BREGS Blog Archive 5- MARCH 2014

by Bregs Blog admin team


BREGS Blog Archive 5- MARCH 2014

by Bregs Blog admin team 19th October 2014

Don’t forget our archives!

Click on the following link and read through over 80 posts for March, the month SI.9 was implemented. Many of these forecast  issues subsequently encountered- lack of industry preparedness, BCMS issues, Building Control Sections resources and legal implications on practitioners. Many questions asked still remain unanswered, 6 months on. Scroll through our posts which are in reverse chronological order. Enjoy!

Click link: BREGS Blog Archive 5- MARCH 2014

  • The most popular post in March was one by past presidents of the representative body for architects (RIAI) Collins and O’Cofaigh’s “A better way”. Widely seen as preferable and more cost-effective to our current system of self-certification this clear and articulate proposal is currently being considered by the RIAI as formal policy to be recommended to the Department in advance of an EGM on 4th November 2014.
  • Former Minister Hogan’s cost estimate of €1000 – €3000 for SI0 for a housing unit was shown to be very conservative. We have since established the costs for a typical house at between €20,000 to €40,000. See post here
  • The exclusion of Architectural Technologists from the register of professionals to undertake new roles under SI.9 was a very well read topic (see here). Former Minister Hogan in a Dáil debate urged ‘draughtsmen’ to register as competent professionals under the register to operate roles of design and assigned certifiers under SI.9. see post here. The significant implications for the entire Architectural Technologist sector were explored in  “The architectural technologist and BC(A)R SI.9
  • Past president of the representative body for architects (RIAI), Eoin O’Cofaigh lists out the winners and loosers under the new regulation and says” The regulations do nothing to prevent another Priory Hall or pyrites disaster…They are a huge missed opportunity, from a Government who knew the proper solution and who ignored it.” (see here)
  • In typical strident fashion former Minister Phil Hogan took issue with concerns raised by Brian Stanley TD in the Dáil, and takes head-on the issue professional fees for SI9 :”I am concerned about the possibility of customers being exploited by professionals under these regulations.See post here.
  • SI.105 was Implemented on 7th March and allows part- deferral of some public building types. We believe only a handful of projects have availed of this provision. See post here. Former Minister Hogan explained the rationale behind SI.105 to Stephen Donnelly TD in the Dáil- see here.
  • We noted the Law Society Guidance Note on BC(A)R SI.9  “In the 12 months up to the introduction of a mandatory register this note suggests that whether self-builders can sign the builder’s completion form or not isn’t the main issue halting self-building this year. Rather it will be whether any members of these three professional bodies will assume certifier roles for self-build projects.” See post here.
  • We posted a consolidated piece on legal firms advice for readers this month also on SI.9 (see post here). Has the situation been clarified for professionals 6 months on?
  • We published a guest post of a talk delivered at the Engineers Ireland CPD event by Deirdre Ni Fhlionn, Consultant, Reddy Charlton Solicitors. The lack of consumer protection under SI9 was clearly highlighted “There are no new legal rights or remedies for consumers created by BCAR 2014. Rather, the benefits to consumers are intended to result from improvements in the building process, such as the requirement for an assigned certifier to devise and implement an inspection plan.” see here
  • Self-builders wrote to the Attorney General: BC(A)R SI.9 – the IAOSB are still awaiting a response 6 months later (see here). A problem can’t exist without a solution. We assembled one from a number of sources- it still very relevant: The cost of a Solution to BC(A)R SI.9?. SME issues and SI9 were outlined by Eoin O’Cofaigh his post here.
  • We also noted that staff should take care when undertaking new certifier roles “In the event of a wind-up or voluntary liquidation, of if employers elect to remove or alter policies, employees (current and former) may find themselves exposed to liability for certifier roles.’ These concerns remain and we await input from representative bodies on these issues. See here.

Previous Archive posts (click title):

BRegs Blog Archive 4 – FEBRUARY 2014

BREGS Blog Archive 3- JANUARY 2014

BREGS Blog Archive 2- DECEMBER 2013

BREGS Blog Archive 1- NOVEMBER 2013

Other popular “top read” posts: