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

Cee-Jay-Cee

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?

A smaller house built to todays standards would actually work out more expensive than a house built to same standard as the original design in the 90's/00's when you take into consideration the cost of materials, new windows/doors, heat systems, PP costs etc etc

Atlantic Dawn

Deleted User wrote: »

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

So if you were to say €450 per thousand only €2250 worth of materials is causing the entire house to be condemned. Even if the blocks cost double to be fully tested it's only a tiny fraction of the cost of a house.


Perhaps the future is blocks costing double that are certified and fully insured for home building use.

NIMAN

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Perhaps the future is blocks costing double that are certified and fully insured for home building use.

They don't need to cost double, just be fit for purpose.

You know, like the blocks used in those homes built in the 50s, 60s, 70s, that are all still standing strong with no weaknesses.

I'm sure there was nothing special about those blocks, other than them being fit for purpose.

joe40

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

So if you were to say €450 per thousand only €2250 worth of materials is causing the entire house to be condemned. Even if the blocks cost double to be fully tested it's only a tiny fraction of the cost of a house.


Perhaps the future is blocks costing double that are certified and fully insured for home building use.

I would not be very up to date on building costs but as far as I know the cost of the actual blocks is a relatively minor part of the cost of the actual house.

That is what is so galing about this blocks are cheap. No one tried to save money by deliberately using sub standard blocks.
Firstly, there would not be any saving and you secondly don't need to be an engineer to know the blocks are kind of important in keeping the house standing..

whatnow!

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).

Did you object to redress for pyrite homes?
Or the Bank bailout?
Or cervical check?
Or the Hepatitis C victims?

Atlantic Dawn

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

So if you were to say €450 per thousand only €2250 worth of materials is causing the entire house to be condemned. Even if the blocks cost double to be fully tested it's only a tiny fraction of the cost of a house.


Perhaps the future is blocks costing double that are certified and fully insured for home building use.

Why would they cost double?


I didn't buy my blocks from Cassidys, I bought them from Muckish, because they were cheaper - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with my house.


Having mica in blocks doesn't mean they cost less to produce - it just means that the material used was faulty, and shouldn't have been used at all...

Cee-Jay-Cee

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

So if you were to say €450 per thousand only €2250 worth of materials is causing the entire house to be condemned. Even if the blocks cost double to be fully tested it's only a tiny fraction of the cost of a house.

Yeah that's correct. A large 2500sq/ft house built in the mid/late 00's at the peak of the housing boom and which sold for €300k would have only approx. €10k of blocks/concrete. They were the cheapest part of the build.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would they cost double?


I didn't buy my blocks from Cassidys, I bought them from Muckish, because they were cheaper - and there is absolutely nothing wrong with my house.


Having mica n blocks doesn't mean they cost less to produce - it just means that the material used was faulty, and shouldn't have been used at all...

I don't think he/she was saying cheaper blocks were inferior but rather in future, mandatory testing and insurance should included in the cost (which may cause them to double in price) but would still leave them cheap when considering the over all costs of building a house.

Atlantic Dawn

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Yeah that's correct. A large 2500sq/ft house built in the mid/late 00's at the peak of the housing boom and which sold for €300k would have only approx. €10k of blocks/concrete. They were the cheapest part of the build.

It's like a car maker using cheap steal that will rust away after the first winter.

joe40

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

So if you were to say €450 per thousand only €2250 worth of materials is causing the entire house to be condemned. Even if the blocks cost double to be fully tested it's only a tiny fraction of the cost of a house.


Perhaps the future is blocks costing double that are certified and fully insured for home building use.

There are existing standards that must be complied. Concrete blocks aren't new. Standards for Mica content of less than 1% have been in place since 1949.

It wasn't lack of standards, or lack of knowledge, it was lack of enforcement.

Soft touch regulation bites again.

NIMAN

joe40 wrote: »

There are existing standards that must be complied. Concrete blocks aren't new. Standards for Mica content of less than 1% have been in place since 1949.

It wasn't lack of standards, or lack of knowledge, it was lack of enforcement.

Soft touch regulation bites again.

It wasn't soft touch regulation, it was self regulation, which basically can mean there was no regulation if it was left to the manufacturer to regulate themselves.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I don't think he/she was saying cheaper blocks were inferior but rather in future, mandatory testing and insurance should included in the cost (which may cause them to double in price) but would still leave them cheap when considering the over all costs of building a house.

