)

Peanuts20 said:


> Glenveigh properties are planning on opening a new Timber Frame factory in Carlow on the site of the old Braun plant, they've also recently bought a timber frame company in wicklow so that may be the way some of the developers are going


Yep, Glenveigh seem to be the benchmark for best practice. They are building an apartment block near me with a hording outlining that they are using 40% prefabricated parts, 100% recycled steel and the corresponding reduction in CO2 emissions.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (18 Aug 2022)

lff12 said:


> What I do find strange here is our lack of appropriate use of basements, ground floor space and rooms under gable roofs, like I've seen in Germany, Luxembourg and Switzerland.


I've never understood this either

In the scheme of things excavation is not a huge additional cost and can get you potentially 30% more floor space. It's done for apartments so why not for houses?

Is there some reason why it's not done in Ireland for houses such as a higher water table? Or just builder conservatism?


----------



## Purple (18 Aug 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I've never understood this either
> 
> In the scheme of things excavation is not a huge additional cost and can get you potentially 30% more floor space. It's done for apartments so why not for houses?
> 
> Is there some reason why it's not done in Ireland for houses such as a higher water table? Or just builder conservatism?


Putting a basement in an area with a high water table is expensive. It's not that it will leak, it's that it will want to float. Keeping it in the ground is the challenge.


----------



## Clueless Clive (18 Aug 2022)

noproblem said:


> And your point is?


What do you think the implications are. I thought the point was obvious


----------



## noproblem (18 Aug 2022)

Clueless Clive said:


> What do you think the implications are. I thought the point was obvious


The implications of what exactly?
You pointed out that a lot of apartment blocks would have to be demolished. Can you give us the data on what you're saying, where the apartments are and how many blocks are to be brought down? You come across as having this knowledge, just want you to share the data.


----------



## Purple (18 Aug 2022)

lff12 said:


> What we should be focusing on is creating buildings that are built to last and modifiable, which is why timber framing is so popular elsewhere - if your beams rot on your 19th century Fachwerk home in Franconia, you replace the beam with an appropriate load bearing beam of similar type and take it from there.


And if the house does have to be replaced the cost and carbon footprint is considerably lower than building a block and concrete house.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

lff12 said:


> Which is largely because we still haven't professionalised our construction workforce to the point that you can no longer leave school at 15, do a safe pass and rise through the ranks. Doing so would eliminate the cheap labour element while also improving standards, but at significant cost, as then you are trying to only hire professionally trained staff at entry level, but 55 year old Jimmy the ex brickie who left school at 15 to work on city building sites is now senior manager on account of "experience" and hasn't a bulls notion what all this new stuff is, but can talk the talk - and him, take a pay cut, with all his "experience"?


Why do you think a better trained workforce would be less likely to cut corners and be dishonest? 
If the last boom taught us anything it was that people who present themselves as Professionals are no more honest than anyone else. As far as I know there's no ethics test required to become a QS, Engineer, solicitor, accountant or any other professional involved in the construction industry. 

On the issue of training I always remember what the Dean of the Department of Mechanical Engineering in UCD said to me; "Never confuse education and qualification. Qualification is what you learn n four or five years in college, education is what you learn throughout your entire life." 

What is needed for modernisation is serious amounts of money invested in a modern supply chain. That seems to be starting to happen.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> Why do you think a better trained workforce would be less likely to cut corners and be dishonest?
> If the last boom taught us anything it was that people who present themselves as Professionals are no more honest than anyone else. As far as I know there's no ethics test required to become a QS, Engineer,* solicitor,* *accountant* or any other professional involved in the construction industry.


Of course any chancer can call themselves an accountant (but not a solicitor) but it's utter nonsense to claim that there are no ethical standards in force for accredited members of either of those professions.


----------



## The Horseman (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> Why do you think a better trained workforce would be less likely to cut corners and be dishonest?
> If the last boom taught us anything it was that people who present themselves as Professionals are no more honest than anyone else. As far as I know there's no ethics test required to become a QS, Engineer, solicitor, accountant or any other professional involved in the construction industry.


With the greatest respect don't tar a profession with the actions of a minority. For your info there are ethical tests for the accountancy profession. There are also sanctions both professionally and legally for unethical behaviour.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Of course any chancer can call themselves an accountant (but not a solicitor) but it's utter nonsense to claim that there are no ethical standards in force for accredited members of either of those professions.


Sure, but accountants and solicitors as a cohort are no more or less honest than plumbers or taxi drivers or anyone else.

Oh, and I've met more than my fair share of Solicitors who are chancers.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> With the greatest respect don't tar a profession with the actions of a minority. For your info there are ethical tests for the accountancy profession. There are also sanctions both professionally and legally for unethical behaviour.


I'm not tarring them with anything. I'm pointing out that people are the same in every walk of life and take up one job rather than another doesn't confer some sort of ethical purity on that cohort of people. 
I agree that there are regulated industries and sectors and that's a good thing but we've a long history of regulatory failure n this country.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> Sure, but accountants and solicitors as a cohort are no more or less honest than plumbers or taxi drivers or anyone else.
> 
> Oh, and I've met more than my fair share of Solicitors who are chancers.


You complain about others' lack of ethics. In doing so, you make a fundamental error on a point of fact. You then opt to try to move the goalposts instead of admitting your error and putting it right. There's an irony there somewhere.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> You complain about others' lack of ethics. In doing so, you make a fundamental error on a point of fact.


How so?
There are professional standards (ethics) that they are legally required to meet, just like in many jobs, but what ethics test to they have to pass?



