Priory Hall apartments: What went wrong and what can we learn from this?

Sounds like NAMA spotted it as well so what kind of inspection was done by the architects? I love their comment that they are not going to take a hammer and knock a hole in the wall. Why not?? Or at least monitor it as it being built.

There should be jail time for people if it can be proven that corners were cut when it comes to fire safety. I was talking to a friend who works in the fire brigade. Said it was horrific and that people would have had very little chance to get out if a fire had started.
 
RonanC said:
There are apartment blocks up and down the country that are far worse. My father is a recently retired senior Fire Officer with Dublin Fire Brigade. He has told me several cases of entering a building and not being able to find fire escapes, exits blocked, doors locked or leading to a building site. Fire protection missing, minimal fire proofing between units, basically all that is between one apartment and another is a piece of plasterboard.
Click to expand...

I'v heard first hand accounts of a fire in appartments in Swords at the weekend. Residents were trapped inside.
 
Leper said:
The only reason this story made front page headlines is that it happened in Dublin. If this happened in say Limerick, it would never have made even page 10.
Click to expand...

Sunny said:
:confused:

If it happened in Leitrim, it would have made the headlines. Even the High Court Judge said this has never happened in modern Ireland.
Click to expand...

But it has happened before, at Rossorry Quay in Enniskillen. And with so little media attention at the time that a decade later, there are now only a few references to the scandal on google.co.uk or google.ie including one from the NI courts service and this BBC report.

Compare this original view of the development to how its remnants look today.
 
I cant understand why DCC has to pick up the tab and make the arrangements for the unfortunate residents. Surely those involved in the construction of the apartments should be doing the running around and picking up the tab?
 
csirl said:
I cant understand why DCC has to pick up the tab and make the arrangements for the unfortunate residents. Surely those involved in the construction of the apartments should be doing the running around and picking up the tab?
Click to expand...

Thay say they can afford the repairs but can't afford the alternative accomodation. The Court has asked for statement of affairs to prove it. I have no problem with the council paying the money if there is no other option but the full force of the law should brought down to bear on those involved.
 
T McGibney said:
But it has happened before, at Rossorry Quay in Enniskillen. And with so little media attention at the time that a decade later, there are now only a few references to the scandal on google.co.uk or google.ie including one from the NI courts service and this BBC report.
Click to expand...

I assume the judge was referring to Ireland the country, and not Ireland the island :rolleyes: There is a difference. Actually there is a load of differences, not that certain people admit to them.
 
Sunny said:
Sounds like NAMA spotted it as well so what kind of inspection was done by the architects? I love their comment that they are not going to take a hammer and knock a hole in the wall. Why not??
Click to expand...
Assuming this was a standard situation, then it is because they agree the level of service required with the client (i.e. developer) before the inspection - "do you want me to open up the walls or not?" - The answer here appears to have been no.

Sunny said:
Or at least monitor it as it being built.
Click to expand...
The client (developer) obviously didn't want that - they only wanted a Cert. that was sufficient for sale. Perhaps the buyers of the apartments should have required that something greater than a visual inspection was undertaken as part of the terms of the contract for purchase of the apartments.

Other countries have fully funded building regulation inspection authorities - who go around and inspect the construction of buildings. Ireland doesn't want to go to that expense. Either something like that is done or else a requirement that all construction is supervised by professionals who can be sued afterwards. (The problem with even this is that given the current economic environment many of these companies have gone into liquidation also). The third option would be to have decennial insurance purchased with the construction of a building - this covers any defects uncovered during the first 10 years of a building's life, though again it adds to the expense.
 
Superman said:
Assuming this was a standard situation, then it is because they agree the level of service required with the client (i.e. developer) before the inspection - "do you want me to open up the walls or not?" - The answer here appears to have been no.


.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You have a client that hasn't done the work so you ask them if they want you to open up the walls and they say no. Shock, horror! And then you hand out fire certs based on that. You can't blame buyers for this.
 
TarfHead said:
I assume the judge was referring to Ireland the country, and not Ireland the island :rolleyes: There is a difference. Actually there is a load of differences, not that certain people admit to them.
Click to expand...

If the Rossorry Quay scandal hadn't been ignored by the establishment south of the border, then the judge would have been well aware of it, and perhaps the Priory Hall scandal wouldn't have happened.
 
T McGibney said:
If the Rossorry Quay scandal hadn't been ignored by the establishment south of the border, then the judge would have been well aware of it, and perhaps the Priory Hall scandal wouldn't have happened.
Click to expand...

It might have merited a few lines in UK News. Even if it had had more prominence than that, it's still irrelevant as precedent for this country.

And the Priory Hall scandal would not have happened without a 'rogue' builder, regardless of the regulatory environment.
 
Sunny said:
Exactly. You have a client that hasn't done the work so you ask them if they want you to open up the walls and they say no. Shock, horror! And then you hand out fire certs based on that. You can't blame buyers for this.
Click to expand...
Well, actually you can. The Fire Cert. will say "this was a visual inspection only and no opening up was undertaken". If that is insufficient for the buyer (or someone such as a solicitor on their behalf), they should say so before they buy the apartment.
 
T McGibney said:
If the Rossorry Quay scandal hadn't been ignored by the establishment south of the border, then the judge would have been well aware of it, and perhaps the Priory Hall scandal wouldn't have happened.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem entirely like a parallel to me.

In Rossory Quay the property developers have got engineers in rather than having the council make a swoop as has happened in Priory Hall.

The owners were then reimbursed for the full amount they paid and also compensated for "stress and inconvenience".

It most likely was filed under the inconvenience heading rather than the "scandal" heading.
 
thedaras said:
"Architect Stephen Oppermann said yesterday his firm -- Oppermann and Associates, based at Foley Street in Dublin 1 -- carried out a visual inspection of Priory Hall after the apartments were finished.

"It is a visual inspection," he said. "I'm not going to get out a hammer and break a hole in the wall."
Click to expand...

I don't care what kind of inspection he conducted. He signed a fire cert and he should stand over it or pay the price. Otherwise there is no point in a fire safety certificate.

Mental note to self. Should I ever buy another propety in Ireland make sure that the fire safety certificate is valid and can be acted upon by my solicitor if need be.
 
Bronte said:
I don't care what kind of inspection he conducted. He signed a fire cert and he should stand over it or pay the price. Otherwise there is no point in a fire safety certificate.
Click to expand...
He will stand over it - or be required to stand over it.
However if it says "this was a visual inspection only and no opening up was undertaken" - then it is a very limited document.
This is acceptable to people (banks, solicitors, purchasers) who look for the Fire Cert.
It is not in architects' interest that these things exist - they would prefer if the architect was involved in the entire construction process (more work and therefore money for them).
 
Bronte said:
I don't care what kind of inspection he conducted. He signed a fire cert and he should stand over it or pay the price. Otherwise there is no point in a fire safety certificate.

Mental note to self. Should I ever buy another propety in Ireland make sure that the fire safety certificate is valid and can be acted upon by my solicitor if need be.
Click to expand...

Bronte,

The Fire Safety Certificate is issued by Dublin City Council in advance of construction. The architect in this case would have issued a certificate of compliance to certify that the building had been constructed in accordance with the Fire Safety Certificate and the Building Regulations.
 
RonanC said:
Bronte,

The Fire Safety Certificate is issued by Dublin City Council in advance of construction. The architect in this case would have issued a certificate of compliance to certify that the building had been constructed in accordance with the Fire Safety Certificate and the Building Regulations.
Click to expand...


That doesn't make sense, how can you certify something has been built in compliance with Fire safety rules before construction.

Is it a two step procedure? One by DCC and one by the architect?
 
Bronte said:
I don't care what kind of inspection he conducted. He signed a fire cert and he should stand over it or pay the price. Otherwise there is no point in a fire safety certificate.

Mental note to self. Should I ever buy another propety in Ireland make sure that the fire safety certificate is valid and can be acted upon by my solicitor if need be.[/QUOTE

If he signed a fire cert based on a visual inspection and that was/is all that is required, he has done his job.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bronte said:
That doesn't make sense, how can you certify something has been built in compliance with Fire safety rules before construction.

Is it a two step procedure? One by DCC and one by the architect?
Click to expand...
The Fire Cert is issued that the building IF BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATION SUBMITTED will comply with the Fire regulations.
The opinion on compliance says "based on a visual inspection only, this appears to comply with the Fire Certificate".
There is a big gap between the two - if a visual inspection only is what is done.
 
Last edited:
Bronte said:
That doesn't make sense, how can you certify something has been built in compliance with Fire safety rules before construction.

Is it a two step procedure? One by DCC and one by the architect?
Click to expand...

Yes it is a two step procedure.

DCC would view the plans and based on the specification of the build, would issue a fire safety certificate if they are satisfied with the proposed plans. Sometimes they insist on alterations to the plans and only then will issue a certificate.

Here is the link I posted on page one which describes the process in full

[broken link removed]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top