Sheesh!

Would you care to elaborate on this ad hominem scattergun approach?

Builders, architects, councils, Uncle Tom Cobley – who ?

It’s not about the Contracts, it’s about the inefficiencies in the law governing building in this country. Which were well flagged by building professionals when they were introduced, and got the usual hearing from Government – ie none – and why would they – when the main State objective is to keep away from any potential liability themselves ?

However, having studied and administered several building contracts over the years and not being a member of the aforementioned august organisation I feel in a position to comment. I think Nyder’s article is quite fair and balanced. I think it is such a pity Michael Casey missed a great opportunity to write a relevant critical piece in the Irish Times but he was about as far off the mark as a North Korean Test Missile. It’s not the Contracts stupid. It’s the culture of corruption, complicity, non-communication and downright unprofessionalism leading to negligence is the problem.

“I think that your article is typical of an architect trying to loose the general public within irrelevant technicalities…”

Oh dear! To begin Michael Casey’s article did not at all relate to Priory Hall; that was the article that was irrelevant. An ignorant romp through one contract could no be of relevance to Priory Hall was deliberately misleading and a disgrace.

So if Nyder’s discussion is irrelevant to Priory Hall, then the fault lies with Mr.Casey for going off point.

I think what this whole episode highlights is that Mr.Casey has been able to publish an article (however misinformed) about contract law, to pass it off as a response to matters of building control law, and for most people not to notice, which is quite astonishing. The two are in fact entirely unrelated. I guess it shows up how complex the whole area is.

Michael Casey expressed hardly anyone’s view. Those who are familiar with the basics of contract law will know that it was a pile of the most ignorant rantings. Those who aren’t will hardly have a strong view on contract clauses!

Also Michael Casey is not a journalist; let’s not besmirch another profession with his incompetency!

I think you mean by ‘his view’ his that people expect more of architects. Sadly this cannot happen until people hire them. You have no requirement to hire an architect; most projects don’t have one. And frequently clients aren’t interested in regulations, seeing them as expensive extras. Speed and cost are the only things most clients are interested in. All parties have a role in pursuing high standards. The RIAI have been campaigning for this for a long long time.

Two points, though: -

- The Multi-Units Development Act (or the regulations, strictly speaking) effectively states that only registered architects, engineers or building surveyors are permitted to certify apartment buildings. The reason is simply that these are the only registered professions with the necessary skillset. It’s very tough on qualified architectural technicians, but under current law, there IS no such thing as a registered technician. Similarly, a reputable fire consultant could easily certify a building as being compliant with fire regulations… but under current law, anyone can call themselves a “fire consultant.” Or an “architectural technologist.”

- The notion that architects wield influence… seriously? The RIAI offer nominal advice on construction legislation, along with every other professional association that has anything to do with construction at all. It’s usually ignored. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Architects opposed the government public works contract; it was introduced anyway. They opposed current Health and Safety legislation, and it didn’t make a blind bit of difference. They oppose design and build contracts, and yet these contracts become more and more powerful. Architect wasn’t even a registered title until 2007, after decades of campaigning.

Architects are just about the least influential professionals on earth. The RIAI is also a pretty useless lobby group. That’s why Michael Casey can write baseless article in the IT, and as yet they don’t even have a letter published. Nobody listens to architects. Please believe this.

Meanwhile; Tom Parlon went seamlessly from being a Minister of State to head of the Construction Industry Federation. That’s influence, right there.

Anyway; as I say, it might be best until I write the second, contextualisation article. This was simply a rebuttal piece. Hold fire, and I’ll happily pick it up in a couple of days time.

My problem with your theory on certification is the lack of reponsibility that you put on architects and more precisely on the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland (RIAI) about certification. The RIAI has drafted these certificates, why isn’t it bearing responsibility for it?

The multi-units development Act 2011 was drafted under strong influence of the RIAI. This legislation now prevents Chartered Architectural technologists, architectural consultants, fire safety consultants and other professionals to issue opinions on compliance with fire safety certificates for multi-units developments.

The professionals prescribed to issue these opinions are architects registered with the RIAI, registered engineers and registered surveyors. These restrictions on who shall issue the opinions were implemented in the name of public safety.

When the RIAI influences the law to prevent many professionals to certify compliance, it pretends to do so in the name of public safety.

Does the minister for the environment acknowledge that the RIAI represents and promotes registered architects, that it advises the government on planning and building control issues as well as other architectural matters and that it also claims to protect the consumer? If so, can the minister for the environment understand the conflict of interest that exists in carrying out these 3 activities? Can an institute promote and represent service providers while defending consumers? Can the RIAI advise the government without considering first the interests of the professionals that it represents and promotes?

I would be glad if these questions could be answered by the Minister. I am not aware of another representative body having such influence on legislations. I am not aware of any other representative body advertising its members’ services on radio and other media while pretending acting for public interest.

When will the government understand that an institute cannot promote its members and protect the public in the same time?

Pre-empting that, and with regard to your two specific points:-

- Plain and simple, the architect on Priory Hall would seem to be in trouble. Some of the defects (lack of cavity barriers, say) can’t be picked up at visual inspection. I don’t want to get in too much detail – don’t know the specifics, ongoing case, don’t want to get sued, and so on – but stories about the design containing inner rooms seem on the surface to be indefensible. This is going to go to court, I’d think.

- The form of certification isn’t a case of architects wanting to mislead the public about anything. It’s a consequence of legislation dating from 1990 – which architects didn’t write – and it’s required by banks, solicitors, etc. It’s massively flawed, clearly. But if an architect is virtually excluded from the site – as, in developer-lead properties, they so often are – they just CAN’T warrant for anything else. So you wind up with a form covered in disclaimers.

So the point is, Michael Casey doesn’t understand the difference between traditional-build and developer-lead contracts. If the architect has a free-reign to be on-site, to inspect as necessary, and to instruct defective work to be remedied, than the certificates actually mean something. If it’s a developer-constructed building with only a walk-through inspection at the end, it’s… well, let’s be charitable and say “of limited value.” But please don’t think architects lead to that becoming the norm; it was a response of developers wanting more power, and excluding the architect from the process.

One of the points for all the attacks on the Priory Hall Architect is related to his certificate of compliance. Why did he certify compliance when the building did not comply, when a visual inspection was enough to confirm non-compliance?

Other attacks concern the form of certification itself. Why is an architect certificate compulsory when selling / buying a house, if this certificate only guaranty the design and not the built? Isn’t it that architects have misled the public to believe that their responsibilities go beyond the design? Why would someone need a certificate for the design only when buying a building?

I think that Michael Casey dared to express the views of many. I am astonished that no other journalists did.

PS I do however know of architects who charged 15% for domestic extensions in the crazy days, and some are still charging (and getting) 12%.