Purple said:


> As far as I know there's no* ethics test *required to become a QS, Engineer, solicitor, accountant or any other professional involved in the construction industry.



I don't mean ethics exam, I mean ethics test; a method of ensuring that they are in fact of a high moral and ethical calibre. If there is such a thing then I will of course admit my error.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> How so?
> There are professional standards (ethics) that they are legally required to meet, just like in many jobs, but what ethics test to they have to pass?


Look it up yourself. I don't have time to educate you on your errors.

I stand by my observation that it's ironic for you to bleat about others' lack of ethics while making assertions that you can't substantiate and then doubling down when exposed.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Look it up yourself. I don't have time to educate you on your errors.
> 
> I stand by my observation that it's ironic for you to bleat about others' ethics while making assertions that you can't substantiate.


I've looked. I couldn't find any.
I don't claim to have ethical standards that are any higher than anyone else. I certainly don't claim to have higher ethical standards due to the job I've chosen to do. I don't claim that those who also do the same job as me have higher ethical standards because we have all chosen to do this job.

My sister is a solicitor, as is my Partner. Neither of them were required to pass an ethics test or were filtered to ensure that they were "the right sort" prior to training in their chosen job.

Working in a heavily regulated industry, and mine is very heavily regulated, doesn't make one any more of less honest or ethical than the next guy. It just means one has to behave in a certain way or get in trouble.

Ethics and integrity is what one does when no one is looking.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> I've looked. I couldn't find any.



You didn't look too hard.





						IAASA - Ethical Standard for Auditors (Ireland)
					






					www.iaasa.ie
				





			Ethics - code and standards - ..rteredaccountants.ie
		






						CPA Ireland - CPA Ireland
					

CPA Ireland is one of Ireland’s leading Accountancy Bodies and provides qualifications for those wishing to pursue an accountancy career.




					www.cpaireland.ie
				





			https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/committees/conduct-guide.pdf
		





__





						Code of Conduct - Law Library
					

The Code of Conduct for the Bar of Ireland sets out the rules by which barristers perform their work and operate within the courts and outside. It covers a multitude of details from relationships between parties, to duties in a criminal case, to registration of foreign lawyers and are the...




					www.lawlibrary.ie


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> You didn't look too hard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are misunderstanding the point.
You have linked to all the rules they are required to work within. That doesn't mean that as a cohort they are more ethical than anyone else. It means that they work within a heavily regulated industry.

I asked if there were any ethics tests that they had to pass in order to ensure that they were more ethical or honest than the rest of the population. There aren't, and heavy regulation doesn't mean that they are intrinsically any more honest or ethical than anyone else. That's the point I made above.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> I asked if there were any ethics tests that they had to pass in order to ensure that they were more ethical or honest than the rest of the population. There aren't


You keep shifting the goalposts.

Your original claim was "As far as I know there's no ethics test required to become a QS, Engineer, solicitor, accountant or any other professional involved in the construction industry."

That, in respect of solicitors and accountants, is as I have said, utter nonsense. I've sent you multiple links which confirm that, if only you'd bother reading them.

Now you're going on about ethics tests ensuring that people are "more ethical or honest than the rest of the population" - which isn't the function of an ethics test.

You've lost here but you haven't the courage to admit it.


----------



## The Horseman (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> I'm not tarring them with anything. I'm pointing out that people are the same in every walk of life and take up one job rather than another doesn't confer some sort of ethical purity on that cohort of people.
> I agree that there are regulated industries and sectors and that's a good thing but we've a long history of regulatory failure n this country.


I did not say nor imply that people in professions are above reproach you did. There are bad eggs in all walks of life as there are also good ones. It was you who initially raised that people in the professions you listed did not have to undergo any ethical tests which another poster has shown you they do (I am one of them).


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> You keep shifting the goalposts.


No, I keep making the same point and you keep answering a different one.


T McGibney said:


> Your original claim was "As far as I know there's no ethics test required to become a QS, Engineer, solicitor, accountant or any other professional involved in the construction industry."


Correct.


T McGibney said:


> That, in respect of solicitors and accountants, is as I have said, utter nonsense. I've sent you multiple links which confirm that, if only you'd bother reading them.


You're linked to ethical standards that solicitors and accountants have to follow. You haven't linked to any _ethics_ tests that they have to do to become a solicitor or accountant.



T McGibney said:


> Now you're going on about ethics tests ensuring that people are "more ethical or honest than the rest of the population" - which isn't the function of an ethics test.


No, it's the same point I've been making from the start.
The point was made in the context of the failure to apply regulations to the construction sector during the boom. People being people some of them took advantage of that. My contention is that their job or educational standard didn't make them any more or less likely to do the wrong thing.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> I did not say nor imply that people in professions are above reproach you did.


Where did I do that?


The Horseman said:


> There are bad eggs in all walks of life as there are also good ones.


Yes, that's the point I was making. The people within one sector are not intrinsically better or worse than those in any other.


The Horseman said:


> It was you who initially raised that people in the professions you listed did not have to undergo any ethical tests which another poster has shown you they do (I am one of them).


What ethical test was done on you before you were allowed to qualify and work in your chosen sector?
I know that there are regulatory standards, also called ethical standards, that you must work within. I never said otherwise.

I've asked what ethical test, if any, people have to pass in order to work at particular jobs. That is entirely different from the rules they are required to work within after they qualify.

I work in medical device manufacturing. Everything we do is controlled, inspected and audited. It is a heavily regulated sector. There are absolutely no ethical tests that anyone in my sector has to pass before they are allowed to working in it.


