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

Donegalforever

Pique wrote: »

Is there a list of the housing estates affected anywhere?

Yes,
I understand there are housing estate(s) in Letterkenny
and also in Moville effected.
I do not live in either towns but I am sure residents of those areas should have the necessary information.

Donegalforever

RandomViewer wrote: »

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/

If the government does not cover 100% of the costs relating to the "Mica Houses" Charlie's Dail seat will be in great danger at the next G.E.

RandomViewer

RandomViewer wrote: »

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/

There's only one kind of damage limitation going to work, as far as I'm concerned - 100% redress - and I'm not even affected!


It's interesting that they haven't tried wheeling Blaney out since. (afaik)

NIMAN

Donegalforever wrote: »

If the government does not cover 100% of the costs relating to the "Mica Houses" Charlie's Dail seat will be in great danger at the next G.E.

That's an expensive seat!

Sinn Fein will cruise home in Donegal at the next election for sure if this isn't sorted.

But I would be wary of how SF are talking about this issue. They have really got vocal on it since the recent social media campaign went into full gear. They were mostly quiet on the issue before. I suspect they are jumping on it as they see the potential for gaining voters.

Recently Mary Lou was in Donegal and said nothing but 100% redress is acceptable, as the homeowners did nothing wrong. Basically said what the people wanted to hear.

Yet last night on the Matt Cooper tv programme, Eoin O'Broin said the state cannot afford a 100% redress scheme and the industry and insurers will have to pay up as well.

So I think they often say what is needed in a certain situation to garner support. But I have no doubt they are going to gain a lot politically from this scandal. Hopefully they will stand by their promises should they get into power.

Donegalforever

Donegalforever wrote: »

If the government does not cover 100% of the costs relating to the "Mica Houses" Charlie's Dail seat will be in great danger at the next G.E.

More than Charlie's, tbh.
Joe McHugh could well have the same problem, and there are cases now in Mayo, Clare, and Sligo. I wonder if anyone has contacted the other groups?



This is not going away anytime soon. No matter how much spin they try, or how many mouthpieces they wheel out....

NIMAN

[Deleted User] wrote: »

More than Charlie's, tbh.
Joe McHugh could well have the same problem, and there are cases now in Mayo, Clare, and Sligo. I wonder if anyone has contacted the other groups?
..

Listened to the Claire Byrne radio show today, they have been covering it all week.

Today's programme was from Ballina, and talking to a resident there. Apparently there is at least 1000 homes affected by Pyrite there, and their demolition rate of tested houses is 75%.

Think the current rate in Donegal is 25%.
So looks like some other areas might be worse than first thought too.

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

That's an expensive seat!

Recently Mary Lou was in Donegal and said nothing but 100% redress is acceptable, as the homeowners did nothing wrong. Basically said what the people wanted to hear.

Yet last night on the Matt Cooper tv programme, Eoin O'Broin said the state cannot afford a 100% redress scheme and the industry and insurers will have to pay up as well.

Does it actually matter to the homeowners who pays?
I agree that there seems to be two messages there, I'm not defending Sinn Fein, but what I would be wary of is any attempt to put the onus on homeowners to get redress from insurance companies, or the industry, rather than the Government seeking that redress.


Reason being, if any insurance company can find any loophole to prove any block manufacturer, engineer, or A.N. Other was in any way negligible, they will be within their rights to refuse to pay... leaving homeowners on the hook again!

NIMAN

If I was a betting man, I'd say there will be no money coming from insurance companies, banks or block suppliers.

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

If I was a betting man, I'd say there will be no money coming from insurance companies, banks or block suppliers.

Exactly!

babybuilder

Re. Dublin march next Tuesday

I intend going to Dublin next week. My home and a business are affected by mica. However, I'm not happy with the idea of people carrying placards and banners on which the Cassidy name or members of the Cassidy family are written. What are people's views on this? Surely any subsequent legal action or any ongoing litigation could be jeopardized by this. Then the possibility of accusations of being 'judge, jury and executioner' being levelled at the redress group.

Mcdock

What about the other donegal block company's that have supplied bad blocks, not as big a company as cassidys, but there houses are cracking too, no banners with there name.
Seems to be turning into a witch hunt against cassidys

NIMAN

Mcdock wrote: »

What about the other donegal block company's that have supplied bad blocks, not as big a company as cassidys, but there houses are cracking too, no banners with there name.
Seems to be turning into a witch hunt against cassidys

I didn't know other suppliers are guilty of selling bad blocks tbh.

