What are OCTs on a building project? Do they thoroughly monitor the construction process? Do favourable reports from an OCT provide any guarantee?
With the entry into force of the LOE (the Spanish Building Act, Ley de Ordenación de la Edificación), developers are required to take out 10-year structural insurance (seguro decenal) to cover construction defects that may arise in the building over ten years (developments of multi-family residential buildings, not self-builds, which were subsequently excluded).
To obtain this 10-year structural insurance, and therefore to cover possible claims after construction, insurers require developers to provide certificates issued by an independent Technical Control Body (Organismo de Control Técnico, OCT) to audit on site that the building has been properly constructed and that the design calculations are correct, and to carry out checks, the relevant tests on materials, etc. Those are the OCTs. External agents that monitor the quality of the works.
There are many external entities devoted to this technical control: ATISAE, EUROCONTROL, CEMOSA, BUREAU VERITAS, INDYCCE, QUALIBERICA, etc.
Although originally their existence and purpose were good, today this technical control provides no guarantee at all, since it has become a mere formality, almost automatic, for obtaining the mandatory 10-year structural insurance. It does not involve a real, thorough check of the construction process, but is merely statistical, so that the policy with the insurer can be completed and signed. Little more than a sampling of materials and a few random checks to certify that 100% is fine, which, in any case, is the result they will always tend towards.
The fact that a housing development has been issued favourable certificates and reports by an external OCT unfortunately does not mean it has been properly built, since the fact that they are compulsory means that all developments, including the most damaged, have obtained these certificates; and besides, it would be a fine thing if an OCT’s reports were to state that the construction was known to be defective… when the normal thing is for building defects to appear over time.
If you have any questions, please consult us.
Any questions?