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

NIMAN

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

According to Senator Marie Sherlock in the Seanad yesterday, you wouldn't claim against any of them - because the statute of limitations on product liability is limited to 10 years.

Ace2007 wrote: »

There is nothing wrong from stating in public that there are x legal cases - it hasn’t affected any other case - for example those sueing under the cervical cancer - those cases are openly discussed in the media. As for nothing mentioning the HSE - there no reason - but since you brought it up - they are being sued - the government aren’t been asked to pay up - they are being sued and forced to.

I understand that they own more than one quarry but the link you provided wasnt for a Speedo i quarry was it? I might be wrong there and can’t check currently.

I have sympathy and if you seen my other posts where I’ve stated that we’ll agree to disagree on the funding - and go on to state it’s much much more than covering the cost of the rebuild.

The reality of the situation whether they agree or not is that the government isn’t going to write a blank cheque and so it’s important that the 100% redress group know exactly what they are demanding and what’s included as no one here seems to know. Even SF have said in recent days that the state can’t afford to cover full costs - that tells you everything that you need to know if main opposition party won’t promise the sun moon and stars.

See above. Apparently the options for legal redress are rather limited.


Secondly, who do you think funds the HSE?



Are you actually going to deny that the Government has a duty to legislate, and that said legislation should be fit for purpose?
A ten year statute of limitations on blocks that are expected to have a life expectancy of 80 to 100 years is beyond pathetic..

muffler wrote: »

With a view to looking for money basically. Can the government sue Cassidys and / or their insurers. Can the seek financial redress in turn from insurance companies, banks etc

It seems only a very few, whose houses showed Mica contamination within 10 years of the blocks being supplied can sue Cassidys.

Which is pathetic!


I don't know about insurers - I suspect it probably depends on individual policies - and I also suspect the insurers will put up a fight re: the statute of limitations.


Surprise, surprise - Irish consumer protection is inadequate, and Corporate, shall we say, wrongdoing, is apparently not punishable by law...


Honestly, if anyone in Donegal ever votes for FF or FG, ever again, I'll seriously have to wonder about their levels of common sense...

Cee-Jay-Cee

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I don't get the hate for RTE here. This has gotten extensive media coverage this last week in particular and is the headline today. All coverage has been softball type with not a single hard questions put to the protestors.

The protestors are ordinary people who just want their homes fixed. They’re not experts or analysts or anything else. Why should they have to answer hard questions?

You really come across as a spiteful individual who would rather see people living in crumbling homes than have you a tax payer have to pay for anything.

You have to remember the government took their fat share of VAT and tax etc from every single item bought by these people when building their homes. They’re tax payers too.

Ace2007

Deleted User wrote: »

.
Honestly, if anyone in Donegal ever votes for FF or FG, ever again, I'll seriously have to wonder about their levels of common sense...

We've had the recession and near collapse of the banks in 07/08
We've had the Cervical Cancer scandal
We've had the Mother and Baby homes scandal

Do you honestly think mica will be the straw that breaks the camels back, and that SF will deliver?

If there was a viable alternative then maybe, but the fact that a SF TD only said last week that the state can't pay 100% of the costs, shows that they will say anything to anyone to win a vote - today Mary Lou acting like the savior outside the conventional center.

Cee-Jay-Cee

reniwren wrote: »

I really don't understand why there is a redress scheme at all. Surely this should be cases brought against suppliers of the blocks.

Go back to sleep or maybe start reading this thread from the start or are you just another troll looking to upset people. 🙄

jimmycrackcorm

NIMAN wrote: »

So you want people to relocate to a new location? And to leave detached houses, many built on family land, to move into housing estates?

Can't see that working. But maybe you're just trolling.

Having the existing site obviously reduces the cost as an advantage, but it's also perfectly valid to ask why the taxpayer should fund 300k to rebuild a house when there are houses for sale that are sub-200k.

Maxface

I'm not affected by this but I am from up here and know people that are. For a country that values home ownership so much I find it strange that other people from the country are so blasé about the issue. It's very obvious that because it is so many homes and buildings, that's the reason the Government has to step in. Going after the place where the blocks came from wouldn't even make a dent in the redress. Same with the banks and insurance companies. That's all a dead end.

We all aspire to own our own home, save hard and pay for years to have our own place. Look around at the minute and see the current housing crisis. People can't get there own home. Imagine after all that and it starts falling down around you. You can't afford to fix it, bank doesn't care, Insurance company says not our issue. That's not one family it is thousands.

Yes those that caused it should be brought before the courts or some other mechanism. The Taoiseach did say he is talking to the AG about that very issue but the outcome will not solve the issue. This is going to cost a lot of money but it will be over many years and yes this country can well afford to fix this issue regardless of where in the country it is. It is only right. I hope that those affected can get some justice from this all after all of this.

