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

Penfailed

John_Rambo wrote: »

However, welcome to the capital, the best of luck with your march, I genuinely hope you get results. Please respect the city, practice good covid hygiene & bin or take your rubbish home with you.

"Sgt David Molton from the Garda Siochana, who was coordinating the protest got in touch with Paddy last night and wants the following message put out:
He said Paddy and the organisers were a joy to deal with from start to finish.He also wanted to thank every single person who attended. It’s been a long time since the Gardai had such a large crowd so well behaved, not one arrest, not one angry word and not one piece of litter left behind on the streets. On behalf of himself and his officers he said that the people who attended are a credit to the counties they represented and wants to express his utmost thanks for the way everyone conducted themselves."

jimmycrackcorm

Deleted User wrote:

Why is it that these issues rarely happen in other European Countries? Because there is adequate regulation and legislation to protect the consumer!

Deleted User wrote:

Maybe when the Government ensure adequate levels of consumer protection. After all, other Countries seem to manage it - so, why don't we?

Why do you suggest that other countries don't have issues? South Korea had a building collapse last week. A bridge collapsed in Genoa a couple of years ago. But I'm sure both countries also have building regulations.

Cee-Jay-Cee

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.

Don’t let the door hit you on the arse as your leaving…there’s a good child.

Ace2007

Penfailed wrote: »

"Sgt David Molton from the Garda Siochana, who was coordinating the protest got in touch with Paddy last night and wants the following message put out:
He said Paddy and the organisers were a joy to deal with from start to finish.He also wanted to thank every single person who attended. It’s been a long time since the Gardai had such a large crowd so well behaved, not one arrest, not one angry word and not one piece of litter left behind on the streets. On behalf of himself and his officers he said that the people who attended are a credit to the counties they represented and wants to express his utmost thanks for the way everyone conducted themselves."

Let's hope he has the same to say when they block the M50 and the ports on their next visit to Dublin

section4

Ace2007 wrote: »

What's interesting about the article is that it was a FG Councillor that wanted an investigation and needed the backing of just one more Councillor but not offered - not even the SF Councillors or anyone other non government party councillor... wonder why that is

Well do you honestly think Sinn Fein are any different
I live in pierce dochertys constituency and as far as
Parish pump politics are concerned the SF councillors are no different
I thought they would be different but they are not in my experience

There a quarry in Laois that’s some one said was
supplying the children hospital with some material fir something
Which has been the subject of numerous enforcement notices
I know a person lives next to it, his life is ruined with lorries
Back and forward all day long out with their permission
No one is interested TDS councillors guards , nobody.
It’s all about the money.

John_Rambo

Penfailed wrote: »

"Sgt David Molton from the Garda Siochana, who was coordinating the protest got in touch with Paddy last night and wants the following message put out:
He said Paddy and the organisers were a joy to deal with from start to finish.He also wanted to thank every single person who attended. It’s been a long time since the Gardai had such a large crowd so well behaved, not one arrest, not one angry word and not one piece of litter left behind on the streets. On behalf of himself and his officers he said that the people who attended are a credit to the counties they represented and wants to express his utmost thanks for the way everyone conducted themselves."

Thanks for taking heed. You're always welcome in the capital. Hopefully the mess will be sorted and those affected will have their homes fixed.

JCJCJC

kippy wrote: »

I am not sure whether the legal avenue has been tried - I suspect a few people may have looked into it and realised it wasn't a feasible option.

How obvious does obvious have to be for you to get it?

What is the ultimate point of any legal route in this instance?

Do you think the companies involved have the assets to pay for any redress?

What seems obvious to you is not obvious to me. A company that supplied enough materials for 6,000 houses plus other buildings is not a Micky-mouse operation. I find it hard to believe that such a company wouldn’t have product liability and public liability insurance, and perhaps some sort of ‘all risks’ cover as well. The only way to find out is to launch proceedings and see what response you get. The insurer is not going to step in unless proceedings are taken, and there will be no early settlement unless the claimant seems likely to win.
Of course, if there was any element of tax evasion, such as cash purchases without VAT, cash-in-hand building work etc there would be no point going to court, but that never happens, does it?

kippy

JCJCJC wrote: »

What seems obvious to you is not obvious to me. A company that supplied enough materials for 6,000 houses plus other buildings is not a Micky-mouse operation. I find it hard to believe that such a company wouldn’t have product liability and public liability insurance, and perhaps some sort of ‘all risks’ cover as well. The only way to find out is to launch proceedings and see what response you get. The insurer is not going to step in unless proceedings are taken, and there will be no early settlement unless the claimant seems likely to win.
Of course, if there was any element of tax evasion, such as cash purchases without VAT, cash-in-hand building work etc there would be no point going to court, but that never happens, does it?

Are you suggesting that the reason this appears not to have gotten as far as court is because the individuals involved (homeowners) have something to hide?

I think you're being incredibly naive if you think that a company such as this has ability to pay out 6000 cases, if it got to that point.

Ace2007

kippy wrote: »

I think you're being incredibly naive if you think that a company such as this has ability to pay out 6000 cases, if it got to that point.

Equally it’s naive to think that the insurance wouldn’t cover any - even the worse 500 house to be rebuilt.

Most insurance products are not just one insurance company - there is reinsurance as well that could be another one or two companies. I’m not saying that this supplier has this but it appears that no one has gone to any length to find out.

Literally all the action groups would need to do is to produce this document stating that there is no insurance cover in place and then there is no other option than the government.

This document would even stand as a warning and at the very least would probably bring to a standstill any building works from this supplier/quarry.

So quite simply how come no one from the 6000 number that you mentioned can produce this and put this is the public eye to win support over from the public who question why it’s left to the government.

Penfailed

Ace2007 wrote: »

Let's hope he has the same to say when they block the M50 and the ports on their next visit to Dublin

Who has said that is the plan?

Penfailed

Ace2007 wrote: »

Equally it’s naive to think that the insurance wouldn’t cover any - even the worse 500 house to be rebuilt.

Most insurance products are not just one insurance company - there is reinsurance as well that could be another one or two companies. I’m not saying that this supplier has this but it appears that no one has gone to any length to find out.

Literally all the action groups would need to do is to produce this document stating that there is no insurance cover in place and then there is no other option than the government.

This document would even stand as a warning and at the very least would probably bring to a standstill any building works from this supplier/quarry.

So quite simply how come no one from the 6000 number that you mentioned can produce this and put this is the public eye to win support over from the public who question why it’s left to the government.

I suggest you watch the Primetime show that aired last night. It's on the RTE Player.

Ace2007

Penfailed wrote: »

Who has said that is the plan?

That Paddy lad was shouting about it - it's reported in all the news papers yesterday

JCJCJC

JCJCJC wrote: »

What seems obvious to you is not obvious to me. A company that supplied enough materials for 6,000 houses plus other buildings is not a Micky-mouse operation. I find it hard to believe that such a company wouldn’t have product liability and public liability insurance, and perhaps some sort of ‘all risks’ cover as well. The only way to find out is to launch proceedings and see what response you get. The insurer is not going to step in unless proceedings are taken, and there will be no early settlement unless the claimant seems likely to win.
Of course, if there was any element of tax evasion, such as cash purchases without VAT, cash-in-hand building work etc there would be no point going to court, but that never happens, does it?

I can't actually believe you are suggesting 5,000 people built houses using cash in hand....

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why do you suggest that other countries don't have issues? South Korea had a building collapse last week. A bridge collapsed in Genoa a couple of years ago. But I'm sure both countries also have building regulations.

I'm not suggesting other Countries don't have issues. I'm suggesting that a combination of regulatory and legislative issues in this Country are why the taxpayer ends up paying...
I'm also suggesting that, for a small Country, Ireland seems to have rather frequently occurring "issues".

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

Equally it’s naive to think that the insurance wouldn’t cover any - even the worse 500 house to be rebuilt.

Most insurance products are not just one insurance company - there is reinsurance as well that could be another one or two companies. I’m not saying that this supplier has this but it appears that no one has gone to any length to find out.

Literally all the action groups would need to do is to produce this document stating that there is no insurance cover in place and then there is no other option than the government.

