The sensitive issue of the title "Architect" and the Buildin

[onq]

The ratings would not be limited to Members of the Institute.

This is not intended to undermine the BCA 2007 or the Registrar or Institute Members.

Submissions would be going back several years before 2008, when anyone could avail of the title.

They would be invited since 2008 and would include persons without a formal qualification providing services.

The would include professionals with other qualifications like engineers and surveyors and teachers and draughspeople.

Anyone in short who provided any archiectural services any acted "as an architect" whether or not they used that name in business.

Any thoughts?

ONQ.

[henno]

seems RIAI registration is no protection for consumers... quelle surprise....

[DOC]

seems RIAI registration is no protection for consumers... quelle surprise....

More a fault of the building control system and the lack of a requirement to have any professional inspect during construction.

[onq]

Doc, that's not the whole truth.

The buck must stop with the certifying architect.
Where matters are obvious to visual inspection he has to call it.

Prime Time showed a Condition of a Fire Cert requiring an inner room to be removed.
According to the programme, it wasn't removed, and if so, certifying compliance in such a situation is wrong.

Unbelievable that here I am gathering my bits and piece together to (finally) apply for Registration and this hits the fan.
Its enough to make you throw your hat at it, when you see this kind of nonsense dragging down the reputation of the profession.

[DOC]

Where matters are obvious to visual inspection he has to call it.

Prime Time showed a Condition of a Fire Cert requiring an inner room to be removed.
According to the programme, it wasn't removed, and if so, certifying compliance in such a situation is wrong.

Have to agree with you on that one ONQ! An obvious and complete oversight.....see no evil, etc.

[DOC]

Tried to edit the above post but was not allowed to.

When I say there is something wront with the system, there is something wrong with a system that allows an apartment be sold having had no inspection whatsoever during construction and allowing the use of Form 1A Opinion on Compliance at the end of construction. This is the Opinion on Compliance that an architect can sign having had no involvement in the construction stage of the project (only the design stage) and relies on letters of confirmation from the contrcator and sub-contractors that they have carried out their work/built in compliance with the building regulations.

This form of Opinion I'm sure will be gone soon! With no regulation/registration of contractors (to ensure they are competant and at least understand the building regulations), it's obvious now you cannot rely on these written confirmations.

Opinions on Compliance are documents, the wording of which are agreed with the Law Society, intended soley for the purpose of conveyance. They are not statutory documents. These Opinions are not worth the paper they are written on!

With regard to the inner bedroom, this was clearly conditioned out by the Fire Safety Certificate. You don't know whether it was agreed by the architect and developer at the time that this should be renamed a Study or and additional living room and not be called a bedroom and then the developer simply sold on as bedroom?

I'm sure it will come out in the wash. As they say, there are two sides and then there is the truth!

[onq]

I disagree that you cannot rely on contractors certificates.
Its up to you as the inspecting architect to review their work.
This assessment informs you as to whether or not you can accept their certs.
The basic issue is what I've christened the Paddy-Last Cert where no inspection occurs.
This is exacerbated by the Drive -By Inspection, where its cursory and no record photos are taken.
I've set standards for my own work going back fifteen years which required regular in-depth inspections.

[henno]

lets take a step back from this indepth debate and consider what the long term outcomes of the BCA 2007 may be.

The act precludes an unregistered person from using the title "Architect" in any form of advertising, or business correspondence, certification etc.

So what does that mean?

Does it mean anyone can advertise / claim to offer 'architectural services', 'architectural design', 'architectural *blank*??
what if they name themselves 'ACME Architecture' ? etc does it matter??

I would claim not really.

I can see the endgame of the BCA being the RIAI claiming a monopoly on as many services as possible currently available on the 'open' market. Design Team leaders for public contracts currently have to be RIAI or similar chartered engineers. This will filter down to smaller projects. RIAI will pressurise the Law Society not to accept certification from non-registered purveyors of 'architectural services', be they Architectural Technologists or non chartered engineers etc. See AIB requirements for example of whats to come.

Perhaps we may even see a time when only registered architects could make planning applications, as is being debated on another thread in this forum. Or perhaps local authorities may make this decision themselves??..

Make no bones about it, the RIAI now have a very very strong position to lobby those close to them about the monopolization of services. As time passes this stranglehold will become even stronger. Like the child that cries the loudest, it gets fed first.

The competition authority has be shown to be meek when opposing a body of the RIAIs stature. Its conclusions in its report to the BCA bill were largely ignored. It now claims to be legally helpless to AA.

post from almost exactly 3 years ago......

unfortunately what i predicted has turned out top be true.