Priory Hall apartments: What went wrong and what can we learn from this?
- Thread starter Sunny
- Start date
Bronte, is this the thread you are looking for,it has posts from mf1;
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=148207&highlight=compliance+cert
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=148207&highlight=compliance+cert
Surely the issue here is that it's another example of light touch regulation not being effective. We've seen it with the banks and other financial institutions, we've seen it with the Church where they were basically a law onto themselves and now we're seeing it with developers and builders.
I remember a few years back at the height of the boom, I used to pass an appartment block on the southside of Dublin, and whilst I am no expert in construction, I know enough to know when something looks shoddy. Plaster covered up a million sins. I fear Priory Hall and pyrite is the tip of the iceberg, I can't help wondering how many of the Celtic Tiger boom estates will actually have fallen down in 20 years time
I remember a few years back at the height of the boom, I used to pass an appartment block on the southside of Dublin, and whilst I am no expert in construction, I know enough to know when something looks shoddy. Plaster covered up a million sins. I fear Priory Hall and pyrite is the tip of the iceberg, I can't help wondering how many of the Celtic Tiger boom estates will actually have fallen down in 20 years time
Searching for information on Priory Hall,I came across this on AAM ,Dated 30/06/2006.
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=27536
And from that thread;
bigchicken
Frequent Poster
Posts: 156
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=27536
And from that thread;
bigchicken
Frequent Poster
Posts: 156
I think there are two fundamental problems here:
- Fire-safety, which as someone pointed out is literally a matter of life and death, is placed into what is essentially a self-regulating environment, where there is a clear conflict of interest where an architect is employed by a developer rather than purchaser
- A complete lack of professional integrity by the (surprise, surprise) self-regulated architecture profession. If a visual inspection is not an adequate means of determining conformance (and surely anybody can see that it cannot possibly be), then they should not sign the cert: pure and simple.
It’s an absolute joke: if I was developing a product and sent it to a lab to get certified for a CE mark, and they sent it back “looks OK to me, gov! (based on a visual inspection)”, what do you think would happen if it subsequently killed someone? Standards, regulations and certification are there to protect people: in this case their lives, not just their consumer rights. It is absolutely not reasonable for consumers to have to find this out for themselves. If you see a product with a CE mark, do you take steps to find out about the integrity of the process that led it to get it? If you buy an apartment with a certificate of conformance to building regulations and a fire safety cert why on earth should you be expected to question it? The system is fundamentally flawed and the “professional integrity” of the so-called professionals involved an absolute joke!
All this of course overseen by a council that was absolutely raking it in with development fees during the relevant period. All I can say is hats off the the judge involved in this case: someone who actually puts people and the interests of justice first.
Not exactly a similar analogy though - how many of those products are tested? If you make a "widget A" - do you make sure to test each and every one to destruction before you give it to your customers?
A building is a once off. There is no requirement to have buildings supervised by professionals, there is also no requirement to have buildings periodically inspected by professionals.
The quality of self certification depends absolutely on the integrity of the certifying architect.
I have posted extensively about this issues on Archiseek, Boards.ie and Askaboutmoney in relation to the provisions of the Building Control Act 2007.
This Act granted an automatic right of Registration to Members of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, but nobody else.
The irony of this was not lost on non-members (such as myself) who had quite legally practised as architects for the previous twenty years.
I have come across many instances where MRIAI's had erred - sometimes very seriously - in terms of their design or their on site inspections or their certification of the built work.
It is incorrect to suggest that merely because someone passes an exam which shows he knows how to administer a contract or certify a completed building, that said person will act with integrity in administering that contract or certifying that building.
We see the truth of this in the legal profession, which has seen a significant number of solicitors taken to court for a range of offences committed during the Celtic Tiger years.
This reflects poorly on those solicitors who are utterly blameless and who hold themselves to high standards.
------------------------------------------------------------
The current target for criticism is the self-certification system.
This is a nonsense put about by those why believe in the power of regulators.
Regulators are utterly useless in ensuring competent compliant work is carried out on a building site.
The only people inherently suited to this task are the several building professions which are well known to all.
The problem is that in the name of GREED by some developers, the required professionals are not appointed to the job.
Without proper site inspection by the architect and engineers, the fig leaf of visual inspection, correct in other ways is stretched too far.
Limited Site Inspections are just that, visual inspection, but good architects and engineers will see most things and can ask for limited opening up to be done.
They are not the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" fools that any layperson listening to Mick Wallace TC recently might have thought they are, not by any means.