NIMAN

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Having the existing site obviously reduces the cost as an advantage, but it's also perfectly valid to ask why the taxpayer should fund 300k to rebuild a house when there are houses for sale that are sub-200k.

So you want the affected homeowners to go out and buy other properties?

Can't see that working.

And you really think there are 5000-8000 houses for sale in Donegal?

Ish66

100% Redress ? Leo or Bertie did not make the blocks ? Always the taxpayer or Government is to blame ? Why ?

listermint

NIMAN wrote: »

So you want the affected homeowners to go out and buy other properties?

Can't see that working.

And you really think there are 5000-8000 houses for sale in Donegal?

No put it does really put into question the 100% redress question to be fair.

MrMusician18

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

The protestors are ordinary people who just want their homes fixed. They’re not experts or analysts or anything else. Why should they have to answer hard questions?

You really come across as a spiteful individual who would rather see people living in crumbling homes than have you a tax payer have to pay for anything.

You have to remember the government took their fat share of VAT and tax etc from every single item bought by these people when building their homes. They’re tax payers too.

Yes the protestors want their homes fixed, and if you read through my contribution to this thread you'll see practical examples of where I think the scheme can be more user friendly and improved. I don't want to see anyone suffer in a crumbling home. I am happy for the current scheme to be improved in both technical and monetary ways, but there has to be a limit to the States liability. That means the scheme must be capped in some way.

But no I don't apologize for asking hard questions of people seeking an average of €140k compensation (which will increase if they get their way) from the state. They should be prepared for them.

Ish66

How is the state liable ?

muffler

Prime Time on RTE 1 tonight is dealing with the mica issue.

jackboy

Ish66 wrote: »

How is the state liable ?

Issues with blocks have been ongoing with many years and the government have not made a serious effort to sort it.

muffler

Ish66 wrote: »

100% Redress ? Leo or Bertie did not make the blocks ? Always the taxpayer or Government is to blame ? Why ?

Welcome to the Donegal forum.

Were you hibernating? Bertie!!!

Seriously, your lack of current knowledge leads me to believe that you (and some others) are coming here to troll. I'll be keeping a tight eye on this.

Ish66

jackboy wrote: »

Issues with blocks have been ongoing with many years and the government have not made a serious effort to sort it.

Apart from 100% compo, What would you suggest ?

muffler

Ish66 wrote: »

How is the state liable ?

Go back and read the thread

RandomViewer

Ish66 wrote: »

Apart from 100% compo, What would you suggest ?

<SNIP>


Mod/ I previously warned about posting speculative and potentially libelous comments. Have a rest for 3 days.

jackboy

Ish66 wrote: »

Apart from 100% compo, What would you suggest ?

Actually the most important thing is to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Regulations and inspections are required. These companies can never be trusted.

Ish66

muffler wrote: »

Go back and read the thread

I did, I read from the 1st post hence my arguement, If all the gutters made by Wavin went to **** causing water to dampen the property, Who is to blame ? The state ? Go after the block makers, not the state. I believe the block makers in Donegal, Some brothers, Are still in business ?

MrMusician18

Deleted User wrote: »

According to Senator Marie Sherlock in the Seanad yesterday, you wouldn't claim against any of them - because the statute of limitations on product liability is limited to 10 years.





See above. Apparently the options for legal redress are rather limited.


Secondly, who do you think funds the HSE?



Are you actually going to deny that the Government has a duty to legislate, and that said legislation should be fit for purpose?
A ten year statute of limitations on blocks that are expected to have a life expectancy of 80 to 100 years is beyond pathetic..









It seems only a very few, whose houses showed Mica contamination within 10 years of the blocks being supplied can sue <block supplier>

Which is pathetic!


I don't know about insurers - I suspect it probably depends on individual policies - and I also suspect the insurers will put up a fight re: the statute of limitations.


Surprise, surprise - Irish consumer protection is inadequate, and Corporate, shall we say, wrongdoing, is apparently not punishable by law...


Honestly, if anyone in Donegal ever votes for FF or FG, ever again, I'll seriously have to wonder about their levels of common sense...

A friend of mine once remarked that you have more consumer protection buying a TV rather than a house. It was rather glib but has more than a whiff of truth to it.

This is actually a really good post, someone finally explained why the suppliers are escaping liability. To my knowledge during the time these were built, blocks need to be durable for 60 years while, the structures overall need to be for 30 years. Open to correction there though.

An interesting political question though is that after this debacle, if the government cannot expect to retain Donegal seats no matter how much they spend, what is the incentive to spend anything at all?

