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

The big losers in this are going to be aprtment owners everywhere.
I heard a bit of Liveline yesterday and there were tradesmen on giving their account of all the shody workmanship during the boom. Some of them said it could be up to 10 years before some of the problems filter through.
Don't know whether it was just scarmongering but even if there is some recovery in prices, very few people will touch apartments in the future.
 
RonanC said:
The architect in this case would have issued a certificate of compliance to certify that the building had been constructed in accordance with the Fire Safety Certificate and the Building Regulations.
Click to expand...

Then is the architect not liable if the building is not built in accordance wth Fire Safety?
 
What is the role of solicitors and conveyancing in this? Don't they have a responsibility to protect their clients? Why did they accept a cert based on 'visual inspection only'?
 
Even going past the whole visual inspection thing and I agree that Architects, Engineers, Solicitors all have questions to answer, the simple fact is that work clearly wasn't done by the builder/sub-contractors even if they certified to the architect that it was. What is the penalty for recklessy endangering peoples lives like in this case? I am guessing a small fine possibly?
 
Superman said:
The Fire Cert. will say "this was a visual inspection only and no opening up was undertaken". If that is insufficient for the buyer (or someone such as a solicitor on their behalf), they should say so before they buy the apartment.
Click to expand...
I totally disagree. If a compliance certificate is issued, then the building is deemed to be compliant by a member of a professional body who has the expertise and training and authority to certify said building. If he is on-site to view the progress of the building and knows/trusts the builder implicitly, then a visual inspection 'may' be OK. However, he is putting his reputation and also the lives of the tenants on the line. So any compliance cert issued should have no assumptions made in it's issue.

Bronte said:
He signed a fire cert and he should stand over it or pay the price. Otherwise there is no point in a fire safety certificate.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Superman said:
He will stand over it - or be required to stand over it.
However if it says "this was a visual inspection only and no opening up was undertaken" - then it is a very limited document.
This is acceptable to people (banks, solicitors, purchasers) who look for the Fire Cert.
It is not in architects' interest that these things exist - they would prefer if the architect was involved in the entire construction process (more work and therefore money for them).
Click to expand...
Architects can charge for driving to a building, have 'a look around' and sign a form confirming life-saving measures are in place (when there is no way they can be sure of this, visually). This is presumably the subject of some agreement by their professional body. It's shocking that this was allowed. Whatever piece of documentation that will be waved around (stating that the architect in this case did no wrong and that a visual inspection was all that was necessary) should be edited to remove the 'visual' aspect. No renegotiation of fees should occur either.

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

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

The more things change...etc.etc.etc...
 
Pique318 said:
I totally disagree. If a compliance certificate is issued, then the building is deemed to be compliant by a member of a professional body who has the expertise and training and authority to certify said building. If he is on-site to view the progress of the building and knows/trusts the builder implicitly, then a visual inspection 'may' be OK. However, he is putting his reputation and also the lives of the tenants on the line. So any compliance cert issued should have no assumptions made in it's issue.
Click to expand...
You should actually read the document before you comment on it - and perhaps lobby the Dept. of Environment for a change to the Building Regulations if you feel that standards should be improved.
At present, it is for the purchaser (or their representatives) to ensure that they are satisfied with the documents provided. In this case, the purchasers were happy to accept an Opinion after the fact based on a visual inspection only and a promise from the developer.

Pique318 said:
This is presumably the subject of some agreement by their professional body. It's shocking that this was allowed. Whatever piece of documentation that will be waved around (stating that the architect in this case did no wrong and that a visual inspection was all that was necessary) should be edited to remove the 'visual' aspect. No renegotiation of fees should occur either.
Click to expand...
I'm rather flabbergasted that you wish to assign responsibility for this to someone who specifically says that what they are doing and what they are not doing. We might as well assign responsibility to you - and I suggest that no negotiation of fees with you should occur either.

Pique318 said:
As ever in Ireland, no-one will be held ultimately responsible.
A committee will be formed. Platitudes will be uttered that "this must never happen again".
Architects or someone else will be forced to inspect buildings properly but fees will probably increase exponentially as a result.
Click to expand...
There appears not to have been a supervising architect in this case - all there appears to have been is the requirement that "someone sign a bit of paper so we can hand this over" and someone who said "that's grand, we won't actually read the bit of paper and see what it says".
Pique318 said:
Professional Indemnity Insurance will never have to be claimed as no-one will be charged with negligence.
The Developers will not be held accountable.
The LA will not be held accountable.
Politicians will voice their horror at the slip in standards and blame each other (or FF) while having photos taken with the poor unfortunates who are gonna be stuck with unsaleable properties.
And the world keeps turning until the next scandal.

