# Better regulation of self-build sector



## pmandcivil (2 Mar 2011)

I’m going to put this out there to all Construction Professionals, Building Contractors, Bona-fide sub-contractors, suppliers etc. I personally would like to see much tighter regulation of the self-build sector.  Starting with the 2 main areas which I believe are causing a lot of harm to the industry, the black market and lack of enforcement  of Building  Control. 
*Black Market*
Considering the amount of money that is being spent on self-builds, from a reasonably small mortgage for an extension to a full blown mortgage for a large house, there is abseloutely no interest in the sector by the Revenue.  Consider this, an average mortgage for a new build could be maybe €250,000. This would represent a nice turnover for a small business. A small business would be subject to the following rules.
1. Every business has to file accounts and account for virtually every penny when required to by the Revenue.
2. Every payment to a sub-contractor is subject to Relevant Contract Tax or the contractor has to provide a payments card before payment can be issued.
3. Valid receipts have to be recorded and filed for all materials detailing name and address of supplier, VAT number, rate of VAT etc. 
4. Direct employees must be provided with a payslip, P60, pension, insurance etc.
5. VAT returns, RCT returns, Employee tax returns must be made every 1/2 months as required.
There is far too much cash floating around being paid to dodgy contractors and sub-contractors and social welfare/ dole fraudsters. Genuine businesses are going under due to not being able to compete with uninsured, unregistered fraudsters with no overheads or tax demands. Why aren’t the Revenue targeting the direct labour builds? From what I see in my area, the unregistered dole scroungers who are also doing nixers are living a better lifestyle than genuine business people who don’t have the comfort of Social Welfare handouts. It’s easy to work for €70 or €80 a day if your weeks wages are being topped up by nearly €200, along with the medical card, rent allowance etc.  I have asked people to come work for me through the books and they have turned me down and demanded cash payment only. I’ve told them where to go!
   Banks are handing out huge sums of money and nobody seems to care where it goes. We all know its happening but nothing is being done about it. We also know about people pocketing the cash and buying new cars, going on fancy holidays and other extravagances using mortgaged money. Now these are the same people who are under pressure to pay back the 110% mortgages. Were they made account for the money would self-builders be so quick to hire on the black market?
In my mind, self-builders should be subject to the same taxation and accountancy rules as a business. 
*Building Control*
The current system is a sham. There is effectively no Building Control in this country. The current way of self-regulation has to stop. I have never met an officer from the council Building control office on site in my entire professional life. (14 years). I have worked on both large scale developments (500-600 units) and the one off home builds. What exactly are these Building Control officers doing?
The current system of building control is effectively done by self-builders who:
a. Hire the cheapest Architect/Engineer/Technician they can find.
b. Hire the Architect/Engineer/Technician who is prepared to sign off on whatever they need.
c.  Only call the professional when they need money
d. Expect the professional to sign off on work not completed/incomplete/bad workmanship. If they don’t they wont get paid.

Now I’m not saying anything against the person doing the signing off, the majority of professionals are decent honourable professionals who value their integrity and professional identity. But there are the unscrupolous ones who are usually the cheapest, who don’t even visit the site before submitting certification and who are exploiting the lack of Building Control. I used to do mortgage supervision but have stopped doing it as I felt I was leaving myself wide open to litigation if I signed off on some of the stuff I was asked to. I have lost money due to this but I wouldn’t be able to take the hit if I was sued for something which I may not have even seen. I have seen sewerage put in wrong location on site, cheap septic tanks put in where different system specified. Houses built substantially bigger than on plan, additional windows, site entrance position moved, etc etc. Some of the self-builds I’ve seen recently have been nothing short of shambolic. 
Don’t get me started on Part L. I have not done one BER for a new build in the period since the current Building Regulations came into force even though a final BER is supposed to be completed before occupation of a new dwelling. How many air-pressure tests are being done on new builds?
What can we do to get better enforcement in this country? Lobby your county counciller? The new TD’s. Form a pressure group? The CIF are supposed to represent the construction industry but from my knowledge they don’t have any interest in the self-build sector . 
 I’m open to speaking to like minded professionals and contractors. I’m not prepared to be silent on this any more but I’m just one voice. Would a collective group be the way to go? 
All opinions welcome


----------



## AlbacoreA (2 Mar 2011)

I don't think there much regulation across the entire building industry not just self build. You can see in the very poor quality standards some builders built to during the boom. 