Thus there is nothing inherently wrong with self-certification - just so long as the people certifying monies and the built work - architect and engineers - act with integrity.
This is not an easy station to man or hold - there are many pressures on both architect and contractor that can affect completion and many temptations offered to the unwary.
------------------------------------------------------------
But just as its down to the contractor to build in accordance with the building regulations and the several design professionals to design in accordance with the building regulations, it falls to the architect, as head of the Design Team and Administrator of the building contract (if there is one) to set the standard for the work and NOT CERTIFY NON-COMPLIANT OR INCOMPLETE WORK.
I cannot stress this enough.
If the architect fails in this duty the whole system may fall apart.
Here, therefore is a point in which additional oversight would be welcomed by good architects - to support them on site.
Again, there is no need to reinvent the wheel - merely require the local authority to inspect 100% of buildings being built!
A correctly trained and competent architect AND M&E and structural engineer should be appointed to every building programme going to site.
Building regulation compliance documents should be requested by the local authority - they need no new powers to do this.
The drawings should show the Fire Safety Measures to be installed, including details like smoke alarm positions etc.
If the current Minister Phil Hogan imposes a load of New Legislation as the answer, this is just as smoke screen.
The existing legislation is fine, the local authorities and building professionals need to step up to the mark.
The only legislation required is the Formal Appointment of a Design Team to every job going to site.
Their fees are relatively small in comparison to the building cost but their documents are needed.
Their site presence lifts both the builder and sub-contractors to a new level of performance.
I would also ask why this is in Letting Off Steam - this is an important debate.
I would also advise that names be kept out of it unless the matter is factual.
ONQ.
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.
I have posted extensively about this issues on Archiseek, Boards.ie and Askaboutmoney in relation to the provisions of the Building Control Act 2007.
This Act granted an automatic right of Registration to Members of the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, but nobody else.
The irony of this was not lost on non-members (such as myself) who had quite legally practised as architects for the previous twenty years.
I have come across many instances where MRIAI's had erred - sometimes very seriously - in terms of their design or their on site inspections or their certification of the built work.
It is incorrect to suggest that merely because someone passes an exam which shows he knows how to administer a contract or certify a completed building, that said person will act with integrity in administering that contract or certifying that building.
We see the truth of this in the legal profession, which has seen a significant number of solicitors taken to court for a range of offences committed during the Celtic Tiger years.
This reflects poorly on those solicitors who are utterly blameless and who hold themselves to high standards.
------------------------------------------------------------
The current target for criticism is the self-certification system.
This is a nonsense put about by those why believe in the power of regulators.
Regulators are utterly useless in ensuring competent compliant work is carried out on a building site.
The only people inherently suited to this task are the several building professions which are well known to all.
The problem is that in the name of GREED by some developers, the required professionals are not appointed to the job.
Without proper site inspection by the architect and engineers, the fig leaf of visual inspection, correct in other ways is stretched too far.
Limited Site Inspections are just that, visual inspection, but good architects and engineers will see most things and can ask for limited opening up to be done.
They are not the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" fools that any layperson listening to Mick Wallace TC recently might have thought they are, not by any means.
Thus there is nothing inherently wrong with self-certification - just so long as the people certifying monies and the built work - architect and engineers - act with integrity.
This is not an easy station to man or hold - there are many pressures on both architect and contractor that can affect completion and many temptations offered to the unwary.
------------------------------------------------------------
But just as its down to the contractor to build in accordance with the building regulations and the several design professionals to design in accordance with the building regulations, it falls to the architect, as head of the Design Team and Administrator of the building contract (if there is one) to set the standard for the work and NOT CERTIFY NON-COMPLIANT OR INCOMPLETE WORK.
I cannot stress this enough.
If the architect fails in this duty the whole system may fall apart.
Here, therefore is a point in which additional oversight would be welcomed by good architects - to support them on site.
Again, there is no need to reinvent the wheel - merely require the local authority to inspect 100% of buildings being built!
A correctly trained and competent architect AND M&E and structural engineer should be appointed to every building programme going to site.
Building regulation compliance documents should be requested by the local authority - they need no new powers to do this.
The drawings should show the Fire Safety Measures to be installed, including details like smoke alarm positions etc.
If the current Minister Phil Hogan imposes a load of New Legislation as the answer, this is just as smoke screen.
The existing legislation is fine, the local authorities and building professionals need to step up to the mark.
The only legislation required is the Formal Appointment of a Design Team to every job going to site.