I wasn't pointing any fingers at Atlantic Dawn, particularly, when I posted that reply.


I'd fully agree that mandatory Independent testing should be brought in - but I don't see how that would double the cost of the blocks...


If quarries are testing their own blocks, as they claim, then that's a business expense - and that expense could just be paid to an Independent tester.
The quarry should already have been covered by insurance, so, that shouldn't be an issue, either.


Again - I'm not aiming this at Atlantic Dawn, I'm just observing that some other posters were very anxious to put measures in place for people that were in no way responsible, but that would definitely increase costs for those struggling to get on the property ladder...


So, absolutely, regulate and enforce - but not to the detriment of the sole tradesman, or the self builder, or those struggling to build/buy a home.


The current system already favours the larger developers. I'd just be concerned that the measures that are taken are proportionate, in that they protect the consumer, but don't make home ownership even less affordable than it already is..

MrMusician18

You can't put a more stringent regulatory environment in place without increasing costs for the end user ultimately. BCAR it is estimated to have resulted in increased costs by about 10% for example.

The State doesn't want to go down the mandatory testing route for that reason as well as the fact that it would make them liable in the event of a failure.

Mandatory product liability insurance over the products lifetime perhaps? (For blocks, I think it's 100 years now) Maybe, but the premiums would likely be huge since an SME could create a multi-billion liability quite quickly.

Maybe enhanced market surveillance using a risk based approach? That suffers from the same problem though, that if a failure gets through the net, the consumer will blame the state and seek compensation for their loss from them.

There are no easy answers here that don't add extra cost and/or liabilities. Questions for another day perhaps as the horse is definitely bolted in this case.

RandomViewer

NIMAN wrote: »

They don't need to cost double, just be fit for purpose.

You know, like the blocks used in those homes built in the 50s, 60s, 70s, that are all still standing strong with no weaknesses.

I'm sure there was nothing special about those blocks, other than them being fit for purpose.

My Mum's house is 45 years old, not a crack in it and the 70s weren't known for quality

RandomViewer

RandomViewer wrote: »

My Mum's house is 45 years old, not a crack in it and the 70s weren't known for quality

Exactly. I've no problem with extra costs that are necessary to protect the consumer. No-one should be faced with losing their homes through no fault of their own.


I am concerned, though, that vested interests will try to push measures that are to the benefit of the big stakeholders, and not the end consumer...

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Did you object to redress for pyrite homes?
Or the Bank bailout?
Or cervical check?
Or the Hepatitis C victims?

Yes.
Absolutely should have burned the junior bondholders.
No. Healthcare was provided by public bodies.
Same as above.

Basically the common theme is those responsible pay.

Additionally healthcare is a basic right in Ireland, housing is a right, home ownership is not.

Nobody as yet has presented a reason why the taxpayer should pay for Mica redress.

A rough guess is that this would use somewhere between €500 and €1,000 of the tax I paid over the course of a year. Convince me why this is a good use of my hard earned money.

muffler

whatnow! wrote: »

Nobody as yet has presented a reason why the taxpayer should pay for Mica redress.

Well they have actually but you can choose what and what not to read.

So let me ask you a question. Why shouldn't the taxpayer pay for the redress scheme?

whatnow!

whatnow! wrote: »

Yes.
Absolutely should have burned the junior bondholders.
No. Healthcare was provided by public bodies.
Same as above.

Basically the common theme is those responsible pay.

Additionally healthcare is a basic right in Ireland, housing is a right, home ownership is not.

Nobody as yet has presented a reason why the taxpayer should pay for Mica redress.

A rough guess is that this would use somewhere between €500 and €1,000 of the tax I paid over the course of a year. Convince me why this is a good use of my hard earned money.

And yet, in every case - the taxpayer ultimately paid....


I've no idea where you got your figures re: the amount of your tax would be paid - unless you assume all this would be budgeted for out of one years tax income. I can tell you that definitely will not happen.

As to why the tax paid by you - and the homeowners in question - should go towards redress - I'll pose some different questions to you first:


Why has the Government taken years to even investigate the level of Mica in these blocks?


Why have there been no criminal investigations to determine wrongdoing?

Why were existing regulations not enforced?