The more things change...etc.etc.etc...
Click to expand...
Most other countries (e.g. UK, US, most European countries) have inspections carried out by the Building Inspectors employed by the Local Authorities during the construction process. Ireland has decided that this was an unnecessary expense - accept that or change it.
 
Bronte said:
Then is the architect not liable if the building is not built in accordance wth Fire Safety?
Click to expand...
No, he is liable if he is negligent.
If the architect says:
"This building was built in accordance with Fire Safety Regulations" and it is not, then he is liable.

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

If the purchaser has a problem with this, they should require a higher level of testing.
If people have a problem with the fact that it is up to the purchaser to be satisfied with the wording, then pressure should be put on the government to change the system.
 
Superman said:
No, he is liable if he is negligent.
If the architect says:
"This building was built in accordance with Fire Safety Regulations" and it is not, then he is liable.

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

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

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

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

[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘visual inspection’
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘no opening up’
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘substantial compliance‘
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘providing evidence for title purposes’
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘not a report on the condition’ [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]‘we were not retained to supervise construction [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]is a way for covering one's behind and does not portray a so called profession a very good light.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]No different to solicitors doing incompetent conveyance work but still being within the law.
[/FONT][/FONT]
Click to expand...
Of course they are aware of the dysfunction.
They have campaigned to increase standards - yet are and have been ignored. (The fact that you don't know about it shows that this is the case).

A system that involved higher standards would require a lot more architects on projects - which even from a purely self-interested point of view they would like to see happen.
 
Superman said:
You should actually read the document before you comment on it - and perhaps lobby the Dept. of Environment for a change to the Building Regulations if you feel that standards should be improved.
At present, it is for the purchaser (or their representatives) to ensure that they are satisfied with the documents provided. In this case, the purchasers were happy to accept an Opinion after the fact based on a visual inspection only and a promise from the developer.
Click to expand...
When buying a house or apartment, all purchasers are heavily dependant on what their expert advisers (surveyor and solicitor) tell them. I would have expected more rigor from the solicitors involved in these cases.
 
Complainer said:
When buying a house or apartment, all purchasers are heavily dependant on what their expert advisers (surveyor and solicitor) tell them. I would have expected more rigor from the solicitors involved in these cases.
Click to expand...

I agree with Complainer here. Having said that, it does seem strange that with presumably so many different solicitors involved (many individual purchasers) that none of them spotted this.
 
Complainer said:
When buying a house or apartment, all purchasers are heavily dependant on what their expert advisers (surveyor and solicitor) tell them. I would have expected more rigor from the solicitors involved in these cases.
Click to expand...
Possibly - it was generally acceptable to the profession and to banks generally.

It may be for the courts to determine whether that generally accepted practice is negligent or not. If it is determined to be negligent, then there may be a whole world of liability attached to solicitors generally.
 
Isn't it unbelievable that a fire certificate can be issued on "visual Inspection" only without any staged inspections.

Can one inspect foundations, damp courses, underfloor heating etc after house is completed
 
Black Sheep said:
Can one inspect foundations, damp courses, underfloor heating etc after house is completed
Click to expand...
Yes one can - there are only 2 opinions given - one on compliance with Planning and one on compliance with Building Regulations. The Building Regulations compliance addresses all of that foundations, damp courses, underfloor heating etc. thing.

Yes, it is madness.
 
Yorky said:
They are but the level of ignorance is astounding - people generally don't bother to inform themselves and have unquestioning faith in their builder, architect, solicitor et al.
Click to expand...
The solicitor is working directly for the purchaser. You can't expect a purchaser to understand the detail of building regs, title, conveyancing, planning etc. Purchasers pay experts to advise them on this.

I'd be interested to learn why solicitors generally accept the 'visual inspection only' certs. Is there any guidance from the Law Society around this?
 
Yorky said:
All purchasers are consumers and while not having expertise they should inform themselves in order to have a working knowledge. As a minimum, if advice isn't forthcoming they should ask the advocate in their pay to explain all details fully.
Click to expand...

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

I have no idea about the extent of confirmation that my solicitor got from my builder when buying our house. I'd hazard a guess that 99% of buyers would be the same, with the possible exception of construction professionals.
 
Right, let's change the wording to "Building X looks like it's compliant, but I'm not promising anything".

After all, that's what it currently appears to mean.
 
Yorky said:
And then people bizarrely complain when things go wrong, pleading 'no-one told me'.
Click to expand...

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

But when things go wrong - they easily claim victimhood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top