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

MrMusician18

NIMAN wrote: »

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.

I think what would be fair is that the 90% should be treated like an insurance claim. The work to be done is assessed. The homeowner paid and free build whatever they want with the award. Such a scheme requires a lot of controls though.

Cee-Jay-Cee

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I think what would be fair is that the 90% should be treated like an insurance claim. The work to be done is assessed. The homeowner paid and free build whatever they want with the award. Such a scheme requires a lot of controls though.

Yeah that would be a problem. I have already heard of people abusing the current system. A case where the outer leaf is being rebuilt and a bill for €125k for the job has been submitted and approved by the CoCo however the job is only actually costing him €75k. I am currently trying to get more details on this person and will be reporting them to the CoCo and possibly the Gardai too. It’s people like that that will mess it up for genuine cases.

NIMAN

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I think what would be fair is that the 90% should be treated like an insurance claim. The work to be done is assessed. The homeowner paid and free build whatever they want with the award. Such a scheme requires a lot of controls though.

But this would mean all such homeowners would have to reapply for planning permission for the new build, with all the cost and delay associated with this.

Ace2007

NIMAN wrote: »

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.

That was one of the points i mentioned, but on the flip do you allow people to design bigger houses for their needs, and who covers that cost?

Or is someone wants the same size house for whatever reason, but want a downstairs bathroom, or change doors to allow for wheelchair - do they cover that expenses. I would say yes obviously but others might say no.

What is the plans that were used to build aren't available - who covers that cost

NIMAN

Ace2007 wrote: »

That was one of the points i mentioned, but on the flip do you allow people to design bigger houses for their needs, and who covers that cost?

Or is someone wants the same size house for whatever reason, but want a downstairs bathroom, or change doors to allow for wheelchair - do they cover that expenses. I would say yes obviously but others might say no.

What is the plans that were used to build aren't available - who covers that cost

All valid points of course.

And probably the reason the government insisted the same house is rebuilt, so that people don't change anything , or build the house they always wanted!

But remember, 99% of people would be more than happy to have their house rebuilt exactly as it was when it was first constructed.

Shocked to hear someone is on the make with a fraudulent claim. That is embarrassing and I really hope they are found out.

RandomViewer

NIMAN wrote: »

But this would mean all such homeowners would have to reapply for planning permission for the new build, with all the cost and delay associated with this.

Good chance a lot would be refused as planning rules have changed and the council are notoriously slow at processing planning applications, An bord pleanala appeals

Ace2007

NIMAN wrote: »

All valid points of course.

And probably the reason the government insisted the same house is rebuilt, so that people don't change anything , or build the house they always wanted!

But remember, 99% of people would be more than happy to have their house rebuilt exactly as it was when it was first constructed.

Shocked to hear someone is on the make with a fraudulent claim. That is embarrassing and I really hope they are found out.

Also point to consider is what about those who have a conservatory out back or have built and extension that does not have any fault, but given how it might be connected to the old house - would a redress scheme cover that?

What if a house was built when two stories were allowed but since then the CoCo only allow duplex houses - could someone object to it being rebuilt?

The existing scheme only applies to PPR, are the campaigners seeking to have this apply to holiday homes or other non PPR places.

Finally, and probably a big factor, what if due to the scarcity of builders, some builders try to take the piss with quotes as sure it's the state paying. The last thing anyone would want is a BAM type situation where there are constant delays and the fees quoted are never enough.

It's for all this reasons that home owners will have to take some of the pain. If money is coming out of your pocket you'll be sure to get the builder than won't rip to you off etc.

Technique

I heard today that Cassidy's are supplying blocks to a new development in Lusk. Now they could be the best blocks in the world, but if I was a potential buyer it would spook me big time.

muffler

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.

Maybe contact the mica action group directly and put those questions to them.

Ace2007

muffler wrote: »

Maybe contact the mica action group directly and put those questions to them.

Ha, i think it's just important that they understand what they are actually asking the government for. Shouting that you want 100% redress without defining what that means will mean one thing for those on one side of the table, and something completely different for someone else.

NIMAN

Technique wrote: »

I heard today that Cassidy's are supplying blocks to a new development in Lusk. Now they could be the best blocks in the world, but if I was a potential buyer it would spook me big time.