----------



## The Horseman (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> I've asked what ethical test, if any, people have to pass in order to work at particular jobs. That is entirely different from the rules they are required to work within after they qualify.


Before you qualify you must pass an ethical exam.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> Before you qualify you must pass an ethical exam.


That's a exam to show that you know what you should do. It's not a test to filter out people who won't do what they are supposed to do.
My contention is simply that people are no more or less intrinsically honest or ethical based on the job they do. Some sectors are certainly policed more heavily than others but that's not the same thing. I think you agree with me on that point.


----------



## The Horseman (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> That's a exam to show that you know what you should do. It's not a test to filter out people who won't do what they are supposed to do.
> My contention is simply that people are no more or less intrinsically honest or ethical based on the job they do. Some sectors are certainly policed more heavily than others but that's not the same thing. I think you agree with me on that point.


I don't agree with your point. In order to become a member and remain a member of an accredited profession you must continually hold yourself to high ethical standards. There are complaints procedures that those who receive the services of professionals can complain to. The consequences of from a professional perspective is to be removed from the register of members. This in itself prevents you from providing services in this profession. 

Accountants are required to constantly undertake CIPD to retain membership. It has been pointed out to you by another poster that you initial assertion was incorrect and you have refused to accept that this is the case despite the fact that two professionals in one of the sectors you referenced have shown you exactly what the requirements are. You as somebody outside these professions are actually telling those inside the profession that they are wrong. 

Do you not see anything wrong in this?


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> I don't agree with your point. In order to become a member and remain a member of an accredited profession you must continually hold yourself to high ethical standards. There are complaints procedures that those who receive the services of professionals can complain to. The consequences of from a professional perspective is to be removed from the register of members. This in itself prevents you from providing services in this profession.
> 
> Accountants are required to constantly undertake CIPD to retain membership. It has been pointed out to you by another poster that you initial assertion was incorrect and you have refused to accept that this is the case despite the fact that two professionals in one of the sectors you referenced have shown you exactly what the requirements are. You as somebody outside these professions are actually telling those inside the profession that they are wrong.
> 
> Do you not see anything wrong in this?



You seem to be saying that  they are required to operate to high standards due to the regulations in place and the enforcement of those regulations. If that's the case I agree and I have never suggested otherwise.

For clarity, are you contending that people within those professions are intrinsically more ethical those those who are not? 
If so how is that the case? 
For it to be so it would require that the intake of people seeking to work in those sectors are intrinsically more honest and ethical.

I have asked if there is a mechanism by which that it determined and all I have been presented with is the rules and the training which is undertaken to understand those rules once the people in question are already working within the sector. That is not a selection process.

Is it just a happy coincidence that ethical people are drawn to become accountants and solicitors? 

In the absence of a selection process are you contending that the CPD training and rules within the sector somehow make people more honest and ethical? Does it fundamentally alter their character? 
Do accountants and solicitors become more honest and ethical the longer they are exposed to this form of behavioural osmosis?  Is it similar to attaining a Zen state?


----------



## _OkGo_ (19 Aug 2022)

I have to side with @Purple on this one. Ethics & compliance are frequently used interchangeably when they have very different meanings. Most professions have some level of regulation that must be maintained. It doesn't imply that the rules are ethical or the people abiding by those rules are ethical.

And it is also telling that in the LSOI Code of Conduct that the word "ethics" only appears once in context. The other 6 are in relation to the name of a committee and a footnote. The LSOI have the common sense not to tie themselves up in ethical knots


T McGibney said:


> https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/committees/conduct-guide.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## The Horseman (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> You seem to be saying that  they are required to operate to high standards due to the regulations in place and the enforcement of those regulations. If that's the case I agree and I have never suggested otherwise.
> 
> For clarity, are you contending that people within those professions are intrinsically more ethical those those who are not?
> If so how is that the case?
> ...


Professional bodies will remove members from their bodies which remove the ability to operate in these professions eg legal people being debarred, doctors being struck from the medical register. 

Your tone regarding "happy coincidence ethical people are drawn to accountants .... is actually not worth responding to as it was a childish dig. 

if your source of income is removed by losing membership from accredited bodies then the majority of people will act with honesty and integrity.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> Professional bodies will remove members from their bodies which remove the ability to operate in these professions eg legal people being debarred, doctors being struck from the medical register.


Agreed. Now talk to an accountant who does the books for GP's and ask them about how much cash they generally take off the top.


The Horseman said:


> Your tone regarding "happy coincidence ethical people are drawn to accountants .... is actually not worth responding to as it was a childish dig.


Well I'm trying to understand how a cohort of people can come to be more ethical than another by virtue of the job they choose to do.


The Horseman said:


> if your source of income is removed by losing membership from accredited bodies then the majority of people will act with honesty and integrity.


That's fear of the consequences of acting outside the rules.

Integrity is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles, it is doing the right thing even if their are no consequences of doing otherwise.

Ethics, in the context of this discussion, is the moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.


----------



## The Horseman (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> Agreed. Now talk to an accountant who does the books for GP's and ask them about how much cash they generally take off the top.
> 
> Well I'm trying to understand how a cohort of people can come to be more ethical than another by virtue of the job they choose to do.
> 
> ...


You are now comparing apples with oranges. A Dr is struck off for malpratice or doing something medically wrong. An accountant can only deal with the details he is given (which is why the Dr in your example wants cash as its untraceable).

I never said one cohort was more ethical than another that is your belief. Rules are there for a reason as are consquences of going outside those rules. if as you appear to think every professional are ethically and morally bankrupt then I think that says more about you than the members of those professions. 

The vast majority of people in all walks of life are ethical and morally just. I don't understand why you seem to hone in on the small minority of those who aren't expecting everyone to ethical and of high morals. 

Maybe its you who think the world and everyone in it should as you referenced be in a "Zen state".


----------



## Leo (19 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> I don't agree with your point. In order to become a member and remain a member of an accredited profession you must continually hold yourself to high ethical standards.


For many years I was a member of the Institute of Engineers of Ireland, now Engineers Ireland. In order to join and renew membership each year I had to sign up to upholding their Code of Ethics. Once I paid my money they were happy to have me as a member, at no point did they ever assess my work to ascertain whether I was upholding those standards. 

For ethical standards to be truly 'in-force' there would need to be significant ongoing assessment of every member. I'm not aware of any professional body who do that, most rely on third party reports that lead to very occasional investigations for the most egregious contraventions.


----------



## The Horseman (19 Aug 2022)

Leo said:


> For many years I was a member of the Institute of Engineers of Ireland, now Engineers Ireland. In order to join and renew membership each year I had to sign up to upholding their Code of Ethics. Once I paid my money they were happy to have me as a member, at no point did they ever assess my work to ascertain whether I was upholding those standards.
> 
> For ethical standards to be truly 'in-force' there would need to be significant ongoing assessment of every member. I'm not aware of any professional body who do that, most rely on third party reports that lead to very occasional investigations for the most egregious contraventions.


Professionals by their nature are expected to be ethical and professional. Membership of most if not all professional bodies follows a lengthy process of exams, work experience, and a sign off by an existing member of the body. 

There is an inherent understanding that members will behave appropriately. No system is 100% perfect which is why there are ethical boards in those bodies who investigate alleged breaches of the code of ethics.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

_OkGo_ said:


> I have to side with @Purple on this one. Ethics & compliance are frequently used interchangeably when they have very different meanings. Most professions have some level of regulation that must be maintained. It doesn't imply that the rules are ethical or the people abiding by those rules are ethical.
> 
> And it is also telling that in the LSOI Code of Conduct that the word "ethics" only appears once in context. The other 6 are in relation to the name of a committee and a footnote. The LSOI have the common sense not to tie themselves up in ethical knots


I'm not even a solicitor and have no interest whatsoever in advocating either for them or for the body that regulates them, but if what you say is true, then why is the Law Society forever disciplining solicitors for even technical ethics breaches?


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Leo said:


> For many years I was a member of the Institute of Engineers of Ireland, now Engineers Ireland. In order to join and renew membership each year I had to sign up to upholding their Code of Ethics. Once I paid my money they were happy to have me as a member, at no point did they ever assess my work to ascertain whether I was upholding those standards.
> 
> For ethical standards to be truly 'in-force' there would need to be significant ongoing assessment of every member. I'm not aware of any professional body who do that, most rely on third party reports that lead to very occasional investigations for the most egregious contraventions.


Engineers Ireland appears from their website to be a purely representative/networking body, with no apparent regulatory function nor role in oversight of its members. So why or how would it police its members' work?



> Engineers Ireland membership provides access to the latest engineering news and insights, upskilling and CPD training, exclusive networking events such as our annual conference, career advice and much more.
> Connect with over 25,000 professionals from every discipline of engineering







__





						Membership | Engineers Ireland
					





					www.engineersireland.ie
				




Like Engineers Ireland, the GAA also has a code of ethics for members, yet any suggestion that the GAA has any business snooping on members' private activities etc would be met with justifiable laughter. But if someone breaks its code of ethics by say abusing a child, they'll be turfed out.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> You seem to be saying that  they are required to operate to high standards due to the regulations in place and the enforcement of those regulations. If that's the case I agree and I have never suggested otherwise.
> 
> For clarity, are you contending that people within those professions are intrinsically more ethical those those who are not?
> If so how is that the case?
> ...


There is no basis for any assumption that the intake of people entering accountancy as a career are any more honest or ethical than anyone else, but the training and career progression path that they will follow will certainly weed out, sooner or later, those who are dishonest or unethical. 

No employer, agency or customer will want to touch an accountant or bookkeeper whose career has been previously tainted by involvement in fraud, pilferage or other dishonesty, and those who become thus tainted invariably find their career options narrowing dramatically.

Nobody minds a wideboy plumber or engineer, but they will steer a mile away from a wideboy accountant. 

And by and large the same goes for solicitors.


----------



## _OkGo_ (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> I'm not even a solicitor and have no interest whatsoever in advocating either for them or for the body that regulates them, but if what you say is true, then why is the Law Society forever disciplining solicitors for even technical ethics breaches?


Its not something I see or hear regularly but I can't say that I follow it that closely. Any disciplinary action that has been newsworthy is typically IMO for non compliance with regulation as opposed to unethical behaviour.



The Horseman said:


> You are now comparing apples with oranges. A Dr is struck off for malpratice or doing something medically wrong. An accountant can only deal with the details he is given (which is why the Dr in your example wants cash as its untraceable


That's hilarious, I don't want to pick on accountants but I can easily find one to do a cash job for a simple individuals tax return. Is that unethical?

And as for the "an accountant can only deal with the details he is given" , that could be an auditors epitah. It is a get out clause to remain compliant with regulation or a code of conduct. It is unethical not to ask for more information where there is a suspicion of wrongdoing. But many won't ask and rely on the "we only had what was put in front of us" to remain compliant with their own standards.

Again I'm only using accountants because you have gotten hung up on defending them but the same is true for many professions including my own. The professional qualifications or affiliations don't make people more or less ethical.