Their fees are relatively small in comparison to the building cost but their documents are needed.
Their site presence lifts both the builder and sub-contractors to a new level of performance.
I would also ask why this is in Letting Off Steam - this is an important debate.
I would also advise that names be kept out of it unless the matter is factual.
ONQ.
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.
Regarding Priory Hall, documents were shown on RTE recently that suggested the a bedroom opening off the kitchen - an inner room - was required to be omitted by condition of the fire safety certificate.
This is a very significant request and if this is correct (I have not reviewed the documents myself yet) it seems to be a matter that goes to both the heart of fire safety and certification.
I am at a loss to understand how the inspecting architect could certify any apartment covered by said fire safety certificate which was built with the inner room/bedroom.
It cannot be explained away by using the term "visual inspection" - since it was visible - or the term "substantial compliance", since compliance required its omission.
This was one of several issues raised during the course of the recent RTE programme but it caught my ear and eye as being something incontrovertible.
If this bedroom/inner room was built in defiance of the fire safety certificate condition without a revised fire cert amending it, it was not compliant.
To suggest that the developers of Priory Hall acted out of character on this particular scheme remains to be proven.
To suggest they acted alone and there are no others like them seems to be wishful thinking.
I think we may expect more horror stories and the RIAI and Councils need to act!
ONQ.
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.
This is a very significant request and if this is correct (I have not reviewed the documents myself yet) it seems to be a matter that goes to both the heart of fire safety and certification.
I am at a loss to understand how the inspecting architect could certify any apartment covered by said fire safety certificate which was built with the inner room/bedroom.
It cannot be explained away by using the term "visual inspection" - since it was visible - or the term "substantial compliance", since compliance required its omission.
This was one of several issues raised during the course of the recent RTE programme but it caught my ear and eye as being something incontrovertible.
If this bedroom/inner room was built in defiance of the fire safety certificate condition without a revised fire cert amending it, it was not compliant.
To suggest that the developers of Priory Hall acted out of character on this particular scheme remains to be proven.
To suggest they acted alone and there are no others like them seems to be wishful thinking.
I think we may expect more horror stories and the RIAI and Councils need to act!
ONQ.
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.
Before Priory Hall there was Shangan Hall in Ballymun Civic Centre.
Covered in a Prime Time exposé on Fire Safety circa May 22 2006 (?)
Archiseek.com Forums are down so I don't have a lot of my links to hand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Update:
Archiseek is back up
The old link is here
[broken link removed]
However RTE have updated their site and the link changed but I believe this is the current link.
[broken link removed]
I don't have RealPlayer on my system so I cannot play it to verify.
Assuming it is the same link as previously the following comment mau still apply
The section on Shangan Hall starts at timestamp 38:50 and in particular 44:14 - it finshes at 48:28
ONQ.
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.
Last edited:
Indeed. There werent many requirements in banking either but I agree completely with ONQ when he says regulation is not always the answer. The lack of professionalism, responsibility and ethics in this country continues to amaze me.
As was pointed out to me in the askaboutlaw forum, don't lets slate an entire profession for the actions of one or two individuals.
I agree its a difficult pill to swallow when a professional drops the ball, but that's why we have the Institute (the RIAI).
However all professions are self-regulated and in the main this works very well.
It will be interesting to learn what the RIAI intend to do about this.
Well, what I meant was MORE regulation isn't necessarily the answer.
The point is that we're not using the regulatory powers we have and Building Control Offices throughout the contrary were totally understaffed during the Tiger years and are still relatively understaffed if you're trying to cover 100% of new builds.
I have to tip my hat to John Sweeney of Meath County Council, one of the few Building Control Officers who developed policies of engagement prior to commencement to set the course of builders and developers and tell them what he wanted to see in developments and the standard he would work to - I think he achieved something like 88% one year, some enormous figure.
He was able to do this partly because he was out doing his job and not swanning around going to non-productive seminars and conference like so many public servants.
The other part of his accomplishment centred on the man himself, one of the most dedicated people I have met in the Building Control Officer position.
---------------------------------------------
We need an approachable system of governance that is enforced in a reasonable manner, not islands of autocracy whose word cannot be questioned. In this the Technical Guidance Documents allow us some leeway in that regulations are note suited to try to control new forms of building or even straitjacket existing forms.
Building forms and details are a developmental process and architecture is changing all the time, so a rigid autocracy would not be not helpful. Equally an absentee Site Architect or NO Site Architect at all is totally useless where the protection of the public is paramount.
