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

RandomViewer

Ace2007 wrote: »

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??





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.



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?





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?



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.



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.

Cassidys had multiples of the allowable level of Mica, Insurance can walk away ,

Ace2007

RandomViewer wrote: »

Cassidys had multiples of the allowable level of Mica, Insurance can walk away ,

Yet they haven't walked away have they - the company in question whether under a new name or not is still in business, and would have to have some level of insurance.

I don't think you understand how insurance contracts work and what the lifetime of the insurance is. Look at the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy - The insurance companies had to pay hundreds of millions despite the fact that it was a known issue. This didn't fall on the UK government and taxpayers.

If the insurance companies found that the Directors lied etc, then that's a case for criminal charges. But again for some reason none of those involved have bothered to go down this route - why??

On home insurance - Just because on an insurance company says they won't pay out doesn't mean that's legally binding - just look at the recent FBD insurance with covid. And look how quick that went through the courts - all in less than a year.

I feel terrible for any of the homeowners affected, but read any comment section the news articles and people query when it's being left to the government to fund the fixing of this. Demanding the government writes a blank check without first going after the supplier is not going to get the general public on side. Even SF stated that the country couldn't afford to cover 100% of the costs - for them to come out and say that tells you everything you need to hear.

NIMAN

The block supplier made a profit of €1.5m in 2019 afaik.

How are they going to be able to cover €1bn minimum?

Not sure how insurance for these companies work? I take it Cassidys would have taken insurance against them being sued by anyone for any reason, assuming it would stand up in court? Would bad materials be covered, if they knew they were supplying bad materials? Or does that become a civil matter against the directors?

Since mica is now being seen in properties as far back as 1996, could their insurance companies who covered them for the last 25 years be forced to pay? What's to stop the insurance companies saying "sure there was no way for us to test the blocks, we aren't liable"?

Pique

When did people first 'know' about mica in Cassidy's products?

NIMAN

Pique wrote: »

When did people first 'know' about mica in Cassidy's products?

Afaik, around maybe 2014

Ace2007

NIMAN wrote: »

The block supplier made a profit of €1.5m in 2019 afaik.

How are they going to be able to cover €1bn minimum?

Not sure how insurance for these companies work? I take it Cassidys would have taken insurance against them being sued by anyone for any reason, assuming it would stand up in court? Would bad materials be covered, if they knew they were supplying bad materials? Or does that become a civil matter against the directors?

Since mica is now being seen in properties as far back as 1996, could their insurance companies who covered them for the last 25 years be forced to pay? What's to stop the insurance companies saying "sure there was no way for us to test the blocks, we aren't liable"?

I know nothing about this company below and just googled quarry insurance and they came up, which gives you an idea of what is covered - there could be 20+ different types of insurance.

https://martininsurance.ie/products-liability-insurance-ireland/

Of course a insurance company could say no we aren't paying - just like FBD did with the covid cases - but the courts ruled against them. The insurance company is not just going to be some local company - they will have backers with experience of these sort of payouts. They will obviously have a cap on what they will pay - but would you not exhaust this avenue before going after the government?

How much would the quarry itself be worth?


As an aside, and not an attack on any individual that is affected:

If it's been in houses since 1996, and the issue has been one particular supplier, why then have others being using them for the last 25 years? If i heard a bad story about a builder or any trades person/company i wouldn't touch them. I know that's not much comfort to people but i'm sure the despite warnings signs some people still ploughed ahead perhaps because they were the cheapest option?

Redress is so much more than paying 100% of the rebuild costs.

NIMAN

Pique wrote: »

When did people first 'know' about mica in Cassidy's products?

Afaik, around maybe 2014

jj880

Families need help now not in 10 years time after a potential high court + European legal campaign. It would not take 1 year to get through the courts.

If insurance should pay out for defective blocks then why have a pyrite redress scheme? A precedent was set and now because it's turned into a country wide issue (not just Leinster) we have people on here with all kinds of double standards and nonsensical justification for discrimination. You cant pick who gets help (and what % of the bill is covered) based on county.

Ace2007

jj880 wrote: »

Families need help now not in 10 years time after a potential high court + European legal campaign. It would not take 1 year to get through the courts. .

If it was an open/shut case with the correct legal team then why not? How did the FBD Covid case get through the courts so fast?

But even if the government agreed to 100% rebuild costs (even though that won't cover all the costs, which seems to be getting lost), it won't be fixed this year or next - it will probably take 10 years to fix everyone affected.

jj880

Ace2007 wrote: »

If it was an open/shut case with the correct legal team then why not? How did the FBD Covid case get through the courts so fast?

But even if the government agreed to 100% rebuild costs (even though that won't cover all the costs, which seems to be getting lost), it won't be fixed this year or next - it will probably take 10 years to fix everyone affected.

FBD in the case of COVID decided not to appeal.

On your second point the quicker work begins the better. No-one thinks all houses will be done in 1 or 2 years.

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

If it was an open/shut case with the correct legal team then why not? How did the FBD Covid case get through the courts so fast?

But even if the government agreed to 100% rebuild costs (even though that won't cover all the costs, which seems to be getting lost), it won't be fixed this year or next - it will probably take 10 years to fix everyone affected.

In fairness, have you dealt with the Irish court service?
They are a law (lol) unto themselves

MrMusician18

jj880 wrote: »

Families need help now not in 10 years time after a potential high court + European legal campaign. It would not take 1 year to get through the courts.

If insurance should pay out for defective blocks then why have a pyrite redress scheme? A precedent was set and now because it's turned into a country wide issue (not just Leinster) we have people on here with all kinds of double standards and nonsensical justification for discrimination. You cant pick who gets help (and what % of the bill is covered) based on county.

The claim at the time was that pyrite contaminated fill met the standard that it claimed to as there was no pyrite test included in the standard. That was only because pyrite contamination had never been an issue in Ireland before.

Pyrite was largely a north Dublin issue not a countrywide one as there were only a small number of quarries mostly location in that region involved.

muffler

Ace2007 wrote: »

I don't think you understand how insurance contracts work and what the lifetime of the insurance

You might be surprised at how much Donegal people understand insurance.

Ace2007

Ok let's agreed to disagree on who pays for it.

Could you put a figure of how much the re-dress would cost per house? And what realistically do you expect the government scheme to pay for.

malinheader

Ace2007 wrote: »

Ok let's agreed to disagree on who pays for it.

Could you put a figure of how much the re-dress would cost per house? And what realistically do you expect the government scheme to pay for.

As being someone who is not affected by mica, how much do you think say a young couple with 3 kids or an elderly couple be expected to pay to fix their home just to be able to live in.
Just remember most of these people are paying mortgages at the moment.

Ace2007

malinheader wrote: »

As being someone who is not affected by mica, how much do you think say a young couple with 3 kids or an elderly couple be expected to pay to fix their home just to be able to live in.
Just remember most of these people are paying mortgages at the moment.

And that's the problem right there - the two example you gave - if they have an identical house that costs the same to rebuild - do they get the same costs? A fair answer would be yes. But the actual answer is going to be no - and that's where any redress scheme falls down - as your can't quantify the total cost.

malinheader

Ace2007 wrote: »

And that's the problem right there - the two example you gave - if they have an identical house that costs the same to rebuild - do they get the same costs? A fair answer would be yes. But the actual answer is going to be no - and that's where any redress scheme falls down - as your can't quantify the total cost.

Why does it matter if my house cost me 100,000 and someone else 400,000. I don't see why this should make a difference.

Ace2007

malinheader wrote: »

Why does it matter if my house cost me 100,000 and someone else 400,000. I don't see why this should make a difference.

I didn't say that. I was saying that the in the two examples you gave, if they had identical houses - would you expect the government to pay out the same amount under the redress scheme?

Majority of the country would probably say yes - they cost the same to rebuild so pay them the same.

But the reality is - those seeking redress will say no that's not correct. So it's not just about building the house that people want - would you agree?

