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

MrMusician18

trixi001 wrote: »

It was said on primetime that the insurance company of the blocks supplier won't cover this.

One couple said they covered every angle going and tried to claim from every possible source..and the cost of taking a case against Cassidys would be €50,000, and they don't have insurance for this issue, so pursuing it is basically pointless.

And what happens if you pursue the builders.. there would be no builders left in Donegal..so no-one to do the do the repairs and rebuilds required..

The government can reclaim what they can from Cassidys - but the issue is that the houses are falling apart now..funding is needed now, not in another 5 years, when court cases could finally be settled

The state is responsible, because they have admitted that they were responsible before in the case of defective bricks, in the Pyrite scheme, they set a precedent.

The state and county council also had minimal regulations, and allowed companies to self check that allowed this to happen, that allowed substandard blocks to be used.

There is 3 issues here:

1. Make peoples houses safe or get them somewhere safe to live
2. Establish how this happened and stop it happening again.
3. Have somesort of system so that there is a non statefunded redress for when something similar does happen again

I still believe a government backed homebond type scheme is the way forward, paid for by developers and also a contribution made by anyone self building to cover defects in materials only..

These issues could only be the tip of the iceberg, who knows what other defects are lurking out there..

The State has never admitted liability for the failures of third parties that are self certifying. If there was liability, someone in the last 10 years would've taken a successful case against the State. They haven't.

The reason the State is doing what it's doing is A) political and practical not because it has a liability (the same with pyrite btw). A lot of these families would end up in public housing if nothing was done and only the State has the means to pay for a solution. These families would likely never vote for mainstream parties if they were left to fend entirely for themselves.


So it isn't right that these people have their houses falling down around them, but equally it isn't fair to expect the State to reconstruct huge homes either - especially if not fully occupied. The State has to be fair to other taxpayers too - reconstructing huge homes in Donegal while young people who will pay for this can't afford to rent (never mind buy) in the east.

MrMusician18

NIMAN wrote: »

This anti self build angle has already been covered.

There was no shoddy workmanship. It's the raw materials that are at fault, not the builders. Self builds weren't involved in council owned housing estates, hospitals libraries, council offices, schools....yet they are crumbling too.

You are right about the raw materials but the government have obviously decided they are at fault for not regulating this properly.

There was actually. The shoddy workmanship didn't contribute much if at all to the issue though. Just want to correct that.
(See expert group report).

jj880

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

He would have been lynched if he went to inishowen. Instead he went to Raphoe to a house riddled with mica to see it’s effects. The house in question is owned by one of the first people to raise this issue nearly 10 yrs ago. It was entirely appropriate to visit there for security reasons.

I agree about McConalogue though, a toothless puppet at best and one who deserves to lose his job and be made a pariah in Donegal for his utter failure to speak up for the very people that voted for him.

Agreed but a problem of his own making. He was nowhere to be found in the run up to or at the buncrana protest. Running out the back door of his office and hiding from his constituents. If Charlie had any balls about him in general he and Michael Martin could have been touring Letterkenny AND Inishowen engaging with lots of families in the worst affected houses.

As Paddy Diver said in 1 of his early videos he'd be a legend in his homeland and be voted back in for life if he sorted this mess. Cant see him getting re-elected now no matter what happens. He'll spout whatever waffle FF tell him to hoping he'll be looked after. Maybe he'll get Blaney's seat in the Seanad. A lame duck.

IP freely

Surprised at the amout of scowling being done on this thread recently.

screamer wrote: »

We shall see. I hope you know where magic money trees grow BTW. We’ll need a lot to pay for every issue that people come whinging with.
I’m fully prepared to leave Ireland if things get much worse. Tax payers are finite resources, problems are never ending, we can’t pay for everyone’s issues, if you think we can you’re in la la land.

I'll gladly fill out the passport form and pack your suitcase for you.

MrMusician18

trixi001 wrote: »

They pay the least tax because they earn the least..which is why they also can't afford to pay massive contributions to any redress scheme

Couldn't the State take equity if they couldn't afford their contribution?

NIMAN

Again with the 'huge' homes.

Get over it with you. The size of anyone's home isn't the issue here.