Penfailed

The purpose of the march is to demand 100% redress. It's not to point a finger at Cassidys. I'm not sure how a few placards with the Cassidy name on it would jeopardise any court case either way...?

malinheader

Mcdock wrote: »

What about the other donegal block company's that have supplied bad blocks, not as big a company as cassidys, but there houses are cracking too, no banners with there name.
Seems to be turning into a witch hunt against cassidys

What other company supplied bad blocks.

Mcdock

NIMAN wrote: »

I didn't know other suppliers are guilty of selling bad blocks tbh.

There are others, the mica action group done a survey, and other company s were listed as suppliers, I have seen other company blocks, you can also break up with your hands

Mcdock

malinheader wrote: »

What other company supplied bad blocks.

Quarry in moville

malinheader

Mcdock wrote: »

Quarry in moville

I never heard anyone complaining about their blocks.
Perhaps someone else on here has. In my area seems to be only blocks supplied by Cassidys.

Mcdock

malinheader wrote: »

I never heard anyone complaining about their blocks.
Perhaps someone else on here has. In my area seems to be only blocks supplied by Cassidys.

There are a few in Malin head that have had there outer leaf repaired,

malinheader

Mcdock wrote: »

There are a few in Malin head that have had there outer leaf repaired,

As I said first I heard of it. Anyone I spoke to with a problem used Cassidys blocks. Perhaps someone else has heard of problems from this quarry.

RandomViewer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

More than Charlie's, tbh.
Joe McHugh could well have the same problem, and there are cases now in Mayo, Clare, and Sligo. I wonder if anyone has contacted the other groups?



This is not going away anytime soon. No matter how much spin they try, or how many mouthpieces they wheel out....

I think it's taken that McHughs race is run, he doesn't want the seat, dont think he ever did

jj880

Mcdock wrote: »

Quarry in moville

Registering a new boards account to post this isnt going to add much weight to your claim.

Any evidence? A facebook post from a home owner with mica blocks from this quarry perhaps?

Pique

Donegalforever wrote: »

Yes,
I understand there are housing estate(s) in Letterkenny
and also in Moville effected.
I do not live in either towns but I am sure residents of those areas should have the necessary information.

The reason I ask is because in Diver's twitter video he mentioned my estate and I've heard nothing nor have I seen any evidence of it (yet). 15 years built.

jimmycrackcorm

Deleted User wrote:

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.

The government set standards for many things. E.g food standards. But if people get sick from a bad batch of sausages from a certified meat producer, it doesn't follow that the government is on the hook for that.

Donegalforever wrote:

If the government does not cover 100% of the costs relating to the "Mica Houses" Charlie's Dail seat will be in great danger at the next G.E.

NIMAN wrote:

Sinn Fein will cruise home in Donegal at the next election for sure if this isn't sorted.

Donegal already is a Sinn Fein stronghold so it's not going to be felt as such a huge loss (Pringle might as well be considered Sinn Fein). It would be a totally different angle if Donegal held say, two FF and two FF seats.

Also bear in mind that a lot of voters who aren't affected are questioning why the state should pay out 100% to pay for someone to replace their 2000sq ft five bedroom detached house on a half acre.

Because that's the perception out there, whether it's realistic or not. Don't underestimate the power of begrudgery.

I don't think anyone disagrees that there should be a redress scheme because it's an impossible situation for the affected people otherwise, it's the scope that's at issue.

salonfire

As a middle ground, is it not an option for the affected homeowners to take the redress that's available now and rebuild a smaller, simpler house with it?

Maybe timberframe or something.

Not ideal I know, especially for large families.

But for those who's families have now grown up, it might be more feasible.

Or tailor the redress scheme to the size and ages of the family.

You have to say though, the one off houses in Donegal are huge compared to houses in estates.

Penfailed

salonfire wrote: »

As a middle ground, is it not an option for the affected homeowners to take the redress that's available now and rebuild a smaller, simpler house with it?

Maybe timberframe or something.

Not ideal I know, especially for large families.

But for those who's families have now grown up, it might be more feasible.

Or tailor the redress scheme to the size and ages of the family.

You have to say though, the one off houses in Donegal are huge compared to houses in estates.

No. Why should they? It didn't matter what size the houses were in Leinster with the pyrite scheme. There were huge houses there too.

Penfailed

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The government set standards for many things. E.g food standards. But if people get sick from a bad batch of sausages from a certified meat producer, it doesn't follow that the government is on the hook for that.

That's a terrible analogy.

