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

RandomViewer

RandomViewer wrote: »

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

I'm not sure. I do know some of the cervical check victims shared a legal firm, but, then again, the cases that were settled seem to have been individual ones. (Afaik)


If a class action isn't possible, maybe there's room for compromise, where a group/s contribute to legal advice from a specialised firm?


I know that would take a bit of organising, because of all the variables, where people bought new houses from building firms, others bought houses privately, (pre-loved, as they say) some had houses built on family land, etc.,



I'm sure the various action groups have a fair bit of info about just how many groups are involved, they come across as being well organised - then again, for all I know, all this might already have happened...

muffler

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.

Cee-Jay-Cee

MrMusician18 wrote: »

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?

I have added you to my ignore list (unfortunately one can only do this on the desk top version not the phone app (that I can see)) anyway I urge everyone else to do the same. You have added no value to the conversation, you are neither supportive or helpful and your repetitive questions would be better directed at government and not us lowly Donegal people.

timmyntc

MrMusician18 wrote: »

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?

Sure why dont we just annex any properties with large gardens too?
Sure if there are no young children to play in it the garden is wasted, and according to you the state should redistribute resources so that people "live within their means" :rolleyes:

MrMusician18

muffler wrote: »

Yes.

That's fair enough one can have a difference of opinion but you might expand on that rather than giving a one word answer. I personally don't see why the state should be building homes that will lie largely idle, with the only function to provide an inheritance to the children. Yes this is a minority of cases, but it's important that it is resolved fairly.

timmyntc wrote: »

Sure why dont we just annex any properties with large gardens too?
Sure if there are no young children to play in it the garden is wasted, and according to you the state should redistribute resources so that people "live within their means" :rolleyes:

If you want a big garden go buy a big garden. If you want a big house go buy or build a big one. It isn't really fair to demand a big house from the state when you can't show a need.

If there were no scheme, families would be rehomed in houses of a suitable size based on their needs, not wants. This has to be a factor.

timmyntc

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If you want a big garden go buy a big garden. If you want a big house go buy or build a big one. It isn't really fair to demand a big house from the state when you can't show a need.

If there were no scheme, families would be rehomed in houses of a suitable size based on their needs, not wants. This has to be a factor.

Its not demanding a big house its demanding redress for the state's failing to regulate.

Another thing to think about though - the banks who lent mortgages on these properties. If the people dont get redress, and stop paying their mortgage - the banks too will be in trouble. Thousands of defaulters with no chance of getting any money from the asset even after they repossess?

Its in everyone's best interest to get proper redress for those affected.
Everyones interest but yours it seems.

muffler

MrMusician18 wrote: »

but you might expand on that rather than giving a one word answer.

No.

Technique

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I have added you to my ignore list (unfortunately one can only do this on the desk top version not the phone app (that I can see)) anyway I urge everyone else to do the same. You have added no value to the conversation, you are neither supportive or helpful and your repetitive questions would be better directed at government and not us lowly Donegal people.

It's a Donegal forum, with many here directly affected by the Mica issue. He's been on here daily winding people up, asking the same questions, repeating the same opinions. There are people here whose homes are falling down around them, but some posters are more concerned with being right on the internet. I wish they would start a thread on the Current Affairs forum and continue their circular arguments there.

I don't know if the Dublin forum had threads on Pyrite, Priory Hall etc., but if it did it wouldn't cross my mind to go on there and wind up people affected by the issues. I'd be giving them my best wishes and hoping that our government would give them full support.

joe40

timmyntc wrote: »

Its not demanding a big house its demanding redress for the state's failing to regulate.

Another thing to think about though - the banks who lent mortgages on these properties. If the people dont get redress, and stop paying their mortgage - the banks too will be in trouble. Thousands of defaulters with no chance of getting any money from the asset even after they repossess?

Its in everyone's best interest to get proper redress for those affected.
Everyones interest but yours it seems.