I checked their website for the 1st time recently, and I seen some of the projects they list as work they've done.

Canary Wharf in London, and some in Dublin. But only public spaces by the looks of it, no buildings.

NIMAN

muffler wrote: »

Maybe contact the mica action group directly and put those questions to them.

Talking of the MAG, I see they got an audience with An Taoiseach, and the 100%redress crowd weren't invited.

I hope it doesn't lead to any split, cos this would be terrible for the campaign.

MrMusician18

NIMAN wrote: »

But this would mean all such homeowners would have to reapply for planning permission for the new build, with all the cost and delay associated with this.

I'd have no problem if a special amendment was made to planning law that exempted these houses from planning if the overall height, size, were smaller and position and character were similar to the original.

There is a lot that can be done to improve the process without making it more expensive for all concerned.

NIMAN

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I'd have no problem if a special amendment was made to planning law that exempted these houses from planning if the overall height, size, were smaller and position and character were similar to the original.

There is a lot that can be done to improve the process without making it more expensive for all concerned.

You'd think with the size of this crisis, they would try to get rid of as much red tape as they could to speed things up. But I think this process could be a decade long thing at least, as homes are in much different stages of decline. Some might be 10 years away from needing the work done, and some need done asap before walls fall out.

I would like to think that if the scheme really gets up and running, homes will be graded on how bad they are and how urgent the work is.

malinheader

Technique wrote: »

I heard today that Cassidy's are supplying blocks to a new development in Lusk. Now they could be the best blocks in the world, but if I was a potential buyer it would spook me big time.

Do you know who the contractor is.

IP freely

NIMAN wrote: »

Talking of the MAG, I see they got an audience with An Taoiseach, and the 100%redress crowd weren't invited.

I hope it doesn't lead to any split, cos this would be terrible for the campaign.

One group is quietly going about their business in the background, although i have to admit i didnt even know they had exsisted until fairly recently, not in the public eye.

The 100% redress scheme is mainly made up of people who are quite frankly and rightly, fed up by the lack of action being taken and are openly criticising anyone any anything that puts up a barrier. IMO in the short time the redress group has been up has done far far more to move the mica issue into the limelight than anything up till now.

That is why the politicians (bar Sinn Fein because of the obvious anger at other politicians too) ect will want to be seen to be doing something but will do it with the nicey nicey group.

Both have their merits but both very different IMO.

To use an analogy, one is twitter the other is boards. :pac:

Technique

malinheader wrote: »

Do you know who the contractor is.

No sorry. I read it on the internet so believe it at your own risk!!

Mcdock

jj880 wrote: »

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?

If you check the 100% redress Facebook page there are homeowners, who state that there blocks came from that quarry.
Or check the poll that Eileen Doherty who used to be in the mica action group done that states this also

Mcdock

jj880 wrote: »

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?

If you check the 100% redress Facebook page there are homeowners, who state that there blocks came from that quarry.
Or check the poll that Eileen Doherty who used to be in the mica action group done that states this also

jj880

How realistic is this?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/residential/arid-40305056.html

The cost of everything seems to be getting out of control.

Mcdock

jj880 wrote: »

How realistic is this?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/property/residential/arid-40305056.html

The cost of everything seems to be getting out of control.

Guy in Chambers blocks recons blocks could be double the price within the next 2 years

jj880

Mcdock wrote: »

If you check the 100% redress Facebook page there are homeowners, who state that there blocks came from that quarry.
Or check the poll that Eileen Doherty who used to be in the mica action group done that states this also

Ok I searched. Couldn't find the poll. Maybe its gone. Eileen Doherty has a survey in though: https://m.facebook.com/story/graphql_permalink/?graphql_id=UzpfSTYzNDkyMjI1ODpWSzoyOTg5NDEzNTUxMTkxOTY%3D

I see there are very low percentages from other quarries.

Dont see any homeowners posts. If you know anyone search them by name from the redress group and link to them here or PM me.

