Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…4142444647…93

Comments

  • Options
    #1292
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


    The have insufficient assets, and no insurance. I get the impression that a lot of people would be only too happy to get compensation from Cassidys. The problem is, it would cost them more to pursue the compensation than they would actually get in redress.. as some people have found out the hard way...


  • Options
    #1293
    MrMusician18
    Registered Users Posts: 7,387 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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....




    Link?

    How can I link to something that doesn't exist?

    What I find odd is that seemingly it was well known that the blocks were rubbish (easy to chase, bales collapsing under their own weight) while at the same time no one had any idea that they were rubbish.


  • Options
    #1294
    muffler
    Registered Users Posts: 46,082 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    MrMusician18 wrote: »
    How can I link to something that doesn't exist?
    But when people say the government had a responsibility you want a link / proof. Maybe practice what you preach.


  • Options
    #1295
    MrMusician18
    Registered Users Posts: 7,387 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    muffler wrote: »
    But when people say the government had a responsibility you want a link / proof. Maybe practice what you preach.

    That's because you can prove that a regulation exists by pointing to it. What exactly can I link to?

    The absence of a regulation is shown by the lack of successful legal action taken against the State on this issue.


  • Options
    #1296
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,589 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Deleted User wrote: »
    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....




    Link?

    And yet, the man in charge of Donegal CC during that time, has been appointed to chair the newly established Independent Working Group on defective housing.

    You couldn't make it up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1297
    Penfailed
    Registered Users Posts: 7,583 ✭✭✭Penfailed


    MrMusician18 wrote: »
    What I find odd is that seemingly it was well known that the blocks were rubbish (easy to chase, bales collapsing under their own weight) while at the same time no one had any idea that they were rubbish.

    Do you think I bought my house knowing that there may be an issue with the blocks? No.

    Gigs '24 - Ben Ottewell and Ian Ball (Gomez), The Jesus & Mary Chain, The Smashing Pumpkins/Weezer, Pearl Jam, Green Day, Stendhal Festival, Forest Fest, Electric Picnic, Ride, PJ Harvey, Pixies, Public Service Broadcasting, Therapy?, IDLES(x2)



  • Options
    #1298
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,589 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    MrMusician18 wrote: »
    How can I link to something that doesn't exist?

    What I find odd is that seemingly it was well known that the blocks were rubbish (easy to chase, bales collapsing under their own weight) while at the same time no one had any idea that they were rubbish.

    I bought my house in 2010/11.

    Mica wasn't even spoken about then. It was an unknown until maybe 2014.

    Mica issues are now being seen in homes from 1996 onwards. Everyone who bought or built a house from 1996 - 2014 had no clue they were potentially buying trouble in the future.


  • Options
    #1299
    MrMusician18
    Registered Users Posts: 7,387 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    Penfailed wrote: »
    Do you think I bought my house knowing that there may be an issue with the blocks? No.

    I wouldn't have thought so. I am just trying to square your comment with the one below
    Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »
    Apparently <block supplier> 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 <block supplier> 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 <block supplier> as they were harder blocks and took more time to chase.

    ....


  • Options
    #1300
    jj880
    Registered Users Posts: 4,802 ✭✭✭jj880


    MrMusician18 wrote: »
    What I find odd is that seemingly it was well known that the blocks were rubbish (easy to chase, bales collapsing under their own weight) while at the same time no one had any idea that they were rubbish.

    Your most pathetic insinuation and clearest bait so far. A really poor post.


  • Options
    #1301
    Cherry Blossom
    Registered Users Posts: 6,943 ✭✭✭Cherry Blossom


    Mr. Musician,
    You have well and truly made your points. You keep rehashing the the same arguments in a soapboxing manner and getting peoples backs up in the process. It’s become tiresome reading your posts and you are becoming a bit of a timesink in this thread. It’s time to move on to something new. I will ask you not to post the same old arguments again.

    Thanks,
    CB.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1302
    Mcdock
    Registered Users Posts: 23 ✭Mcdock


    NIMAN wrote: »
    I bought my house in 2010/11.

    Mica wasn't even spoken about then. It was an unknown until maybe 2014.

    Mica issues are now being seen in homes from 1996 onwards. Everyone who bought or built a house from 1996 - 2014 had no clue they were potentially buying trouble in the future.


    There are houses from 1991.with mica


  • Options
    #1303
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,589 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Re: builders who saw the odd crumbling block, or guys who found a block easier to chase, I'm sure they didn't have any idea even then that the blocks would eventually turn to weetabix and lose most of their strength.

    If so, you would think there wouldn't be a builder with a mica house. Yet I am sure there are plenty out there.


  • Options
    #1304
    mickdw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,353 ✭✭✭✭mickdw


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Re: builders who saw the odd crumbling block, or guys who found a block easier to chase, I'm sure they didn't have any idea even then that the blocks would eventually turn to weetabix and lose most of their strength.

    If so, you would think there wouldn't be a builder with a mica house. Yet I am sure there are plenty out there.

    Local blocklayers here in mayo wouldnt build the defective brand here for a number of years if given the choice as they were different weights and cut so badly that it was a pain in the ass.
    Lots of houses still got built where you had blow in trades who didnt give a damn or where home owners insisted on using the slightly cheaper blocks despite warnings.

    Ive seen this firat hand and i was well advised by a local tradesman not to touch them a number of years back. I wotk as a supervising Engineer on house builds.
    I find some of the comments here re Engineers being held liable quite sickening. We have indemnity insurance however some people seem to believe this is a building guarantee even when they take the most basic package of works from Engineer.


  • Options
    #1305
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    mickdw wrote: »
    Local blocklayers here in mayo wouldnt build the defective brand here for a number of years if given the choice as they were different weights and cut so badly that it was a pain in the ass.
    Lots of houses still got built where you had blow in trades who didnt give a damn or where home owners insisted on using the slightly cheaper blocks despite warnings.

    Ive seen this firat hand and i was well advised by a local tradesman not to touch them a number of years back. I wotk as a supervising Engineer on house builds.
    I find some of the comments here re Engineers being held liable quite sickening. We have indemnity insurance however some people seem to believe this is a building guarantee even when they take the most basic package of works from Engineer.

    I'm not interested in scapegoats in this but if what you are saying is true then you as an engineer knew blocks were defective, some tradesmen knew they were defective then why were houses been approved by engineers.

    Not you of course, but why were other engineers certifying the work.


  • Options
    #1306
    muffler
    Registered Users Posts: 46,082 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    joe40 wrote: »
    you as an engineer knew blocks were defective
    How do you figure that?


  • Options
    #1307
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    muffler wrote: »
    How do you figure that?

    I'm only going by what the poster said in their own post.
    "I was well advised by a local tradesman not to touch them"

    I do know of actual builders that now have issues so I don't think it was as obvious at the time that blocks were defective but some are saying it was. I just don't know.

    I know when my house was been built in 2000 I just assumed all blocks were fit for purpose. It never crossed my mind there might be issues.


  • Options
    #1308
    Triangle
    Registered Users Posts: 960 ✭✭✭Triangle


    Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

    Banks need to be instructed/ordered to suspend mortgages with no back interest or fees for the duration of the rebuild while the people are not living in the house.

    Insurance companies need to be taken to task where people who have insurance are able to claim some of the costs back from them.

    Homebond should be ordered to pay out on the hundreds of bonded homes. They should not be simply allowed to walk away from it. They made millions from builds in the boom times and so now is time to pay it back!

    It's all well and good saying this, but there's currently no laws to do what you're saying and bringing them in now only works forward.

    Unless the entity is a public body (or majority shareholder is the state) .....

    The only way forward is public money that could possibly be got back by levies on the above industries ( but we all know who will end up paying anyways!)

    Edit: I'm 100% behind a 100% redress scheme, just saying the best and fastest (and possibly only) way forward is for the Government to step up.


  • Options
    #1309
    RandomViewer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭RandomViewer


    joe40 wrote: »
    I'm not interested in scapegoats in this but if what you are saying is true then you as an engineer knew blocks were defective, some tradesmen knew they were defective then why were houses been approved by engineers.

    Not you of course, but why were other engineers certifying the work.

    Lots of these houses were built in the Tiger years, I would suspect that the assumption was that the blocks were to minimum specification but within regulation, them being lighter and easy to cut and chase meant quicker builds so quicker sale,


  • Options
    #1310
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    RandomViewer wrote: »
    Lots of these houses were built in the Tiger years, I would suspect that the assumption was that the blocks were to minimum specification but within regulation, them being lighter and easy to cut and chase meant quicker builds so quicker sale,

    Yeah I agree, I don't think builders or engineers were knowingly using defective blocks. Otherwise you would not have the situation where builder themselves are affected by this, which is happening.

    I just hate the idea that is floating in some areas that this is somehow people's own fault for trying to cut costs with sub standard building materials.


  • Options
    #1311
    Technique
    Registered Users Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭Technique


    The blocks concerned were definitely not the cheapest. I hindsight, I should have gone for one of the cheaper block suppliers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1312
    FFVII
    Registered Users Posts: 1,382 ✭✭✭FFVII


    Technique wrote: »
    The blocks concerned were definitely not the cheapest. I hindsight, I should have gone for one of the cheaper block suppliers.

    Ive read about 40+ pages and you are only one to say this.

    When this is paid off and added to bank bail out and added borrowing....the "tiger", what a joke.


  • Options
    #1313
    Cee-Jay-Cee
    Registered Users Posts: 12,235 ✭✭✭✭Cee-Jay-Cee


    Triangle wrote: »
    It's all well and good saying this, but there's currently no laws to do what you're saying and bringing them in now only works forward.

    What I meant was for the government to make laws in order to compel them to do these things.


  • Options
    #1314
    Cee-Jay-Cee
    Registered Users Posts: 12,235 ✭✭✭✭Cee-Jay-Cee


    Technique wrote: »
    The blocks concerned were definitely not the cheapest. I hindsight, I should have gone for one of the cheaper block suppliers.

    Just out of interest, when did you build and roughly how much did you pay for blocks?

    My house was built with blocks from another company in 2008 and from receipts it looks like blocks were roughly 42c each at the time.


  • Options
    #1315
    MrMusician18
    Registered Users Posts: 7,387 ✭✭✭MrMusician18


    Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »
    Just out of interest, when did you build and roughly how much did you pay for blocks?

    My house was built with blocks from another company in 2008 and from receipts it looks like blocks were roughly 42c each at the time.

    To be fair when looking at the price of the blocks one needs to consider carriage too. So while it may look like one supplier is more expensive on a unit basis, that isn't the case for the whole job when all things are considered.

    It's for this reason that blocks are generally supplied by relatively local companies. I don't know what the alternative companies are there in Donegal though and if the market is particularly competitive. Capacity to supply can also be another factor as well.


  • Options
    #1316
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    MrMusician18 wrote: »
    How can I link to something that doesn't exist?

    What I find odd is that seemingly it was well known that the blocks were rubbish (easy to chase, bales collapsing under their own weight) while at the same time no one had any idea that they were rubbish.


    You made the comment, back it up, or retract it - because I suspect we both know that you're presenting wishful thinking as fact...

    MrMusician18 wrote: »
    That's because you can prove that a regulation exists by pointing to it. What exactly can I link to?

    The absence of a regulation is shown by the lack of successful legal action taken against the State on this issue.


    Now you're really stretching it! You say in one post you can't prove something that "doesn't exist" - yet, the slightest bit of research would prove you're being less than honest...


    In the next post, you try to insist that the absence of a court case against the state proves a regulation doesn't exist...


    Are you dizzy, yet? That's some twisting and turning...


  • Options
    #1317
    Penfailed
    Registered Users Posts: 7,583 ✭✭✭Penfailed


    Good segment on Ireland AM this morning. They've a mica documentary that will air this evening at 7:30 on Virgin One.

    https://www.virginmediatelevision.ie/player/show/809/186518/0/Ireland-AM

    Gigs '24 - Ben Ottewell and Ian Ball (Gomez), The Jesus & Mary Chain, The Smashing Pumpkins/Weezer, Pearl Jam, Green Day, Stendhal Festival, Forest Fest, Electric Picnic, Ride, PJ Harvey, Pixies, Public Service Broadcasting, Therapy?, IDLES(x2)



  • Options
    #1318
    jj880
    Registered Users Posts: 4,802 ✭✭✭jj880


    Some big ideas coming out on the redress group. 1 poster came up with the following:
    Maybe an option if you live on a large site. Could you continue to live in your mica home while your new home is being built next to it, solving rent and storage issues

    I'd imagine it would help home owners to see their new restored home ready before seeing the mica home demolished.


  • Options
    #1319
    Cee-Jay-Cee
    Registered Users Posts: 12,235 ✭✭✭✭Cee-Jay-Cee


    jj880 wrote: »
    Some big ideas coming out on the redress group. 1 poster came up with the following:



    I'd imagine it would help home owners to see their new restored home ready before seeing the mica home demolished.

    The problem with that is that it would make sense and save money so therefore it will never even be considered. The government only do expensive, ineffective, cumbersome, lengthy and nonsensical solutions to problems.


  • Options
    #1320
    mondeoman72
    Registered Users Posts: 870 ✭✭✭mondeoman72


    jj880 wrote: »
    Some big ideas coming out on the redress group. 1 poster came up with the following:



    I'd imagine it would help home owners to see their new restored home ready before seeing the mica home demolished.
    Cool idea, but if you decided to stay in the house while a new house was built next to it, what happens if it crashes in on you. Imagine the law suits.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1321
    jj880
    Registered Users Posts: 4,802 ✭✭✭jj880


    mondeoman72 wrote: »
    Cool idea, but if you decided to stay in the house while a new house was built next to it, what happens if it crashes in on you. Imagine the law suits.

    That is true. If we ever get to a stage where mica houses in the early stages of cracking get redress it could work. There is the short supply of suitable rental properties to consider also i.e. long term not airbnb.


Advertisement