# Who signs off a new house against building regs



## Whiskey (27 Aug 2010)

When a new house is built, it has to comply with a building regulations..I have been familiarising myself with the regs for the past few weeks.

Who signs off the house to certify that it passes the regulations ?

How often do they call during the build to check that everything is being done in a manner that satisfies the regulations ?


And finally, what is the penalty for non compliance ?


----------



## RKQ (27 Aug 2010)

These are big questions but I will try to keep my answers brief. Others may want to add detail and examples. The Building Control Officer in your Local Authority has a right to visit your site to inspect the works.



Whiskey said:


> Who signs off the house to certify that it passes the regulations ?


 
You the building owner, are responsible for compliance with Building Regulations. These Regulations are law, therefore it is illegal to be non-compliant. The Courts do not have difficulty dealing with non-compliant individuals.
It is advisable to retain a Architectural Technician, Architect, Engineer or Building Surveyor to inspect peroidically during construction, advise you and certify the works on completion. Your Certifier should have full Professional Indemnity insurance.



Whiskey said:


> How often do they call during the build to check that everything is being done in a manner that satisfies the regulations ?


An average house requires 5 stage payments, so some Certifiers will only visit 5 times. I have never certified a house that I did not inspect at least 10 or 12 times! The Certifier must feel satisfied that the works comply with Building Control - therefore it takes as many visits as it requires.



Whiskey said:


> And finally, what is the penalty for non compliance ?


A fine with demolition of non-compliant works, a prison sentence and a possible manslaughter charge if someone is killed (in a fire, falling from a window or down a stairs etc in a non-compliant building) 

Non-Compliance is futile. The building regulations are there to save lives and prevent injury, prevent structural decay & collapse and prevent bad health.


----------



## mf1 (27 Aug 2010)

And you can't sell a new build property down the line without an Opinion on Compliance with Building Regulations. 

mf


----------



## Whiskey (27 Aug 2010)

I'm just thinking about my brothers new house, it was designed by a civil engineer.
(I know getting an architect might have been better, but that's another debate).

I don't think the Building Control Officer in the Local Authority called during the build to check things were being done correctly during the build....

The civil engineer signed off for the stage payments..

My concern is that the same guy who designed and supervised the build is signing off for compliance for the building regulations........
I know the civil engineer is competent, but isn't there scope for a building professional (architect, structural engineer) to design and build a dwelling that does not meet the regulations. They may think it meets the regulations, but unless it's reviewed by an independent third party, you can never be sure.

Do a large number of new dwellings in reality not meet every building regulation ?


----------



## Complainer (27 Aug 2010)

Whiskey said:


> Do a large number of new dwellings in reality not meet every building regulation ?


This research report indicates that compliance with the Part M regs - Access for Disabled People - was very poor back in 2005. 

[broken link removed]

One of the few upsides of the collapse in construction is that building control officers how have the time to actually do their jobs properly.


----------



## RKQ (27 Aug 2010)

Whiskey said:


> My concern is that the same guy who designed and supervised the build is signing off for compliance for the building regulations........
> I know the civil engineer is competent, but isn't there scope for a building professional (architect, structural engineer) to design and build a dwelling that does not meet the regulations?


 
Why do you mistrust the Civil Engineer. What would he / she have to gain by non-compliance?

The person signing the Certificate of Compliance can be easily sued if he/ she makes a mistake.

The person signing the Certificate of Compliance can be easily sued if he/ she knowing signed a cert of compliance for a non-compliant structure. Reputations can be ruined by this sort of error. PI is very important.

Sometimes the Certifier can be sued, simply because the Builder has no money. So some Legal eagle will try to insinuate collusion, malpractice or incompetence on the part of the Certifier. We are fast becoming a "sue someone" society. "No win no fee" ambulance chasers advertise on tv.

Building Control Officers rarely inspect domestic works.


----------



## RIAD_BSC (27 Aug 2010)

1234 said:


> It is very common that the same Engineer/Architect/Technician that designed and supervised the build would also sign off for compliance with Building Regulation.
> 
> There is generally no problem as long as they have Professional Indemnity insurance


 
It may be common, but to an outsider it is still looks like a questionable practice - a building professional (competent or not) is unlikely to find fault and refuse to sign-off on his/her own work.

In other walks of life, certification vis-a-vis compliance is usually done by an outsider - company accounts, for example, cannot be signed off by the company accountant who compiled them and must be certified by an external auditor......


----------



## onq (27 Aug 2010)

Whiskey said:


> (snip)
> I know the civil engineer is competent...
> (snip)



I could be incorrect here since I haven't really focussed on this in detail
Most seem to be competent within their training as civil and structural engineers but no more.
The ones I have dealt with have offered certs covering part A but not Part B of the building regulations.
I'm forever bringing this to their attention, because the regulations require some elements of structure to achieve a certain fire rating.
Some engineers may be specifically prevented by their Professional Indemnity insurers from using anything other than standard certs for chartered engineers.
If you read such certs I think you'll find it limited in relation to the assurances given, particular in relation to Structure and Drainage.


