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

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

The issue here is rebuilding cost not land so your argument is null.

Let’s play it out, the scheme gets approved and thousands of houses will need to fixed, who will fix them? There is not enough labour locally so big contractors will come in with big costs as they need to put their workers in accommodation, pay them night away rates, transport them and supplies etc. AKA another housing boom.

Worse again Northern Ireland companies win the tenders and the money leaves the state / tax holder net.

DrPhilG

GSBellew wrote: »

the course of redress should be builder > supplier > quarry

People keep pointing out the route that redress should come from without understanding that all of those other routes have already been pursued and have failed.

There is no other route.

reniwren

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

Won't be long before those 200k homes magically cost 500k with price gouging from garrenteed government money.

intellectual dosser

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

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.

By extension do you think Ireland's housing problem is one for the market to sort out itself? State provisioned homes are not a new thing.

If the government leave potentially thousands of Donegal people homeless as a result of this issue then I expect it won't be just Donegal voters who sit up and take notice.

kippy

GSBellew wrote: »

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.

Yes, the loading goes to tax payers instead either directly or indirectly.
Someone has to pay.
The redress option you outline is not viable for what should be obvious reasons.
The issue will eventually be a state problem anyway and a worse one if it isn't sorted.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Penfailed wrote: »

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

Isn't everyone?

How else are people claiming the cost will be 2-3 as much on average as the pyrite redress scheme?

Everyone is saying saying that their house needs to be torn down and rebuuilt with all the amenities? My old house had a kitchen my new house needs a kitchen. It will be a new kitchen as my old kitchen was scrapped with the old house.

Honestly I don't really know but that's the impression being put forth.

SEPT 23 1989

As a taxpayer I don’t mind paying a few quid towards this

much better than the thievery we got stung for previously

Penfailed

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Isn't everyone?

How else are people claiming the cost will be 2-3 as much on average as the pyrite redress scheme?

Everyone is saying saying that their house needs to be torn down and rebuuilt with all the amenities? My old house had a kitchen my new house needs a kitchen. It will be a new kitchen as my old kitchen was scrapped with the old house.

Honestly I don't really know but that's the impression being put forth.

People are being asked to remove their existing kitchens, bathrooms, windows, doors, etc., and reuse them in the new build. It's quite obvious that many people replying to this thread aren't aware of the details of the scheme proposed.

JCJCJC

I’ve read a lot of this thread and I’m still no wiser as to why litigation has not been tried. Someone said in an earlier post that a case was dropped because the quarry and block manufacturer sent A LETTER saying they had no insurance. A letter? That’s all? It must have been some letter. Even if they had no product liability insurance, they sold enough blocks to build 6,000 houses we are told, plus other buildings. That’s a lot of money - did it all go on diesel and wages? If there’s no insurance, why not go after the company, its assets and its directors? If they traded without insurance, is that reckless trading? Next - the professional certification - did engineers, architects or surveyors certify that the houses were properly built, either on behalf of the owners or for banks? Every such professional has professional indemnity insurance, why are they not being pursued?
The comparison I would make is with De Puy replacement hips. The company sold a product that turned out to be defective. People sued. The company admitted liability and paid compensation and costs, in hundreds of cases in Ireland.
I have every sympathy with the people whose houses have been ruined by this, I’m just trying to understand why they think the State is the only remedy, without exhausting the other available remedies first. It costs money to litigate in Ireland, but all they need is one successful precedent. If there are 6,000 houses involved, form a representative organisation, chip in €100 each and there’s a fighting fund, pick the best case and run it, ask the High Court to let it in ahead of the queue in light of the big issue involved etc...?

Newbie20

I have no problem paying extra tax to get this sorted and I’m from the far end of the country. I feel so sorry for all those affected. The people on here showing zero sympathy would be the same people on here next year saying it was the government’s responsibility to fix their house if it actually happened them. Some people are just incapable of putting themselves in other peoples shoes it appears.

NIMAN

Mayo_fan wrote: »

I wonder what the real make up is? How many of the houses are large underused homes with no mortgages?

The current scheme does not cover holiday homes, 2nd homes or buy to let, so at present the answer would be next to none.

It's only primary principal residences.

And why shouldn't the above be covered too?

sydthebeat

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Isn't everyone?

How else are people claiming the cost will be 2-3 as much on average as the pyrite redress scheme?

Everyone is saying saying that their house needs to be torn down and rebuuilt with all the amenities? My old house had a kitchen my new house needs a kitchen. It will be a new kitchen as my old kitchen was scrapped with the old house.

Honestly I don't really know but that's the impression being put forth.

Ah ciaran... Come on now.
Your last line is the most pertinent there.

The mica issue essentially means the house must be knocked down and rebuilt.

The pyrite issue was mainly under floors, so remedial works didn't require a full demolition.

That's why the figures are so different

Mayo_fan

Mayo_fan wrote: »

The issue here is rebuilding cost not land so your argument is null.

Let’s play it out, the scheme gets approved and thousands of houses will need to fixed, who will fix them? There is not enough labour locally so big contractors will come in with big costs as they need to put their workers in accommodation, pay them night away rates, transport them and supplies etc. AKA another housing boom.