The Horseman said:


> Professionals by their nature are expected to be ethical and professional. Membership of most if not all professional bodies follows a lengthy process of exams, work experience, and a sign off by an existing member of the body.


That is exactly the opposite of what @Purple is trying to argue. Professionals Exams and work experience build knowledge of a subject matter allowing you to work in a specific industry. They do not make you behave ethically


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> Professionals by their nature are expected to be ethical and professional


They are expected to follow the rules as laid down by their professional bodies, following from legislation. Behaving well because you are bound by rules and fear losing your livelihood if you break them is not the same as being ethical.


The Horseman said:


> . Membership of most if not all professional bodies follows a lengthy process of exams, work experience, and a sign off by an existing member of the body.


Yes, do you think that makes them intrinsically more ethical people than the general populace?
I don’t think it makes them better or worse. I don’t think their training will alter their fundamental character. Maybe I’m missing something and their training is akin to the training young Vulcans get in Star Trek and somehow inculcates with the ability to resist normal human frailties, but I doubt it.


The Horseman said:


> There is an inherent understanding that members will behave appropriately.


More than any other job? If so why is that?


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

_OkGo_ said:


> Any disciplinary action that has been newsworthy is typically IMO for non compliance with regulation as opposed to unethical behaviour.


There should rarely be much difference. Any decently-formulated set of regulations will seek to specifically prohibit the most common forms of unethical behaviour, as this reduces the chances of later disputes over interpretation of regulations and also facilitates the mandating of specific penalties to match stated offences.



_OkGo_ said:


> That's hilarious, I don't want to pick on accountants but I can easily find one to do a cash job for a simple individuals tax return.


How does this accountant register you with Revenue as their client without including in their own books any income from the work they have completed for you? Genuine question.


----------



## The Horseman (19 Aug 2022)

Accountants battle rising pressure to act unethically
					

More than one in four professional accountants say they have been put under pressure or felt under pressure to act in an unethical way over the past three years, new research has found.




					www.icaew.com
				




I am going to remove myself from this thread as it has gone way off tangent and despite the evidence provided by a number of posters some contributors refuse to accept what has been provided. 

But sure hey feel free to have your unsubstantiated viewpoint.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> There is no basis for any assumption that the intake of people entering accountancy as a career are any more honest or ethical than anyone else,


Good. We agree on that.


T McGibney said:


> but the training and career progression path that they will follow will certainly weed out, sooner or later, those who are dishonest or unethical.


How? It might weed out those who make bad judgements or break the rules but it is the rules and fear of sanction that binds them to behave well. 


T McGibney said:


> No employer, agency or customer will want to touch an accountant or bookkeeper whose career has been previously tainted by involvement in fraud, pilferage or other dishonesty, and those who become thus tainted invariably find their career options narrowing dramatically.


I always think there is greater level of trust required to have a tradesperson in your home when your children are there than to hire a solicitor to sell your house or an accountant to do your tax return.
Dishonest and incompetent people generally find their career paths limited.


T McGibney said:


> Nobody minds a wideboy plumber or engineer, but they will steer a mile away from a wideboy accountant.


The engineers shoddy work might kill you.


T McGibney said:


> And by and large the same goes for solicitors.


Is it fair to say that it is a reluctance to lose your livelihood than limits the malfeasance of professionals rather than the inherent ethics or honesty of the individuals?


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

_OkGo_ said:


> It is unethical not to ask for more information where there is a suspicion of wrongdoing.


That's a sweeping statement that is not always true, for example where there is a suspicion of money laundering and where the accountant or other professional is bound by law not to risk tipping off the subject that they have rumbled a suspected ML offence.



_OkGo_ said:


> But many won't ask and rely on the "we only had what was put in front of us" to remain compliant with their own standards.


You have a very poor understanding of auditing standards if you think this sort of excuse will pass muster. 


_OkGo_ said:


> Again I'm only using accountants because you have gotten hung up on defending them


So your primary motivation here is to get one over on another poster?  Wow.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> How does this accountant register you with Revenue as their client without including in their own books any income from the work they have completed for you? Genuine question.


They charge you a lower fee and take the balance in cash. 
Over the last 25 years I’ve been offered cash discounts by accountants, structural engineers, solicitors and, most commonly, doctors. Then there's the teachers who do grinds for cash, they claim to be professionals too.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> That's a sweeping statement that is not always true, for example where there is a suspicion of money laundering and where the accountant or other professional is bound by law not to risk tipping off the subject that they have rumbled a suspected ML offence.


There’s been quite a few doctors done for tax evasion in the last few years. Im sure they have accounts. 
I was at a meeting with a doctor and her accountant and the accountant went through in quite some detail how she could skim cash out of the business. I was shocked. The doctor in question was delighted.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> They charge you a lower fee and take the balance in cash.


That's not what he said and not what a cash job is. And no accountant worthy of the name thinks the Revenue are that stupid.



Purple said:


> Over the last 25 years I’ve been offered cash discounts by accountants, structural engineers, solicitors and, most commonly, doctors.


Did you give repeat custom to these people?


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Did you give repeat custom to these people?


That’s actually a good question 
The doctors were consultants. They only took cash. I got into an argument with the secretary of one when I asked for a receipt with a sequential number printed on it. She refused so I gave her a cheque. 
The engineer was signing off on a house extension. 
The solicitor was acting for a family member and I haven’t used him since because I have an excellent solicitor already.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> but it is the rules and fear of sanction that binds them to behave well.


Who csn tell? It was Elizabeth I who said "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls," when asked a similar question.


Purple said:


> I always think there is greater level of trust required to have a tradesperson in your home when your children are there than to hire a solicitor to sell your house or an accountant to do your tax return.


If you're allowing tradesmen unsupervised access to your children, the problem is with you, not the professionals you hire.


Purple said:


> Is it fair to say that it is a reluctance to lose your livelihood than limits the malfeasance of professionals rather than the inherent ethics or honesty of the individuals?


Again, refer to Elizabeth I. I don't read minds either.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> That's not what he said and not what a cash job is. And no accountant worthy of the name thinks the Revenue are that stupid.


It’s still tax evasion though.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> That’s actually a good question
> The doctors were consultants. They only took cash. I got into an argument with the secretary of one when I asked for a receipt with a sequential number printed on it. She refused so I gave her a cheque.
> The engineer was signing off on a house extension.
> The solicitor was acting for a family member and I haven’t used him since because I have an excellent solicitor already.


Well this sort of evasion wouldn't be happening if consumers were refusing to entertain it. A contract tainted by illegality is generally unenforceable so you could easily have refused to pay any of these geezers.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> It’s still tax evasion though.


Aided and abetted by the consumer, and a criminal offence on their part.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Who csn tell? It was Elizabeth I who said "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls," when asked a similar question.


Okay, we’re getting somewhere. You *now* accept that their adherence to the rules  may not be due to their ethics and may indeed be due to a fear of the consequence of breaking the rules.


T McGibney said:


> If you're allowing tradesmen unsupervised access to your children, the problem is with you, not the professionals you hire.


Who said anything about unsupervised access?


T McGibney said:


> Again, refer to Elizabeth I. I don't read minds either.


And I refer you to my reply above.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> That’s actually a good question
> The doctors were consultants. They only took cash. I got into an argument with the secretary of one when I asked for a receipt with a sequential number printed on it. She refused so I gave her a cheque.
> The engineer was signing off on a house extension.
> The solicitor was acting for a family member and I haven’t used him since because I have an excellent solicitor already.


The accountants?


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Well this sort of evasion wouldn't be happening if consumers were refusing to entertain it. A contract tainted by illegality is generally unenforceable so you could easily have refused to pay any of these geezers.


I agree, people are not always ethical, though one of the above geezers was going to operate on me in a place disturbingly close to my testicles so I though it better to keep him sweet.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> You not accept that their adherence to the rules  may not be due to their ethics and may indeed be due to a fear of the consequence of breaking the rules.


I have no idea what this means. 


Purple said:


> Who said anything about unsupervised access?


You, when you referenced "greater levels of trust" in connection with children. If not, what were you trying to say?


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> The accountants?


I didn’t use them again though a former family member did.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> I have no idea what this means


My typo, “now”, not “not”.


T McGibney said:


> You, when you referenced "greater levels of trust" in connection with children. If not, what were you trying to say?


If someone is working in your house for days or weeks at a time you cannot supervise their every move.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Aided and abetted by the consumer, and a criminal offence on their part.


Absolutely. The customers are no more or less ethical or honest than the professionals.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> My typo, “now”, not “not”.


Putting words in my mouth again. Not good. Nor is your haranguing me and other accountants here for our supposed collective moral failures while you now admit to repeatedly facilitating and profiting from tax evasion.


Purple said:


> If someone is working in your house for days or weeks at a time you cannot supervise their every move.


I can only refer you to my earlier comment. Child protection isn't optional.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Putting words in my mouth again. Not good.


I’m not putting words into your mouth. I’m drawing conclusions from what you are saying.


T McGibney said:


> Not is your haranguing me and other accountants here for our supposed collective moral failures while you now admit to repeatedly facilitating and profiting from tax evasion.


I’m not haranguing anyone. I’m proposing that people in all walks of life are prone to the same moral failures to more or less the same degree. That’s all.


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> I’m not putting words into your mouth. I’m drawing conclusions from what you are saying.


"You accept that..." is at best doing both.


Purple said:


> I’m proposing that people in all walks of life are prone to the same moral failures to more or less the same degree. That’s all.


Sure we all knew that from day one. What an utter and dispiriting waste of time this has all been.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All I’ve done is question the notion that Professionals are more ethical than the general population. I don’t think they are any better or worse. 
I do think that our professions (the legal, medicine and accountancy ones) are quite well regulated and so that generally produces good outcomes. That’s a different thing though.


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> "You accept that..." is at best doing both.


No it’s not. It’s a conversation.


T McGibney said:


> Sure we all knew that from day one. What an utter and dispiriting waste of time this has all been.


Therefore people in all walks of life are of similar ethical standards.  So why have you been arguing the contrary?


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> Therefore people in all walks of life are of similar ethical standards. So why have you been arguing the contrary?


Where have I done that?


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Where have I done that?


The last 4 pages


----------



## T McGibney (19 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> The last 4 pages


2 examples will suffice.

What happened was that you made a reasonable point but complicated it with axe-grinding guff about accountants' ethical standards and some nonsense about how come dodgy accountants can't be screened out before they joined the profession. 

And it somehow managed to go downhill from there.


----------



## _OkGo_ (20 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> So your primary motivation here is to get one over on another poster? Wow.


Quite the opposite actually, I used that profession as an example because you and horseman jumped on it when purple arbitrarily listed it amongst a series of professions. And if you continued to read the rest of my sentence you quoted it should be clear that my point has nothing to do with getting one over on another poster



_OkGo_ said:


> Again I'm only using accountants because you have gotten hung up on defending them but the same is true for many professions including my own. The professional qualifications or affiliations don't make people more or less ethical.



