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

MrMusician18

muffler wrote: »

Nope!. Like any product used in building the supplier and / or the manufacturer is responsible for all certification relating to its compliance with all statutory regulations.

Great, we can all agree then that the State has no role then.

muffler

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Great, we can all agree then that the State has no role then.

That is not what I said so please don't misrepresent me.

10000maniacs

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Great, we can all agree then that the State has no role then.

I agree that this should be the case. The owners should be accountable to themselves, and the solicitors, builders, surveyors and block manufacturers should be accountable to the owners.
The state is way down the list.

Thargor

JCJCJC wrote: »

Go on then... explain why it is relevant to know whether the relatives of the quarry owners used the defective blocks to build their houses, in circumstances where the claims are being made against Paddy the Taxpayer and the quarry owners are not being pursued to the extent of their assets? That’s what’s bizarre. And while you’re at it, how do you propose to establish if the quarry owners’s family used the bad blocks? Surely if they did, a drive-by of their houses should tell you?

You can add all the narrow contexts you like, they're nothing to do with with me, I see you dodged the question of why wanting to know this information was a 'typical Irish attitude' by the way.

I honestly can't see why you need this spelled out in crayon, you can't see why it would be interesting to know whether or not the people producing the defective blocks were using their own product during the period or not?

Pretend instead of dangerous blocks that ruined peoples houses that it was a dairy producing contaminated milk that made people sick, and it turned out that for the entire period the contaminated milk was being produced that the dairy owners and their families were refusing to consume any of their own product, sit down and have a long think about why that information would be relevant to any injured parties.

Dempo1

According to Leaky Leo earlier in a quite tetchy interview on RTE, its his ambition to build 40,000 houses a year, so one would hope re building 5,000 affected by this appalling situation will be a breeze, but then again, he also said in the same interview the Pandemic is over, possibly Kite flying as normal, FG never seemed to have much interest in home ownership until a certain by-election was called.

joe40

I'm not terribly familiar with this but how are insurance companies getting away with this. I always thought engineers who inspected builds had indemnity insurance against this sort of thing if not they should have.
It is mandatory to have car insurance because of the costs involved when things go wrong.

I just assumed it was the same with investments like buildings.

If regulation was not enforced then govt have a role to play here.

domrush

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not terribly familiar with this but how are insurance companies getting away with this. I always thought engineers who inspected builds had indemnity insurance against this sort of thing if not they should have.
It is mandatory to have car insurance because of the costs involved when things go wrong.

I just assumed it was the same with investments like buildings.

If regulation was not enforced then govt have a role to play here.

They had no insurance

Dempo1

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not terribly familiar with this but how are insurance companies getting away with this. I always thought engineers who inspected builds had indemnity insurance against this sort of thing if not they should have.
It is mandatory to have car insurance because of the costs involved when things go wrong.

I just assumed it was the same with investments like buildings.

If regulation was not enforced then govt have a role to play here.

It is the most perplexing issue of this entire debacle and no one seems to have the answers. It's my guess they feel they are not responsible for faulty materials used in the construction of buildings they have insured but it still leaves serious unanswered questions regarding home bond insurance, if of course it was in place, perhaps not in all cases and finally developers, builders insurance. If a construction worker has a serious accident on a site, they are covered, if an entire building crumbles apparently and bizzarely not. Its just extraordinary.

I'm aware poor workmanship or substandard build are get out clauses if making a claim for structural repairs due to damage from storm's etc, on your house insurance.

NIMAN

10000maniacs wrote: »

I agree that this should be the case. The owners should be accountable to themselves, and the solicitors, builders, surveyors and block manufacturers should be accountable to the owners.
The state is way down the list.

So your answer is that we simply allow at least 5000 families to become homeless, and force the state to house them?

Now there is a terrible shortage of homes in Donegal at present, so the government will have to launch a massive house building exercise in Donegal starting right away, as there are hundreds of homes in terrible condition, and those families will need housed asap. Then they need to steadily build homes for the next decade to house those whose homes continue to deteriorate with mica.

There is always the chance that the figure might be closer to 10000 than 5000 of course.