In this regard, schemes which have neither Architect nor engineers carrying out limited inspections during the building programme are suspect, whatever the exuse offered by the developer. This is a base cost-cutting exercise that nobody benefits from except crooked developers and builders who intend to cut corners.
I have seen both in my 21 years practising and have carried out remedial works following the involvement of well known firms. Winning awards for design, like being Registered as having passed an assessment, is no guarantee of competence in building or of integrity in issuing certification.
ONQ.
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.
And just how to you tackle the lack of professionalism and resposibility if not by (enforced) regulation?
That's the point: we are very good in this country at passing laws (and establishing building regulations) but abysmal at regulating and enforcing them.
The same way the Incorporated Law Society tackles it.
If the unprofessional behaviour of the Member is sufficient to warrant it -
(i) take independent legal action through the Courts.
(ii) strike the Member in question off the Register of Architects.
(iii) restrict the member from working independently - i.e. he must be supervised.
These are very serious measures for any professional to contemplate facing.(ii) strike the Member in question off the Register of Architects.
(iii) restrict the member from working independently - i.e. he must be supervised.
I totally agree that more regulations laws are not necessarily the answer, especially if we are not already rigorously applying existing laws and measures.
It would be useful to discover if the RIAI has re-constituted its professional practice committee and whether it is free to accept referrals yet.
ONQ.
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.
I’d be curious to know just how common it is for certs to be signed with what is essentially a disclaimer.
To my way of thinking either a suitably qualified person takes the necessary steps to ensure the cert is valid, which I would assume would involve site visits during construction and not just visual inspection after, and they sign, or they don’t take those steps, in which case they don’t sign. That’s where regulation should come in: anyone who didn’t take those steps or were incompetent should be sanctioned as you suggest.
Signing something and attaching what is essentially a disclaimer would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious: it in itself should be grounds for sanctions to be applied. What is the point of the cert in that case?
What bothers me is the suggestion from some posts that it is somehow up to the purchaser to validate the cert. I used the analogy above of purchasing something with a CE mark, which indicates a product meets all relevant standards (usually safety) for the particular class of product. A consumer shouldn’t have to worry about the validity of the mark or the process by which it was awarded (other than to know they have some very serious actions they can take if either is deficient). It should be the same with a fire safety cert: once it exists, it shouldn’t have to be questioned.
For that to work there has to be strong regulations backed by strict enforcement and serious sanctions so that everyone can have confidence in the system.
If it’s just a matter of enforcement and sanctions then it’s conceivable to see this being fixed. However if, and this is what I fear, there’s an acceptance in the relevant professions that the status quo is quite OK and it’s acceptable to certify something at the same time as disclaiming responsibility for it, then the whole system is rotten to the core.
Last edited:
No what we are good at is passing rubbish laws with rubbish consequences. All the regulation in the world will not stop the type of behaviour we have seen across sectors in this country for the past few years. People and businesses need to start acting ethically and with social responsibility. If they don't, they should be made pay. Unfortunately, in this country people hide behide poor laws and regulations.
I presume you mean all the qualifications in the standard cert wording and if you don't please clarify
.You should first realize where this level of disclaimer comes from.
Architects are hugely liable in the event something goes wrong with a building.
The most recent story is one about the architect on his way to a meeting who stopped in to a site to advise a workman about a practice he noted passing by which could give rise to hazard. He was successfully sued when the hazard occurred because he had not told someone in charge of the works but trusted the operative to do so. (cannot find case reference on this).
Then there is the well-known case of the boys playing football on the flat roof of the bank where a fall occurred and serious injury followed. Again the architect was sued and found negligent.
I agree, and that is the way I work, backed up by copious photographs to record what I do see on site. This way there is no dispute afterward and you would be surprised what a camera thrust into a structural cavity can record. This is what I means when I say that, properly executed, limited inspections are an adequate means of assessing the progress and compliance of the work on site.
However, signing certs is a serious business in a country where developers are not obliged to appoint a design team for the duration of the building works. Without a presence on site representing the employer - such as the Clerk of Works - the architect can only rely on an inspection at the end, which in my opinion may be grossly inadequate.
Even where the architect is appointed to carry out limited inspections, clients are seldom willing to appoint a site architect for the duration and even where they are, the architect will usually not attend more than weekly or bi-weekly as per the norm. During his absence work can get covered up.
This is where the term "visual inspection" is quite properly applied to Opinions of Compliance where periodic inspection occurs. It is a statement of fact that the architect is limited to what he can see on the day he attends. It is not an attempt to ease out of the considerably liability that attaches to his Opinion.
Signing certificates is what defines the architect during the building contract. Under the classical RIAI contract, there is an employer and a contractor and there are checks and balances like site engineers, site architects and clerks of works. Clerks of works were going out of fashion when I was getting qualified and its seldom you will see one these days. The nearest thing is a project manager, but some of these are merely schedulers who do not have a broad grasp of building details and methods.
In the absence of the clerk of works, there is the Design Team.
The architect and structural engineer, mechanical and electrical engineer and quantity surveyor must fill the gap.
There is very little four competent professionals operating diligently at the top of their game would not be able to see.
They have powers to request further opening up works and carry out further detail inspections, even where the initial inspection may have been limited to "visual inspection only".
However the difficulty arises in the newer forms of building contract [Design Build and GCCC] and the situation where the developer is the builder AND the client.
There the architect is not balancing fairness to a client/employer and a contractor in administering a classical RIAI contract - pessure comes from one side only to perform
Thus the side falling behind in the programme may be the same side that is paying the architect's fee AND demanding early release of certificates to benefit cashflow in the development company.
In such cases, the architect is tested to the limit.
However, his only logical response is to stick to his guns, because if he compromises once, his integrity is shattered and his authority is lost.
The architect must be prepared to walk away from a job if the client starts acting up and building beyond the permission or not in accordance with the terms of the fire safety certificate.
This has happened to me and I walked because it was the only response.
And yes, the client came back asking me to sort out the huge problems that developed in my absence.
I sorted them out to his reasonable satisfaction, but they were sorted on my terms, which were and are - do it by the book!
I have to say I totally agree, and part of the way we approach this is to ensure that we get what are called Schedule A Assurances from EVERYONE!
Schedule A assurances are supporting certificates and documentation for a modern building can arise from a variety of sources and I offer a list below from the following sources:
Design of Building or Element:
- Structural and Civil Engineer
- Roads Traffic Consultant
- Mechanical Engineer
- Fire Safety Consultant
- Interior Designer
- Etc.
- Main Contractor (cert included EVERYTHING except specialist certs listed below)
- Groundworks Sub-Contractor
- Specialist Foundation Sub-Contractor
- Mechanical (heating and plumbing) Sub-Contractor
- Mechanical (air conditioning) Sub-Contractor
- Sustainable Heating Control Systems Installer
- Lift Installation Sub-Contractor
- Electrical Sub-Contractor
- Fire Detection and Alarm System Sub-Contractor
- Glazing System (if applicable)
- Roofing System (if applicable)
- Atrium Venting System (if applicable)
- Communications System Installer (if applicable)
- I.T. System Installer (if applicable)
- Fire Sealing Sub-Contractor (if applicable)
- Specialist Equipment (if applicable)
- Etc.
You would be surprised how some of then try to throw back the design end of their work on the architect, for example the Fire Detection and Alarm System Sub-Contractor, who supplies much of the detail work fleshing out the bare fire safety certificate and who may have to carry P.I. cover as a result.
Even where the builder-developer doesn't shell out for a full service on site, with the above patchwork of certificates requested at the start, you don't just have one lone pair of eyes coming in once or twice and at the end - each of these sub-contractors knows you can question their cert based on a suspicion they have not done their work.
Don't place you faith in regulations or sanctions. Sanctions don't work with criminal contractors intent on undermining their architect. Sanctions cannot inspire integrity in negligent architects.
The measures I have outlined in relation to comprehensive certification above go some way to identifying the roles in relation to building work and put every contributor to the built and design work under pressure to perform.
However my favourite measure of all, one I would employ even where I had no fees agreed to attend on site - is the surprise site visit! Surprise site visits frighten the bejapers out of everyone and really, REALLY sharpen up builders. They don't need a constant presence, they keep people looking over their shoulders, and backed up with photographic records are really a good motivator to keep people competent and honest.
I don't think there is widespread acceptance in the profession of lax standards. Architects know the penalties of getting sued. I think a certain level of re-education may be needed post-Tiger as to how to inspect and certify, and better support structures for architects working for builder developers.
However I think that given the current staffing levels and existing powers of the planning officers, building control officers and fire officers to attend, inspect and request drawings showing compliance, there are some very simple and cost effective ways to up people's game.
