Was there a different provider down in Mayo as well?
He made some noise but didnāt push it as much as he could have. Thatās what I hear from those heavily involved in it anyhow, they were unhappy with all of the TDs really. Iād expect Pearse to throw a lot behind it now that it is coming to the crunch in relation to approving a plan. The Govt TDs have already made their move, FG against Varadkar last week in the pp meeting.
What way are the Cassidyās politically aligned historically?
Iād be disappointed as a constituent that Pearse with his ability & profile wasnāt doing more on this.
He got the Insurance companies moving Nationally.
The Building Control Act has come into force since then, products have to be certified.
So whoās on the hook and what are the consequences?
FF.
1 Like
No idea. Iāll see if I can find out over the weekend and report back to you.
Itās an odd one but you could also be critical of both McHugh and McConalogue for not making more of the issue as well in all fairness. Machlochlainn never seems to know what heās at, from what I see anyhow.
1 Like
Each project has an Assigned Certifier who has to carry Professional Indemnity Insurance, other consultants and specialists are Ancillary Certifiers and also carry PI Insurance.
Certification is all uploaded to a data base now so there is a real onus on the certifier to ensure what they are certifying complies with regs and standards.
Not perfect but alot better than it was. Certs of compliance for anything built during the tiger years are not worth the paper they are written on.
I would guess 2/3 of apartment developments built at that time do not comply with regs on fire and the granted fire certificate for the building.
No collars on services passing through floors, no cavity barriers, no protected escape corridors etc etc
2 Likes
Still seems a bit wishy washy.
Carrying PII is probably just a box ticking exercise. When it comes to paying out both parties will try to find a way to wriggle out of their liabilities and the impacted party will be own left footing the bill.
There needs to be serious accountability, deterrents and consequences for these matters.
1 Like
Look over there itās SF
PII is not just box ticking, been serious problems in the market for that type of insurance.
BCAR has definitely improved standards, consultants were trying to milk it at first looking for outrageous fees for doing what they should have been doing anyway but that seems to have levelled off now.
One flaw is one-off builds can opt out.
Building regs also require a safety file which is somewhat similar to an o&m manual which should also contain all product data and certification.
1 Like
Have we had any major cases yet where payouts have been granted?
Itās fine and well in theory but what will it be like in practice?
Money going to subsidize rich homeowners while people are living on the streets.
Iām not aware of any case law since the Building Control Act came in.
The process is more onerous which I imagine can only be a good thing.
We will see in time so. Iād have my doubts however.
90% of your posts are about FFG
1 Like
Solicitors PI got a serious hammering during the crash.
Cyber fraud is the big black hole for PII now.
1 Like
Few things cropping up here.
Firstly, no county council can have a ten or 20 year contract to supply materials for any potential public funded work @tazdedub. Its very specific in state funded work you cannot specify a named supplier, you must state the quality and specific requirements that the material must meet. So for example, you cannot say āuse kingspan or xtratherm insulationā you can just give the thickness and minimum thermal requirements that must be met.
@croppy_boy mentions that they are still winning council projects, which is one of the flaws of the public tendering procedure. Its what caused many of the school building issues whereby cowboys, many of whom were from NI, won jobs that they really shouldnāt have.
@tallback initial query about the funding of this raises my initial thoughts on it all. The media are really pushing a them versus us agenda here. All the announcements today were āthe cost will be 3.2bn to fixā instead of it being that āthe state promise to help repair the damage doneā. By leading with the cost, itās doing one thing only, why are we as taxpayers paying and causing peopl to get upset over it. And thatās bollix. These people have been let down badly and the biggest expenditure of their lives is destroyed and they have no recourse to get it fixed. The regulation at the time was not adequate enough to spot these failures.
@Mullach_Ide outlines the bcar set up now, in since 2013 which puts a design certification onus on architects or engineers to sign off on projects. This was not in place when these buildings were constructed, hence the major difference now.
Another point in all this, and you can make your own judgement as to why, but the pyrite issue, predominantly Dublin and Meath, cost major public funds around 2010 onwards to many buildings repaired. But all was done without the same issues being raised now nor without any mention of the millions given to homeowners to get it fixed. I donāt recall any moaning then about the tax payers money being spent.
@glasagusban theory about the lack of accountability to pin any one person for this is a major failing of the state. Ultimately Cassidys were doing dodgy shit and were not certifying their products properly. Its now the responsibility of builders to ensure they have certs and tests completed before building. But itās also up to councils to certify quarries and ensure that they are meeting standards set.
TLDR; if insurance companies of cassidys wonāt pay out, then the state has failed and should pay. Either way, these people have to have their homes rebuilt and it should be done
16 Likes