NIMAN

malinheader wrote: »

Why does it matter if my house cost me 100,000 and someone else 400,000. I don't see why this should make a difference.

It makes a difference to the political folk who have to sign off on it and sell it to the taxpayer.

The housing minister was asked this on rte1 yesterday, after he had more Or less gave his view about how the average pyrite cost per house in Dublin was 65k, and the average amount allowed in Donegal is going to be 245k.

So he was putting it down to money, and that's why the Donegal scheme wasn't full redress.

He was asked was it about money, he claimed it wasn't. Asked if money was no option, would the mica families get full redress? Iirc, he didn't answer.

jj880

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The claim at the time was that pyrite contaminated fill met the standard that it claimed to as there was no pyrite test included in the standard. That was only because pyrite contamination had never been an issue in Ireland before.

Pyrite was largely a north Dublin issue not a countrywide one as there were only a small number of quarries mostly location in that region involved.

"The quarry" claim they were operating on the government regulations of 2.5N block strength. However they conveniently and repeatedly dont mention the regulation of max 1% mica content which has been in place for over 70 years. Its worth noting that at the same time 10 miles away in Northern Ireland the minimum block strength was 7.5N. So which is worse? Having no standard or having an inadequate standard and ignoring/not enforcing it? Who was involved in lobbying for and legislating this ridiculously low block strength?

People can shout "chase the suppliers insurance" and thats their right to but the government is also culpable here and they know it.

Even after all this the question remains: if you think a mica infested block is ok because it has a higher cement % is it really ok or is it just a waiting game for your house to fall apart also?

Its a nightmare.

NIMAN

A major problem in all this is going to be finding the builders to redo the houses.

There simply won't be enough of them about. It will be a very slow process.

And another thing of note, why do prices get so inflated once a scheme comes into place? I know of an outer leaf that was replaced a few years ago, and afaik it cost approx 10k to 15k to do (that may be labour cost only). Now I am hearing 75k to do, and a homeowner on the radio today said he was quoted 125k.

Ace2007

NIMAN wrote: »

A major problem in all this is going to be finding the builders to redo the houses.

There simply won't be enough of them about. It will be a very slow process.

And another thing of note, why do prices get so inflated once a scheme comes into place? I know of an outer leaf that was replaced a few years ago, and afaik it cost approx 10k to 15k to do (that may be labour cost only). Now I am hearing 75k to do, and a homeowner on the radio today said he was quoted 125k.

If a builder told you that the cost of the cost to rebuild was going to be 300K, and the a scheme was set up and guaranteed to repay the full cost. Do yo think this would satisfy those looking at 100% redress. Or does 100% redress mean much much more than this? To spell it out.

1. Who do you expect to pay any rental bills that you might have while house gets rebuilt?
2. Who do you want to cover cost of storage? Is there enough storage places available?
3. Do you expect the redress scheme to cover all new interiors, kitchens, bathrooms etc even if some houses they are 20 years old and out of date?
4. If the numbers affects include estates - Is there enough free houses available to house them all - and if not - what then?
5. Do you want a freeze on mortgages and if so from when?
6. Is the rebuild limited specifically to the houses, or do garages also count?
7. Do you want each owner to have right to change the design of their house and expect the redress scheme to pay for it?
8. Do you want the redress scheme to pay for any other unexpected costs that might arise that are not related specifically to rebuilding of the house?
9. Do you expect the redress scheme to provide the builders or will this be left to each individual home owner?
10. Do you expect the redress scheme to be an open ended fund, or accept that there will have to be some sort of cap put on each claim?

As you can see it's much much more than simply rebuilding a house.

NIMAN

Question for those who say that someone should be sued to pay for this.

A house is built in 2000.
I buy it in 2010. A structural survey done, all ok.
In 2020 it starts to show signs of Mica.

Would I claim against:
1) the bank who issued the mortgage
2) the block supplier
3) the engineer who signed off on structural survey
4) my house insurer

MrMusician18

jj880 wrote: »

"The quarry" claim they were operating on the government regulations of 2.5N block strength. However they conveniently and repeatedly dont mention the regulation of max 1% mica content which has been in place for over 70 years. Its worth noting that at the same time 10 miles away in Northern Ireland the minimum block strength was 7.5N. So which is worse? Having no standard or having an inadequate standard and ignoring/not enforcing it? Who was involved in lobbying for and legislating this ridiculously low block strength?