(A) Each Council and the Health and Safety Authority working together should immediately -
- Draw up a list of all projects on site
- Determine which professionals were involved in the Design of the Building
- Ask for confirmation of which professionals are involved during the Building Process.
- Where there are no professionals involved, request the submission of Building regulation Compliance Drawings.
(B) Each Planning Officer, Building Control Officer, Health and Safety Officer and Fire Officer should co-ordinate between them, at least one surprise site visit for every building under construction in their area of operation.
The current policy of "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" is operated even among planning officers on their way into work in the morning, which means they rely on people to report their neighbours.
It gives the impression that our public servants, those charged with ensuring that the built work is executed compliantly and safely, walk around with blinkers on in case they see anything amiss!
(C) However nothing beats the Golden Rule of development, whether under the classical RIAI contract or newer Design Build or GCCC Contracts - "First, employ a good builder."
ONQ.
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.
You don't seem to understand the situation. Effectively, the purchasers do get a guarantee on the building - that guarantee is from the builder. Whether that is worth much is a separate question. An architect is a professional and generally professionals can only be sued for negligence. If the architect provides a service and does so in a non- negligent fashion then he cannot be sued- excluding unusual situations. If the architect is employed to carry out a visual inspection only, it would be negligent of him not to state this is the case. If you want to purchase a company and it is audited by a third party before the purchase, but the auditor is prevented from carrying out a full audit and he explicitly states in his audit that this is the case - why do you blame him for not catching something which could not be discovered by the only means at his disposal - which he explicitly states the limits of? The architect doesn't purport to 'certify' a building - he merely gives an opinion- an opinion that will always be limited by the limits of the law of negligence.
Its on LOS because this is where the OP posted it.
If you think the thread metrits promotion to an above the line sub forum then use the report post facility to bring it to the attention of the mods.
But he doesn't explicitly state his limits.
The implication is that he cannot see things covered up, but this forgets that he can infer quite a lot.
My limits in terms of visual inspection are considerably greater most laypersons I know when it comes to inspecting buildings.
Not in the case of the RIAI Opinion of Compliance.
This doesn't just rest on the law of negligence, far from it.
It tries to weasel away from what any purchaser would think he/she has the right to expect the Opinion to offer.
In other words, it sounds like it is, but actually isn't, stating that the Building or part of the building is substantial compliant.
The major escape clause is the one wherein it refers to itself being "issued solely in the matter of titles and consents for the purposes of conveyance. Except in relation to such consents, it is not a comment in relation to the condition of the building."
Or words to that effect - please correct me if I'm wrong on these quotations - I'm writing them from memory.
---------------------------------
Here is what was reported in 2010
---------------------------------
This is a nonsense statement, howsoever it may reflect the facts as Oppermann claims to understand them.
Residential Apartment Developments are not composed of unrelated, isolated units which can be certified in isolation
For the Apartment to be fit for purpose in general, the services supporting human activities must be complete and commissioned.
For the Apartment to be complete per the Building Contract, it must be free from defects apart from Minor Items under the Contract.
For the Apartment to be compliant with the Fire Cert and Part B of the Building Regulations as it relates to it, the access to it and fire egress from it, together with the Fire Detection and Alarm System for the parts that might affect the escape route, must be complete and commissioned.
For the Apartment to be substantially compliant under the terms of the Architect's Opinion of Compliance, it must be complete, "saving and excepting such minor snag items that would not, in the opinion of the architect, give rise to the issuing of enforcement proceedings by the local authority."
The fact that Coalport weren't holding Oppermann to account in 2010 is neither here nor there.For the Apartment to be complete per the Building Contract, it must be free from defects apart from Minor Items under the Contract.
For the Apartment to be compliant with the Fire Cert and Part B of the Building Regulations as it relates to it, the access to it and fire egress from it, together with the Fire Detection and Alarm System for the parts that might affect the escape route, must be complete and commissioned.
For the Apartment to be substantially compliant under the terms of the Architect's Opinion of Compliance, it must be complete, "saving and excepting such minor snag items that would not, in the opinion of the architect, give rise to the issuing of enforcement proceedings by the local authority."
The fact that Coalport appear to have included an additional bedroom in their apartments which they shouldn't have is the issue.
It remains to be seen whether the people who bought partly on the strength of the Opinions offered will attempt to purse the architect for negligent mis-statement and/or fraud.
If the said bedroom or inner room was removed by condition and Opinions issued on Apartments built with this room included in them, it may be difficult to mount a defense relying on a "visual inspection only" disclaimer.
ONQ.
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.
Last edited: