Sir, – My compliments to Dr Padraic Kenna and Michael Casey for their excellent articles (Opinion, November 7th 8th respectively). The points raised with regard to meaningless certifications by architects are valid but the primary responsibility and blame for this must be with the Department of Environment.
The stated primary purpose of the Building Regulations is to protect the health, safety and welfare of persons in and around buildings. The regulations, as promulgated by the department, are based on drafts prepared by the Building Regulations Advisory Board (BRAB), a quango dominated by the construction industry whose primary interest is protection of the industry, including all its professional certifiers.
The department, for many years, has not only consistently refused to address the failure of the regulations to protect the consumer, but has facilitated a situation which allows those in the chain of supply, construction and certification to avoid responsibility and liability for any consequences of defective materials or workmanship. It is virtually impossible, under current law, for the ordinary consumer to obtain redress, as evidenced by the victims of flooded estates, defective foundations, polluted water, etc. In these circumstances prospective consumers should seek assurances that professional certifications confirm “fitness for purpose”, and are not simply opinions of compliance (with caveats) with deficient regulations. They should also ensure that those in the design, supply and construction chain are covered by adequate professional indemnity, product liability and latent defects insurance.
In the absence of any meaningful action by the department, perhaps the solution to this situation will require another trip to the European Court of Justice. – Yours, etc,