But I find it funny that that is what you think I was trying to do when you have literally pulled countless threads off topic in some odd "one-up" battle with purple so I'll leave you to it


----------



## AlbacoreA (20 Aug 2022)

What we are going is deciding that high standards are more important than actually housing people. 

Meanwhile people who have lived their entire lives content in what are now "uninhabitable" housing are wondering why they need pretty much a mini mortgage to make savings that will take decades to recover in energy saving. That's assuming any of us can afford energy considering world events. We might be back to candles and aran jumpers before long.


----------



## AlbacoreA (20 Aug 2022)

lff12 said:


> We also have one of the largest concrete businesses here in the world, determined to keep our house building methods at somewhere around 1885.



The Romans used concrete. 

Concrete can be used in low energy housing. But we don't check or enforce standards anyway regardless of materials. 









						'I nearly fell off my chair': Dublin apartment owners face €68,000 fire defects bill
					

As many as 100,000 homes across the country may be impacted by fire safety or water ingress issues.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## AlbacoreA (20 Aug 2022)

As a nation our governance of many industries and professional bodies is less than ideal. We are known for it internationally. 

“Wild West of European finance”


----------



## T McGibney (20 Aug 2022)

AlbacoreA said:


> As a nation our governance of many industries and professional bodies is less than ideal. We are known for it internationally.
> 
> “Wild West of European finance”


100%. And our politics is rotten too.

But anyone who dares question whether our independence 100 years ago was a terrible and ghastly mistake gets savaged, and if they say it to the wrong people, sometimes murdered.


----------



## The Horseman (20 Aug 2022)

_OkGo_ said:


> Quite the opposite actually, I used that profession as an example because you and horseman jumped on it when purple arbitrarily listed it amongst a series of professions. And if you continued to read the rest of my sentence you quoted it should be clear that my point has nothing to do with getting one over on another poster
> 
> 
> 
> But I find it funny that that is what you think I was trying to do when you have literally pulled countless threads off topic in some odd "one-up" battle with purple so I'll leave you to it


One post said that there were no ethical tests as part of a professional body by somebody outside of that body.

It was highlighted that there is an actual ethical test required before the granting of membership to that same accredited profession. 

Subsequently evidence was provided how the majority of members of that profession who responded to the questionnaire had suffered in a number of ways due to the pressure exerted on them to act in an unethical manner. 

This alone proves that the majority (I am not saying every member) of that profession is and continues to act in an ethical manner. 

Ethics is doing what's right not what's easy. People are either ethical or they are not but membership to a professional body certainly requires it as a fundamental basic. Those who use this service expect it as to not do so is a breach of trust.

The attachment I supplied proved this fact. But rather than accept that the initial claim was incorrect the thrust of the discussion was then changed. 

I am all for healthy discussion but then some of the comments became troll like.

I find it funny that you contend stating the actual requirements of membership to a professional body is "one upmanship" it is correcting a misunderstanding of the facts.


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> One post said that there were no ethical tests as part of a professional body by somebody outside of that body.


You misread my initial post on the topic and charged off from there. 
I said that there was no test for any profession that determined if the individual was ethical. 
I’ve never suggested that there aren’t tests to check if the members of a profession knew the rules and standards they had to operate to and within. Those are the tests you linked to.

Most people operate within the rules because it is the right thing to do. Some people do it because they fear the consequences of being caught. Maybe for most of us there’s a small element of the latter in there too. 

In the context of the small proportion of buildings built during the last boom which are seriously in breach of standards that required unethical people from all areas of the construction sector, including professionals, to be complicit.

Opportunity makes the sinner and all that so most of them were just going along with the herd. 
The people doing cash jobs and nixers and giving grinds for cash and putting in bogus travel expenses and fiddling the welfare and all the other things we do shouldn’t get too judgemental about it as it was just another manifestation of a part of our society.


----------



## AlbacoreA (20 Aug 2022)

*".....In the context of the small proportion of buildings built during the last boom which are seriously in breach of standards that required unethical people from all areas of the construction sector, including professionals, to be complicit..."

 *I think this might be vastly underestimating the scale of the problem. In my opinion it's an unregulated industry that has the facade of being regulated. But that regulation and enforcement is only skin deep.

https://passivehouseplus.ie/news/pa...rds-of-new-homes-fail-energy-efficiency-rules

We can build "*schools*" that have problems with pyrite and fire regulations. That's indicative of *systemic* failure. Not a handful of rogue operators.

https://www.thejournal.ie/school-closures-list-4303701-Oct2018/

That's before you get into other issues with private dwellings.

https://www.thejournal.ie/fire-defects-parkwest-5844179-Aug2022/

Then there's the whole issue of buying the most expensive thing most people will ever buy and there is no warranty no cover, no protection. A kettle has better consumer protection. Look at the shambles with homebond. Look at the housing crisis.

It's an entire sector and governance that's not fit for purpose. In my opinion*. *It can't deliver what is needed.


----------



## AlbacoreA (20 Aug 2022)

The construction sector is not the only sector with systemic problems as the handbags argument in this thread demonstrates. You can can find endless examples of enforcement being an almost toothless mechanism across many sectors.


----------



## losttheplot (20 Aug 2022)

As a nation, we have no problem with rules being set. We can solve everything with legislation and rules. When it comes to rules being enforced, we're a bit fuzzy.
We complain about speed checks being placed where they can catch people speeding. Banks enforcing mortgage contracts.
Tradesmen telling you that to do it properly, would cost a fortune so this is the best they can do and suddenly remembering VAT if you want to pay by cheque.