MrMusician18

NIMAN wrote: »

Again with the 'huge' homes.

Get over it with you. The size of anyone's home isn't the issue here.

It is when you expect the State to reconstruct them.

NIMAN

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There was actually. The shoddy workmanship didn't contribute much if at all to the issue though. Just want to correct that.
(See expert group report).

Then it's irrelevant.
Let's keep on the issue of mica.
No dodgy builder put that into the house build.

Fann Linn

Gonna be a lot of upset peeps on here when FFG decide to sort out this problem. And I'd hazard a guess and say it's not going to be the householders either.

Polls are bad and they need some good press.

Jinglejangle69

What is the point in companies been made take out insurance anymore?

MrMusician18

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It is when you expect the State to reconstruct them.

It isn’t actually. You can build a bigger more expansive house in an area where costs are cheaper and there is less demand.
It’s why new 3 bed semis go for 200k+ in Donegal and 500k + in Dublin.

IP freely

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Couldn't the State take equity if they couldn't afford their contribution?

OK i'll engage.

Why should any family or individual have to give the government any equity. Most of these people are paying mortgages on their homes as it is, for most people a home is a 1 time deal and the single biggest purchase they will make in their lifetimes.

Change the record too, you spout the same thing (in differnet ways) over and over and over. Its has been answered multiple times too but you simply ignore any posts that give you a logical and rational answer.

We DO NOT want to have to ask for 100% redress but its a simple fact that we need to. Every other avenue has been explored.

Builders X
Supplier X
Insurance X
Local Government X

So that leads to what exactly? The buck stops with the men and women in charge in goverment im afraid. Its how any decent democratic country works. Cannot afford to get out loans to self fix so we should just sit by and watch homes crumble around us and our families?

What do you propose people do, rather than trying to throw up barriers and rattle cages how about you make an actual workable suggestion?

IP freely

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

What is the point in companies been made take out insurance anymore?

They didnt have the appropiate insurace thus we find ourselves in the position we are in.

MrMusician18

Fann Linn wrote: »

Gonna be a lot of upset peeps on here when FFG decide to sort out this problem. And I'd hazard a guess and say it's not going to be the householders either.

Polls are bad and they need some good press.

If you think they are going to write a cheque for a scheme that has unlimited liability then you are going to be disappointed. The kind of scheme that the protesters want could easily be 5 times as expensive as budgeted.

There is no way, no chance an unlimited scheme will be approved by any sort of fiscally responsible Government. Not even SF believe such a scheme is realistic.

jj880

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Couldn't the State take equity if they couldn't afford their contribution?

Muffler this point alone has been proposed numerous times in this thread. How often is this guy going to bait? Is he your cousin or are you married to his sister? I dont like back seat modding but enough is enough - give this guy a holiday.

joe40

NIMAN wrote: »

Did you happen to see either the 9 o clock news or prime time tonight?

Do you know just how badly affected these homes are?

If your answer is yes to these questions, and you still think the homeowners deserve not a cent or any help to fix the problem, then you need to seriously assess your morals.

Exactly, the government step in to help with flood relief. Millions maybe billions are been spent. For the families involved this is akin to a natural disaster, it is something they could not have foreseen or prevent.
Insurance companies should not get off the hook here too easily.

IP freely

jj880 wrote: »

Muffler this point alone has been proposed numerous times in this thread. How often is this guy going to bait? Is he your cousin or are you married to his sister? I dont like back seat modding but enough is enough - give this guy a holiday.

The mods cant be on here 24/7 unfortunently. I feel for them trying to manage this thead with the amount in trolls and baiting recently.

NIMAN

IP freely wrote: »

They didnt have the appropiate insurace thus we find ourselves in the position we are in.

Surely that is also something easily checked by the government authorities, that certain industries and companies have the correct insurance cover?

Doesn't sound like rocket science.

muffler

jj880 wrote: »

Muffler this point alone has been proposed numerous times in this thread. How often is this guy going to bait? Is he your cousin or are you married to his sister? I dont like back seat modding but enough is enough - give this guy a holiday.

You'll be the one getting a holiday if I see any more posts like that. Warning given.