People can shout "chase the suppliers insurance" and thats their right to but the government is also culpable here and they know it.

Even after all this the question remains: if you think a mica infested block is ok because it has a higher cement % is it really ok or is it just a waiting game for your house to fall apart also?

Its a nightmare.

The block strength required is normally determined by the structural engineer/designer and 5N block strength to the old standard would've been typical for house building. The problem with a lot of self builders is that they often don't know or understand what these numbers mean.

If the blocks were sold as 2.5N well then there is no coming back from the fact that they are weak. That what they are designed to be. That said, that doesn't excuse the mica/durability issues.

2.5N blocks wasn't a government regulation, It's a standard classification. This probably sounds pedantic but there is a huge difference between a standard and a regulation.

NIMAN

Ace2007 wrote: »

If a builder told you that the cost of the cost to rebuild was going to be 300K, and the a scheme was set up and guaranteed to repay the full cost. Do yo think this would satisfy those looking at 100% redress. Or does 100% redress mean much much more than this? To spell it out.

1. Who do you expect to pay any rental bills that you might have while house gets rebuilt?
2. Who do you want to cover cost of storage? Is there enough storage places available?
3. Do you expect the redress scheme to cover all new interiors, kitchens, bathrooms etc even if some houses they are 20 years old and out of date?
4. If the numbers affects include estates - Is there enough free houses available to house them all - and if not - what then?
5. Do you want a freeze on mortgages and if so from when?
6. Is the rebuild limited specifically to the houses, or do garages also count?
7. Do you want each owner to have right to change the design of their house and expect the redress scheme to pay for it?
8. Do you want the redress scheme to pay for any other unexpected costs that might arise that are not related specifically to rebuilding of the house?
9. Do you expect the redress scheme to provide the builders or will this be left to each individual home owner?
10. Do you expect the redress scheme to be an open ended fund, or accept that there will have to be some sort of cap put on each claim?

As you can see it's much much more than simply rebuilding a house.

I fully agree with you.
A lot of things have to be worked out once the redress scheme is settled.

I honestly think that if the scheme was a true 90/10 scheme, many owners would be happy and would jump on asap.

But it isn't going to work out at 90/10 for a single person, so the scheme as it stands is a misnomer and being falsely presented in the media by the government.

MrMusician18

NIMAN wrote: »

Question for those who say that someone should be sued to pay for this.

A house is built in 2000.
I buy it in 2010. A structural survey done, all ok.
In 2020 it starts to show signs of Mica.

Would I claim against:
1) the bank who issued the mortgage
2) the block supplier
3) the engineer who signed off on structural survey
4) my house insurer

I don't see why the bank would be sued here. You could claim on house insurance if the policy covered it. The engineer, if he had any sense would've caveated his report to visual only and unless there were obvious signs of mica at the time, that's probably a dead end. The builder and block suppliers are where the liability lies.

You would sue the builder, who would in turn sue the block supplier.

NIMAN

MrMusician18 wrote: »

You would sue the builder, who would in turn sue the block supplier.

Say I am not the original owner, I bought 2nd hand.

How do i find out who built the house?

RandomViewer

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

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.

The whole Railway road area ,Blaney,Harte roads ,retail parks are all built on the wash of the Swilly , Cracks are to be expected

NIMAN

The scheme at present insists you have to rebuild exactly the same house.

Would it not be wise if the scheme gave applicants the ability to build a smaller house? Some may have less kids now, or situations have changed and perhaps a smaller house would be acceptable.

MrMusician18

NIMAN wrote: »

Say I am not the original owner, I bought 2nd hand.

How do i find out who built the house?

That information should be in the structures safety file which should be passed to the new owner at closing of the sale.

I don't know when that came into force though, it predates my experience. That said the file is often lost.