Worse again Northern Ireland companies win the tenders and the money leaves the state / tax holder net.

It was a response to some people talking about these “massive” houses, unfortunately they don’t seem to know how a housing market works.
What do you propose then? You’ve rightly stated, there isn’t a builder left. So what do these people do?
I would suggest the govt do a specific price by house deal with a big contractor. If the money leaves the state to a Northern or UK builder so be it. I don’t see any Irish counterparts doing us any favours.
The houses need rebuilt and what’s worse, thousands more houses need building. Something is going to have to give very shortly.
A housing boom is and indeed a construction boom isn’t a bad thing. It’s when it’s fuelled by fake money that’s unaffordable is when it becomes a problem.

Dempo1

Alledged housing minister on P Kenny show now, newstalk

Dempo1

Interesting, Housing Minister mentioning banks (mortgages) are party to this, also insurance companies, AG involved etc This I've said needs to be addressed as part of any solution.

MrMusician18

DrPhilG wrote: »

People keep pointing out the route that redress should come from without understanding that all of those other routes have already been pursued and have failed.

There is no other route.

Let's translate that. "We've asked the people responsible for this but are getting nowhere, so let's go to the big third party, a victim too, and demand they make us whole"

Seemingly the protesters have been told that the funding will be improved but an unlimited scheme is not going to be offered.

pryingEyes999

Dempo1 wrote: »

Interesting, Housing Minister mentioning banks (mortgages) are party to this, also insurance companies, AG involved etc This I've said needs to be addressed as part of any solution.

This is more like it. If the gov't can get the actual parties responsible to cough up, then add in some state help, that would be the best of all worlds. I do agree though that the precedent has been set with the pyrite redress, no getting away from that.

kippy

JCJCJC wrote: »

I’ve read a lot of this thread and I’m still no wiser as to why litigation has not been tried. Someone said in an earlier post that a case was dropped because the quarry and block manufacturer sent A LETTER saying they had no insurance. A letter? That’s all? It must have been some letter. Even if they had no product liability insurance, they sold enough blocks to build 6,000 houses we are told, plus other buildings. That’s a lot of money - did it all go on diesel and wages? If there’s no insurance, why not go after the company, its assets and its directors? If they traded without insurance, is that reckless trading? Next - the professional certification - did engineers, architects or surveyors certify that the houses were properly built, either on behalf of the owners or for banks? Every such professional has professional indemnity insurance, why are they not being pursued?
The comparison I would make is with De Puy replacement hips. The company sold a product that turned out to be defective. People sued. The company admitted liability and paid compensation and costs, in hundreds of cases in Ireland.
I have every sympathy with the people whose houses have been ruined by this, I’m just trying to understand why they think the State is the only remedy, without exhausting the other available remedies first. It costs money to litigate in Ireland, but all they need is one successful precedent. If there are 6,000 houses involved, form a representative organisation, chip in €100 each and there’s a fighting fund, pick the best case and run it, ask the High Court to let it in ahead of the queue in light of the big issue involved etc...?

What's the point of litigation all the way to the supreme court in this instance?
In the event that the case is successful, what do you think happens?

Dempo1

kippy wrote: »

What's the point of litigation all the way to the supreme court in this instance?
In the event that the case is successful, what do you think happens?

I don't have the answer but it would seem (open to correction) litigation was neither tried, considered even discussed beyond the question on suppliers of affected materials.

I'm no legal expert but it would seem at least likely there are serious questions to be asked and explored re the insurance aspect of this, I'm referring to buildings, liability, property insurance and indeed mortgage insurance.

Furthermore I'm perplexed how any mortgage (I know not all mortgaged) could even be valid or enforceable. Banks have in essence lent on the basis of, I presume surveyors/engineering reports etc all of which have transpired to be useless, furthermore a bank generally gives a mortgage against a tangible asset? There is none, these properties have and will continue to have Zero resale value if as is being proposed in some cases remedial work. Nothing short of complete demolition and rebuild will be required. There's certainly questions to be asked about homeowners having to pay mortgages on properties for nearly 20 years for essentially no reason. As an aside, I wondered (not wishing this on anyone) how likely would it be any bank would even bother repossessing one of these properties if the home owners (rightly) in my humble opinion refused to pay it?

Furze99

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?

No not trolling, just suggesting an approach which will deal with housing needs whilst managing the cost to the state. I've no doubt that there's a great variety of degrees of problems associated with the use of these blocks. So a one size fits all scheme of '100% redress' is clearly open to abuse. The state has an obligation in terms of public housing to help affected people so let that be the solution. Then people can choose thereafter - many might take it up, whilst others would figure their situation was manageable.

SEPT 23 1989

The only problem with going after the lovely folk in the insurance industry is that they will agree to pay out once and then refuse to give any future cover for the block making industry in this country

Furze99

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

The only problem with going after the lovely folk in the insurance industry is that they will agree to pay out once and then refuse to give any future cover for the block making industry in this country

Dunno, in general house insurance is a bit of a money spinner for them here. Lots of regular premiums coming in, relatively few payouts.

jimmycrackcorm

trixi001 wrote:

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..