Good points. I actually wonder what regulations/quality checks on buildings and building materials are in place now, to prevent this sort of thing happening in the future.

timmyntc

joe40 wrote: »

Good points. I actually wonder what regulations/quality checks on buildings and building materials are in place now, to prevent this sort of thing happening in the future.

As far as I'm aware, nothing has changed so far.

Building regulations are still up to the manufacturer to check. There are no external audits of materials to ensure they meet the standards specified.

joe40

timmyntc wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, nothing has changed so far.

Building regulations are still up to the manufacturer to check. There are no external audits of materials to ensure they meet the standards specified.

That's mind boggling.

Pique

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.

On your planet with this scenario, how would the homeowners who are paying a mortgage on a 5-bedroom house valued (sans-mica) at 250k be reconciled that they are now presented with a 1-2 bedroom house?

They won't have the 'big house' so therefore the mortgage costs should be reduced proportionally, right? So the govt have to stump up the difference and give it to those lovely banks who caused the last financial crisis due to lack of oversight and regulation instead of the innocent homeowners whose homes are destroyed by the current lack of oversight and regulation.

Some people can hardly see the end of their nose, I swear.

MrMusician18

Technique wrote: »

It's a Donegal forum, with many here directly affected by the Mica issue. He's been on here daily winding people up, asking the same questions, repeating the same opinions. There are people here whose homes are falling down around them, but some posters are more concerned with being right on the internet. I wish they would start a thread on the Current Affairs forum and continue their circular arguments there.

I don't know if the Dublin forum had threads on Pyrite, Priory Hall etc., but if it did it wouldn't cross my mind to go on there and wind up people affected by the issues. I'd be giving them my best wishes and hoping that our government would give them full support.

This is part of the problem though. There is no expectation management going on. The only reason my posts are so problematic is because there is no effective counter argument to them. You can't say that the state failed in its duty of care when it had no duty of care to begin with. You may find my posting repetitive but that's because key questions remain unanswered. Or that we know the answer but that we couldn't admit it. The only reason the state is being pursued here is because it has the pockets deep enough and politician leverage can be exerted upon it. That's all.

If you're going to post on a discussion forum, be prepared for discussion - and that includes dissenting opinion.

Everyone caught up in this has my best wishes however. I don't want to see anyone in an unsafe home and I hope that the resolution that is arrived at is fair to the homeowners and the taxpayer too.

MrMusician18

Pique wrote: »

On your planet with this scenario, how would the homeowners who are paying a mortgage on a 5-bedroom house valued (sans-mica) at 250k be reconciled that they are now presented with a 1-2 bedroom house?

They won't have the 'big house' so therefore the mortgage costs should be reduced proportionally, right? So the govt have to stump up the difference and give it to those lovely banks who caused the last financial crisis due to lack of oversight and regulation instead of the innocent homeowners whose homes are destroyed by the current lack of oversight and regulation.

Some people can hardly see the end of their nose, I swear.

Given that the issues are largely 10-15 years in the making, there are going to be very few cases where a new house (even a smaller one) will not cover the existing debt.

Why should the government stump up the difference. The government has little to no role in the agreements between private individuals and banks. For the edge cases it would be up to the homeowners and banks to come to a negotiated settlement.

gandalfio

Technique wrote: »

I heard today that Cassidy's are supplying blocks to a new development in Lusk. Now they could be the best blocks in the world, but if I was a potential buyer it would spook me big time.

Which development in Lusk?

Pique

So you see no responsibility on the govt or the county councils for allowing a quarry supply blocks that were not up to the required standard resulting in thousands of houses which are utterly worthless? The innocent and unknowing housebuyers are just told to suck it up and tough luck paddy?

If you tell your kid not to play with matches but don't closely monitor them and they end up burning the house down, who's fault is it? The kid, for sure, but the parent definitely.

Self-regulation doesn't work in Ireland yet the govt sees fit to allow it.

timmyntc

MrMusician18 wrote: »

This is part of the problem though. There is no expectation management going on. The only reason my posts are so problematic is because there is no effective counter argument to them.

Almost every post of yours has several replies which refute the tenuous arguments you make. When this happens, you just ignore the post, and go on spouting the same crap.

If you wont argue in good faith, dont bother posting.

MrMusician18

[HTML][/HTML]

Pique wrote: »

So you see no responsibility on the govt or the county councils for allowing a quarry supply blocks that were not up to the required standard resulting in thousands of houses which are utterly worthless? The innocent and unknowing housebuyers are just told to suck it up and tough luck paddy?

If you tell your kid not to play with matches but don't closely monitor them and they end up burning the house down, who's fault is it? The kid, for sure, but the parent definitely.

Self-regulation doesn't work in Ireland yet the govt sees fit to allow it.

There is a very good argument for the State to take a more active role in construction materials quality assessment but at the time these were made it didn't have that role. Particularly large single points of failures, like quarries, block manufacturing, steel and cement production The state is unlikely to ever want that role because a, it's costly, and b, liability could be drawn upon it if it lets substandard materials get to market. In this particular case that is something of a moot point as the state ends up paying in the end anyway through political rather than legal pressure.

It isn't a case of tough luck paddy. The State has stepped up and put a lot of money on the table to right a problem not of its making. We just need to be realistic about how much of a burden we expect everyone to carry.

Dr. Em

Serious question: why is there not more of a push to get compensation from the company that supplied the defective blocks? As I understand, they are still in business.

muffler

Dr. Em wrote: »

Serious question: why is there not more of a push to get compensation from the company that supplied the defective blocks? As I understand, they are still in business.

Read the thread.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Technique wrote: »

It's a Donegal forum, with many here directly affected by the Mica issue. He's been on here daily winding people up, asking the same questions, repeating the same opinions. There are people here whose homes are falling down around them, but some posters are more concerned with being right on the internet. I wish they would start a thread on the Current Affairs forum and continue their circular arguments there.

I don't know if the Dublin forum had threads on Pyrite, Priory Hall etc., but if it did it wouldn't cross my mind to go on there and wind up people affected by the issues. I'd be giving them my best wishes and hoping that our government would give them full support.

I’m glad to report that if you go to the desk top full site you can add him to your ignore list and so his posts can’t be seen by you on your phone either. I can’t see a way to do it on my phone though.

FFVII

Dr. Em wrote: »

Serious question: why is there not more of a push to get compensation from the company that supplied the defective blocks? As I understand, they are still in business.

They apparently have no insurance. And one of the homeowners said it would cost 30,000euro to challenge that.

Strange. Legal expenses sre gone so bad its a process only available to rich?

Any house built in last 6 years shouldn't get redress.

Seems the whole county knew what was going on up there.

Dr. Em

FFVII wrote: »

They apparently have no insurance. And one of the homeowners said it would cost 30,000euro to challenge that.

Strange. Legal expenses sre gone so bad its a process only available to rich?

Any house built in last 6 years shouldn't get redress.

Seems the whole county knew what was going on up there.

So in essence the barrier to suing the company is too high for the ordinary person? In that case, are any groups coming together to sue jointly?

That is wrong on so many levels. Yes, the effected homeowners should get compensation, but it should come out of the company first, before drawing on the public purse.

jimmycrackcorm

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.

Why do people make the comparison with pyrite cases, focussing only on the redress percentage and totally ignore the actual figures in Euros? By Jan 2021 €150m had been spent on it.

The Mica redress scheme will cost billions in comparison, yet this difference is completely lost on people trying to argue this point.

It's also very difficult to plead the case for people suggesting it's unaffordable to get their houses tested when all the videos show people affected with detached houses on a nice big site. The optics just don't look so good especially in a housing crisis.

90% of the fees for testing are paid back on confirmation of eligibility for the scheme which also adds to the weakness of the unaffordability argument.

Dr. Em

muffler wrote: »

Read the thread.

All 107 pages? I've dipped in and out from the start and listened to the coverage on the radio and all I've seen or heard is that there might have been some civil cases taken early on and the rest of the conversation has been about redress from the government. That seems strange to say the least. Why is there not more of a fuss directed at the construction company?

jimmycrackcorm

FFVII wrote: »

They apparently have no insurance. And one of the homeowners said it would cost 30,000euro to challenge that.

Strange. Legal expenses sre gone so bad its a process only available to rich?

Any house built in last 6 years shouldn't get redress.

Seems the whole county knew what was going on up there.

It would be a total waste of money to challenge if the company had insurance or not. If it had, don't you think it would have happily simply passed on any claims to its insurance provider? The reality is that no manufacturer is going to have insurance for its products because it's not going to make sense. e.g. I don't believe any car manufacturer has insurance to cover recall defects.

Dr. Em wrote: »

So in essence the barrier to suing the company is too high for the ordinary person? In that case, are any groups coming together to sue jointly?

Same point - why? If anything, the council and government should be sued, funded as a group test case to establish responsibility for not ensuring the regulations were enforced. But even then, it's questionable if the government can be held 100% for payout.

Damien360

Dr. Em wrote: »

Serious question: why is there not more of a push to get compensation from the company that supplied the defective blocks? As I understand, they are still in business.

I’m on a staycation in Inishowen this week and spent all day today touring around the peninsula (gorgeous day today to show the scenery). There are loads of boycott Cassidy’s signs all over the place on very ordinary homes. Although it appears to be a large local employer, I don’t think the locals are going to overlook what they have done, even if it’s not done with any malice or intention of making a quick buck.

Penfailed

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why do people make the comparison with pyrite cases, focussing only on the redress percentage and totally ignore the actual figures in Euros? By Jan 2021 €150m had been spent on it.

The Mica redress scheme will cost billions in comparison, yet this difference is completely lost on people trying to argue this point.

It's also very difficult to plead the case for people suggesting it's unaffordable to get their houses tested when all the videos show people affected with detached houses on a nice big site. The optics just don't look so good especially in a housing crisis.

90% of the fees for testing are paid back on confirmation of eligibility for the scheme which also adds to the weakness of the unaffordability argument.

The difference isn't completely lost on me. I know the figures involved.

A big house on a detached site, yeah, some of them. Mortgaged to the hilt with no disposable income? People have waited up to six months for the 90% to come back to them. That's a big outlay for anyone. There was a retired lady getting a pension. She had to use her 'funeral money' to pay for the testing. How is that 'affordable'?

NIMAN

Re: detached houses on a nice big site.

My home would fit into that criteria, but it doesn't define how much money the owners have at their disposal.

Remember that in Donegal, after the crash, you could buy a detached house on a half acre site for between 125k - 175k.

And as mentioned, many had a lifetimes savings pumped into them, or were built on family land, so sites were free.

This isn't Dublin or Kildare, where people living in big detached houses on large sites probably have a property around the €1mill mark, compared to ones here worth maybe 200k (or worth next to nothing these days).

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

That's mind boggling.

It is, isn't it? Particularly when you consider Donegal Co Council have known about this problem for a considerable amount of time - and yet, not only was there no attempt to address the problem, but the defective blocks continued to be used for social houses - by Donegal Co. Council....

It's even more mind boggling when you consider the Government have known about it, too - and yet nothing was done except cook up a scheme that is so unfit for purpose that most people can't afford to even apply for the scheme in the first place....

MrMusician18 wrote: »

This is part of the problem though. There is no expectation management going on. The only reason my posts are so problematic is because there is no effective counter argument to them. You can't say that the state failed in its duty of care when it had no duty of care to begin with. You may find my posting repetitive but that's because key questions remain unanswered. Or that we know the answer but that we couldn't admit it. The only reason the state is being pursued here is because it has the pockets deep enough and politician leverage can be exerted upon it. That's all.

If you're going to post on a discussion forum, be prepared for discussion - and that includes dissenting opinion.

Everyone caught up in this has my best wishes however. I don't want to see anyone in an unsafe home and I hope that the resolution that is arrived at is fair to the homeowners and the taxpayer too.

Link?