Why did Donegal Co. Council continue to use Cassidys blocks, knowing there was an issue?


Because every last one of those questions need to be addressed before anyone starts victim blaming....

salonfire

whatnow! wrote: »

Yes.
Absolutely should have burned the junior bondholders.

Junior bondholders did lose out if I recall correctly.

In any case, you'd have been happy to have any knock on affect see your bank fail? And would have been happy to lose all your savings?

Afterall, in such an event your loss would be between you as a consumer and a private bank.

From what I can see there is a lot of parallels between bailing out the Donegal households and the national Bank bailout. The lifetime savings of people were protected.

No legal liability to do so and the country is heavily in debt so we are not in a position to be generous either while inflation is about to hit hard and with universal tax changes on the way our tax income is set to drop.

We are still paying USC many years after we expected it to be gone because we are still in a financial hole.

We can't keep paying off everyone and the mica bill will be over €1,000,000,000.

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

Junior bondholders did lose out if I recall correctly.

In any case, you'd have been happy to have any knock on affect see your bank fail? And would have been happy to lose all your savings?

Afterall, in such an event your loss would be between you as a consumer and a private bank.

From what I can see there is a lot of parallels between bailing out the Donegal households and the national Bank bailout. The lifetime savings of people were protected.

They did not lose out.

Recapitalising the banks would have saved the day, paying the junior bondholders was not necessary.

Two separate things.

Cee-Jay-Cee

whatnow! wrote: »

Yes.
Absolutely should have burned the junior bondholders.
No. Healthcare was provided by public bodies.
Same as above.

Basically the common theme is those responsible pay.

Additionally healthcare is a basic right in Ireland, housing is a right, home ownership is not.

Nobody as yet has presented a reason why the taxpayer should pay for Mica redress.

A rough guess is that this would use somewhere between €500 and €1,000 of the tax I paid over the course of a year. Convince me why this is a good use of my hard earned money.

No one has to convince you because like it or not, you don't have a say it in it. The government have already brought in a redress scheme (which is not fit for purpose) and are currently working to address the issues with it. So you can be unhappy about it all you want but your going to get little or no sympathy here.

You say home ownership is not a right, who said otherwise? Your making up nonsensical arguments to butt your opinions. All of these homes were bought and paid for, no one is asking for a free home/house (unlike the dole scroungers who have their hands out looking for everything for nothing) These people simply want their houses which many are still paying large mortgages for to be repaired to a safe standard. The government took a healthy VAT/tax take from all the materials used to build the houses, from the mortgages etc etc and they have already admitted liability of sorts by allowing full redress for the pyrite problem in Dublin and now for this one in Donegal/Mayo by introducing the redress scheme. So like I said, no one needs to bother convincing you of anything as you don't have any say in what happens from here on.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And yet, in every case - the taxpayer ultimately paid....


I've no idea where you got your figures re: the amount of your tax would be paid - unless you assume all this would be budgeted for out of one years tax income. I can tell you that definitely will not happen.

As to why the tax paid by you - and the homeowners in question - should go towards redress - I'll pose some different questions to you first:


Why has the Government taken years to even investigate the level of Mica in these blocks?


Why have there been no criminal investigations to determine wrongdoing?

Why were existing regulations not enforced?

Why did Donegal Co. Council continue to use Cassidys blocks, knowing there was an issue?


Because every last one of those questions need to be addressed before anyone starts victim blaming....

I'm not victim blaming, I'm saying the blame and responsibility does not fall on the taxpayer.

I'll group all your other questions together and say that if regulations are breached by a private company it does not make the taxpayer liable.

Did Donegal county council build and subsequently sell a mica property to someone? Focus on liability here.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

No one has to convince you because like it or not, you don't have a say it in it. The government have already brought in a redress scheme (which is not fit for purpose) and are currently working to address the issues with it. So you can be unhappy about it all you want but your going to get little or no sympathy here.

I don't want sympathy here. I realise this is the last place to find people to agree with me as almost everyone here has a vested interest in getting money to rebuild their homes.

I just pointing out that I'm paying for part of this and nobody has explained to me why.

MrMusician18

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet, in every case - the taxpayer ultimately paid....


I've no idea where you got your figures re: the amount of your tax would be paid - unless you assume all this would be budgeted for out of one years tax income. I can tell you that definitely will not happen.