But I'm not sure how much cheaper this option will be?

Dempo1

domrush wrote: »

They had no insurance

I presume your referring to the suppliers, developers, Surveyors, Architects, engineers? Pretty shocking if true,

I'm not doubting your assertion but whatever about a cowboy builder or 2, I'd be astonished if not a single practice or builder or supplier was not insured. There must be 100"s of alledged professionals involved in the building of 5k house's?

Home owners with Mortgages would be legally obliged to have buildings insurance also, albeit, it does seem the case said insurance companies washed their hands of this.

NIMAN

Not sure why this point is being put out there again and again. It's been established that there is no-one the homeowners can sue for this. That's why it's falling on the state to help the owners. They have no other recourse.

I know some people have the attitude, "feck em", but thankfully most people seem to accept that something has to be done to help.

10000maniacs

NIMAN wrote: »

So your answer is that we simply allow at least 5000 families to become homeless, and force the state to house them?

Now there is a terrible shortage of homes in Donegal at present, so the government will have to launch a massive house building exercise in Donegal starting right away, as there are hundreds of homes in terrible condition, and those families will need housed asap. Then they need to steadily build homes for the next decade to house those whose homes continue to deteriorate with mica.

There is always the chance that the figure might be closer to 10000 than 5000 of course.

But I'm not sure how much cheaper this option will be?

At least the state would still own the houses if that was the case.

Dempo1

NIMAN wrote: »

Not sure why this point is being put out there again and again. It's been established that there is no-one the homeowners can sue for this. That's why it's falling on the state to help the owners. They have no other recourse.

The point is being raised partly because Why can't homeowners sue, has it even been tried, class action suit etc. There's not been an answer to this or evidence anyone has even tried. I'm not at all doubting the risks involved but personally if my house was crumbling around me, I'd have nothing to loose but issue proceedings left right and centre.

Slightly off topic but relevant, I had serious storm damage two years ago my entire roof had to be replaced, insurance company claimed shoddy workmanship on a roof that has been in situ for over 20 years, the dirty big oak tree sticking out of it after the storm seemed somehow to escape them. One solicitors letter and a dirty big cheque recieved in the post which included the cost of issuing proceedings.

Dempo1

10000maniacs wrote: »

At least the state would still own the houses if that was the case.

I'm sure that would be a thrilling prospect for homeowners affected (not)

NIMAN

Dempo1 wrote: »

The point is being raised partly because Why can't homeowners sue, has it even been tried, class action suit etc. There's not been an answer to this or evidence anyone has even tried. I'm not at all doubting the risks involved but personally if my house was crumbling around me, I'd have nothing to loose but issue proceedings left right and centre.

The piece on tv recently had a letter from a homeowner that their solicitor sent to them, saying the block supplier had no insurance so cover such a claim.

There was a figure of 40 or 50k mentioned. Not sure whether the man said that is what he had spent so far in legal fees, or if that's what it would take to take it further. As you can imagine, many homeowners up here have pumped all their savings and wages into building their homes, and many would not have big money to go chasing insurance companies for what looks like will be a worthless cause.

Dempo1

NIMAN wrote: »

The piece on tv recently had a letter from a homeowner that their solicitor sent to them, saying the block supplier had no insurance so cover such a claim.

There was a figure of 40 or 50k mentioned. Not sure whether the man said that is what he had spent so far in legal fees, or if that's what it would take to take it further. As you can imagine, many homeowners up here have pumped all their savings and wages into building their homes, and many would not have big money to go chasing insurance companies for what looks like will be a worthless cause.

Yes, I fully agree and know all to well the risks involved taking legal action. I was just curious if a class action suit against bigger fish such as insurance companies etc had happened.

Penfailed

Dempo1 wrote: »

The point is being raised partly because Why can't homeowners sue, has it even been tried, class action suit etc. There's not been an answer to this or evidence anyone has even tried.

It has been tried. The Primetime show that aired last Tuesday showed this.

Dempo1

Penfailed wrote: »

It has been tried. The Primetime show that aired last Tuesday showed this.

I wasn't aware, was just genuinely interested, particularly a class action suit against bigger fish etc. Thanks

jj880

Any chance we can have a summary of the basics at the start of the thread?

And a "READ FIRST POST" or similar in the thread title?

It's getting a bit repetitive with all the re-explaining everything.

JCJCJC

Thargor wrote: »

You can add all the narrow contexts you like, they're nothing to do with with me, I see you dodged the question of why wanting to know this information was a 'typical Irish attitude' by the way.

I honestly can't see why you need this spelled out in crayon, you can't see why it would be interesting to know whether or not the people producing the defective blocks were using their own product during the period or not?

Pretend instead of dangerous blocks that ruined peoples houses that it was a dairy producing contaminated milk that made people sick, and it turned out that for the entire period the contaminated milk was being produced that the dairy owners and their families were refusing to consume any of their own product, sit down and have a long think about why that information would be relevant to any injured parties.

I didn’t dodge anything, I simply thought the question was so stupid it didn’t warrant spending time on it. The blocks were sold by a company. Companies don’t usually have sons, daughters, third cousins or great-grandmothers. If company directors built houses for themselves or their grannies with, for example, Roadstone blocks, how would you find out? Why would you need to know, besides idle curiosity, unless you litigate? Even if you litigate, you would have to seek discovery, and convince a High Court Judge that to pursue your own case and save Costs and court time, you needed to know what blocks were used by every company member, director, shareholder etc and their relations? Good luck with that...

The Irish part is to ignore the company and look at the families, the tribal gene of Brehon Law breaking out there.

All this is Utterly academic unless the issue is litigated, if there are billions involved it is extraordinary if one letter from one solicitor is enough to make all affected parties back off.

domrush

Dempo1 wrote: »

I presume your referring to the suppliers, developers, Surveyors, Architects, engineers? Pretty shocking if true,

I'm not doubting your assertion but whatever about a cowboy builder or 2, I'd be astonished if not a single practice or builder or supplier was not insured. There must be 100"s of alledged professionals involved in the building of 5k house's?

Home owners with Mortgages would be legally obliged to have buildings insurance also, albeit, it does seem the case said insurance companies washed their hands of this.

The only insurance that would be liable would be the manufacturers of the blocks i.e. Cassidy’s. Engineers, architects etc are not responsible for a manufacturer failing to meet quality standards for blocks. This is all well established in this case, suggest watching the prime time episode

JCJCJC

JCJCJC wrote: »

Nobody would bother with insurance if they didn’t have a risk of being sued and having to meet the cost personally. From what I’ve read here, the suppliers are still trading because they claim to have no insurance, and people are not pursuing the company or it’s members, shareholders and directors any further.

Some people have pursued the Company, and failed, due to lack of Insurance. Some people can't sue, because by the time mica showed up, or was proven, the statute of limitations (10 years) applied. In other cases, litigation is ongoing...
One size does not fit all...

10000maniacs wrote: »

In this order

1: The Builder
2: The surveyor
3: The clients solicitor
4: The client
(I placed the client at 4 only because the assumption is they hired trained professionals to do his work, but others would place them higher. I wouldn't have allowed this to happen to me)

Again. Statute of limitations. Many builders no longer trading.
On what grounds would you sue the solicitor? Do you expect them to have blocks tested? Bear in mind, the quarry was under a legal obligation to supply blocks that were fit for purpose...

Dempo1

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Some people have pursued the Company, and failed, due to lack of Insurance. Some people can't sue, because by the time mica showed up, or was proven, the statute of limitations (10 years) applied. In other cases, litigation is ongoing...
One size does not fit all...



Again. Statute of limitations. Many builders no longer trading.
On what grounds would you sue the solicitor? Do you expect them to have blocks tested? Bear in mind, the quarry was under a legal obligation to supply blocks that were fit for purpose...

That better explains it, thanks

JCJCJC

Deleted User wrote: »

Some people have pursued the Company, and failed, due to lack of Insurance. Some people can't sue, because by the time mica showed up, or was proven, the statute of limitations (10 years) applied. In other cases, litigation is ongoing...
One size does not fit all...

..

That is a genuinely interesting answer. Did those who litigated get as far as a court order against the company, which the company couldn’t meet due to the absence of insurance? If they did, the next step is to put in a liquidator to dispose of the company’s assets and part of the liquidator’s duty is to report reckless trading, if the directors traded while the company was unable to pay its creditors.
The statute of limitations kicks in from date of knowledge. So, even if you bought the blocks twenty years ago, the statute only starts to run when they start giving trouble. I thought the period was six years but if it’s ten, the same principle of date of knowledge applies. Once your house starts cracking, issue proceedings. That’s about it.

Penfailed

Dempo1 wrote: »

I wasn't aware, was just genuinely interested, particularly a class action suit against bigger fish etc. Thanks

Is a class action lawsuit even allowed under Irish law? I've always been under the impression that it wasn't.

Penfailed

JCJCJC wrote: »

All this is Utterly academic unless the issue is litigated, if there are billions involved it is extraordinary if one letter from one solicitor is enough to make all affected parties back off.

I've heard that a few families have tried and failed to get anywhere with legal action. It's expensive and solicitors win in the end.

JCJCJC

JCJCJC wrote: »

That is a genuinely interesting answer. Did those who litigated get as far as a court order against the company, which the company couldn’t meet due to the absence of insurance? If they did, the next step is to put in a liquidator to dispose of the company’s assets and part of the liquidator’s duty is to report reckless trading, if the directors traded while the company was unable to pay its creditors.
The statute of limitations kicks in from date of knowledge. So, even if you bought the blocks twenty years ago, the statute only starts to run when they start giving trouble. I thought the period was six years but if it’s ten, the same principle of date of knowledge applies. Once your house starts cracking, issue proceedings. That’s about it.

I believe in one case, proceeding were dropped when it was found the Company had no Insurance. I'm not privy to the details of the other cases, I just know there are cases ongoing.
Personally, I'd love to see the Company cease trading. Unfortunately, that wont help the homeowners, since the Company has insufficient assets to pay the damages.



As I said earlier - one size doesn't fit all. If it did, I suspect a class action would have been taken years ago.
As it stands, people are paying mortgages, and, in some cases, rent as well. They don't have the resources to spend tens of thousands pursuing legal cases - and so, they have no option but to ask the Government to help.

RandomViewer

Dempo1 wrote: »

Yes, I fully agree and know all to well the risks involved taking legal action. I was just curious if a class action suit against bigger fish such as insurance companies etc had happened.

Don't think you can do a class action here, think that's why the companies that lost out on the phone licence back in the day couldn't take a case against HIM

Thargor

JCJCJC wrote: »

I didn’t dodge anything, I simply thought the question was so stupid it didn’t warrant spending time on it. The blocks were sold by a company. Companies don’t usually have sons, daughters, third cousins or great-grandmothers. If company directors built houses for themselves or their grannies with, for example, Roadstone blocks, how would you find out? Why would you need to know, besides idle curiosity, unless you litigate? Even if you litigate, you would have to seek discovery, and convince a High Court Judge that to pursue your own case and save Costs and court time, you needed to know what blocks were used by every company member, director, shareholder etc and their relations? Good luck with that...

The Irish part is to ignore the company and look at the families, the tribal gene of Brehon Law breaking out there.

All this is Utterly academic unless the issue is litigated, if there are billions involved it is extraordinary if one letter from one solicitor is enough to make all affected parties back off.

Okay lads shut the thread down now JCJCJC has declared that unless our betters have litigated on an issue then discussion is prohibited as its all academic apparently. Yes its a stupid question to wonder if the directors and their families of this ''family owned and family run'' mega corporation according to their LinkedIn profile were using their own blocks in their own houses or mysteriously buying non-defective ones from other sources, what could that possibly indicate I wonder? Anyway lock it up mods.

JCJCJC

Penfailed wrote: »

I've heard that a few families have tried and failed to get anywhere with legal action. It's expensive and solicitors win in the end.

Do you know if any of them got a Senior Counsel’s opinion?