SI.9 completion stage and the BCMS | Clouds are gathering!

cloud storage

By BRegs Blog admin on 26th October 2014

S.I.9 completion stage and the BCMS

Sources close to those working on the delivery of S.I9 have indicated that the BCMS system may not be expanded for Completion documents as planned. Assigned Certifiers might only be asked to upload the one single Certificate of Compliance  (Completion), signed by the Assigned Certifier and the builder.

There are alarm bells ringing for some professionals who believe it leaves them right back at the ‘uninsurable’ S.I.80, which named one individual only on the public record. In this case all liability will fall on the Assigned Certifier as the lone ‘mark’ named on the local authority Building Register.

The extraordinary efforts of Assigned Certifiers to compile lists of Ancillary Certificates, Ancillary Inspections Reports, as-built drawings and Testing Certificates might just make a short trip from your desk  to the box under your feet, to lie gathering dust until the day that you, as the lone certifier, have to defend a claim.

So what does the Framework for Building Control Authorities say?

see pdf here: https://bregsforum.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/framework-for-building-control-authorities-july-2014.pdf

It outlines the procedures for receiving, validating and archiving documents at Commencement stage. However it does not require any more than a single Completion Certificate ( with a “table” or list of documents) at the end of the project.

“Completion stage-Overview

The role of the Building Control Authority at completion stage is to validate the submission of the Certificate of Compliance on Completion and, where appropriate, to include details of same in the Register”

“The Annex detailing the Table of Plans, Calculations, Specifications, Ancillary Certificates and Particulars, and other Documents accompanying the Certificate of Compliance on Completion, should be retained on the Building Control Management System by the Building Control Authority”

The retention of documents (Ancillary Certificates, as-built drawings etc.) seems to be a private matter between the Assigned Certifier, his conscience and the limitations of his client’s fees? The next problem for the Assigned Certifier is where to keep it all. With every project the paperwork will keep piling up and you will have to keep it for years. The framework also requires documents to be stored for at least six years.

Assigned Certifiers are fortunate that ‘cloud storage’ is now available at little or no cost so a secure archive of completion documents will not add anything major to practice overheads. The real concern is that homebuyers and building owners will have only two names to go after – the Assigned Certifier and the builder, the latter who may be well gone.

Other posts of interest:

10 ‘must-read’ posts for Certifiers | S.I.9

5 Tips for Completion Certs

Press: RIAI fearful Local Authorities will start “finding something to invalidate as a method of workload control”

BC(A)R SI.9- BCMS: “must do better”

8 Questions for Professional Insurer

4 tips for sub-contractor Ancillary Certifiers

5 Posts every builder must read- BC(A)R SI.9

5 POPULAR MYTHS ABOUT BC(A)R SI.9 

4 tips for Design Certifiers… 

4 tips for assigned certifiers

4 things I am putting in my fee agreements

7 posts all architects (surveyors + engineers) should read 

One thought on “SI.9 completion stage and the BCMS | Clouds are gathering!

  1. Michael O'Neill

    Local Authority Intent Clear – No Shouldering of Responsibility by LA – Assigned Certifier Screwed Again

    might be the slightly tabloid headline associated with this piece.

    Are Local Authorities so inept and corruptly sucking on the Private Sector that that they cannot even conceive of allowing supporting documentation to be uploaded, never mind shoulder their own responsibility?

    This smacks of coming from some right wing think tank or other. The proof of the pudding will be some foreign company with billions in PI cover taking all the business from local professionals that cannot certify under the current level of what is for them “sustainable liability”.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *