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
Comments
-
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.
These people already paid their way towards home ownership, and got burned for it, through no fault of their own.
Put it this way - if an Irish bank went bust and everyone lost all their money and savings, do you think the state should bail out the account holders who lost their savings etc?0 -
Yes, up to a limit as that is what is best for the country which is the case for most of the financial institutions. The knock on effects of not doing so would be devastating for everyone in the country.
100% agree it is not their fault. Neither is it my fault and unlike the example of the banks you asked about it is not strategically important to the country.
So instead of building 5,000 like for like houses and fund it with taxpayer money the conversion should instead be how are we going to house 5,000 families. That is the extent of the liability or the 'social contract' I see us as residents of Ireland entering into.0 -
These people already paid their way towards home ownership, and got burned for it, through no fault of their own.
Put it this way - if an Irish bank went bust and everyone lost all their money and savings, do you think the state should bail out the account holders who lost their savings etc?
Savings in Irish banks are only guaranteed to €100k per account. A number of credit unions have failed and this scheme has been used. Incidentally it only covers on average 95% of money in these institutions - so some people got burned.0 -
Yes, up to a limit as that is what is best for the country which is the case for most of the financial institutions. The knock on effects of not doing so would be devastating for everyone in the country.
100% agree it is not their fault. Neither is it my fault and unlike the example of the banks you asked about it is not strategically important to the country.
So instead of building 5,000 like for like houses and fund it with taxpayer money the conversion should instead be how are we going to house 5,000 families. That is the extent of the liability or the 'social contract' I see us as residents of Ireland entering into.
I would argue it is strategically important to the country.
The alternative is several thousand effective mortgage defaults, with the asset (MICA riddled home) worthless so the bank cant even repossess to claw back some money.
So you may well have to bail out the bank or else stomach a big increase in mortgage interest rates to cover. So it will be paid for somehow0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
I would argue it is strategically important to the country.
The alternative is several thousand effective mortgage defaults, with the asset (MICA riddled home) worthless so the bank cant even repossess to claw back some money.
So you may well have to bail out the bank or else stomach a big increase in mortgage interest rates to cover. So it will be paid for somehow
Yes there will be some defaults but the extent of what I believe that I should contribute is to house those families that otherwise would be homeless. That is not in a like for like house and I do feel sorry for those families that did everything right and ended up in a bad situation but I'm not paying for someone to own a 5 bedroom house with great views when what is required is a 3 bed semi detached estate house that can be built quicker and cheaper.0 -
I wouldnt really want to be a charity worker knocking at your door looking for support.
I volunteer my time with a Dublin charity and also donate to charity.
This is not about charity, this is a multibillion euro bill that has to be paid by someone and I don't want it all to land on the taxpayer.
This is another example of the conversation going off the rails into the pointless.0 -
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.
Says who?
Are you a legal professional? Do you have a legal qualification?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.
Oh, I am focusing on liability...MrMusician18 wrote: »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.
1. Lack of insurance.
2. Clearly, the regulation stipulating 1% Mica was not enforced
3. Victim blaming has most certainly been engaged in in this very thread.
Personally, I find it disgusting!
I notice you haven't replied to my previous post, btw....0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Nobody is blaming the victims lad.0
-
Who's the mod here, me or you? If you have an issue with anything then either report the post or send a PM to the forum mods but dont discuss moderation on thread. Thanks.
I was directly asked a question and replied that it was pointless to the topic we are discussing. I'm not moderating the thread I'm replying to a question directed towards me.0 -
I volunteer my time with a Dublin charity and also donate to charity.
...and the government does the same with overseas aid and, for example, sending money for natural disasters such as earthquakes. Do you begrudge that? This is a crisis that I have been living with since it was first confirmed that I had bought a house with mica. The mental toll is indescribable. I've said it before in response to you, this is like an earthquake in slow motion. I can hear the house cracking at night. Eventually, it will collapse through no fault of my own. We filled the cracks and painted the house a few years back to try to protect it from the elements. That was an expensive but essentially worthless exercise.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)
0 -
Yes, up to a limit as that is what is best for the country which is the case for most of the financial institutions. The knock on effects of not doing so would be devastating for everyone in the country.
100% agree it is not their fault. Neither is it my fault and unlike the example of the banks you asked about it is not strategically important to the country.