Technique

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The government set standards for many things. E.g food standards. But if people get sick from a bad batch of sausages from a certified meat producer, it doesn't follow that the government is on the hook for that.

That's not the same thing at all. While the government doesn't check every single food item that we purchase, they have a rigorous system in place which regularly audits food suppliers and catering establishments for adherence to the rules and regulations. The point here is that there was absolutely no auditing or enforcement of the building regulations. All this during a period when the government were making billions from the building boom.

timmyntc

salonfire wrote: »

As a middle ground, is it not an option for the affected homeowners to take the redress that's available now and rebuild a smaller, simpler house with it?

Maybe timberframe or something.

Not ideal I know, especially for large families.

But for those who's families have now grown up, it might be more feasible.

Or tailor the redress scheme to the size and ages of the family.

You have to say though, the one off houses in Donegal are huge compared to houses in estates.

You cant though - if you go for a new build, you need new planning permission, and have to meet current building standards which are far more expensive. And part of the scheme states that if you do a rebuild, you need to reuse all your old fixtures and fittings. So you have to achieve an A2 rated house using old single or double glazed windows, depending on what was in your old house!

Cee-Jay-Cee

Pique wrote: »

The reason I ask is because in Diver's twitter video he mentioned my estate and I've heard nothing nor have I seen any evidence of it (yet). 15 years built.

He also mentioned the Station House Hotel in Letterkenny which was incorrect as it was built using a Letterkenny companies blocks and the few cracks that are in the building are settlement cracks as far as I can see. I think he might have jumped the gun on a few places in that video to garner support however his main message still stands and is very relevant but he really should ensure that he has the correct information before putting videos into the public domain.

Ace2007

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. Let me ask you a few questions.


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

Because that's what your supposed to do if you buy goods/services that are faulty - you take a case against the company that you buy from. For some unknown reason that doesn't want to be made public, this has never happen in the history of these mica issues - which depending on what social media post you read/listen to has not just happened in the last 3 years - some have been having the problem 5 years and some even longer than that. So why has no one ever took a case against the supplier and make it public knowledge.

The most recent and similar thing that i can think of that had defective building material used was the Grenfell tower fire - Did the people protest and demand the government pay up? Or did the sue and have the insurance companies on the hook for millions/billions?

Johnson and Johnson were found guilty of having asbestos in products - but did the governments pay out billions for this? no - the insurance companies did. Where is J&J now? making vaccines to save the world.... international investors as you like to put don't really care - because insurance is there to pick up anything. Indeed for those that do care, they can demand a higher yield for their capital.

Insurance companies rob us blind with the premiums individual/companies pay and yet he is what some are describing as an open/shut case against them - except no one is taking legal action. Mind boggles.

And before you say that they folded and reopen under a different name, the OP of this thread said only yesterday that this wasn't accurate, and those campaigning have made a similar statement recently - Any half decent legal team would be able to confirm that one way or the other - but guessing that didn't happen - or did it and that's why the story has changed in recent days??

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...

If you statement is true about National accreditation service - then those affecting would be taking legal action against them - but they aren't - why is that????

You want to talk about reputational damage - what about the cerivcal cancer scandal - that made world wide headlines where people died and was basically covered up - and those labs all have experts and accreditation services - but legal actions was taken against all the labs. This was probably 1000 times the scandal and yet legal action was still taken and will probably cost a fraction of what the redress scheme is looking for. And you think that the mica issue will have repurational damage internationally - like i said before that being way OTT.

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

What are you talking about? Have firms who have accreditation from companies who failed in numerous medical scandals suffered adversely - of course not. As for your questions is it worth that risk - if as has been posted a chimney fell on a child - what do you think the answer to your question would be?

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.

You say it's been proven - but not in a law of court where it matters. Like i said above it this was an open/shut case the legal cases would be mounting up and that would be public knowledge - but they aren't so what's happened there?

You yourself stated that a quarry that the supplier uses hasn't had any deflective blocks - in which case the accreditation stated on the website would be accurate - would it not?

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?

Because if this is accurate, there would be thousands of legal cases, none more so that potential criminal action being brought against the directors - whether the company has wound up or not (which is very questionable).

So again why has no investigation - civil or criminal ever happened, or made public if it has - just like the numerous other cases I've mentioned above.

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?

It's not for the government to pursue said Company - just look at the Cervical Cancer scandal - dying women had to go to court to fight for their cases. Why didn't the government stand up there and say they would fight for them? Where was the marches on the streets to demand the government etc - these cases are still going on - and sadly long since forgotten in the public yet.