I think there should be some form of guarantee, or bond for items beyond the structural. So if you find your plumbing or electrics etc are too a very poor standard, from when built that the build is liable for the costs to correct it. 

Seems crazy you can spend 200,000+ on a product and you buy it with no warranty.


----------



## onq (3 Mar 2011)

I endorse both your comments.
Buildings whould be designed by competent designers and built by competent builders.
The botom end of the self-build market seems to be supporting huge armies of nixer merchants and chancers both in the design, build and certification of these projects.
These muppets may producing buildings which in many cases not only have no certificate, they are uncertifiable - we don't this know for certain, but the posts here and on Boards.ie gives every indication that this is so.

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.


----------



## mradaly01 (18 Mar 2011)

To be honest, this country has a history of "under the counter"  dealings... and that is two fold... cash price is always cheaper (in the  short term) but poor workmanship nearly always costs more in the end...  

People are looking "to make a quick buck",so to speak. It's been going  on for years & years.It's almost ingrained in the Irish culture but  it's so self-defeating.Those who feed it & those who do the work,  just a vicious circle.

I am looking into selling my own home at the moment & purchasing a  site to build a home I want... I've put a lot of time / money etc into  my existing place... but circumstances have changed for me now (more  kids - longer commute which can't be sustained) which is giving me an  opportunity to "build my dream home" so to speak... but I am  terrified... I know NOTHING about the building trade, what to look out  for, what to do... I know I will be spending a lot of time on research  on this and I find that I am asking myself WHY? (don't get me wrong, I  don't usually have conversations with myself... well not too often)... 

I take a step back.... I will be paying out (I hope) no more that €400K  for the site & a home of turn key finish... but I feel that I need  to research everything - literally from the ground up... as I don't have  confidence in the trade... I have heard so many horror stories over the  years with builds... & I know, there are hundreds more that go  without a hitch... but there is a huge amount of trust involved, &  it's something that I haven't felt over the years in dealing with some  people who do the work... I would love to walk into a place & sit  with them for a period of time... walk away & then for that agreed  work to be completed... to be honest, it's not rocket science we are  dealing with... we are building houses for many many generations.. but  there are still huge amount of issues... "crap" happens - but that  should be the exception... but it seems to be the norm... I know that  developers / building contractors are under pressure with margins... but  so are the people paying them... there is just no faith out there... we  are almost waiting for something to go wrong... & more often that  not, exactly that happens - something goes wrong...

I've read through so many forums, so many companies "charters" talked to  a lot of people who have built... & to be honest, I'm not looking  forward to it. Am I just looking at the "glass half full"? I would love  for there to be proper enforced regulation... but that is NOT going to  happen... why, mainly because of who we are... there are a certain few  who pride themselves on their work, who give that extra bit to make  things better than ok.. but for everyone one of those - there are many  many people who have no pride in what they do, little regard for the end  user who will have almost ZERO comeback, without putting even more  money into fixing the problem that should never had been there. 

Regulation & enforcement will only work if there is political  will... but people need to buy into this aswell, in their everyday  dealings.


----------



## onq (19 Mar 2011)

@ 

There are of course ways to deal with this.

I can only speak from my own experience, but to me it seems that self builders tend to walk themselves into trouble by first not accepting - as a matter of principle - that they need to appoint a design team to take on a major project costing ten times what you'll pay for a decent car these days.

Even the average car has been extensively designed by engineers, crash test experts, ergonomic experts, graphic and industrial designers and quality achieved by both setting a zero tolerance for supplier components and rigorous testing of both long term samples and a run through test for each car as it leaves the factory.

Why in God's name would the person who pays for that for a car not set things up to achieve the same with their dream home?

Yet that is exactly what we see month in and month out both here and on boards.ie, people going to lesser lights in the industry or else professionals not trained in design of houses at all, so you get technicians trying to do the job of architects and engineers, who are trained to design civil works or structures, copying some bungalow bliss disaster and putter their own name to it while acting as architects.

But consider that car for a moment - it achieves its cost effectiveness by being produced thousands - sometimes hundreds of thousands of times over, and successive models perfect the marque - but they still need the services of trained automotive engineers and various experts in design, fabrication, construction and co-ordination to do it right every time, despite the repetitive nature of the work.

Now regard someone's once off house, using a product mix that is probably not going to be exactly duplicated anywhere, in terms of the structure, components, services and finishes - yet self-builders are happy to try this "by eye" with relatively inexperienced builders. I say "relatively" because a lot of the new Part L wasn't widely understood prior to the economic collapse and so wasn't widely disseminated.

Why don't houses cost €40,000 then?

1. There is simply "more" of the house this drives up coststo begin with.
2. There is a "Land" component - this can be a sizeable cost of any building but it went made in the Tiger years.
3. It is a once off construction - that's what most clients want and this means that there are no economies of scale and no multiple products to help spread the cost of the design services.

Even in relation to item three where there is an estate of say 250 houses, there will be a reuirements for variety amongst the buildings which could be as much as ten house types, so averaging out 25 houses per house type - a far cry from the thousands of cars produced by mass manufacturers.

"Ahh, but what about the limited editions and thos car makers who only produce small numbers" you might ask.

Fine - that's apples and oranges even in the car world.
Limited editions are usually tarted up hi-spec models designed to eke out the last drop of profit from a soon to be replaced model run - in fact limited editions are one of the signs a model will soon be replaced.
Small numbers of cars fall onto two groups
(a) Specialist builders like Ariel or Lotus which are usually bespoke sports cars for enthusiasts - not cheap and usually not very comfortable and sometimes even impractical or cannot be used on the road.
(b) Supercars from Ferrari or Mazarati - how much did you say your house was again...? LOL!

With a modern highly serviced building you will need:


an architect to design it      generally and co-ordinate it
an civil and structural      engineer for structure and drainage solutions
a mechanical and electrical      engineer for the services and a competent BER calculation
a quantity surveyor to both      keep the builder honest and avoid those hands-in-the-air moments as the cost      is realised.
  Now if self builders chose to ignore the tried and tested means of controlling and perfecting the built work so that they can fit the latest Chalon Kitchen or Aga - that's their call, but they're storing up problems at sell on when they will not be able to how either compliance or certification by an architect, with the back-up of the certs from the engineers, main contractor, sub-contractors and suppliers you would expect on a property costing over half a million Euro.

More importantly, if the archtiect  is nto there to ensure that the design of the work is not confined to the pre-site period with the self-builder constrained to put their minds to it and make decisions in a timely manner - i.e. before the building goes to planning, never mind tender, then a costing disaster will follow due to extras and changes on site. Builders will agree to any change as long as they can charge for it, and I have seen budgets get extended by 50% - even with a quantity surveyor - on two jobs I have been involved in merely because changes occured on site.

That having been said, it is not the design team's role to barrack the client, but to advise them and possibly to protect the contractor from himself, because its all too easy for a client to look for endless changes and then say - "Oh, I thoughttit was an all-in price!" or some such nonsense. Many a builder has walked down that road to oblivion.

So the motto is - "proper planning prevents poor performance"
Proper documentation [compliant drawings and specification] and a good contract help to avoid errors and ensures everyone is satisfied at the completion of the programme of works.
An adequately resourced design team of competent professionals helps ensure (i) that during the clients occupation and enjoyment of the property it performs adequately and (ii) there are no problems at sell on.

Now that the new government is in place, I will be lobbying hard - starting next week - to regularise the situation as it pertains both to my own profession and the building industry as a whole.
Wish me luck, for its a mountain to climb in the face of the trade as its been described above. 



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.


----------



## Lak (19 Mar 2011)

When I moved myself and my business to Ireland 15 years ago the first house I built I called the architect to come and inspect the footings, as I understood there was no building control I naturally assumed the architect would take that role.
After half a dozen calls he eventually reluctantly came out to site to spend all of two minutes there.
Puzzled I said I would call him again to inspect once I was up to DPC and would have everything open and in place for inspection. He said no I will be back to sign off when its finished.
This is and has been a pretty normal course of events the past fifteen years whether building in full or subcontracting other trades after some appalling shooddy work by others (mainly plastering)
A very ridiculous course of action for a house that could cost anything up to half a million and in sharp contrast to working in the UK where at least five visits would be required by law at varying stages by an independant council building inspector to ensure all matters were strictly adhered to,as anyone who has worked in the UK will testify to, woe betide you if ever you got on the wrong side of a Building Inspector by trying to cut a corner as they would be down on you like a ton of bricks.
It beggars belief that any building control is non existant, it should be the very first thing set in place within the industry.