Mcdock

I don't know any by name it was about a month ago, they said there house tested positive for mica,
Cassidys defo supplied most of them mine included, they must have had at least 80% of the market share between inishowen and letterkenny

If I find
it I will pm you

jj880

Mcdock wrote: »

Guy in Chambers blocks recons blocks could be double the price within the next 2 years

Its crazy. Reading that article it's obvious to see who wouldnt be happy with low cost housing with low or zero energy bills. Electricity suppliers, the government with all their carbon taxes, oil suppliers, grant aided solar panel suppliers that only heat hot water tanks and building material suppliers would rage against it. We need to get our sh!t together with the price of housing. This redress scheme could be a massive opportunity to move in the right direction.

RandomViewer

Mcdock wrote: »

If you check the 100% redress Facebook page there are homeowners, who state that there blocks came from that quarry.
Or check the poll that Eileen Doherty who used to be in the mica action group done that states this also

But did the quarry make the blocks or just bought in blocks from you know who

jimmycrackcorm

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Yeah that would be a problem. I have already heard of people abusing the current system. A case where the outer leaf is being rebuilt and a bill for €125k for the job has been submitted and approved by the CoCo however the job is only actually costing him €75k. I am currently trying to get more details on this person and will be reporting them to the CoCo and possibly the Gardai too. It’s people like that that will mess it up for genuine cases.

This is a huge potential problem for the taxpayer and is significant enough to warrant that the scheme shouldn't be 100%. If you have to put some of your own money into it, you'll be less inclined to inflate the figure.

We all pay for this fraud.

NIMAN wrote: »

But this would mean all such homeowners would have to reapply for planning permission for the new build, with all the cost and delay associated with this.

The original planning conditions should be allowed to apply. If you put a twenty-year-old car through the NCT, it only has to pass the standards that apply for it originally even if you replace the rusted bodyshell.

RandomViewer

I think if the state gets a deal on the testing and the engineers report it could make things a lot easier, get the cost of the cores pushed down and employ an engineer directly , seems to have been some gouging

jimmycrackcorm

IP freely wrote: »

One group is quietly going about their business in the background, although i have to admit i didnt even know they had exsisted until fairly recently, not in the public eye.

The 100% redress scheme is mainly made up of people who are quite frankly and rightly, fed up by the lack of action being taken and are openly criticising anyone any anything that puts up a barrier. IMO in the short time the redress group has been up has done far far more to move the mica issue into the limelight than anything up till now.

That is why the politicians (bar Sinn Fein because of the obvious anger at other politicians too) ect will want to be seen to be doing something but will do it with the nicey nicey group.

Both have their merits but both very different IMO.

To use an analogy, one is twitter the other is boards. :pac:

As I listen to the ads on Highland about going up to Dublin for the demonstration on the 15th, I can't help reflect that it's going to be in a city where people are paying extortionate amounts for basic housing or rent.

There's not going to be a huge amount of sympathy for 100% redress.

Ace2007

jj880 wrote: »

Its crazy. Reading that article it's obvious to see who wouldnt be happy with low cost housing with low or zero energy bills. Electricity suppliers, the government with all their carbon taxes, oil suppliers, grant aided solar panel suppliers that only heat hot water tanks and building material suppliers would rage against it. We need to get our sh!t together with the price of housing. This redress scheme could be a massive opportunity to move in the right direction.

Ok let's say that redress scheme follow this man's lead and build all the houses for 150k. You will then have home owners paying a mortgage that could be 200k, and be in negative equity straight away. They could then be living in houses that no one want to buy or wouldn't touch for the price, as they could too build a house of their own for 150k. I don't think that will fly with the residents, who want their houses rebuilt to the way they built them.

As for the carbon tax - if you don't tax it we'll never get the emissions down and hit targets - we'll be fined from Europe.

Ace2007

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

As I listen to the ads on Highland about going up to Dublin for the demonstration on the 15th, I can't help reflect that it's going to be in a city where people are paying extortionate amounts for basic housing or rent.

There's not going to be a huge amount of sympathy for 100% redress.

Exactly - and shouting you want 100% redress without stating what that means won't win any sympathy.

I also find the day a bit odd - protesting on a random Tuesday in Dublin when 90% of office workers are at home, so their protest won't affect anyone really. Surely those who have jobs or those with kids won't be able to take part in the protest????, which won't leave too many??