The Present and Future of the Building Inspection System – Board Member Mr. Mehmet TANRIKULU (18 March 2014)
The Building Inspection System, launched on 10.04.2000 with Decree-Law No. 595 on Building Inspection, has reached its current form through many legislative and circular amendments since that date, and as the problems still remain unresolved, it is being revised through a new draft law. The way to solve these problems is to identify them clearly and correctly, to consult with the parties, and to develop solutions. In this regard, I would like to share with you some of the main problems we have encountered as a building inspection company owner since 2006, along with our proposed solutions.
1) With the increase in the number of building inspection companies through the circular dated 05.02.2013, the number of companies operating in Ankara has now reached approximately 250. When the companies of neighbouring provinces located up to 200 km away between governorate buildings, as set out in the earlier circular dated 14.04.2012, are added to these, a race to win business has begun among the companies. Since the building inspection fee that should legally be paid by the building owner is in fact paid by the contractors, companies are forced to take part in this race not by promising better inspection but by offering greater discounts. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to carry out effective building inspection.
For example, if taxis with licence plates registered in Bolu, Çankırı, Kırıkkale and Kırşehir, located within a 200 km distance of Ankara, were legally allowed to operate in Ankara as well, do you think the existing Ankara taxi drivers would remain silent like us architects and engineers?
SOLUTION: A limit should be placed on the number of building inspection companies according to the construction situation in the province. Notaries are a good example of this.
2) Although the Law states that the Building Inspection Service Fee is paid by the building owner, in reality it is paid by the contractors, and therefore the building inspection companies are selected by the contractors. Where in the world has it been seen that the inspected party chooses its own inspector and says, “you inspect me”?
SOLUTION: The work should be gathered into a single pool and distributed to companies through a fair allocation programme, so that the relationship between building inspection and contractor is severed and genuine inspection can be carried out.
3) Companies are having difficulty finding the architect and engineer personnel required of building inspection companies under the Law. Both the large number of building inspection companies and the fact that some architects and engineers work in the public sector and on construction sites as site managers increase the need for architects and engineers.
SOLUTION: The square metres that personnel working in building inspection companies are permitted to inspect should be increased so that, by doing away with signatory engineers, the number of personnel and the burden within the company are reduced.
4) The current Inspection Service Fees are not sufficient for the physical requirements and necessary personnel that building inspection companies are required to provide under the Laws and Regulations, nor for an inspection carried out in the manner described in the Laws and Regulations; nor for a building inspection service to be performed at the minimum fee required by the Professional Chambers and the SGK. On what basis was the calculation made when the minimum rate of 1.5% was set? Moreover, where in the world has it been seen that the price of a service whose costs and responsibilities increase day by day actually decreases?
SOLUTION: A return should be made to the fee rates (3%) set out in the regulation dated 05.02.2008.
5) The additional service fees specified in the circular dated 05.02.2008 were 10% for 6 months, but were changed to an annual 5% by the circular dated 02.08.2013. Moreover, this additional fee is applied not to the portion for which no progress payment has been made, but to the remaining portion of the building still to be constructed. In other words, even though these square metres have not been removed from the company’s account, they are exempt from the additional service fee.
SOLUTION: The additional service fee should be applied to the portion of the building for which no progress payment has been made, and in 6-month tranches of 10%.
6) The use of buildings that remain on the books of building inspection companies because the contractors have not obtained an occupancy permit, but which are opened for use by the contractors or building owners, and even the alterations made to these buildings by the building owners, cause various legal and technical difficulties for building inspection companies.
SOLUTION: It should be possible to remove from the building inspection companies’ books those buildings whose conformity to the licence and its annexed projects has been established by means of a Work Completion Report, even if no occupancy permit has been obtained. Furthermore, if opening a building for use without an occupancy certificate is an offence under the zoning law, has any penalty ever been imposed for this until now? Deterrent and effective measures should be taken in this regard.
In conclusion, the Building Inspection System, launched on 10.04.2000 with Decree-Law No. 595 on Building Inspection, has lost more and more ground every day through the amendments to the Law and the regulations issued up to the present, has been turned into a plaything in the hands of contractors, and has been discredited in society. Today, at the slightest earthquake, people who are unconnected to the matter point to Building Inspection on various press and media outlets as responsible for incorrect and faulty works, yet say nothing about the contractors who share in the blame for these errors or about the lawmakers who have failed to ensure an independent building inspection. For example, after the Van Earthquake of 23 October 2011, which resulted in the deaths of many of our citizens, certain so-called experts who appeared on media outlets, claiming that the inspection companies had failed to fulfil their duty and presenting them to the public as responsible, were unaware that Building Inspection began in the Province of Van only on 01 January 2011 and that not a single building constructed under building inspection collapsed.
The lawmaker also shares in this responsibility — the lawmaker who, using as a pretext a villager building a 200 m² house or a simple barn for himself in the village, in fact amended the regulation in order to remove from the scope of the building inspection law a fattening farm to be built by a major investor; who, in order to punish the companies in our smaller provinces that did not apply the legally prohibited discounts, halved the Minimum Service Fee rate; and who issued circulars to draw the companies in the neighbouring provinces 200 km away into this so-called discount race.
The greatest task of rescuing building inspection companies — which bear excessive responsibility yet have no authority — from this situation, and of ensuring a genuine and independent building inspection, falls first upon the lawmakers and then upon us architects and engineers, who must act in accordance with professional ethics and morals.