----------



## onq (20 Mar 2011)

Building Control is quite existent in Meath, where John Sweeney holds sway.
He is one of the most pro-active building control officers I know and holds meeting with developers before they start to set them right on things he wants done during the work.
He is not shy of taking people to court for serious transgressions although like most local authorities, Meath usually takes a "quiet word" approach before wading in with a heavy hand.

That having been said, there is no excuse for what you experienced with your architect.
The trouble is, some architects seem to choose to view the wording of the standard certificate as an excuse not to act diligently, whereas I see it as protection for my office from claims due to a chancer of a builder messing my client around on the build and me certifying in good faith.

To make sure my clients aren't messed around, I undertake random inspections, flying visits and photograph everything.
Again I can only speak from my personal experience, but assuming the client has listened to me, I will have an engineer on board, and he and/or I will inspect


trial pits before the      engineer designs the foundations
trenches before blinding      goes in
footings once poured
rising walls and services      penetrations
preparation for Radon Gas      Barrier and boxes
installation of Radon Gas      Barrier and boxes
floor slab and insulation -      depending on detail and sequence
  Some or all of these may be missing from the list depending on house size, and whether the soil in the area is a known quantity or not.
Some visits may see things half-prepared and half completed, like the Radon Gas Barrier installation on a large house.
It doesn't matter - you can tell things from visual inspection and I take photgraphs of everything that I see on site. The client then gets a copy of these photos along with the cert I offer and my cert includes certs from the engineers, builder, subbies, specialist suppliers, etc.
This happens whether this is my work or the work of others where I've stepped in after problems have surfaced and carried out remedial works, which I've done quite a lot of in Meath, which is how I met John Sweeney.

The simple explanation for the architect’s behaviour you describe may be that they make their money by planning stage, some charging up to half fees to that stage.
I tend to do quarters to Planning, Tender, Site, Final Cert depending on the client but you can get burnt by expecting your profits to come later so I understand the 50% to planning mark up.
That shouldn't stop the architect delivering the service after planning, but I feel it mitigates against them spending a lot of time on site. 

I take on work round about me and that work serves to allow me to visit often and regularly, even going to see friends can be an excuse to drop in.
Where I work further afield I try to have at least two or three sites on the go on an outlying area, so I can multiply the visits to the other two when I'm scheduled to visit one. The additional time overall is not significant, I am getting paid for the main visit anyway and by meshing visits like this all the jobs benefit.

So in my book, regular attending is not enough, although it is needed to allow competent certification of interim payments. You need to sneak in some extra visits to keep the builder on his toes and I make sure he is aware of my policy of taking photographs - that was even work covered up can be inspected retrospectively - that usually smartens up the work practices.
Anyone retaining an architect can point them to this post and ask then to adopt these procedures - all it takes is a digital camera, a DVD-ROM or CD-ROM writer and a bit of scheduling.

In closing, the visits don't actually need to be that long in terms of duration, assuming the drawings and specifications were clear and have not been varied or else that all variations were clearly understood and agreed beforehand.
This is because if the architect is observant and competent he will take most things up and have had the photographed during a walk through inspection.
Once the job is up and running flying visits can take five minutes, with more detailed inspections taking twenty minutes and site meetings taking a hour of more - this assumes about eight detailed inspections / 4 site meetings on the job, with one or two flying visits are the start to put the building on the right track from the start of the programme.
If the architect is not providing at least 4/5 visits to site I cannot see how his initial, 3-4 interim and final certificate for payment can be issued professionally.

FWIW.

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.


----------



## RKQ (25 Mar 2011)

Legs-akimbo sounds like you hired a chancer. I started my practice 17 years ago and insist on at least 10 site visits per project. I don't sign a Stage Payment Cert without visiting the site, inspecting the works & photographing same. 

