Spot on bunny. This is the governments attempt to remove their responsibility. When we have had such massive fallout from the failure of current regulations which resulted in the pyrite epidemic and priory hall debacle there is no way that a ‘The certifier will be able to accept full legal liability for the certification they provide nor would they be able to front the money necessary for remediation. This is exactly the problem so many homeowners face. The homeowners need to be removed from the chain altogether. Regulations should be enforced by those that implement them otherwise there is no point in having regulations.if the building is substandard it is the responsibility of the governments to enforce regulations.

Absolutely right @Bunny. The building control authorities need to take on the role of certification and ensure that all those involved in the building process are complying with their responsibilities. The handover and occupation if the building would then be dependent on this certification. This was recommended to the then Minister in the early 90s when the Building Control regs first came into force but successive govts have ignored this advice because of the cost and potential liability. It’s time the dept stood up to it’s responsibility.

@Bunny…I like the sound of that

Standards is a term you people never understood.
The celtic tiger years saw buildings constructed in a slap dash manner for a quick buck.
Constructed in a minimum amount of time at minimum expense and minimum quality.
You are too late Phil Hogan.
Your sincerity is as transparent as a window.
Once bitten, twice shy.

@n365

It’s amazing to see the ‘bull’ peaking his big head up on this subject at this late stage! Where has he been for the past number of months when the residents were trying to meet with him? Is it because he thinks in pretending he’s doing something about it, that he might have a few ‘yes’ votes in Priory Hall?!

The regulations for building work were in place already! Places like Priory Hall etc. happened because certain people, council, builder, architects etc. chose to ignore the law. So you’re not telling us anything new really ‘bull’.

In fairness to hogan he wasn’t in power during boom.

At least upping the standards now should prevent a reoccurrence…

What do you want him to do, leave things as they are?

Ah sure…the more Hogan is in the news, the less focus there is on what else the Government is doing?!

@Gavin Tobin no he was not in POWER and he is only in power for over a year now so whet the hell has he been for the people of PTIORY HALL since they were ORDERED TO EVACUATE their homes which have been deemed to be unsafe You have refused along with Your leader Enda Kenny and all your Cabinet NO EXCUSES will ever excuse your ignorance towards These people who have Lived through pure hell which YOU MR HOGAN could and Should have come to the PRIORY HALL RESIDENTS ASSISTANCE IMMEDIATELY the Hood Honourable Judge gave the instruction to get out of their homes due to bad building safety issues So all I have to now is Your in-actions WILL BE REMEMBERED and I will never wish you bad luck but I WILL NEVER WISH YOU GOID LUCK Mr Hogan

Niamh I am not saying it is right what has happened but it was a private development bought by private money so that’s why its a civil matter. The system is wrong in respect of lack of enforcement

Hi Eugene, it seems to me that although these properties have been sold the problems are a result of failed regulations, failed enforcement and self certification therefore this is back firmly at the governments door. With pyrite the problem only becomes evident after three to four years (time can vary as dependent on other factors), the regulations failed to ensure that the infill coming from the quarries was suitable for purpose and there is no way for the purchaser to know that there is a potential problem. The purchaser is sold the house with the Homebond guarantee as extra security but when the problem became evident there has been controversy about the way Homebond have dealt with the situation. As it stands the homeowner (who is also a taxpayer) has no protection in law when these situations arise, we need to be more focused on enforcement through inspections and to tighten up protection for the purchaser, this is the single biggest purchase you will make in your lifetime and yet there is more protection if you bought a bag of crisps.

Where were the e100k plus blocklayers puting up the houses. Everyone was asleep at the wheel and no one cared as long as the money rolled in. Now everyone cares all of a sudden.

@Eugene re €100k blocklayers

Pyrite was present in the hardcore used under the concrete slab, to accuse a BL of having a little sleep at the wheel when he was building the house is an illinformed comment & would be like accusing a dentist of not knowing his patient had cancer as he fitted a crown.
Regarding priory hall the main problems are fire hazards & your comment again illustrates your lack of understanding, a BL builds a shell then leaves, a whole host of trades & fireproofers build & install within this shell.

http://vimeo.com/m/16315458

Bring in this law retrospectively?

LOL!

Susie, if you ever run for election, I definitely would not vote for you seeing as you think a Minister has, or ought to have the power to bring in retrospective legislation and punishments.

Nucky
I am glad you copped my humor . ! Lol
Ignoreland
I was being sarcastic . These boyos think that we are so easily fooled , but we are not I am glad to say … Thing is tho seriously is the way he has tightened the laws so that ”The certifier will also be required to accept full legal liability for the certification they provide” but the governmen BOND is not worth the paper it is written on . . . I am glad to say also that I will never run for public office ….. No way . I like to sit back and watch !