This document would even stand as a warning and at the very least would probably bring to a standstill any building works from this supplier/quarry.

So quite simply how come no one from the 6000 number that you mentioned can produce this and put this is the public eye to win support over from the public who question why it’s left to the government.

As Penfailed said, watch primetime. I'm fairly sure there was a very quick glimpse of a document that stated precisely that. Certainly, one person claims to have received a letter from the quarry owners solicitor stating they had no insurance cover.

muffler

Deleted User wrote: »

As Penfailed said, watch primetime. I'm fairly sure there was a very quick glimpse of a document that stated precisely that. Certainly, one person claims to have received a letter from the quarry owners solicitor stating they had no insurance cover.

It was indeed shown. A letter from solicitors confirming that their client, Cassidy Brothers, didnt have insurance.

kippy

Ace2007 wrote: »

Equally it’s naive to think that the insurance wouldn’t cover any - even the worse 500 house to be rebuilt.

Most insurance products are not just one insurance company - there is reinsurance as well that could be another one or two companies. I’m not saying that this supplier has this but it appears that no one has gone to any length to find out.

Literally all the action groups would need to do is to produce this document stating that there is no insurance cover in place and then there is no other option than the government.

This document would even stand as a warning and at the very least would probably bring to a standstill any building works from this supplier/quarry.

So quite simply how come no one from the 6000 number that you mentioned can produce this and put this is the public eye to win support over from the public who question why it’s left to the government.

They have my support based on what I've seen.

Northernlily

It was on Sky News with Kay Burley this morning broadcast to a huge number of breakfast tables and offices. A huge chunk off the wall as the lady was speaking. Beginning to make international headlines.

storker

Ace2007 wrote: »

I've put a question out 3/4 times now and is being dodged by everyone - if this was a multi billion euro Investment Fund coming to the government and stating that their apartments had mica, would the Irish People be happy to give them a blank cheque to fix the problem?? What's your view on that?

One is a multi-million pound investment fund which bought the properties to make money. The other is a case of private citizens whose homes are falling apart through no fault of their own. I don't see how the two are comparable.

jimmycrackcorm

storker wrote: »

One is a multi-million pound investment fund which bought the properties to make money. The other is a case of private citizens whose homes are falling apart through no fault of their own. I don't see how the two are comparable.

What then is the basis of giving private citizens redress but not an investment fund? Either the government bears responsibility or not? Property rights are constitutionally protected for both citizens and companies alike, so they are comparable.

Ace2007

storker wrote: »

One is a multi-million pound investment fund which bought the properties to make money. The other is a case of private citizens whose homes are falling apart through no fault of their own. I don't see how the two are comparable.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What then is the basis of giving private citizens redress but not an investment fund? Either the government bears responsibility or not? Property rights are constitutionally protected for both citizens and companies alike, so they are comparable.

Exactly, the basis of the arguments by many on here are that the government failed in regulation of the supplier/blocks and in oversight. All that will also apply to an investment fund.

Let's not forget there will be "private citizens" who live in these apartments, and through no fault of their own could be defective - should they suffer if the investments don't pay for the work to be done?

This is going to open up a huge can of worms - and no doubt the Government and AG want to limit any exposure.

timmyntc

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What then is the basis of giving private citizens redress but not an investment fund? Either the government bears responsibility or not? Property rights are constitutionally protected for both citizens and companies alike, so they are comparable.

The scheme is one person one house - so unless that changes, investment fund can only apply for 1 of their properties.

Although I think scheme also only applies to principal primary residence (PPR) which wouldnt apply to investment funds anyways.

Ace2007

timmyntc wrote: »

The scheme is one person one house - so unless that changes, investment fund can only apply for 1 of their properties.

Although I think scheme also only applies to principal primary residence (PPR) which wouldnt apply to investment funds anyways.

That's the existing scheme, and there were calls during the protest or on some show to remove that PPR as there are those with holiday homes or living abroad paying mortgages on houses that are falling apart.

Like it's been said if the basis is poor regulation/oversight by the government - then the investment funds will take the country to the cleaners if something serious goes wrong - they will simply play the card of sure you paid out for mica why not for this etc...

Also what's the definition of one property - is that one entire block of apartments if they bought it in one lot?

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What then is the basis of giving private citizens redress but not an investment fund? Either the government bears responsibility or not? Property rights are constitutionally protected for both citizens and companies alike, so they are comparable.

What is the basis for limiting it to private primary residence, then?


Investment funds should have done their own due diligence on their investment. If that investment loses money - that's business.


So far, the precedent has been set only to protect primary private residence for major structural defects. Accordingly, there is currently no precedent set that investment funds could use - unless you know of a legal requirement that states otherwise?

Ace2007

Deleted User wrote: »

What is the basis for limiting it to private primary residence, then?


Investment funds should have done their own due diligence on their investment. If that investment loses money - that's business.


So far, the precedent has been set only to protect primary private residence for major structural defects. Accordingly, there is currently no precedent set that investment funds could use - unless you know of a legal requirement that states otherwise?

There have been calls by the campaigners to include non PPR though.

But i love how it's the investment funds that should have done their due diligence, but none of those due diligence processes fall on the person who built their house or bought it.

This is exactly why i asked the question, because the answer should be the exact same - it shouldn't matter who owns the property - if the basis for your argument is lack of government regulation/oversight then this applies to all.

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

That's the existing scheme, and there were calls during the protest or on some show to remove that PPR as there are those with holiday homes or living abroad paying mortgages on houses that are falling apart.

Like it's been said if the basis is poor regulation/oversight by the government - then the investment funds will take the country to the cleaners if something serious goes wrong - they will simply play the card of sure you paid out for mica why not for this etc...

Also what's the definition of one property - is that one entire block of apartments if they bought it in one lot?

One apartment is one property - if they bought a block thats just a bulk sale.
If the PPR requirement is removed, then thats probably fairer. Everyone affected by defective blocks deserves redress really - whether its extended to all or just PPR is a political issue

Penfailed

https://news.sky.com/story/the-cracks-are-just-getting-worse-every-day-in-ireland-thousands-of-homes-are-crumbling-12334432

Ace2007

timmyntc wrote: »

One apartment is one property - if they bought a block thats just a bulk sale.
If the PPR requirement is removed, then thats probably fairer. Everyone affected by defective blocks deserves redress really - whether its extended to all or just PPR is a political issue

I wonder what the reaction will be from the mica groups if the government gives the 100% costs but limits it to PPR. Will the group accept it, or will they push for all to be included. Kinda comes back to who decides if the deal put forward by the government is acceptable - does it fall all on the one group of people?

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

There have been calls by the campaigners to include non PPR though.

But i love how it's the investment funds that should have done their due diligence, but none of those due diligence processes fall on the person who built their house or bought it.

This is exactly why i asked the question, because the answer should be the exact same - it shouldn't matter who owns the property - if the basis for your argument is lack of government regulation/oversight then this applies to all.

So, you have no issue with non PPR buildings getting redress, then?


As I said - currently the scheme covers PPR, only. There has been no formal declaration of culpability by the Government, and no precedent set.
Therefore, your fears are currently precisely that - fears..



Unless you suggesting that the current scheme is not conforming with existing property rights?

Ace2007

Deleted User wrote: »

So, you have no issue with non PPR buildings getting redress, then?


As I said - currently the scheme covers PPR, only. There has been no formal declaration of culpability by the Government, and no precedent set.
Therefore, your fears are currently precisely that - fears..



Unless you suggesting that the current scheme is not conforming with existing property rights?

I have no problem with anyone getting it really - i just know that there will be absolute uproar if this was an investment fund looking for redress, or if one comes looking in 5 years time and we have to pay them billions to fix.

The mere question of it and this was the reply i got by a poster - people will react very different depending on who owns the property - even if the basis is the exact same.

One is a multi-million pound investment fund which bought the properties to make money. The other is a case of private citizens whose homes are falling apart through no fault of their own. I don't see how the two are comparable.

I've said it many times on this thread that i hope that those affected get a good deal from the government, but writing a blank cheque and covering all costs will open the state up to claims from all angles in the future.

muffler

Ace2007 wrote: »

but writing a blank cheque

There have been no blank cheques nor will there be imo so please refrain from using this phrase.