I think you should have retained a professional based on reputation. You seem to know or feel that your Architect not inspecting was wrong but you did nothing about it?

This is an interesting debate. PI protects many Self-builders and many people are quite happy to sue their professional at the 1st hint of a problem. Building Control is lax and needs to be reviewed.

Lets not forget the Apartment building closed down by Dublin Council because it didn't meet fire Building Regulations. This building was alledgedly certified by RIAI Architect.

It should be noted that the UK has introduced the Competent person schemes (CPS) which were introduced by the UK Government _to allow individuals and enterprises to self-certify that their work complies with the Building Regulations_ as an alternative to submitting a building notice or using an approved inspector.


----------



## onq (25 Mar 2011)

RKQ,

I agree with most of what you have said except for the comment about PI cover protecting self-builders - if you're referring to Architect's PI cover, it doesn't necessarily cover them at all.
Self-builders who employ tradesmen by direct labour effectively assume the roles and responsibilities of Main Contractors themselves, so their liability for defects in the built work that are not caused by the designs of others rest with them.
Therefore self-builders have to rely on whatever insurance they will be able to get to cover their own behaviour on site.

It seems to me that the insurance industry, in granting such cover to self-builders is being as profligate and unwise in insurance terms to chase a market.
This parallels the lack of professionalism with which bankers have been in issuing home loans for properties based on boom prices - its designed to up sales figures and exposes the industry unwisely to claims.
The correct way to proceed would be fore them to request written confirmation that an architect did the design and then demand that he inspects and certifies the work on site and issued final Opinions on Compliance.
To be honest, PI is trotted out far too often as a fig leaf to cover incompetence - the industry should be focussed on means of ensuring bad work doesn't happen by making the whole industry more efficient and competent, thereby reducing claims and premiums, as opposed to paying for it if it does, which just puts overall costs up.

By focussing on quality work the product, being the built work, is improved.
Focussing on insurance and opinions, without the inspections and photographic record is just another fig leaf.

The Architect's Opinion addresses the design of the building only.
It states in Section 2 that it relies wholly on the Schedule A assurances from other people involved in the design of specific elements such as design professionals.
I make a point of including in this part of my certs all the specialist suppliers, the sub-contracts and the Main Contractor for other elements of the design and the built work.

The architect's PI cover normally covers him regarding design faults and certifying the works, but in a qualified way.
There is also a gulf between designing something in accordance with the regulations - which is a desktop exercise - and certifying the works competently, which is an on-site Real Life exercise.

If the architect waits until everything is finished and inspects only work already covered up, he can almost totally hide behind the "subject to visual inspection clause" in the Opinion wording, "saving and excepting minor snag items".
This is a useful wording to protect architects who _do_ carry out limited inspections during the works from unscrupulous builders who hurriedly cover up bad workmanship so we'd have to request opening up work to see it.
But this wording can be abused by architects who don't attend on site and who hope, by doing this to ensure that all the problems remain with the built work and the builder.

In such a situation, or where limited inspections were not paid for by the client, there may be little or no involvement by the architect on site and if the Opinion Wording reflects this, there may be no way to suggest the architect could be held liable where bad workmanship was covered up and hid a latent defect.

Thus, if the architect carries out no inspections, and the design is compliant, and the build work does not visually depart from the design, then the liability and any legal redress route for any defects in the built work may rest entirely with the Main Contractor.

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.


----------



## Lak (25 Mar 2011)

RKQ said:


> Legs-akimbo sounds like you hired a chancer. I started my practice 17 years ago and insist on at least 10 site visits per project. I don't sign a Stage Payment Cert without visiting the site, inspecting the works & photographing same.
> 
> I think you should have retained a professional based on reputation. You seem to know or feel that your Architect not inspecting was wrong but you did nothing about it?
> 
> ...


 
I did not employ the Architect in question, he was appointed by the people for whom I was contracted to build a house, This was as I mentioned my first experience of building a house for a client under Irish regulations so naievly assumed that practices I was accustomed to would also be in practice in Ireland, they were not and still to this day are woefully inadequate.
I accept that there are many excellent Architects and engineers, after 15 years here now I only have to ask my client who their engineer is to know what level of competance and input to expect and also how technically proficient the drawings and schedules will be ranging from excellent to comically abysmal.


