The Curse of Defective Concrete (Mica, Pyrrhotite, etc.) in Donegal homes - Read Mod warning Post 1

jj880

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'd be ok with it.

The government failed to regulate the building materials you bought in good faith and failed to hold the suppliers to account so you should hand over a share in your home to the government to fix it.

Not only is that laughable its a very dangerous precedent to set. <SNIP>

Mod/ No personal insults please.

Pique

Is there a list of the housing estates affected anywhere?

NIMAN

Paddy has part2 of the video live this morning.

Some shocking photos from homeowners of their houses in the piece.

So seems that Cassidys didn't wind up the original company and set up a new one. But have no doubt if they are challenged to pay anything, they will simply fold.

Also, and rather worrying, they got a test done on blocks supplied by Cassidys in 2018 to replace an outer leaf on a home. It had 7% Mica. The upper limit acceptable in government guidelines, going back to 1949 is 1%. This proves even the blocks they were providing AFTER mica was a well known issue, still were of poor quality.

Dontfadeaway

NIMAN wrote: »

Paddy has part2 of the video live this morning.

Some shocking photos from homeowners of their houses in the piece.

So seems that Cassidys didn't wind up the original company and set up a new one. But have no doubt if they are challenged to pay anything, they will simply fold.

Also, and rather worrying, they got a test done on blocks supplied by Cassidys in 2018 to replace an outer leaf on a home. It had 7% Mica. The upper limit acceptable in government guidelines, going back to 1949 is 1%. This proves even the blocks they were providing AFTER mica was a well known issue, still were of poor quality.

I don’t understand how they are allowing the current owners to keep going. Are they not worried it’s going to keep happening or are they being checked now?

Also why is anyone still trusting them, you’d think the company would go under.

timmyntc

Dontfadeaway wrote: »

I don’t understand how they are allowing the current owners to keep going. Are they not worried it’s going to keep happening or are they being checked now?

Also why is anyone still trusting them, you’d think the company would go under.

<SNIP>

Mod/ no speculative comments please.

NIMAN

The company closed to the public this last week, as they said there was a drop in orders.

But not sure if they are still supplying material to any other buyers at present?

Ace2007

timmyntc wrote: »

<SNIP>

So i suspect that there is proof and that there are court cases going on. I've read on here that this is going on years - so why has there never been a legal case?

On the government regulations part - regulations change and what might have once passed might not now - but the same goes with anything really.

For instance if you were to believe that the government are at fault or the DCC - then why not take a legal action against them? There are thousands affected, so even a 100 euro from each house would fun the initial legal costs.

NIMAN

Afaik, the possibility of suing the state hasn't been ruled out.

jimmytwotimes 2013

NIMAN wrote: »

Afaik, the possibility of suing the state hasn't been ruled out.

There shud be, fully covered in the east of the country.

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

So i suspect that there is proof and that there are court cases going on. I've read on here that this is going on years - so why has there never been a legal case?

On the government regulations part - regulations change and what might have once passed might not now - but the same goes with anything really.

For instance if you were to believe that the government are at fault or the DCC - then why not take a legal action against them? There are thousands affected, so even a 100 euro from each house would fun the initial legal costs.

MICA regulations have been in place since the 50s.
1% is the maximum allowed in any block. This was not adhered to.

Also blocks supplied by Cassidys in 2018 had 7% MICA - long after regulations changed regarding block strength.

To take a court case against the government you need concrete evidence (pardon the pun) that they knew about it and ignored it. Otherwise they will pass the buck onto the supplier (Cassidys) and they can waive liability by winding up the company.

Ace2007

timmyntc wrote: »

MICA regulations have been in place since the 50s.
1% is the maximum allowed in any block. This was not adhered to.

Also blocks supplied by Cassidys in 2018 had 7% MICA - long after regulations changed regarding block strength.

To take a court case against the government you need concrete evidence (pardon the pun) that they knew about it and ignored it. Otherwise they will pass the buck onto the supplier (Cassidys) and they can waive liability by winding up the company.

But why hasn't anyone taken a case against the supplier if yous are all so sure it's their fault - I've read that it's being going on years. Surely there is at least one person with the resources to fight a legal action against them?

Secondly, why do people continue to use them if people have known about this issue for years? Is it a case there is no one else, or are they the cheapest and so they are used?

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

But why hasn't anyone taken a case against the supplier if yous are all so sure it's their fault - I've read that it's being going on years. Surely there is at least one person with the resources to fight a legal action against them?

Secondly, why do people continue to use them if people have known about this issue for years? Is it a case there is no one else, or are they the cheapest and so they are used?

