There is no other word to express the way how demolitions are carried out in this country: purely and simply a jungle. No licence is required to be a building contractor, no license is required to operate a crane, no license is required to operate a Hymac, no license is required to operate any of the machinery used for the demolition of buildings and their excavations.

We have witnessed many accidents and a number of deaths related to demolition and exactions: we still remember the Cathedral street tragedy, the St Paul’s Bay tragedy, the Hamrun tragedy and many other accidents where contractors tend to compete between themselves as to who demolishes what in the shortest time possible, thus rendering the lives and the building of the tenants of the adjacent property untenable.

It is a shame that these people are being allowed to enforce the law of the jungle precisely because there are no rules and regulations which govern demolition and excavation.

It is a bigger shame that MEPA does not see this as a problem yet, and it is giving the cold shoulder to neighbouring tenements on the pretext that the neighbours can go to court if they suffer any damages.

MEPA is also defeating the civil law provisions regarding the mandatory 76cm distance one is bound to leave from the party wall when excavations take place. It is an accomplice to the false plans that are being submitted since the area of the basement or basements does not reflect the 76cm distance. But none of the officials have suffered any tragedy or damages to their property, thank God, caused by works of demolition or excavation, as otherwise it will definitely change its policy and decide to adopt the law and ensure that any development will cause the least inconvenience to neighbours.

What is the situation at present? The system allows the contractor to cause as much damage to neighbouring property as he can and even render such property as a dangerous structure because there is no deterrent at law. Until recently, these people got away with murder because a fine for them is like buying an ice cream. I am happy to say that the two recent judgments given by Magistrate Silvio Meli, wherein two contractors were given a two-month jail term, was a breath of fresh air. We all know of cases where the nieghbour is not willing to sell the property and out of spite the demolition and excavations adjacent are carried in such a way as to render his property unsafe and inhabitable.

We know of cases where homes of neighbours have suffered widespread damage because of these works, consisting mainly of cracks in the pointing of the façade and in the internal and external plastering; lost continuity between the limestone blocks and the mortar system in the wall adjacent to the works carried out in the neighbouring tenement; cracks in the ceiling and floor tiles; movement of tiles… in other words, they make your home hell. They even force you out of your home because they rendered it a dangerous structure.

But unfortunately, there is no law regulating these people and the victims become the perpetrators in this case and the perpetrators the victims. This is because the victims have to go through the ordeal of filing prohibitory injunctions in court (against a cost) and a court case (against a much higher cost) if the court withholds their application. But what often happens is that they submit the argument before the court that the neighbours are not suffering any irreparable damage because all damages will be paid by the insurance. As if forcing me out of my home and rendering my home a war zone is not causing me irreparable damage!

Even the insurance companies share part of the blame. On the one hand they issue policies which exclude insurance cover if certain types of machinery are used, but when it comes to court they take the contractor’s side and ensure that all the damages will be covered. However, they do not accept to be held jointly and severally responsible together with the owners and the contractors, so that if the Court decides that the cause of the damage was demolition and excavation caused by one type of machinery and that type of machinery is not covered by the insurance, the insurance will not make good for that damage. Insurance companies must make it mandatory for the contractor and the owner to submit a list of the machinery which they will endorse prior to the commencement of the works.

I am afraid to say that the neighbours have no voice in the matter, and the system allows the contractor to cause damages to their house. It is not true that such damages are indispensable for excavation and demolition works because when such works are carried out diligently, no harm is caused to any neighbouring tenements. But when these works are bulldozed in 24 or 48 hours out of greed and irresponsibility, then the damages are foreseen and I see no reason why these people should be arraigned in court with involuntary damages when they know that what they are doing will definitely cause damage to the adjacent properties.

People are being deprived of their homes. People are being moved out of their homes and placed in holiday apartments until their house is declared safe again. People are being deprived of a life, because let’s face it, all this brings with it a lot of stress and a lot of money to deal with architect and court and legal expenses. This is not right because first of all, if you do not have money, you cannot stand for your rights; secondly, the money you might have put apart for a holiday for your family or for buying something to yourself is spent on the irresponsibility and nonchalance of others.

The situation is now getting out of control and one has to witness the stress and the trauma which this is causing the people, especially elderly people whose only safe havens are those of their home. I expect the BICC to do something about it and fast, so that contractors must all be licensed, so that operators of demolition, excavation and building machinery be all licensed, so that information on site as to the name of the contractor, of the owner and of the architect be made mandatory, so that regulations on the type of and the method of excavation and demolition be put in place.

MEPA can no longer remain idle: it is high time that the authority demands that the architect submits details of how the demolition and excavation will be carried out and the machinery to be used, before approving any permit. It must also stop hiding behind the famous words “saving third party rights” and endorse in the conditions of the permit that excavations must be made 76cm from the party wall. It is not true that these tragedies are accidental because any architect can foresee what might happen. It is high time that even MEPA board members are brought to book for being an accomplice to all this.

It is high time to stop the current system that it is OK to ruin your neighbour’s property!