ONQ.


----------



## RKQ (27 Aug 2010)

RIAD_BSC said:


> It may be common, but to an outsider it is still looks like a questionable practice ..


 
I can understand this point. I can understand that it might look iffy.
But it is very good practice for the Client / Consumer as one person is to blame if the building is designed non-compliant. 

Of couse a person is free to retain one professional to design the building and retain another professional to inspect & certify the works. Its not ideal IMO but there is nothing to stop a Client from doing this.

Using one person for design & stage payments is good for the Certifier because it forces him to ensure the design is compliant. Cowboy designers could design a building thats non-compliant, to make a quick buck at Planning permission stage knowing someone else will have to sort it once construction starts on site.

I rarely certify buildings that I haven't designed because from experience its always proved difficult, more time comsuming and involves too much risk.
The designer makes a mistake that I'm left to resolve it - this involves painstaking examination of the drawings before works start, in order to spot potential design faults. Mistakes can be very expensive to resolve once they are built!


----------



## onq (27 Aug 2010)

Whiskey said:


> When a new house is built, it has to comply with a building regulations..I have been familiarising myself with the regs for the past few weeks.
> 
> Who signs off the house to certify that it passes the regulations ?
> 
> ...



In a fully certified house, which I have certified for remedial works done in the functional area of Meath County Council - in a case otherwise heading for the High Court; -

1. The Architect [me] issued his Opinion of Compliance with Building Regulations

2. Included in this were what were called Schedule A assurances from fellow professionals, in this case opinions of compliance in relation to the design of certain elements from a Structural and Civil Engineer and also a Mechanical and Electrical Engineer. Items 1 & 2 covered the Design of the Built Work.

3. Also included were Certificates in relation to the Built Work from the following people:


The Main Contractor
The Plumbing and Heating Contractor
The Electrical Contractor
That was the most comprehensive set of certificates ever issued in Meath for a dwelling, and as the work was regularly inspected by me and by the Building Control Officer and extensively photographed at all stages I sleep easy in my bed at night.

It is highly unlikely that a normal house will have the benefit of such certification, but I have assembled certification to a similar standard [minus the M&E] for a house in North Dublin and a house in Tallaght.

Size and complexity should not matter.
If you are paying good money you should request your certs.
I think I inspected every two weeks during the course of the remedial works

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.


----------



## Whiskey (27 Aug 2010)

RKQ said:


> Why do you mistrust the Civil Engineer. What would he / she have to gain by non-compliance?
> 
> The person signing the Certificate of Compliance can be easily sued if he/ she makes a mistake.


 
It's not that you would mistrust the civil engineer.

But in an ideal world you wouldn't have people signing off their own work for compliance.

OK, you could sue him, but nobody is going to sue because of some of the finer points of detailing to help heat retention are not met....

I'm not a building professional, but just to give one example. I was looking at the regulations about avoiding thermal bridges at the junction between the walls and the concrete floor. I'm sure in my brothers house, they didn't completely adhere to the regulations.

"Ensure block with a maximum
Thermal Conductivity of .20 W/mK in
the direction of heat flow is used and
that block is suitable for use in​foundations in all conditions."


They didn't use any special low conductivity blocks anywhere, I remember the build (but wasn't au fait with the regs) , nobody is going to sue, because it doesn't make a huge amount of difference....but it's one point of detail that they didn't do.....and maybe there are others. 
But the house was signed off by the guy who designed it.


----------



## onq (27 Aug 2010)

Can you point me to the regulation and page number for that?

I'm too tired tonight to go searching.

ONQ


----------



## Whiskey (27 Aug 2010)

Technical Guidance documents
Part L Supplementary Documents

Section 2 Acceptable Construction Details
External Wall Insulation


It's quite possible I'm mis interpreting the nature of the documents in Part L Supplementary documents.....
http://www.environ.ie/en/TGD/

Perhaps these documents are just a guide and you don't have to do the detailing exactly as in the documents

It does say

"This guide will help appropriate persons to achieve the performance standards in the Technical Guidance Document (TGD) to Part L of the Building Regulations 2008 – Conservation of Fuel and Energy – Dwellings"

But maybe the suggestions regarding detailing in the documents are optional ....?


----------



## onq (28 Aug 2010)

Okay Whiskey, thanks for that.

This is a special case where there is external insulation to a *solid masonry wall* and also internal or above-floor insulation to a *solid floor*.

This leaves a cold bridge where the floor insulation stops and the outer wall insulation begins.

The only situation where this would be forced on you is retrofitting to an existing house where it is impossible to install such blockwork.

One workable detail would be to insulate the internal face of the ground floor wall as well as the external.

Another would be to extend HD insualtion down to the foundation strip level, allowing the ground within the rising walls to retain additional heat over time and reduce the cold bridge - assuming there was no groundwater above this level.