As to why the tax paid by you - and the homeowners in question - should go towards redress - I'll pose some different questions to you first:


Why has the Government taken years to even investigate the level of Mica in these blocks?


Why have there been no criminal investigations to determine wrongdoing?

Why were existing regulations not enforced?

Why did Donegal Co. Council continue to use <block suppliers> blocks, knowing there was an issue?


Because every last one of those questions need to be addressed before anyone starts victim blaming....

I'm going to have a go at a few of these questions as I'm not going over old ground. I can't explain why it took years. Head in the sand attitude, perhaps they thought it would go away? Maybe they thought it wasn't their problem?

There was no criminal investigation probably because no crime was committed. The problems with the blocks are a civil matter.

Existing regulations were enforced. The council cannot enforce a regulation or use a power it doesn't have. Existing regulations seemingly had a weakness that facilitated this failure.

Donegal Co Co generally don't direct build. They engage building contractors who build on their behalf. Specifying a particular block supplier on a contract would be highly unusual, the contractor would pick (usually based on price and availability). All that's usually required is that the blocks are certified to a given standard. Once they come with the paperwork, that's enough, and that is nearly always taken at face value. If DCC gets into banning certain suppliers it's on shaky legal ground.

I don't think anyone is engaging in victim blaming here to be honest. There was posting on this forum that it was known that this particular company had bad blocks for a while, but the evidence for that doesn't stack up. No one would use faulty materials in their own house even if they were free.

The reason the government has to sort this out is because no one else can. It isn't fair, but it is likely the cheapest solution at this point. Helping is also the right thing to do. That said the homeowners need to be realistic about the level of help that can be offered and the burden that can be placed on the state and will have to meet some of the costs themselves.

Cee-Jay-Cee

whatnow! wrote: »

No legal liability to do so and the country is heavily in debt so we are not in a position to be generous either while inflation is about to hit hard and with universal tax changes on the way our tax income is set to drop.

We are still paying USC many years after we expected it to be gone because we are still in a financial hole.

We can't keep paying off everyone and the mica bill will be over €1,000,000,000.

You really have not done any homework on this topic, the MICA bill will end up being €5 billion when its finally complete. This is only just starting, they estimate 5-6000 houses, it'll be closer to double that by the time they get the exact number, guaranteed.

jimmycrackcorm

whatnow! wrote: »

I don't want sympathy here. I realise this is the last place to find people to agree with me as almost everyone here has a vested interest in getting money to rebuild their homes.

I just pointing out that I'm paying for part of this and nobody has explained to me why.

Why should the state build social housing?
why should the state provide social welfare to people who haven't contributed to PRSI?

The state is the people of Ireland so it has a duty to do what it can to help it's citizens when they aren't in a position to do so themselves. I don't think anyone really has an issue around redress itself, just the amount and cap.

Penfailed

whatnow! wrote: »

I just pointing out that I'm paying for part of this and nobody has explained to me why.

Do you know how much of your (our) tax money is spent on overseas aid? In times of crisis such as earthquakes and tsunamis our government have done the charitable thing and sent money abroad. What's happening to my house is like a slow motion earthquake. It's a crisis.

I'm having to reply to multiple people with various unrelated questions.

I'll sum my point up in one simple sentence.

Home *ownership* is not a right or a necessity and I don't want to pay for someone else to own their own home but I am happy to contribute to funding schemes to end homelessness and there is a big difference in those two things.

Cee-Jay-Cee

whatnow! wrote: »

I'm having to reply to multiple people with various unrelated questions.

I'll sum my point up in one simple sentence.

Home *ownership* is not a right or a necessity and I don't want to pay for someone else to own their own home but I am happy to contribute to funding schemes to end homelessness and there is a big difference in those two things.

You keeping posting that. No one is saying home ownership is a right BUT these people do own their own homes and pay taxes and VAT any every other duty and charge the government impose on them so they have an ABSOLUTE right to have their homes fixed. Why don't you go back through the thread and try and find somewhere that some one said 'I have a right to own my own home' because you wont find it, yet you keep spewing the same nonsense out. I think i'll add you to my ignore list also as you have nothing useful to contribute to the thread.

And like I also previously said, you may not want to pay for it but you will and you have zero say otherwise. Thanks.