Firebar

Builders / Specifiers / Purchasers

FIREBAR SYSTEMS are available nationwide for residential housing / apartments and all other types of buildings including that of Timber Frame, Steel or Masonry Construction.

THE PRIMARY PROBLEM IS THAT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT BEING COMPLIED WITH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY

ARE YOU PROTECTED AGAINST FIRE SPREAD IN YOUR HOME

Are you aware that a fire in your neighbour's home could destroy your family, your home or vice versa ?  This could be as a result of fire which can spread via the roof / attic space, and or external cavity walls as a result of inadequate uncertifiable party wall fire stopping / protection that is if installed at all.  See pictures below. 

Are you aware that such as viewed uncontrolled fire spread should not be happening, and that such can be prevented from as little as, €385.00 per Party / Separating Wall or €192.50 per semi-detached property (Tile Roof).  The additional cost for a slate roof would be approximately 7.2%.  Ask you’re Designer and or Builder to confirm in writing that your home is protected in accordance with the intent and content of our National Mandatory Building and Fire Regulations, e.g. the FireBar Roof Divide System, and or a similarly tested and approved system ?  If the answer is in the negative, you should ask why ?

PURCHASER TO BE PROTECTED AGAINST NEIGHBOURING FIRE

Ask the following questions:

(i)    Is there a FireBar Roof Divide System, or a similarly tested and approved system attached to the party / separating wall within your roof / attic space at the abutment of same with that of the roof covering to separate your property from the neighbouring property ? 

(ii)   Are there certifiable fire stops fitted within the cavities of the external walls.  Such are mandatory requirements to protect your family and property and or that of your neighbour's property in the event of fire. 

(iii)  Is there a properly 'Fire tested and approved' party wall fire break fitted e.g. The FireBar System and or a similarly tested and approved to prevent such known fire spread ?  See as pictured below

ARE YOU PROTECTED AGAINST THIS TYPE OF FIRE SPREAD ?  I DON'T THINK SO

Failed party wall fire stopping		Failed Cavity Barriers

THE FAILED PARTY WALL FIRE STOPPING AND THE FAILED CAVITY BARRIERS AS VIEWED ABOVE, WERE CLAIMED BY ALL CONCERNED NOTE THROUGH THE CERTIFICATION PROVIDED TO HAVE BEEN FITTED AS PER REGULATIONS, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT B ! 

"ALL SUCH ALLEGED FIRE PROTECTION FAILED".  ACCORDINGLY SUCH STRUCTURES AS VIEWED WERE AND CONTINUE TO BE UNCERTIFIABLE ! 

Note: such inadequate fire protection and the known failure of same, that is "if and when applied", have been shown in fire tests and in actual fires as viewed above to be grossly inadequate and therefore uncertifiable in the prevention of such fire spread to adjoining properties, via party walls within roof / attic spaces, and or in wall cavities as viewed.  Accordingly the continued use of such alleged fire stopping materials in the knowledge that they do not work, constitutes a known risk to people and property ! 

CAVITY BARRIERS AS PRESENTLY SPECIFIED AS VIEWED ABOVE ARE BEING INCORRECTLY DESCRIBED AS FIRE STOPS

As referenced, in the case of party wall fire stopping at the abutment of same with that of roof coverings, similar inadequate materials described as cavity barriers contained within plastic bags, and fitted within the external wall cavities of timber frame or similar construction as presently applied for example in-alignment with party walls or otherwise, are not suited as fire stops within such cavities. 

Such methods have not been tested in the combined requirement of structural integrity and fire resistance, as required by Regulations.  Such alleged fire stopping materials / methods as incorrectly specified were only ever tested to British Standards in their fire resistance, note: isolation tests only. 

Such materials are also known "not to work" in their intended function, and therefore do not qualify under the headings of "suitability or proper materials".  Therefore as stated, the continued use of such failed fire stopping constitutes a known risk to people and property.  See Photograph Album, with particular reference to the Airside, Swords fire. 

HOMEBOND CONTRADICTION / DISCLAIMER NONSENSE 

On the one hand we have the contradiction that's HomeBond.  With regards to the party wall fire stopping as referenced above, HomeBond have stated in a letter to me, dated 24th July 1998 with reference to their then chairman and member, Mr Joe Tiernan (letter on file) and I quote: "HomeBond advise members to comply with the requirements of the Building Regulations and this would include compliance with part B.  The advise given in our HomeBond manual is based on the requirements of part B". 

On the other hand the HomeBond disclaimer.  In a letter of reply from HomeBond dated 07th July 1999 (letter on file), in response to a complaint from a property management company, with regards to fire stopping, I quote HomeBond's reply: "We advise that the "fire stopping" is not a major structural defect, and therefore is outside the terms of the Guarantee Agreement".  Such a disclaimer by HomeBond is of course absolute and utter nonsense.  Such fire stopping of party walls as referenced are required, and are clearly integral parts of the structure in its whole assembly as required by our National Mandatory Building and Fire Regulations !  So much for HomeBond's disclaimer !

