Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 27:

In page 16, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:

8.—The Act of 1990 is amended in section 8(4) by the insertion of the following after paragraph (b):

"(c) require the person or persons served with the notice, to refund to the Building Control Authority the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the Authority in relation to the investigation, detection and issue of the enforcement notice concerned and any warnings including costs incurred in respect of the remuneration and other expenses of employees, consultants and advisers, and the Building Control Authority may recover these costs and expenses incurred by it in that behalf.".".

This amendment addresses the issue of who must pay for non-compliance. It requires that the person or persons served with the notice refund to the building control authority the costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the authority in the investigation, detection and issue of the enforcement notice concerned and any warnings, including costs incurred in respect of the remuneration and other expenses of employees, consultants and advisers, and the building control authority may recover these costs and expenses. In the event that a local authority or the building control authority incurs considerable expense while investigating non-compliance with building regulations, those served with a notice should pay the costs.

Carrying out the checks required as part of retrospective authorisation of works could be an expensive procedure. Theoretically, an investigation of a structure could result in the building control authority incurring expensive consultancy fees to determine the nature of any breach of the regulations. The amendment proposes to fix the due cost on the person who has not fully complied with regulations.

See this speech in context