----------



## onq (25 Mar 2011)

Well legs-akimbo, you seem to have taken a balanced view, but just remember - regardless of the professional input -


 its the responsibility of the contractor to BUILD in accordance with the building regulations, while
 the Architect and Engineer(s) are obliged to DESIGN in accordance with the building regulations.
 Contractors also have all the usual obligations under the Safety Health and Welfare legislation to comply with, including ensuring the competence in the people on site to carry out their appointed tasks.
These requirements apply even on sites where the client is building a sole domicile and so escapes the duties accruing to a Professional Client

FWIW

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.


----------



## Lak (26 Mar 2011)

Its the responsibillity of the building Contractor to build in accordance with the current building regulations at all times regardless of the input of the engineer or architect, as without question the buck stops with the contractor, and it goes without saying all relevant legislation is also the responsibillity of the contractor and his work force..you are telling granny how to suck eggs here.
What is lacking is the corellation between contractor and engineer that enables irresponsible and for want of a better word "Cowboys" to practice in both fields with relative impunity.
Independant Building Control would put paid to this and also the cronyism that exists within an industry where those engineers who are not "finicky" (for this read professional) are favoured above those who insist on doing things by the book.
There are or were many many contractors who were more than happy to have the less hands on engineer engaged as opposed to the one they could not twist around their little finger and therefor indulge in much coprner cutting.
You could not so much as build a kitchen extension in the UK without engaging the Councils independant Building inspector and woe betide you if you try to pull a fast one on him.
There were plenty of Professionals who profited immensely by not doing their jobs properly for whatever benefits came to them as a consequence.
Their are thousands living in appalingly constructed homes that are testament to this shocking statistic. many a man went to bed a farmer woke up as a Block layer or plasterer during the boom years but just because they were incapable of quality workmanship does not mean they should have been allowed to carry on regardless.


----------



## onq (26 Mar 2011)

I was actually trying to draw a distinction between what architects and designers are liable for as opposed what contractors are liable for - I wasn't truing to tell you what you're liable for per se. 

In relation to all the other matters you raise we are in broad agreement, and you'd be surpirsed how many people I have talke to have voiced concerns that have echoed your own position.

I am shortly going to be lobbying the government on a separate but related matter and I hope to be taking comments like your to the minister responsible.

FWIW

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.


----------



## RKQ (31 Mar 2011)

onq said:


> RKQ,
> 
> I agree with most of what you have said except for the comment about PI cover protecting self-builders - if you're referring to Architect's PI cover, it doesn't necessarily cover them at all.


 
I agree ONQ. I was being a little naughty, in that Solicitors won't accept Certs without Architects PI insurance. Yet if anything does go bad, that Solicitor will look at who can pay. 

As Builders go bankrupt or claim to have no money, Solicitors look to Architects with PI. Its not right, its not fair but it does happen. One the day its about convincing a Judge that the Architect had some liability - design, inspection, site meeting etc. Sometimes it more about what the Architect didn't do, say or advise!

IMO now more than ever we are just like our American cousins - if anything goes wrong we want immediate compensation. We want to apportion blame & crave retrabution. That's life.


----------



## onq (1 Apr 2011)

Pity we're not more like them in this sense.

My understanding is that over there the insurance centres on the building.

I also understand that regular inspections and maintainence are mandatory, reducing risk.

Even the Twin Towers were the subject of an inspection of an in depth fire insulation before their collapse.

I'm not sure of the detail of this, I have been told this by third parties, but it seems a good way to ring fence the problem.

Also unless there is a definite design problem what the architect did or didn't do should not be looked on as a means of getting compensation.

After all, the people who make the kions share from a building is the developer and builder.

Architects make significantly less thant 10% of the Nett building cost on a commercial building.

Contractors make 10-15% unless they are corrupt, where they can make more.

Developers make whatever the markets will allow - the sky is the limit.

But if they sold people a pup, they should pay for it.

Solicitors and the Courts system need to be refocussed on this by the profession.

What chance the RIAI will actually start representing their member's best interests?


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.


----------

