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

RandomViewer

jj880 wrote: »

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.

Government will probably do a deal with some Portacabin company, it'll be like all the demountable dwellings they put up for the old people in the 70s a B d 80s, houses might never be sorted

mickdw

Technique wrote: »

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

In Mayo, the defective blocks were the cheaper supplier. Only 30 to 50 euro per load cheaper if i remember right but this was a deciding factor for some.

Penfailed

The documentary that just aired on Virgin Media One was excellent. Hard hitting.

NIMAN

Penfailed wrote: »

The documentary that just aired on Virgin Media One was excellent. Hard hitting.

Bloody missed it.

Do they repeat those type of shows?

Have they got an iPlayer?

Penfailed

NIMAN wrote: »

Bloody missed it.

Do they repeat those type of shows?

Have they got an iPlayer?

Yeah, there's a Virgin Media Player.

Penfailed

Penfailed wrote: »

Yeah, there's a Virgin Media Player.

Or Sky 203/Virgin One +1 now.

Atlantic Dawn

NIMAN wrote: »

Bloody missed it.

Do they repeat those type of shows?

Have they got an iPlayer?

It was on my EPG as Red Rock, here it is on the player...
https://www.virginmediatelevision.ie/player/show/2105/186555/0/

joe40

Penfailed wrote: »

The documentary that just aired on Virgin Media One was excellent. Hard hitting.

Yeah worth watching. Good that the issue is getting national attention. All the homeowners interviewed came across really well.

Mcdock

Concrete block prices 2003
Cassidys.€385
Barrs. € 360
Chambers €366

For 880 load of 4 inch

lulu1

Penfailed wrote: »

The documentary that just aired on Virgin Media One was excellent. Hard hitting.

Really heartbreaking

Atlantic Dawn

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It was on my EPG as Red Rock, here it is on the player...
https://www.virginmediatelevision.ie/player/show/2105/186555/0/

Poor souls. My heart goes out to them.

Atlantic Dawn

Mcdock wrote: »

Concrete block prices 2003
Cassidys.€385
Barrs. € 360
Chambers €366

For 880 load of 4 inch

Out of interest how many blocks would be needed to build a typical 3 bedroom house?

It is awful to see that happen to 5000 families.

I'm still not sure why those affected want their fellow taxpayers to share the cost of rebuilding.

Personally if given the choice between my tax going towards this or improving the health service I want my money going to things like hiring more nurses and paying all of them better.

Penfailed

whatnow! wrote: »

It is awful to see that happen to 5000 families.

I'm still not sure why those affected want their fellow taxpayers to share the cost of rebuilding.

We have no choice!

Atlantic Dawn

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Out of interest how many blocks would be needed to build a typical 3 bedroom house?

Around 4,000 - 5,000, give or take, depending on actual house size.

Technique

whatnow! wrote: »

It is awful to see that happen to 5000 families.

I'm still not sure why those affected want their fellow taxpayers to share the cost of rebuilding.

Personally if given the choice between my tax going towards this or improving the health service I want my money going to things like hiring more nurses and paying all of them better.

Helping the families whose homes have been destroyed by Mica will have zero impact on whether nurses are hired or not. Please don't try to turn this into a Mica versus nurses issue.

Cee-Jay-Cee

whatnow! wrote: »

It is awful to see that happen to 5000 families.

I'm still not sure why those affected want their fellow taxpayers to share the cost of rebuilding.

Personally if given the choice between my tax going towards this or improving the health service I want my money going to things like hiring more nurses and paying all of them better.

If you were one of those effected you’d understand.

Thankfully people like you don’t have a choice where tax money goes and hopefully all those thousands of families effected get full redress and the help they need.

It was an example, however as someone who is not affected by Mica I'm not sure why I should contribute anything. This is a consumer versus private company issue.

The government should have set better minimum standards to protect consumers but that doesn't make us all liable. It's a huge amount of money at a time when we have taken on more debt with covid and inflation is about to hit hard so funds are quite stretched as is.

One issue that many taxpayers have is that quite a few of these houses are nicer than what they will ever have and far above what would be considered minimum viable living standard.

It's a fair question.

whatnow!

whatnow! wrote: »

It is awful to see that happen to 5000 families.

I'm still not sure why those affected want their fellow taxpayers to share the cost of rebuilding.

Personally if given the choice between my tax going towards this or improving the health service I want my money going to things like hiring more nurses and paying all of them better.

According to the HSE, the average pay of a staff nurse is €53k in this country and we spend a 3rd more on average than other OECD members per head on healthcare. The HSE does not need any more money. The HSE obsession in the country is becoming a bit cult like, akin to the NHS.

These fellow taxpayers deserve to have their houses rebuilt. The bought and paid for something now worthless. The absence of governmental oversight and regulation is to blame, not to mention the acceptance of liability with the pyrite scandal.

That’s where I want my tax going, to house people, to help people, not to pay the HSE managers more to do nothing.

I agree they deserve to have their houses rebuilt.

Regulations can't cover every eventuality.

I'm asking why should any of the tax I paid go towards this?

It's something that will need to be answered to get people on your side and have government sign off on it.

Cee-Jay-Cee

whatnow! wrote: »

It was an example, however as someone who is not affected by Mica I'm not sure why I should contribute anything. This is a consumer versus private company issue.

The government should have set better minimum standards to protect consumers but that doesn't make us all liable. It's a huge amount of money at a time when we have taken on more debt with covid and inflation is about to hit hard so funds are quite stretched as is.

One issue that many taxpayers have is that quite a few of these houses are nicer than what they will ever have and far above what would be considered minimum viable living standard.

It's a fair question.

They might be bigger but they still cost considerably less than what a 3 bed semi in Dublin Cork or Galway. You chose to live where you live, no one made you. You could have lived anywhere you wanted.

Donegal has been the forgotten county for decades, in fact since day one, we have less investment in every single sector, we have no rail links or motorways (or even dual carriageways) but yet all the city people will see is a nicer house and begrudge them for it.

whatnow! wrote: »

I agree they deserve to have their houses rebuilt.

Regulations can't cover every eventuality.

I'm asking why should any of the tax I paid go towards this?

It's something that will need to be answered to get people on your side and have government sign off on it.

It’s not something to be answered. The vast majority of intelligent people know that a house in Donegal or Mayo costs way less than one in Dublin. They don’t need that explained to them by anyone.

water-man

Maybe this has been discussed before however would the effected families accept a a smaller more basic designed house built to todays standards or are they expecting the tax payer to replace with like for like?

The lack of motorways in Donegal has nothing to do with taxpayers contributing towards the cost of replacement of Mica homes (or Pyrite homes in Dublin).

whatnow!

whatnow! wrote: »

It was an example, however as someone who is not affected by Mica I'm not sure why I should contribute anything. This is a consumer versus private company issue.

The government should have set better minimum standards to protect consumers but that doesn't make us all liable. It's a huge amount of money at a time when we have taken on more debt with covid and inflation is about to hit hard so funds are quite stretched as is.

One issue that many taxpayers have is that quite a few of these houses are nicer than what they will ever have and far above what would be considered minimum viable living standard.

It's a fair question.

Exactly. And then they should have ensured the standards and regulations were enforced....


They didn't! That's the point...
So lay the blame for this where it belongs - not on the poor unfortunate people whose houses are falling down round them - houses that they paid for, and are continuing to pay for - despite the fact that the materials used were not "fit for the purpose for which they were intended" through no fault of the buyers or builders... who had reasonable expectations that the materials were fit for purpose..

Cee-Jay-Cee

whatnow! wrote: »

The lack of motorways in Donegal has nothing to do with taxpayers contributing towards the cost of replacement of Mica homes (or Pyrite homes in Dublin).

It was just an example of how Donegal has been neglected in state projects for years getting less of everything and in many cases, getting nothing yet there are still have people like you that would begrudge a Donegal person for having a nicer house than you despite the fact it probably cost less than half of what you may have paid for a home elsewhere in Ireland.

timmyntc

whatnow! wrote: »

I agree they deserve to have their houses rebuilt.

Regulations can't cover every eventuality.

I'm asking why should any of the tax I paid go towards this?

It's something that will need to be answered to get people on your side and have government sign off on it.

Why should the tax you pay, pay for redress to cervical check victims?
Or pyrite victims?
Or the umpteen other types of compensation that the state has to pay out?

Why should your tax fund a bank bailout or social housing?


Like it or not, the state has to pay for plenty of things you might personally disagree with, but its seen as being for the greater good. These people with MICA would otherwise be homeless and need state housing - and the banks would have hugely significant losses on their balance sheet, which would impact on their viability or else require another hike in mortgage interest rates.

joe40

whatnow! wrote: »

It was an example, however as someone who is not affected by Mica I'm not sure why I should contribute anything. This is a consumer versus private company issue.

The government should have set better minimum standards to protect consumers but that doesn't make us all liable. It's a huge amount of money at a time when we have taken on more debt with covid and inflation is about to hit hard so funds are quite stretched as is.

One issue that many taxpayers have is that quite a few of these houses are nicer than what they will ever have and far above what would be considered minimum viable living standard.

It's a fair question.

Most of the houses affected are not large mansions, the vast majority standard homes.

When you have a consumer issue (as you call them) on this scale where neither suppliers, home insurance, engineers indemnity insurance, or banks are willing to take any responsibility the only other recourse is government involvement.
The tax payer should not take the full hit (The people affected are tax payers as well remember) but only the government have the resources at this stage to chase the other parties. The government should step in with a workable accessible recourse scheme as a matter of urgency.
In parallel chase all the other parties that are abdicating their responsibility.

This is tantamount to a natural disaster. The scale may be much bigger than previously thought since many 20 year old houses are now showing signs of defective blocks, therefore severe damage is only a matter of time.

It is like a slow moving earthquake has affected a region and houses are going to collapse as a result. It would be immoral in any civilised society to abandon people in this situation.

NIMAN

whatnow! wrote: »

It's something that will need to be answered to get people on your side and have government sign off on it.

Government have already signed off on it.

Penfailed

water-man wrote: »

Maybe this has been discussed before however would the effected families accept a a smaller more basic designed house built to todays standards or are they expecting the tax payer to replace with like for like?

Like for like. I wouldn't mind if it was built to the old standards.

NIMAN

water-man wrote: »

Maybe this has been discussed before however would the effected families accept a a smaller more basic designed house built to todays standards or are they expecting the tax payer to replace with like for like?

I'm sure if you put it to the families affected, some might accept a smaller house.

But I'm sure there are plenty of families who maybe have 3 or 4 small kids and couldn't have a smaller house built. They would need something of the same size.

Also re: smaller homes, if it's that option, then since it's a new design/house it will have to go through the planning process again. Adding to the delay and cost. As it stands with the current redress scheme I think planning was to be waived as the house was bring rebuilt to original plans.