It's pointless. They cant afford all the payouts - so they will go under or prematurely close the company and reopen with a new name. Same as all the developers in 08. First and foremost people want a fair redress scheme - that the Cassidys face justice is an afterthought.

There is no such thing as corporate accountability in this country.

Most people do not use them any more - only the council, whose motivations are questionable at best.

muffler

Ace2007 wrote: »

But why hasn't anyone taken a case against the supplier if yous are all so sure it's their fault

Thats a fair question and unfortunately I dont know the answer but like yourself I would like to find out.

I do know that affected home owners have been to solicitors but what the legal advice is remains a mystery. Maybe someone closer to the action group could update us if its possible.

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

But why hasn't anyone taken a case against the supplier if yous are all so sure it's their fault - I've read that it's being going on years. Surely there is at least one person with the resources to fight a legal action against them?

Secondly, why do people continue to use them if people have known about this issue for years? Is it a case there is no one else, or are they the cheapest and so they are used?

The original company closed down, and reopened under another name.
They were a limited company, and since they no longer exist, they can't be sued.


There's no realistic option to sue for the majority of those worst affected, ie. Those whose homes have been built the longest.


I have no idea what the legal situation is for the victims who dealt with the current company, but I do know that it would be unwise for them to make either their intentions, or any legal advice they may have received - public.


In any case, the assets of the current company would be unlikely to have enough value to compensate the victims.


Also, imo, there are a lot of questions to be answered about who knew what, and when, who may have failed in their legal obligations, etc.
And, yes, I'm being deliberately vague in my response there, because I have absolutely no wish to compromise any legal proceedings that may be underway...

Ace2007

Deleted User wrote: »

The original company closed down, and reopened under another name.
They were a limited company, and since they no longer exist, they can't be sued.

But when did the original company close down? and as for not having assets - they should have insurance for stuff like this.

By the sounds of it your implying there may be a legal challenge ongoing - although that's not being made public? Interesting though - if that is the case would those taking it accept a NDA or will they fight for everyone and the truth.

jimmycrackcorm

Ace2007 wrote: »

But when did the original company close down? and as for not having assets - they should have insurance for stuff like this.

To take a case and have a claim against assets requires taking a court case before the company can be disposed of and its assets transferred to a new owner. That's why you might read in the news of court cases to have an injunction to freeze assets until a further court hearing can be taken.

So any action would have to revolve around whether or not this transfer of assets was undertaken knowing that they would likely be on the hook.

DrPhilG

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The original company closed down, and reopened under another name.
They were a limited company, and since they no longer exist, they can't be sued.

This has long been mentioned, but the latest video from Diver suggests that it is not the case.

That said, if they were challenged sufficiently then they would do so I'm sure.

Ace2007

DrPhilG wrote: »

This has long been mentioned, but the latest video from Diver suggests that it is not the case.

That said, if they were challenged sufficiently then they would do so I'm sure.

So basically no one knows if the company has closed down and changed names for definite. If the company still exists, then insurance exists (insurance for this sort of stuff isn't on an annual basis), or at the very least you get the assets frozen through the courts.

But instead of doing this (from everything I've read on here and through social media), those fronting the campaign want the government and tax payers to foot the bill for the whole project, but can't but a number on what that will be?

Instead of saying 100% redress, why not in words say exactly what this means - because every person affected will want something different.

RandomViewer

NIMAN wrote: »

The company closed to the public this last week, as they said there was a drop in orders.

But not sure if they are still supplying material to any other buyers at present?

The parts of the company under the Cassidy banner, they've a number of quarries they bought that retained their original names

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

But when did the original company close down? and as for not having assets - they should have insurance for stuff like this.

By the sounds of it your implying there may be a legal challenge ongoing - although that's not being made public? Interesting though - if that is the case would those taking it accept a NDA or will they fight for everyone and the truth.

I have no idea whether there is a legal challenge ongoing. If I were affected, I'd certainly take that step.
Accordingly, I choose not to say anything that could compromise any legal challenges that may either be ongoing, or may be taken in the future..



As to when some of the original companies closed down, I don't have time to search for all the detail, however, this should demonstrate that certainly, there have been closures...
https://www.vision-net.ie/Company-Info/Cassidy-Brothers-Concrete-Products-Limited-48913

Cassidy ABOUT US page: https://www.cassidybros.ie/about-us/
Some interesting claims there, in light of what we know...