THE HOMEBOND CONTRADICTION EXPLAINED, AND DISCLAIMER RUBBISHED

In the event of fire spread, due to the absence / failure, or the inadequacy / non-compliance of the as referenced fire stopping to party walls or otherwise, resulting in structural damage to adjoining property or properties, the HomeBond Management / Inspectorate in my opinion are liable, particularly where HomeBond have issued HB11's (Final Notice Documents). 

HOMEBONDS WEBSITE, STEP 4

In my opinion, the following is confirmation of such HomeBond liability.  For example see HomeBond's website, under Registered Dwellings, "Step 4", which I quote: "If HomeBond is satisfied that the dwelling complies with the required standards we will issue the Final Notice HB11".  The keywords being, if HomeBond is satisfied.  To the unsuspecting purchaser such issuing of HB11's to the builder / developer surely in the least infers compliance, what do you think.  The mind boggles, maybe I'm not feeling well myself.

MINIMUM STANDARDS, NOT IN EVIDENCE ON-SITE !

Note also: what standards would HomeBond be referring to ?  I would have thought that they are referring to our regulatory standards / National Mandatory Building and Fire Regulations, which are minimum standards.  However if HomeBond are referring to even higher standards, such is not evident on-site !  See our Photograph Album for examples of HomeBond's perceived standards.  What standards /compliance would the HomeBond management be referring to, perhaps they can confirm ?  

Therefore in my opinion, if the fire stopping / protection in its absence or otherwise, is shown to have allowed the fire to spread thereby causing structural damage to the adjoining property or properties, one can only conclude that the HomeBond Inspectorate / Management, contrary to their disclaimer as issued are liable in the circumstances as referenced. 

HOMEBOND'S DISCLAIMER CHALLENGED AND LAID BARE

HomeBond's Website under Registered Dwellings STEP 4 states the following, and I quote once again: "If HomeBond is satisfied that the dwelling complies with the required standards we will issue the Final Notice HB11".  In issuing such statements HomeBond automatically takes the responsibility of compliance from the member.  Therefore any disclaimer by HomeBond on such issues of non-compliance, whereby they allege the member is responsible for same, is automatically laid bare !

A COSY RELATIONSHIP, THE NHBGC T/A AS A LTD COMPANY CALLED HOMEBOND AND ITS INSPECTORATE, ARE BEING AIDED AND ABETTED ARGUABLY ILLEGALLY BY DOE INSPECTORS FOR A FEE !  A STATE LIABILITY NOW EXISTS 

I also challenge the cosy relationship between the Department of the Environment and HomeBond.  DoE inspectors, as the industry knows, have inspected and approved such non-compliant houses and apartments particularly outside Dublin on behalf of HomeBond, resulting in the issuing of HB11's, accordantly the DoE are equally culpable.  In my opinion a State liability now exists.  See the photograph album attached, which are examples only.          

HOMEBOND'S DISCLAIMER / NON-COMPLIANCE / STRUCTURAL GUARANTEE INVALID / HOME PURCHASERS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES NOT NOTIFIED !

As an example, in the event of fire resulting in fire spread to adjoining property, where it is in evidence after the fire has been extinguished, that the party / separating wall fire stopping and the fire protection in general had failed or shown to be non-existent, the purchaser's property and content insurance could only become "null and void", if it has been established that the insured was in possession of the relevant information and failed to notify the insurers under “Duty of Disclosure”.  Surely a national organisation like HomeBond has similar obligations to both purchasers and insurers alike.  See insurer's policy documents, and the conditions therein. 

THE CIF TOLD TO CLEAN UP ITS ACT BY THE THEN MINISTER, MR RORY QUINN 

HomeBond management and its members (Builders / Developers) are contractually committed to providing principally a structural guarantee to protect home purchasers against cowboy builders / developers.  In principal that is why NHBGC LTD t/a HomeBond was initially setup in conjunction with the Construction Industry Federation (CIF) on the orders of the then DOE Minister, Mr Rory Quinn. 

The HomeBond structural guarantee as provided is primarily conditional upon compliance with our National Mandatory Building and Fire Regulations (Minimum Standards).  Accordantly the guarantee also provides building and contents insurers with a first line of defence against claims emanating as a result of bad workmanship and / or any identifiable non-compliance resulting in structural damage or otherwise, for what was then a period of 6 years, more recently extended to 10 years. 

"Utmost good faith" HomeBond are obliged to notify all potential purchasers and existing home owners and indeed insurers with regards to HomeBond's disclaimers.  Thus empowering / enabling purchasers put their building and content insurers on notice under duty of disclosure.

HomeBond as per their disclaimers, right or wrong, are duty bound to notify all insurers with regards to their stated position, particularly where it is known to HomeBond that such buildings are not in compliance and therefore present an unreasonable risk to people and property where fire is concerned, as per the examples given in the photograph album. 

Note also, structural damage to adjoining property caused by fire spread, due to the inadequacy or otherwise of the said fire protection could vary.  For example, depending upon whether a building was built of timber frame, or masonry construction, noting that timber construction carries the greater risk, insurers should be notified immediately, particularly when the said buildings are known to be blatantly not in compliance.  See Photograph Album, reference Airside apartments and the semi detached houses at Swords of timber frame construction, examples only.  

---