So instead of building 5,000 like for like houses and fund it with taxpayer money the conversion should instead be how are we going to house 5,000 families. That is the extent of the liability or the 'social contract' I see us as residents of Ireland entering into.
How do you feel about social housing in our cities. Providing social housing for a family in Dublin, and I'm not begrudging where there is genuine need, could cost much more than a rebuild cost in Donegal where the owners own the site
You are forgetting about land cost. Moving everyone into an estate won't necessarily be a cheaper option.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Says who?
Are you a legal professional? Do you have a legal qualification?
Oh, I am focusing on liability...
1. Lack of insurance.
2. Clearly, the regulation stipulating 1% Mica was not enforced
3. Victim blaming has most certainly been engaged in in this very thread.
Personally, I find it disgusting!
I notice you haven't replied to my previous post, btw....
I'm not completely au-fait with products liability insurance, but I don't think it's a legal requirement.in any case most policies run out after 10 years as far as I know. It's been indicated in this thread that some senator has stated this as the reason that hasn't been pursued.
Without getting into the technicals, the mica test in the 49 standard only covers a small fraction of the materials used in blocks. In any case blocks would have been made to the 87 standard anyway. If I remember the technical report on blocks correctly, the bit about mica was dropped in standards post 49. My post earlier in thread had a copy of the nsai clarification, it's worth a scan through by anyone interested in this issue.
Aside from one poster saying that the issues were well known, I haven't seen any victim blaming.0 -
@penfield my heart goes out to you. You did everything right and got dealt a terrible hand. I can imagine it is devastating and hope you come out of this with a home that you are happy to live in for many years.
I really don't want to come across cold hearted towards your situation at all.
I am working full time and paying tax, quite a bit of which is USC. I'm looking to buy a house also and it is quite difficult and part of the reason for that is the USC which is still being levied on all our incomes because the government is paying for one problem after another and I would like that money I earn to be going towards buying my home rather than rebuilding the homes of people I don't know.0 -
How do you feel about social housing in our cities. Providing social housing for a family in Dublin, and I'm not begrudging where there is genuine need, could cost much more than a rebuild cost in Donegal where the owners own the site
You are forgetting about land cost. Moving everyone into an estate won't necessarily be a cheaper option.
Some social houses in Dublin cost far more than is necessary. HAP pays more rent than people who work full time can afford. The system is not well run and there is no will in government to fix it. It is shocking that things have gotten to the point it is.
One reason given for this was the experience of areas like the ballymun flats that resulted in areas with incredibly high rates of crime and generation after generation become worse so the plan was to break it up and spread people out over a greater area and mix people with different backgrounds to avoid this happening again.0 -
@penfield my heart goes out to you. You did everything right and got dealt a terrible hand. I can imagine it is devastating and hope you come out of this with a home that you are happy to live in for many years.
I really don't want to come across cold hearted towards your situation at all.
I am working full time and paying tax, quite a bit of which is USC. I'm looking to buy a house also and it is quite difficult and part of the reason for that is the USC which is still being levied on all our incomes because the government is paying for one problem after another and I would like that money I earn to be going towards buying my home rather than rebuilding the homes of people I don't know.
Why don't you come up to Donegal and have a look for yourself? The mica problem is near on biblical proportions for a small country like ours. There are thousands of buildings affected. More than 5000 primary home owners. Homeowners, landlords, council housing, commercial and business, schools, HSE, public service buildings, farm sheds etc the list goes on. The real scandal is the complete lack of regulation and malfeasance. This needs a public enquiry so that the irish public can learn of the power of the building lobby. Current practices are not fit for purpose. We need a proper fit for purpose regulatory building industry
Every block that left a certain quarry for 20 years contained mica and not enough cement. More revelations are bound to follow about other counties.0 -
babybuilder wrote: »Why don't you come up to Donegal and have a look for yourself? The mica problem is near on biblical proportions for a small country like ours. There are thousands of buildings affected. More than 5000 primary home owners. Homeowners, landlords, council housing, commercial and business, schools, HSE, public service buildings, farm sheds etc the list goes on. The real scandal is the complete lack of regulation and malfeasance. This needs a public enquiry so that the irish public can learn of the power of the building lobby. Current practices are not fit for purpose. We need a proper fit for purpose regulatory building industry
Every block that left a certain quarry for 20 years contained mica and not enough cement. More revelations are bound to follow about other counties.