Ace2007

Deleted User wrote: »

I have no idea whether there is a legal challenge ongoing. If I were affected, I'd certainly take that step.
Accordingly, I choose not to say anything that could compromise any legal challenges that may either be ongoing, or may be taken in the future..



As to when some of the original companies closed down, I don't have time to search for all the detail, however, this should demonstrate that certainly, there have been closures...
https://www.vision-net.ie/Company-Info/Cassidy-Brothers-Concrete-Products-Limited-48913

You sent me a link to a company that status is normal and was set up in 1974.

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

You sent me a link to a company that status is normal and was set up in 1974.

Did you read it?

Cassidy Brothers Concrete Products Limited was set up on Wednesday the 28th of August 1974. Their current partial address is Donegal, and the company status is Normal. The company's current directors have been the director of 15 other Irish companies between them; 6 of which are now closed. Cassidy Brothers Concrete Products Limited has 5 shareholders.

If you want further information, the CRO (Company registration office) has a search portal, I believe...

Ace2007

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you read it?

Yea i did, but those directors could have been director of any company 35 years ago that closed and it's always on their record - it doesn't mean it was the same company.

Why is it that other posters and some social media posts are saying that the ltd company wasn't folded?

If you want to get support from everyone the facts need to add up - and not you think this or that, or maybe they folded and reopened and maybe there is a legal trial but maybe not. Do you think that is going to gain the support of the country - the same country whom you want to hand over billions for free.

NIMAN wrote: »

Paddy has part2 of the video live this morning.

Some shocking photos from homeowners of their houses in the piece.

So seems that Cassidys didn't wind up the original company and set up a new one. But have no doubt if they are challenged to pay anything, they will simply fold.

Also, and rather worrying, they got a test done on blocks supplied by Cassidys in 2018 to replace an outer leaf on a home. It had 7% Mica. The upper limit acceptable in government guidelines, going back to 1949 is 1%. This proves even the blocks they were providing AFTER mica was a well known issue, still were of poor quality.

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

Yea i did, but those directors could have been director of any company 35 years ago that closed and it's always on their record - it doesn't mean it was the same company.

Why is it that other posters and some social media posts are saying that the ltd company wasn't folded?

If you want to get support from everyone the facts need to add up - and not you think this or that, or maybe they folded and reopened and maybe there is a legal trial but maybe not. Do you think that is going to gain the support of the country - the same country whom you want to hand over billions for free.

And yet, I know for a fact that my local branch of Cassidys closed and reopened some years ago. At approx. the same time the MICA issues were becoming known. That particular quarry does not appear to have MICA issues, interestingly.



Cassidys appear to have a number of Companies, as part of a larger umbrella group - all quarry and concrete products related. Whereas there are many legitimate business reasons for effectively separating Companies within the same umbrella group, closing 6 companies, while remaining in the same market, is unusual, from a marketing perspective. Reputable Companies tend to build up reputations, over time, and to jealously guard the names of said companies....


Here's a link from Aug 2018:


https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/its-basically-built-nothing-better-13088564


Parts of that house were built with up to 58.5% mica contaminated blocks.
The standard, since 1949, is 1%.
Yet, we see various accreditation certificates on Cassidys website.
ttps://www.cassidybros.ie/certification-technical-support/


Note. NSAI accreditation.


https://www.nsai.ie/about/our-services/


What We Do

NSAI (National Standards Authority of Ireland) is Ireland’s official standards body.
We operate under the National Standards Authority of Ireland Act (1996) and we are accountable to the Minister for Business, Employment and Retail. As Ireland’s Official standards body, NSAI aims to inspire consumer confidence and create the infrastructure for products and services to be recognized and relied on, all over the world.

Where a standard already exists, NSAI works with businesses to help them apply it. Where a standard may be needed, NSAI will work with relevant parties at national or international level to create and develop the appropriate standard. NSAI improves the performance of Irish business and protects consumers through the setting of standards and issuing of certification in the quality and safety of goods and services.

So, effectively, if Cassidys - or any other company, for that matter, were accredited by the NSAI - which they should have been - then, given they are accountable to the MInister for business, employment and retail, then there is a case to answer as to why these standards were not adhered to, what checks were carried out, whether the accrediting agency carried out the checks, and, if not, why not? etc, etc.

That should answer your questions as to why the Government should - and are clearly willing to - pay compensation.


As to why some people believe Cassidys is not worth suing, this should help:


https://companycheck.co.uk/company/IE048913/CASSIDY-BROTHERS-CONCRETE-PRODUCTS-LIMITED/financials


The net worth of the Company, unless it has increased drastically, quite simply wouldn't be adequate - and then there's the little matter of accreditation....