NIMAN

joe40 wrote: »

Insurance companies should not get off the hook here too easily.

I agree with you 100%

trixi001

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The State has never admitted liability for the failures of third parties that are self certifying. If there was liability, someone in the last 10 years would've taken a successful case against the State. They haven't.

The reason the State is doing what it's doing is A) political and practical not because it has a liability (the same with pyrite btw). A lot of these families would end up in public housing if nothing was done and only the State has the means to pay for a solution. These families would likely never vote for mainstream parties if they were left to fend entirely for themselves.


So it isn't right that these people have their houses falling down around them, but equally it isn't fair to expect the State to reconstruct huge homes either - especially if not fully occupied. The State has to be fair to other taxpayers too - reconstructing huge homes in Donegal while young people who will pay for this can't afford to rent (never mind buy) in the east.

The reason the state paid up on Pyrite was because of a large number of court cases.., but yes it political and its practical..

Not every house in Donegal affected by Mica is huge, some are even council homes, many are just on a relatively standard housing estate.

Why should the people in Donegal fund the motorway from Dublin to Cork when the roads in and around Donegal are so poor..its the same argument as to why people in elsewhere in Ireland should be happy to spend state funds in Donegal to fix homes..

There are plenty of people in Donegal that can't afford to buy either..its the lowest paid part of the state..these people don't begrudge their neighbours redress..

I am not affect by this, but know lots of people that are, and they are normal hard working people, they don't live in large 6 bedroom houses, they live in 3 bedroom houses in Normal estates..they have been failed so many times.

The main reason people should support this is who knows what is next - anyone with a house less than 25 years old, it could have a defect yet to come to light, would you not want the support?

Obviously any funds that can be recouped from insurance, manufacturers, homebond etc should be, but the redress needs to happen regardless and the state go after these people for refunds, assets etc.

Regardless of the issues with the mica redress scheme..

Mayo Pyrite scheme ---how can there be possibly be 2 separate redress schemes depending on what part of the country you live in..100% plus costs in the east, and 90% and no costs in the west..

NIMAN

Anyway, it's been a long day.
Good day all round.
At last to get the message out there and heard.

Well done to all those who made the trip and made their voices heard.
Well done too to those who met up in towns and villages cos they couldn't get to Dublin.

Let's hope it was worth it.

And decent discussion on the thread too. Nice to see some new faces in the chat.

StupidLikeAFox

The govt need to put in place regulations & systems to prevent this happening again, hold the company to account but ultimately pay the money to sort out the issue. Its a gesture that should be available to every citizen if they find themselves in a similar scenario through no fault of their own.

A cost of 2bn seems like lot, but for a country to finance this once off cost over many years is a drop in the ocean.

kippy

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

The govt need to put in place regulations & systems to prevent this happening again, hold the company to account but ultimately pay the money to sort out the issue. Its a gesture that should be available to every citizen if they find themselves in a similar scenario through no fault of their own.

A cost of 2bn seems like lot, but for a country to finance this once off cost over many years is a drop in the ocean.

We tend to always have to learn these lessons the hard way and even then, we tend not to learn these lessons at all.
Once people are left to "regulate themselves" in any way/shape or form, things tend to go belly up. Despite not wanting to live in a nanny/police state, it appears that we need to live in a nanny/police state in order for organisations and individuals to take some responsibility for their actions.
These are broader questions however and a lot to do with the historic acceptance of "cute hoorism".

listermint

kippy wrote: »

We tend to always have to learn these lessons the hard way and even then, we tend not to learn these lessons at all.
Once people are left to "regulate themselves" in any way/shape or form, things tend to go belly up. Despite not wanting to live in a nanny/police state, it appears that we need to live in a nanny/police state in order for organisations and individuals to take some responsibility for their actions.
These are broader questions however and a lot to do with the historic acceptance of "cute hoorism".

If that came to pass the same folks giving out hell for leather in here would be giving out hell for leather about that.