A lot of these details only consider the location of insulation and sealing - they don't actually work in the real world, e.g. the plan detail of the blockwork wall meeting the outer wall with the blue line of sealing passing through a wall which needs to be bonded for stability.

Silly stuff.

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.


----------



## picorette (29 Aug 2010)

To get back to the original point regarding self certification in Ireland...


There is a lot to be said for the UK system which has  Local Authority Inspectors checking every construction. Could be a good time to bring it in here, and bring up building standards, and generate some jobs.


----------



## RKQ (29 Aug 2010)

picorette said:


> There is a lot to be said for the UK system which has Local Authority Inspectors checking every construction.


 
Oh if only but with our current Minister, I'm 100% positive that he would have to over-complicate the issue. Look at Technical Assessment & how a simple process was made extremely complicated & excessively expensive.

We'd have to reinvent the wheel, our Building Control Officiers wouldn't need knowledge of the Building Regulations! Planners & Road Engineers with no constrution knowledge or experience would be used. We'd insist on using existing Public Servants ( we seem to have an excess of staff in certain departments). Government Public expenditure must to reduced!

Sound silly - look at what we spent to investigate a "one Ticket" system for Dublin bus, Luas, Dart, Train. It would be too simple & cost efficient to use London's tried & tested system.

Look at the current RTE freeview / free to air debate. RTE couldn't go on existing satalite decoders, cheap & freely available. No, RTE had to reinvent the wheel - needing its own decoder box and now its years behind schedule. 

Maybe the Cabinet should meet via Government Jet to reinvent & overcomplicate self certification. The result will definately be more expensive for the Consumer.

As regards creating more jobs - it could.
I'd be will Yosser Hughes, "Give us a job, I could do that, give us a job!"


----------



## onq (30 Aug 2010)

picorette said:


> To get back to the original point regarding self certification in Ireland...
> 
> 
> There is a lot to be said for the UK system which has  Local Authority Inspectors checking every construction. Could be a good time to bring it in here, and bring up building standards, and generate some jobs.



This is like giving the Gardaí extra powers when they're not using the ones they have.
That's going to scare quite a few people in the profession, both "unqualified successes" and MRIAIs alike.
But in reality there may be just more opportunities for graft and backhanders, because inspections can occur NOW.
AT PRESENT, there is nothing stopping any local authority taking a leaf from the Building Control Officer in County Meath.


Invite people who are about to carry out in for a briefing.
Tell them what to check for, what to watch out for and what you want to see in terms of acceptable details and good practice.
Inform them that you WILL be calling in to inspect.
Call in and inspect.
Take the occasional legal action just to show you mean what you say.
Its that simple - get the Building Control Officers to do their jobs.
As for the Fire officers, tough but fair seems to be the order of the day.

For competent archtiects designing new builds, there is little enough to worry about.
Obvious things like the  fire door/frame gaps and ensuring the self-closers are installed and operational.
The difficulty, as always, is to ensure that all junctions between elements and services penetrations are sealed.
Due diligence in relation to acceptance of commissioning certificates from the FD & A installer/designer is absolutely required.
Ensuring the main contractor chases up all the other certs before issuing Opinions is absolutely required and make it his problem not yours.

But the fact is, there are a huge number of non-compliant buildings out there still, almost 30 years after the Stardust Disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardust_fire

We should at this point have a register of every building in Ireland and we should know what use is in it, who is in it, who owns it, who is responsible for it.
They should all have been audited at least once at this stage to ensure they do not post a threat to their neighbours, their user, their occupants not cause a debt to the state.
This is governance, nothing at all to do with a free market, plenty to do with seizing criminal assets and making people responsible for their investments.
And this will definitely create a lot of jobs, paid for by people who own property and possibly get a rental income from it.
Plus it gets people thinking about maintenance and upkeep of services and face-lifting buildings.
This is a potentially huge new market in Ireland, where last legs services can be the norm.

Surprised to see you haven't yet posted a sig file Picorette - don't be shy.

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.


----------



## build4less (6 Sep 2010)

Non-compliance with building and fire regulations in this country is the  norm rather than the exception. Our fire regulations are never met and  if you go to any new or old apartment,semi detached or terraced like  building you will see that is there no fire stopping on the  party/seperating wall. If the builder has put something there it will  only be rockfibre stuffed in on top of the wall. Everyone knows this  does not work and it fails every week in Ireland and the UK. Fire  stopping on the party wall should give a minimum of 1hr fire stopping.  This does not happen as in most cases the fire has penetrated into the  neighbours property within minutes of the fire getting into the attic  space.


Engineers,architects and other such like people and companies sign of on  buildings using the words "substantial compliance" where this should  read "compliance". The problem with this is that the engineer does not  have to get out of his car to sign of on a building. Also building  control is not much better. They only visit roughly about 10% of all  buildings built in this country and the ones they do visit they dont  know where the problems are as they are arriving late on the job or it  is finished and everything is covered up.

Build4less


----------