Government bond?

Building Bond ? …. new houses were meant to have it … bonded ?

Jesus wept Susie, you really don’t have a clue do you.

@ Susie. It wad homebond and as far as I am aware is a private company. There was also Premier Guarantee or the old fashioned and probably best architects professional indemnity insurance.

You are absolutely right susie. Unfortunately the ‘garauntee’ has better uses.

Thanks Eugene .
It is a while since I bought a house , but they are the ones , Eugene .
They were meant to protect the purchaser in the event that the building did not reach the standard it was built for . So if they were meant to have these types of assurances then why oh why is hogan putting them into law now ,
.Because if I remember in the 1970’s the home bond was introduced to ease purchasers minds as to the safety of the house they were buying ….. And it just seems to me a bit of deja vu …..
The homebond was for the builders and the Premier was for the architects as you said .

Nucky@
But then again what do I know ? Only this has all happened before ! Except this is of course on a much larger scale of things because people got lax and greedy .. and the innocent purchaser whose only ”sin” was they wanted to buy and own their own home and were taken advantage of !

Thanks Niamh , :)
I am not always right ! But am seldom wrong :)
Niamh , of course you are at the mercy of bad builders / construction material , and Home bond is about as usefull as tissue …

Susie. It is a positive thing that is happening as its a change. Homebond etc are insurance policies and people think they are all singing all dancing but like all insurance policies there is opt out clauses as why should an insurance company payout for bad building as its for subsidence etc mainly. Old case of jumping in and not reading fine print

Eugene my mortgage would not have been approved without homebond garauntee…I had no choice, no opt out clause…and when we needed them they ran because they had underestimated the scale of the problem and had insufficient funds to deal with it. the problem is the system that was allowed to thrive of self certification and lack of inspections and or enforcement. The govt set the regulations, if the regulations are not enforced then there are no regulations.

Eugene
That is it exactly …Subsidence ! home bond covered susidenece ! They weren’t as you say all singing all dancing insurances…
So….and I can not believe I am about to say this , but Hogan may actually be doing something right for a change by making professional people and builders legally liable for shoddy workmanship and poor construction materials…but for all the good, this change may do in the future of construction in Ireland where does it leave people with a pyrite problem and of course Priory Hall residents ?

@ Niamh. You are right in relation to a mortgage. Self Certification is a joke but its good if we change the regulations.@Susie. No idea on Pyrite or Priory Hall. Both are a disgrace but both are also a private matter and subject to the courts. The state wont get involved as it will cost the tax payer a fortune and no Government TD or Minister wants to go near either in case it prejudices legal proceedings. It really is a case damned if do and damned if don’t. Personally I would be chasing down who signed the documents saying the materials were tested and also that Priory Hall was built within building regulations.

Eugene in relation to priory hall and pyrite, can you explain how these are a civil matter and why the policing of the regulations are the responsibility of the purchasers? Wot do homeowners know about building regulations? As I have said further down, the homeowners need to be removed from this chain altogether. As it stands the buck has been passed by all involved…homebond, the govt, builder, developers, quarries, banks and insurance companies right back to the homeowners when it is clear that it is a failure of regulations and a failure to enforce the regulations that have got us here. What happens (using pyrite) as an example where homebond have denied liability (despite the fact they are sold as a STRUCTURAL garauntee), the quarry involved has ceased trading as a quarry and the builder has gone bust, where does the homeowner go? Why should the homeowner be shouldered with taking extra expense, stress and worry of taking court action? The individual homeowner cannot take action against global multi national insurance companies the likes of zurich and allianz who have massive legal teams and know every trick in the book, the individual homeowner would not stand a chance. Pyrite would not be obvious at time of purchase so whoever signed off would be perfectly justified, and anyway indemnity insurance would not cover the magnitude of the claim. The way this is worded, the government are trying to completely seperate themselves from enforcement of regulations which in my eyes is leaving the purchasers again to carry the can. if the person (in this case a chartered surveyor or an arch tect) who signs off subsequently is discovered to have breached regulations and the claim is made by 500 houses the insurance is not going to be sufficient to cover remediation, so this is the exact same situation as it stands now, the homeowners is in legal limbo. The government sets the regulations, they should enforce the regulations otherwise there are no regulations.

Eugene I understand what you are saying but as Niamh said why should it be a private matter when regulations were flouted and ignored . The government should be making their feelings known and deal with it .