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

kippy

10000maniacs wrote: »

The taxpayer is not meant to be a last stop insurance broker for everything that goes wrong. People don't want €5 billion of their hard earned tax blown on stuff like this. We will go bankrupt as a country if we continue down this path.

Can I ask what would you suggest happen in this instance?

Ideally we live a country that is governed well and thing like this don't happen in the first instance because God knows there are enough regulations about this type of thing but very obviously a while heap of failures from various individuals and organisations have led to this point.
If insurance doesn't pay out, the companies involved cannot pay redress, the people who own these properties have no other option but to seek assistance from the state - one way or another.

We should learn from the experience and further investigations should continue in parallel with a redress scheme but to suggest these people be left to fend for themselves after what has happened?

kippy

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.

Ye have a fairly limited view of the world if that's your takeaway tbh

Penfailed

JCJCJC wrote: »

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

I don't.

Cee-Jay-Cee

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?

Apparently Cassidy family members are also affected by mica issues in their houses. But that doesn’t absolve them in this. They were aware years ago there were serious problems with their blocks. There are countless stories of truck loads of blocks being refused on sites because the lower blocks had cracked and crumbled under the weight of the ones on top.

There are endless stories of block layers charging less to build with cassidys blocks as they were lighter and therefore they could throw houses up quicker and stories of lad who chased walls for cables/wiring etc charging more when a house was built with blocks other than cassidys as they were harder blocks and took more time to chase.

Cassidys were well aware their blocks were rubbish yet never took any action. The fact that they’d own families are also effected goes to show the level of greed they had.

Then by them winding up a perfectly profitable and viable business (Cassidy Bros) and a new company starting up the next morning (Cassidy & Sons) on the same premises/quarry, using the same trucks/equipment just compounds their guilt and the fact they knew this was going to blow up on them.

10000maniacs

kippy wrote: »

Ye have a fairly limited view of the world if that's your takeaway tbh

The banks go bust, ah sure the taxpayer will take care of it.
Houses have structural damage, ah sure the taxpayer will take care of it.
You are years behind in your mortgage, ah sure the taxpayer will take care of it.
Army deafness, ah sure you know already, wink wink....
It could only happen in Ireland!

kippy

10000maniacs wrote: »

The banks go bust, ah sure the taxpayer will take care of it.
Houses have structural damage, ah sure the taxpayer will take care of it.
You are years behind in your mortgage, ah sure the taxpayer will take care of it.
Army deafness, ah sure you know already, wink wink....
It could only happen in Ireland!

As I said, a limited view of the world.

MrMusician18

muffler wrote: »

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

I haven't misrepresented anything. You stated that the manufacturers are responsible (you're right btw, they are) for all certification and compliance but the corollary to that is that no one else is responsible, and that includes the State.

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.

Unless you can explain how the manufacturers are responsible and not at the same time?

jj880

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Unless you can explain how the manufacturers are responsible and not at the same time?

There are multiple government failings at play here. Which you are well aware of. You have repeatedly ignored all questions relating to this. Now you are cherry picking and sniping on this thread. I dont see why anyone should answer any of your questions as you ignore questions when it suits you.

joe40

Some unbelievably heartless people on this thread.

I live in Donegal (Letterkeny region) and my house was built in late 2000. So nearly 21 years old at this stage.

I found out from the builder at the weekend that Cassidy's block were used. I have no very obvious issues but there are a few thin cracks in the exterior walls. There is a long horizontal crack along the base. Very thin though, like a hairline crack. The walls are pebble dashed so cracks aren't as obvious.

I'm not sure now if these are just normal settlement or something more serious. Are there any telltale patterns of cracking associated with mica. I will get a builder to look at it, but I'm not sure if I'm at the stage of paying 6000 euro for a full check.

It is an awful thing for a family home to be damaged like this through no fault on the owners part.

muffler

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Unless you can explain how the manufacturers are responsible and not at the same time?

Building Control.

Cee-Jay-Cee

joe40 wrote: »

Some unbelievably heartless people on this thread.

I live in Donegal (Letterkeny region) and my house was built in late 2000. So nearly 21 years old at this stage.

I found out from the builder at the weekend that Cassidy's block were used. I have no very obvious issues but there are a few thin cracks in the exterior walls. There is a long horizontal crack along the base. Very thin though, like a hairline crack. The walls are pebble dashed so cracks aren't as obvious.

I'm not sure now if these are just normal settlement or something more serious. Are there any telltale patterns of cracking associated with mica. I will get a builder to look at it, but I'm not sure if I'm at the stage of paying 6000 euro for a full check.

It is an awful thing for a family home to be damaged like this through no fault on the owners part.

I think it sort of depends on when the blocks were made, earlier blocks may not contain the same levels of mica (if any at all) as later blocks. They say that cracks start to appear after approximately 7 years and once moisture/rain gets into those cracks they get worse and the blocks deteriorate. Chances are you may be one of the luckier ones and while there may be some mica present in the blocks it doesn't appear to be at a level that causes them to crumble like seen in other houses built much later than yours. Pebble dashing gives a certain level of extra protection from the elements compared to smooth plaster which cracks easier.

jj880

joe40 wrote: »

Some unbelievably heartless people on this thread.

I live in Donegal (Letterkeny region) and my house was built in late 2000. So nearly 21 years old at this stage.

I found out from the builder at the weekend that Cassidy's block were used. I have no very obvious issues but there are a few thin cracks in the exterior walls. There is a long horizontal crack along the base. Very thin though, like a hairline crack. The walls are pebble dashed so cracks aren't as obvious.

I'm not sure now if these are just normal settlement or something more serious. Are there any telltale patterns of cracking associated with mica. I will get a builder to look at it, but I'm not sure if I'm at the stage of paying 6000 euro for a full check.

It is an awful thing for a family home to be damaged like this through no fault on the owners part.

This is from the 100% redress facebook group.


Have you joined the group? I highly recommend it. Here it is: https://www.facebook.com/groups/297785338568131

If you only have some hairline cracks at present I would wait until the end of July before doing anything. This is when the current redress scheme is to be reviewed.

Any updates will be posted in the 100% redress group. Good luck!

joe40

Thanks a million for the replies, that was a help.
I don't want to get panic stations just yet, but it just shows how devastating this issue could be.
I have 2 teenage kids and saving as much as possible now for college costs. Massive building cost would be extremely difficult/impossible.

I will definitely have a look at the facebook page.

NIMAN

joe40 wrote: »

Thanks a million for the replies, that was a help.
I don't want to get panic stations just yet, but it just shows how devastating this issue could be.
I have 2 teenage kids and saving as much as possible now for college costs. Massive building cost would be extremely difficult/impossible.

I will definitely have a look at the facebook page.

I'm similar to yourself Joe40.

My house was built in 2001. There were a handful of very fine cracks in the plaster, and to be honest they never got any worse over the years.

Now this last 6 months maybe, I have got more, slightly more pronounced. Also got a few of those horizontal ones along the base of the house. Again not sure how worried I should be?

None of these cracks are actually open, and look like hairline in the plaster for now.

But the worrying ones are in my chimney. I have cracks on 3 sides, and they appear open, so I plan to get up to it soon to get a closer look and probably fill them in to stop water ingress.

I also have some hairline cracks in a few rooms inside, not sure how long they have been there. Over the last 4 years we had 2 bathrooms fully renovated, and in both jobs there was a lot of kango work, and I am hoping against hope that this could have caused the internal ones! I may be just putting my head in the sand on that.

As mentioned, I think if I have mica, it's probably there but at much lower levels, and as such is taking much longer to appear. I'm sure if your blocks had 5% mica then they will survive a lot longer than one with 15% mica before they start showing signs.

muffler

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Then by them winding up a perfectly profitable and viable business (Cassidy Bros) and a new company starting up the next morning (Cassidy & Sons) on the same premises/quarry, using the same trucks/equipment just compounds their guilt and the fact they knew this was going to blow up on them.

I dont think thats acurate. The original company are still listed as active with the CRO.

muffler

jj880 wrote: »

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.

I would gladly oblige if someone can give me the facts as opposed to opinions. Just as an example we have different opinions on whether litigation was entered into with some people saying yes, Cassidys were sued and others saying no because the company had no insuarance. Then there is the issue of Cassidys closing down one company and then opening another. Again there are different opinions on this.

So if anyone who has been keeping up to date with this thread and can provide hard facts then I will certainly post those in the thread starter.

Penfailed

joe40 wrote: »

Some unbelievably heartless people on this thread.

I live in Donegal (Letterkeny region) and my house was built in late 2000. So nearly 21 years old at this stage.

I found out from the builder at the weekend that Cassidy's block were used. I have no very obvious issues but there are a few thin cracks in the exterior walls. There is a long horizontal crack along the base. Very thin though, like a hairline crack. The walls are pebble dashed so cracks aren't as obvious.

I'm not sure now if these are just normal settlement or something more serious. Are there any telltale patterns of cracking associated with mica. I will get a builder to look at it, but I'm not sure if I'm at the stage of paying 6000 euro for a full check.

It is an awful thing for a family home to be damaged like this through no fault on the owners part.

Our cracks started as very thin hairline cracks. Noticed them around 2009. The two really bad winters in '10 and '11 had a dramatic affect. The side 'facing the weather' is really bad now but the other end of the house also has the telltale hairline cracks.

MrMusician18

jj880 wrote: »

There are multiple government failings at play here. Which you are well aware of. You have repeatedly ignored all questions relating to this. Now you are cherry picking and sniping on this thread. I dont see why anyone should answer any of your questions as you ignore questions when it suits you.

This has been said several times but no one has provided any evidence, any, that the state failed in its statutory duties. You haven't even pointed to legislation that creates these statutory obligations.

Just because the State can test materials, it doesn't have to however.

I haven't ignored anything by the way. And it isn't about being heartless either, it's about fairness. The scheme has to be fair to not just homeowners affected, but everyone in the State. 100% redress would lead to the following perverse outcome as an example: the state rebuilding a 5 bed home for two people as the children have flew the nest. This while we have a housing crisis. It would also likely mean that almost all houses would be demolished rather than repaired as who would stand for mica in part of their house when everyone else is getting a rebuild - costs would spiral.

Penfailed

MrMusician18 wrote: »

l haven't ignored anything by the way. And it isn't about being heartless either, it's about fairness. The scheme has to be fair to not just homeowners affected, but everyone in the State. 100% redress would lead to the following perverse outcome as an example: the state rebuilding a 5 bed home for two people as the children have flew the nest. This while we have a housing crisis. It would also likely mean that almost all houses would be demolished rather than repaired as who would stand for mica in part of their house when everyone else is getting a rebuild - costs would spiral.

Okay for pyrite in Dublin/Leinster but not mica in Donegal?
As I've pointed out, at least twice to you (and been ignored both times), the current scheme is not fair and is not fit for purpose. If people can't even afford to pay to get their houses tested for mica, even when it's quite obvious, in order to access the scheme, it's not working.

MrMusician18

Penfailed wrote: »

Okay for pyrite in Dublin/Leinster but not mica in Donegal?
As I've pointed out, at least twice to you (and been ignored both times), the current scheme is not fair and is not fit for purpose. If people can't even afford to pay to get their houses tested for mica, even when it's quite obvious, in order to access the scheme, it's not working.

That's not the question I asked. Can you point to the statutory failing that draws a liability on the State.

Would a 100% scheme be fair to everyone else though? There is a balance to be struck here, it's the absolutism thats bothersome. I agree that the current scheme has its issues. For example and although I don't know the entire ins-and-outs of the testing required, 6-8k seems excessive - especially for what will generally be a boilerplate report. There have been ways presented to make it more affordable for those that can't pay the balance but instead of being considered are just dismissed outright.


Other grant schemes do not set a legal precedent by the way. The State could turn around and do nothing for mica homeowners and there is nothing legally they could do about it. Morally it would be completely wrong of course. Homeowners absolutely deserve help, it's the level that is up for debate.

muffler

MrMusician18 wrote: »

100% redress would lead to the following perverse outcome as an example: the state rebuilding a 5 bed home for two people as the children have flew the nest.

That has to be one of the most idiotic and heartless comments I have seen in this thread.

jj880

MrMusician18 wrote: »

This has been said several times but no one has provided any evidence, any, that the state failed in its statutory duties. You haven't even pointed to legislation that creates these statutory obligations.

Just because the State can test materials, it doesn't have to however.

I haven't ignored anything by the way. And it isn't about being heartless either, it's about fairness. The scheme has to be fair to not just homeowners affected, but everyone in the State. 100% redress would lead to the following perverse outcome as an example: the state rebuilding a 5 bed home for two people as the children have flew the nest. This while we have a housing crisis. It would also likely mean that almost all houses would be demolished rather than repaired as who would stand for mica in part of their house when everyone else is getting a rebuild - costs would spiral.

Ok you are saying government failure is based on current statutes. But when a crisis like this is addressed properly the statutes will follow - we would hope. I still see it as a government failure right now. Difference of opinion.

You don't take the solicitors letter in the redress group stating cassidys blocks arent insured as proof the council failed in their duties when approving tenders. Now in the business post the housing minister states they will look at this. I have no doubt the redress group are seeking legal assurances on this also. IF it comes to light that no insurance company is covering the blocks used by Donegal County Council are you going to concede the council (and by extension the government) has failed miserably in their duties to protect the public and taxpayer?

We will come back to this at a later date.

Penfailed

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That's not the question I asked. Can you point to the statutory failing that draws a liability on the State.

I wasn't responding to your question. That's why I didn't include it in my quote. I'm not au fait with the finer points of law so I'll leave that to people who are.

MrMusician18

muffler wrote: »

That has to be one of the most idiotic and heartless comments I have seen in this thread.

What is idiotic or heartless about it. While there won't be very many of these cases - if rebuilding becomes the general rule there will be a significant minority quantity of homes rebuilt to a size that is bigger than required for the families size now.

Do you think it's appropriate for the state to 100% pay for the rebuilding of a four bed home that only has parents of adult children living in it now?

Penfailed

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Do you think it's appropriate for the state to 100% pay for the rebuilding of a four bed home that only has parents of adult children living in it now?

Yes.

mickdw

Personally i think there should be an adjustment downwards for age of existing house being replaced as a new build will be an significant improvement in spec re energy etc.
So id be in favour of 100 percent cost based on floor area existing at todays construction rates including for fitout however reduced by a percentage based on age. Afterall in normal conditions, someone with a 20 year old house might be spending some cash on it whether it be insulation, heating system replacement or general refresh.
The new build will put them in significantly better position than any non defective house built at original date.

joe40

jj880 wrote: »

Ok you are saying government failure is based on current statutes. But when a crisis like this is addressed properly the statutes will follow - we would hope. I still see it as a government failure right now. Difference of opinion.

You don't take the solicitors letter in the redress group stating cassidys blocks arent insured as proof the council failed in their duties when approving tenders. Now in the business post the housing minister states they will look at this. I have no doubt the redress group are seeking legal assurances on this also. IF it comes to light that no insurance company is covering the blocks used by Donegal County Council are you going to concede the council (and by extension the government) has failed miserably in their duties to protect the public and taxpayer?

We will come back to this at a later date.

yes it is a government failure.

I'm not allowed to drive on a road without car insurance because of the damage I could cause. Which is absolutely correct.
Why are suppliers of building materials and the people who provide final certification not compelled to have insurance for these eventualities.

I don't know enough about the quarry involved to know if this was accidental, incompetence or negligient. But in term of compensation for the people involved it is a moot point because they will not have the resources to provide compensation (Not saying they should not pay a penalty for any wrongdoing)

Should the engineers/architects involved not be compelled to have suffucient indemnity insurance when inspections/certification fail to see problems.

Mistakes can happen, sometimes they're unavoidable but there should be contingencies in place.

Surely bricks meeting an acceptable standard would not be difficult. Was there even EU legislation in place for safety and performance standards similar to what is in place for electrical equipment, gas installation etc

listermint

muffler wrote: »

That has to be one of the most idiotic and heartless comments I have seen in this thread.

Frankly I don't think anything he has said is heartless. There is a thin line here between excess emotion and functional problem solving. It seems most on the thread are revelling in anger and reactive emotion and there are others like musician discussing how to solve the problem rationally with reasonable outcomes for all.

I mean if people think screaming and shouting will get them a better response they're wrong.

DrPhilG

listermint wrote: »

there are others like musician discussing how to solve the problem rationally with reasonable outcomes for all.

Ah give over. He can hardly go 2 days straight without some snide dig about how the victims are looking for a blank cheque or somehow profiting from the disaster.

kippy

listermint wrote: »

Frankly I don't think anything he has said is heartless. There is a thin line here between excess emotion and functional problem solving. It seems most on the thread are revelling in anger and reactive emotion and there are others like musician discussing how to solve the problem rationally with reasonable outcomes for all.

I mean if people think screaming and shouting will get them a better response they're wrong.

Well, there's looking for a solution that suits everyone (none does or will) and there's getting the problem sorted for these people ASAP.
And in fairnes, in Ireland, if you don't jump up and down and shout, very little gets done - especially when it comes to issues such as this.