Cee-Jay-Cee

MrMusician18 wrote: »

An interesting political question though is that after this debacle, if the government cannot expect to retain Donegal seats no matter how much they spend, what is the incentive to spend anything at all?

I believe if a fair scheme is drafted by the government then they will retain their seats on the strength of it however Charlie McConalogue will have to start making a lot more noise if he wants his seat because up until now he’s been less than useless.

Ish66

Ish66 wrote: »

I believe the block makers in Donegal, Some brothers, Are still in business ?

Currently supplying to the council on a social housing scheme, if facebook is able to be believed.

malinheader

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I believe if a fair scheme is drafted by the government then they will retain their seats on the strength of it however Charlie McConalogue will have to start making a lot more noise if he wants his seat because up until now he’s been less than useless.

Just watched him on six one, he has avoiding questions down to a tee.was asked at the end if 100% redress was not passed would he still stay in his seat, even the newsreader challenged him on how he never answered the question. Another example of when you're job is more about money, position or just power instead of the people in your own community who you should be supporting and representing.

Ace2007

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I believe if a fair scheme is drafted by the government then they will retain their seats on the strength of it however Charlie McConalogue will have to start making a lot more noise if he wants his seat because up until now he’s been less than useless.

What would be considered fair in your eyes?

Normal One

The suppliers of pyrite riddled infill walked away scot free because they had close political affiliations to an FG minister. Homebond walked away because the chief of their parent body (Construction Industry Federation) was a former junior minister. Self regulation and certification benefited developers for years because they were in bed with FFG. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and it’s happening again and again. I hope the affected homes in Donegal are 100% remediated.

jackboy

jackboy wrote: »

Actually the most important thing is to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Regulations and inspections are required. These companies can never be trusted.

Agreed. Though I'd add that the 1st thing that needs to be done is to make these houses liveable in - for the average life expectancy of a house..


Then, regulations and legislation need to be looked at, and improved.

But, more importantly, the regulations need to be enforced... Something that has been sadly lacking in far too many instances..

MrMusician18 wrote: »

A friend of mine once remarked that you have more consumer protection buying a TV rather than a house. It was rather glib but has more than a whiff of truth to it.

This is actually a really good post, someone finally explained why the suppliers are escaping liability. To my knowledge during the time these were built, blocks need to be durable for 60 years while, the structures overall need to be for 30 years. Open to correction there though.

An interesting political question though is that after this debacle, if the government cannot expect to retain Donegal seats no matter how much they spend, what is the incentive to spend anything at all?

Simple. They need to be accountable. This "Oh, we didn't know!" and "We need to do better" is nothing but absolute hogwash unless they improve legislation where it is found to be lacking - and enforce it when it is adequate.


In brief, light touch regulation needs to go..
Every Government should be accountable to the people in a Democracy. And the people should hold them accountable...

Feisar

Normal One wrote: »

<SNIP>

And the owners of Stardust got £700,000 from the state:(

100% remuneration, the problem is 5K homes at €200,000 each is 1 Billion.

jackboy

Feisar wrote: »

And the owners of Stardust got £700,000 from the state:(

100% remuneration, the problem is 5K homes at €200,000 each is 1 Billion.

A lot of money but 5k is a huge amount of houses. 90% redress has already been agreed so we are actually only talking about the difference now.

The fact that the 90% wasn’t genuine is a worry though, government can’t be trusted either.

Ace2007

Feisar wrote: »

And the owners of Stardust got £700,000 from the state:(

100% remuneration, the problem is 5K homes at €200,000 each is 1 Billion.

And it could be 15k homes.... and/or €300,000 each home

And then what about any houses that get flooded because of poor flood controls when they were built - should they be able to claim off government in the future?

Future crisis: house rentals in Donegal are sky high due to lack of available and high demand as locals have no where to live while their houses getting rebuilt.

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

We've had the recession and near collapse of the banks in 07/08
We've had the Cervical Cancer scandal
We've had the Mother and Baby homes scandal

Do you honestly think mica will be the straw that breaks the camels back, and that SF will deliver?

If there was a viable alternative then maybe, but the fact that a SF TD only said last week that the state can't pay 100% of the costs, shows that they will say anything to anyone to win a vote - today Mary Lou acting like the savior outside the conventional center.

SF? Where did that come from? I certainly never said I believed SF would deliver - nor do I intend to vote for them, though I will say Pearse Doherty is a good TD. Unfortunately, I don't like some of their policies, so, I wont be voting for him.


Let's be realistic here, instead of playing the SF card.
Which political parties were in power for every single one of the scandals you mentioned? That's right, either FF or FG, or both.


Mica doesn't need to be the straw that breaks the camels back. Based on the results of the last election, the camels back is already fractured. Badly.