Learning from other countries re Dodgy Builders

T McGibney said:
No it hasn't actually. The build quality of the housing stock in this country is overall very good.
Click to expand...
Anecdotal, but I’ve owned/rented in Dublin for twenty years, properties of 10/20/30 years old, every one has had multiple fairly significant build quality issues. Poor mortar, back flows in waste pipes, unconnected radiators, lack of fire stopping between floors, live cables left bare in attics, windows poorly fitted, roofs improperly installed, huge gaps in cavity wall insulation, buried manholes, the list goes on and on. Many of my family/acquaintances are interested in building and all have similar stories of places they’ve lived.

I often work with tradespeople from Northern Ireland and they go through houses down here baffled at the corners that are cut, routinely commenting ‘the clerk of works checking us up North is a pain in the hole but they do stop stuff like this happening’.

If your experience of housing has always been very good I propose you’ve just been very lucky.

Personally I think we need to bring back the clerk of works and introduce similar levels of oversight to the architect/design etc stages as well. This could be a private sector third party, just as companies must have their accounts audited but the government doesn’t do the auditing. The horse has bolted on historical building issues and let’s be honest we need these people building now, but let’s fix it going forward.
 
Last edited:
Zenith63 said:
Personally I think we need to bring back the clerk of works and introduce similar levels of oversight to the architect/design etc stages as well.
Click to expand...
Good idea
Zenith63 said:
This could be a private sector third party, just as companies must have their accounts audited but the government doesn’t do the auditing.
Click to expand...

Almost all companies (over 95%) are actually audit exempt. Auditing is a blunt and rather ineffective regulation tool.
 
I work in an industry where everyone who signs off at each stage of the manufacturing process is responsible and culpable. We are audited by our regulatory body and our customers at least once a year. Last year we had 11 external audits and dozens of internal audits. Our own internal auditing of our quality systems is audited by our customers and our regulatory body. Our quality systems cover planning, purchasing, production, finance and HR. Any employee that falsifies data or knowingly breached procedure can be dismissed. We have maintained a quality rating of over 99.98% (a combination of product quality and on time delivery) with our 10 biggest customers for the last 12 years. If our internal audits aren't finding issues that's a red flag because there are always issues of some sort so it indicates that our auditing process is ineffective. We are an Irish SME which employs tradespeople. We are nothing special as a company, it's just how our industry functions.

I don't for a moment accept the contention that employees of a business bear no responsibility for the malpractices of that business and the dogs in the street knew that the construction sector was rotten for decades.

Incidentally because we are well run and we are open to international competition, unlike the construction sector, through investment in capital, training, technology and process improvement we've managed to reduce our prices while increasing our profits over the last 10 years despite increases in material and energy costs and wage increases.
 
Last edited:
T McGibney said:
Auditing is a blunt and rather ineffective regulation tool.
Click to expand...
Are you just talking about financial auditing?
Quality systems auditing is very effective, if it's done properly.

If I was auditing the building of a new apartment block I'd start with the plans and the Bills of Material for each section. If X number of fire doors were specified I'd look for the purchase orders for those fire doors and the related items required for their installation. Then I'd look for the delivery dockets, the invoices and the proof of payment. If a specialist company was required for their installation or sign off I'd look for the related documentation, invoices and proof of payment. This could be done from the comfort of an office while wearing a suit and tie and drinking Nespresso.

That's just a desktop audit and yet Professionals signed off on buildings all over the country and took their fees and now are, is seems, not in any way culpable. No Engineer, Architect or Quantity Surveyor ever queried anything on any of those buildings...

I can only conclude that having remarkably low professional standards and being stunningly technically ignorant is not against the law. Though it should, at the very least, be deeply embarrassing.
 
I'd require anyone constructing a building that was over 3 stories and any development of more than a single housing unit to have ISO9001 certification. That way they'd have the traceability systems in place. It also saves the builder money if they run it properly.
 
Purple said:
I work in an industry where everyone who signs off at each stage of the manufacturing process is responsible and culpable.
Click to expand...

How much of that responsibility is enforceable in 15-20 years time - the sort of timeframe in which building defects most normally become detected - and how can it be enforced within a long timeframe when a fair few of those now working in the sector are no longer there or even still working?
 
It's just not being done....

"...None of the houses examined for a study of 52 built between 1997 and 2002 complied fully with building regulations. ..."

How Ireland’s weak building regulations create dangers for buyers

Defects in new buildings can leave owners in huge debt, with little legal recourse
www.irishtimes.com

Irish construction industry has long opposition to higher standards - passivehouseplus.ie

This article, originally publsihed in 2012, details the Irish building industry's history of opposition to higher standards
passivehouseplus.ie

What Can Be Done About Faulty Building

Many of the deaths in the recent Turkish earthquakes could have been prevented had there been better laws and better enforcement of the existing lax laws on construction in that country.
www.tasc.ie
 
Good point. You can't retrospectively inspect quality into a build. It has to be done in-process.
That said not installing legally required fire protection is easily detectable at the time.
 

Audits internal and external are also normal practice in the industry I work in. While there is a certain amount of check box ticking to it. They do drive adherence to good practice.

Many years ago I worked in construction and checks by building inspections where common place at that time. I don't see anything like that level of checking in recent decades.
 
Nobody inspects our work while we are doing it other than us and we don't have offices full of highly paid professionals, we're just normal working scum with no letters after our names.
 
AlbacoreA said:
Many years ago I worked in construction and checks by building inspections where common place at that time. I don't see anything like that level of checking in recent decades.
Click to expand...
The RECI inspection system seems to work well for electrical works. I wonder why it hasn't been in copied into other sectors?
 
T McGibney said:
The RECI inspection system seems to work well for electrical works. I wonder why it hasn't been in copied into other sectors?
Click to expand...

Is there a national report or periodic audit of the system tells us the system is working well?
 
AlbacoreA said:
Is there a national report or periodic audit of the system tells us the system is working well?
Click to expand...
In fairness we are all entitled to form opinions based on anecdotal evidence and personal experience.
Houses don't go on fire anymore due to electrical problems so that suggests to me that standards are high in that area.

My opinion is that is a result of the electrician having to sign off on their work. It's ironic that the tradesperson had to do this, and is personally liable for malpractice, but the professionals within the construction sector, who don't actually build anything, are not held to the same standards.
 
T McGibney said:
I have no idea. I'm sure you can research that point yourself?
Click to expand...

I'm asking what sources you used to come to your conclusion.


I can't find any reports or audits on how well its working.
 
Purple said:
It's ironic that the tradesperson had to do this, and is personally liable for malpractice, but the professionals within the construction sector, who don't actually build anything, are not held to the same standards.
Click to expand...
I think this is probably more to do with the definition of an employee compared to self-employed than anything else. On Page 6 , one of the listed characteristics of employment is that the employee "is not exposed to personal financial risk in carrying out the work".

About 25 years ago, a then work colleague of my own got informal legal advice after mistakenly signing up her employer to one of those European Business Guide scams. She was told that if she did something criminal in the course of her employment she could be held personally liable for third party losses arising from it, but if she otherwise merely made a mistake or was unduly careless in her work, she couldn't be touched.
 

"...The lack of will to prosecute for the failings in planning , building and supply is truly astounding..."

Well isn't that the truth. This thread is case in point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register