You would see a sea of folks giving out all over the place about Draconian planning laws and how they can't get their house built where they want to the plans they want harping on to the local councilor. One thing you can be sure is folks will always look after number one. Any such play to over regulate the same faces appear .

jimmycrackcorm

trixi001 wrote:

The state is responsible, because they have admitted that they were responsible before in the case of defective bricks, in the Pyrite scheme, they set a precedent.

I don't see anything that makes the pyrite scheme classed as state responsibility. Certainly no responsibility to rebuild houses.

jj880 wrote:

As Paddy Diver said in 1 of his early videos he'd be a legend in his homeland and be voted back in for life if he sorted this mess. Cant see him getting re-elected now no matter what happens. He'll spout whatever waffle FF tell him to hoping he'll be looked after. Maybe he'll get Blaney's seat in the Seanad. A lame duck.

It's certainly a very emotive issue, but the vast majority aren't affected by mica. When those voters see people get brand new kitchens courtesy of the state, while they have to keep their twenty or more years old kitchen, unable to afford to change, Mica is not going to be a consideration in their vote.

CageWager

I only became aware of this whole issue over the last few days and I can’t quite believe what I’m hearing.

In a country where our politicians piss away a kings ransom on total nonsense driven by NGO’s or gravy train semi-states, it’s hard to wrap my head around how we can’t stump up the cash to help out hard working citizens who have been screwed through no fault of their own.

Im from Dublin (don’t hold it against me) and I have no connections to Donegal but this is EXACTLY the kind of thing I want my tax euros to be spent on. Helping out my fellow citizens who are in a dire situation.

There always seems to be money for pie in the sky social programmes that get us some nice fluffy international press coverage..or perhaps a faceless international fund needs to be given a 9 figure tax break.. we even pay foreign aid to China ffs.

I sincerely hope you all get the relief you deserve.

GSBellew

kippy wrote: »

Well for one, the builders and block suppliers cannot cover the figures involved simply and have many options available to get out of overing it - so nothing will happen there.
The insurance companies have a number of outs I believe and in fairness may not even be able to cover the figures involved without major issues and/or major loading on all insurances.

Again, this is not a straightforward situation.

So the loading goes to all tax payers instead?

This is PMPA & Quinn Direct all over again, expect to see a levy on all concrete blocks going forward to recoup the outlay.

I've complete sympathy for those affected by this, but these were not state built houses, the course of redress should be builder > supplier > quarry

Should there be a new levy on materials to fund a redress scheme why should that apply to me but not a family getting a replacement house, it wasn't their fault, but it also wasn't my fault.

Penfailed

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't see anything that makes the pyrite scheme classed as state responsibility. Certainly no responsibility to rebuild houses.



It's certainly a very emotive issue, but the vast majority aren't affected by mica. When those voters see people get brand new kitchens courtesy of the state, while they have to keep their twenty or more years old kitchen, unable to afford to change, Mica is not going to be a consideration in their vote.

Who is asking for a brand new kitchen courtesy of the state?

IP freely

IP freely wrote: »

OK i'll engage.

Why should any family or individual have to give the government any equity. Most of these people are paying mortgages on their homes as it is, for most people a home is a 1 time deal and the single biggest purchase they will make in their lifetimes.

Change the record too, you spout the same thing (in differnet ways) over and over and over. Its has been answered multiple times too but you simply ignore any posts that give you a logical and rational answer.

We DO NOT want to have to ask for 100% redress but its a simple fact that we need to. Every other avenue has been explored.

Builders X
Supplier X
Insurance X
Local Government X

So that leads to what exactly? The buck stops with the men and women in charge in goverment im afraid. Its how any decent democratic country works. Cannot afford to get out loans to self fix so we should just sit by and watch homes crumble around us and our families?

What do you propose people do, rather than trying to throw up barriers and rattle cages how about you make an actual workable suggestion?

What are your thoughts on the nursing home fair deal scheme which is widely accepted as solving a very big problem for people who need care but don’t have the cash but do have the assets?

What MrMusician18 proposes is very similar to this scheme and does warrant some conversation.

A blank cheque / 100% redress scheme would be reckless from tax payers point of view. I know the families with mortgages and young children are wheeled out front and centre all the time but I wonder what the real make up is? How many of the houses are large underused homes with no mortgages?