Donegal people aren't funding this. Tax revenue is largely being redistributed from Dublin to the periphery

trixi001 wrote:

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..

Costs will need to be addressed and I think this will be modified in the scheme. However the question really is why should the scheme be uncapped.

muffler

reniwren wrote: »

Won't be long before those 200k homes magically cost 500k with price gouging from garrenteed government money.

Nope! Im not having that be said about the good people of Donegal. Warning given.

muffler

sydthebeat wrote: »

Ah ciaran... Come on now.
Your last line is the most pertinent there.

The mica issue essentially means the house must be knocked down and rebuilt.

The pyrite issue was mainly under floors, so remedial works didn't require a full demolition.

That's why the figures are so different

Good to see the professional heavyweights joining the debate.

Welcome to the Donegal forum

JCJCJC

kippy wrote: »

What's the point of litigation all the way to the supreme court in this instance?
In the event that the case is successful, what do you think happens?

Litigation only reaches the Supreme Court on points of law. The High Court is the likely forum for this, or the circuit court if both sides agree to unlimited jurisdiction, which cuts down on costs to some extent, but doesn’t set a binding precedent. If the case is successful, the company is ordered to pay the claimant. If it doesn’t pay, the usual remedies apply, bankruptcy for the directors if they are named in the case, liquidation/receivership for the company, it’s assets will be sold and put towards the debts, it’s bank accounts will be frozen. That’s the point.

Dempo1

JCJCJC wrote: »

Litigation only reaches the Supreme Court on points of law. The High Court is the likely forum for this, or the circuit court if both sides agree to unlimited jurisdiction, which cuts down on costs to some extent, but doesn’t set a binding precedent. If the case is successful, the company is ordered to pay the claimant. If it doesn’t pay, the usual remedies apply, bankruptcy for the directors if they are named in the case, liquidation/receivership for the company, it’s assets will be sold and put towards the debts, it’s bank accounts will be frozen. That’s the point.

This is correct if considering a relatively small limited company, I don't believe the same scenario would play out if a multi national or other wise insurance company, underwriters etc taken on and the same if large financial institutions (banks) etc were taken on. Just a humble opinion but sadly history shows companies easily liquidate and reappear over night under different guises, directors etc.

section4

Dempo1 wrote: »

I don't have the answer but it would seem (open to correction) litigation was neither tried, considered even discussed beyond the question on suppliers of affected materials.

I'm no legal expert but it would seem at least likely there are serious questions to be asked and explored re the insurance aspect of this, I'm referring to buildings, liability, property insurance and indeed mortgage insurance.

Furthermore I'm perplexed how any mortgage (I know not all mortgaged) could even be valid or enforceable. Banks have in essence lent on the basis of, I presume surveyors/engineering reports etc all of which have transpired to be useless, furthermore a bank generally gives a mortgage against a tangible asset? There is none, these properties have and will continue to have Zero resale value if as is being proposed in some cases remedial work. Nothing short of complete demolition and rebuild will be required. There's certainly questions to be asked about homeowners having to pay mortgages on properties for nearly 20 years for essentially no reason. As an aside, I wondered (not wishing this on anyone) how likely would it be any bank would even bother repossessing one of these properties if the home owners (rightly) in my humble opinion refused to pay it?

The authorities dont want to be investigating quarries atall atall
there are many unlicensed quarries operating in Ireland as we speak
that have been reported to the relevant authorities many times
ostensibly supplying many government contracts and no one cares
as long as the money from building roads and houses keeps flowing
keep going, we can sort it out when the crash comes again
and create anew nama type program again where the profiteers
are looked after and the state pays again

Dempo1

section4 wrote: »

The authorities dont want to be investigating quarries atall atall
there are many unlicensed quarries operating in Ireland as we speak
that have been reported to the relevant authorities many times
ostensibly supplying many government contracts and no one cares
as long as the money from building roads and houses keeps flowing
keep going, we can sort it out when the crash comes again
and create anew nama type program again where the profiteers
are looked after and the state pays again

Whilst I'm not doubting there are numerous un licenced quarries around the country, I think you paint an overly grim picture well at least I hope things not as bad as you portray

kippy

JCJCJC wrote: »

Litigation only reaches the Supreme Court on points of law. The High Court is the likely forum for this, or the circuit court if both sides agree to unlimited jurisdiction, which cuts down on costs to some extent, but doesn’t set a binding precedent. If the case is successful, the company is ordered to pay the claimant. If it doesn’t pay, the usual remedies apply, bankruptcy for the directors if they are named in the case, liquidation/receivership for the company, it’s assets will be sold and put towards the debts, it’s bank accounts will be frozen. That’s the point.

So the point is to go through the process, potentially taking years, to go after a company/companies that plainly don't have the assets to resolve the issues should the be found negligent.
Seems like a pointless endeavour to me........

By all accounts, learn from the situation, make sure it doesn't happen again, fine/punish those that broke the law (if that is found) but that doesn't resolve the issues for those that are currently in bother with their buildings.