----------



## _OkGo_ (20 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> It was highlighted that there is an actual ethical test required before the granting of membership to that same accredited profession.


Where? The only links I've seen pointed to code of conduct documents. The legal profession don't confuse code of conduct and ethics but the accountancy body does. What test are you specifically refering to ? I hope it's not the FAE's because that is a test of knowledge within the subject matter, not your ethical behaviour.



The Horseman said:


> Subsequently evidence was provided how the majority of members of that profession who responded to the questionnaire had suffered in a number of ways due to the pressure exerted on them to act in an unethical manner.
> 
> This alone proves that the majority (I am not saying every member) of that profession is and continues to act in an ethical manner.


Yes most will act ethically because it is human nature, not because of their profession.



The Horseman said:


> Ethics is doing what's right not what's easy. People are either ethical or they are not but membership to a professional body certainly requires it as a fundamental basic. Those who use this service expect it as to not do so is a breach of trust.
> 
> The attachment I supplied proved this fact. But rather than accept that the initial claim was incorrect the thrust of the discussion was then changed.


I'm sorry but your link proves the exact opposite. Your professional accreditation has no bearing whatsoever on your ethical behaviour. To believe that it is a fundamental basic of membership is wrong. Of course most people will act ethically, it is human nature.

From your link: _"A majority of respondents who reported feeling under pressure to act unethically said pressure came from internal sources such as line managers or those in senior director-level roles including the CFO or CEO."_

So if the pressure is coming internally from senior management , are these not members of the same professional body who are more than willing to act unethically? They had no problems qualifying and progressing their careers despite their ethical behaviour. So how is it a fundamental basic for membership?


----------



## The Horseman (20 Aug 2022)

Ok this is the last time I am going to engage on this topic. There is an ethics module which must be passed in order to gain membership to an accredited professional body. 

My link showed that members of my profession have suffered pressure to act unethical. If people risk losing their positions due to the pressure from above then that in itself shows ethical behaviour. 

For the majority of accountants in business their superiors are not from the same professional and most likely are business people who are not part of any professional body. There maybe a small minority of cfo's exerting pressure but in the main it is not. 

For those members in practice their future earning potential rests on their reputation. This is why they will refuse work when they feel either their is a potential conflict of interest or they are being asked to do something that is wrong (not allowing their position of trust be used for something wrong).


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2022)

The Horseman said:


> For those members in practice their future earning potential rests on their reputation. This is why they will refuse work when they feel either their is a potential conflict of interest or they are being asked to do something that is wrong


So they do the right thing because there are severe negative consequences of doing otherwise. 
That is not an expression of acting ethically. It is following the rules because their livelihood is at stake if they break them. 
Ethical behaviour is not that which you are compelled to do.


----------



## T McGibney (21 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> So they do the right thing because there are severe negative consequences of doing otherwise.
> That is not an expression of acting ethically. It is following the rules because their livelihood is at stake if they break them.
> Ethical behaviour is not that which you are compelled to do.


Is it impossible for you to be nice on this forum? You must have repeated that point a dozen times already and apart from the boredom of circular argument, I'm frankly sick of you obsessively attributing collective ulterior motive to I and other professionals who voluntarily contribute to this and other public forums.


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Is it impossible for you to be nice on this forum?


Well that’s a leading question. Should I try it after I stop beating my wife?


T McGibney said:


> You must have repeated that point a dozen times already and apart from the boredom of circular argument, I'm frankly sick of you obsessively attributing collective ulterior motive to I and other professionals who voluntarily contribute to this and other public forums.


I have never attributed any ulterior motive to any group, professional or otherwise, collectively or otherwise, on this forum or any other. If that is what you are taking from my comments then that says a lot more about you than me.

The only point I have made is that career choice is not a factor in determining the personal ethics of an individual. That’s all. You may think there’s some other motive but if so then you are wrong. 

We are all bound by our evolutionary imprint. There is no evidence of correlation between either intelligence and occupation and our predisposition towards ethical or unethical behaviour. That should be self evidently obvious. 

Countering such an obvious point with some variation of “yes, but we have rules to follow and we get exams to make sure we know the rules” requires an answer that is some variation of “so what? That’s an entirely different thing”. 

The only thing making the argument circular is the unwillingness or inability of some posters to understand or accept that.


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> 100%. And our politics is rotten too.


Possibly, but what country’s isn’t?


T McGibney said:


> But anyone who dares question whether our independence 100 years ago was a terrible and ghastly mistake gets savaged, and if they say it to the wrong people, sometimes murdered.


I don’t think independence was a mistake. I think we’d be poorer than  Scotland if we were still part of the UK but I agree 100% with your point about the absence of dissenting voices.   
I think that there’s been as almost tyrannical adherence to a simpleminded narrative around independence that has been a blight on the country and whitewashed our history in a most unjust and contemptible manner and led to what amounted to the de facto ethnic cleansing of 20% of our population.


----------



## T McGibney (21 Aug 2022)

Purple said:


> If that is what you are taking from my comments then that says a lot more about you than me.


No need for that. I'm out.


----------



## Purple (22 Aug 2022)

T McGibney said:


> No need for that. I'm out.


That's a copout. You've made plenty of personal comments about me on this thread and insinuated that I have base motives and that's fine, it's a discussion forum and I expect robust debate, but that comment's too much for you? Wow.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Aug 2022)

This has gone way off topic.

Fee free to start new threads on the various topics. 

Brendan


----------