Ace2007

Not going to quote the whole post - but you seem to be implying that the supplier has no insurance (as you only talk about their assets) and the people affected cannot claim of that? Has no one in the five/eight thousand plus homes thought about that? That's the whole reason why insurance exists!!!!!

100% Redress is what is being asked for - not compensation - they are two different things but i'm sure you know this already. If you gave 200k compensation to every home affected - it still wouldn't fix the problem. Again - something no one can put a number on - it's going to be different for every single person.

To put into context and i'm sure the government are considering this - your basically asking them to write a blank check to fix a problem that wasn't of their making - whether you agree or not - at the end of the day people bought off the company even after it was widely known problem??? Why?

If it was a case that that was a class action brought against the supplier and went through the courts and they were found guilty but couldn't pay up for whatever reason, or their insurance was capped, then society and/or government would be probably more fort coming and offering the appropriate redress scheme.

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

Not going to quote the whole post - but you seem to be implying that the supplier has no insurance (as you only talk about their assets) and the people affected cannot claim of that? Has no one in the five/eight thousand plus homes thought about that? That's the whole reason why insurance exists!!!!!

100% Redress is what is being asked for - not compensation - they are two different things but i'm sure you know this already. If you gave 200k compensation to every home affected - it still wouldn't fix the problem. Again - something no one can put a number on - it's going to be different for every single person.

To put into context and i'm sure the government are considering this - your basically asking them to write a blank check to fix a problem that wasn't of their making - whether you agree or not - at the end of the day people bought off the company even after it was widely known problem??? Why?

If it was a case that that was a class action brought against the supplier and went through the courts and they were found guilty but couldn't pay up for whatever reason, or their insurance was capped, then society and/or government would be probably more fort coming and offering the appropriate redress scheme.

1: Are you familiar with Cassidys insurance details? I'm certainly not!


2: You don't need to quote the whole post. A response to the accreditation issue would be welcome, though....

Ace2007

[Deleted User] wrote: »

1: Are you familiar with Cassidys insurance details? I'm certainly not!


2: You don't need to quote the whole post. A response to the accreditation issue would be welcome, though....

Every product sold has insurance - it’s how companies protect themselves - from a child toy or a car and certainly something used to buy houses - if it’s indeed the blocks that are at fault.

On the accreditation - can’t really comment but if you think about how testing is done - not every single block is tested, and even from your own post above you started that in one quarry there were no issues - so that would have pass the test?

malinheader

Ace2007 wrote: »

Every product sold has insurance - it’s how companies protect themselves - from a child toy or a car and certainly something used to buy houses - if it’s indeed the blocks that are at fault.

On the accreditation - can’t really comment but if you think about how testing is done - not every single block is tested, and even from your own post above you started that in one quarry there were no issues - so that would have pass the test?

I think the accreditation of the company and the product and including the inspection and testing that should of been carried out by which ever government or state body including our own county council was verified when blocks came back after testing containing over 50% mica.

You don't need to test every single block, a sample of the aggregate being used by the quarry would of shown the scale of mica.

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

Every product sold has insurance - it’s how companies protect themselves - from a child toy or a car and certainly something used to buy houses - if it’s indeed the blocks that are at fault.

On the accreditation - can’t really comment but if you think about how testing is done - not every single block is tested, and even from your own post above you started that in one quarry there were no issues - so that would have pass the test?

Ok. Let me ask you a few questions.


1. Why are you so interested in pushing the insurance angle?


2. How much reputational damage do you think Ireland Inc. would suffer internationally if our National accreditation service was found to be unfit for purpose? (Or, for that matter, even if it weren't!) Let's be realistic. large Investors aren't known for taking stupid risks...


3. How much do you think such reputational damage would cost reputable firms in loss of business, and is it worth that risk?


4. Why, when accreditation is mentioned, do you suddenly switch to questioning whether the blocks are at fault? There is no question but that they are... It has been proven, multiple times.


5. Why do you choose to ignore results that prove the affected blocks had, in some cases, 57.5 times the permitted amount of MIca?

Lastly, why are you so anxious for homeowners to pursue claims against an Insurance company? You undoubtedly know that the Government would be well within their rights to pursue said Company if they felt it would help pay the redress... and undoubtedly would counter-sue said Company if a class action were taken, if they felt they had due course?

RandomViewer

Micky Martin and Charlie Chuckles on damage limitation in Donegal today,

https://www.highlandradio.com/2021/06/10/taoiseach-pays-low-key-visit-to-donegal/