I really do see the scale of the damage and the pressure on people. It was heartbreaking to see a young child describe how she sleeps in her parents bedroom in case they need to protect her.
I'm not saying leave people on their own to deal with it as that is not who we are.
I'm saying that we can't afford to rebuild everyone's house as it was and have us all share the cost of this as the countries finances are in bad shape.
I will have to leave it there as people want their house rebuilt and if that means it's the taxpayer who pays for it then so be it and there is nothing more to be said. They don't want to hear about my concerns about my taxes being spent on this as that doesn't solve their problem.
It will be paid as public opinion is on the side of the homeowners and anyone who disagrees with this is portrayed as being heartless and selfish which no TD wants to be accused of as that puts their €100k a year job in jeopardy while Sinn Fein is breathing down their neck by promising the sun moon and stars to everyone while never explaining how it will all be paid for.
Good luck folks, I hope there is a speedy and satisfactory solution to this for you all.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Some good news and some bad news so far on the Mica front.
The good news is that a RedC poll has shown over the weekend that 71% of the public nationwide support 100% redress for Mica effected homeowners. This is a massive nationwide public backing, and will get many politicians off the fence.
https://www.highlandradio.com/2021/06/28/red-c-poll-shows-publics-support-for-100-mica-redress/
The bad news is, the outer leaf option, which many of us thought might be a solution, and some kind of way out of this nightmare, is looking increasing untenable :
1. Even after the outer leaf / foundation underpinning is done, it looks like none of the Chartered Engineers approved for Mica works, will offer any future guarantee for this option.
2. Even after the outer leaf / foundation underpinning is done, it looks like insurance companies will still refuse to insure any house that has testing positive for Mica. (What happens if a house with outer leaf ever burns down ? you will be left destitute)
3. Banks will refuse to issue any new or re-mortgagee for a house that has tested positive for Mica, even those with the outer leaf done. Effectively your house is worthless / cannot ever be sold.
4. Evidence is now emerging that houses where the outer leaf was replaced a few years back, are now starting to experience cracks on the inner leaf.
The new working group set up by the government to examine the mica controversy, will meet for the first time this week, on Wednesday morning. News, if any, from this first talk expected out Wednesday afternoon.
I don't know if they are bringing up the outer leaf problem but they would need to be.0 -
...poll has shown over the weekend that 71% of the public nationwide support 100% redress for Mica effected homeowners... T
That so many families have been left without a resolution to this major crisis is a scandal to all the political parties. I can't even begin to imagine how it effects you daily.
However, and I think it is a fair question, what is 100% redress though?
Let's be honest it's nothing short of a demolition of your home and a complete re-build. If some people are lucky they might be able to save kitchen, bathroom, doors, maybe roof however in all likely hood it will be a build from the ground up - 1st fix electrics, plumbing, skirting, plastering etc etc etc.
I asked previously would people accept a smaller new build and the reason I did was as there are thousands of homes effected has anyone investigated if it might be best to have a selection of 3 houses (single story, 2 story & semi attached) all finished to a basic turn key spec and have this tendered out by the government? Surely the campaigners know how many of each house type there is out there.
I'm only floating the idea, I know it will not be for everyone, but I feel this is worth investigating as at least it can be costed properly. This is a point trying to be made by a few posters previously as right now there are too many variables between all houses to get a proper costing for the 100% redress.
I also think this would make it more appealing to a contractor to take on the work as they will know there are x amount of this house, y of this all built to that standard and therefore can plan how long each will take, how many people they will need where & when they need them etc etc.
Some people will no doubt end up with a smaller house which they may think is not fit for purpose but I'd counter that with is, is what you have now fit for purpose? However on the flip side some other people will also end up with a much improved insulation etc house.
That's just my thoughts.0 -
More of this again. Destroying the communication thread for victims and trolling them. Why do we have to keep answering the same troll questions, and feeding the same trolls, no matter how many times the answer is given ? Soapboxing is also banned under the general rules of boards as far as I know.
Why should victims not be fully compensated for their loss ? That is not how justice in any civilised society works.
Should victims of the cervical cancer scandal just be offered an aromatherapy and homeopathy grant instead ? Of course not.
As a taxpayer I did not want the taxpayer paying for the scandals that was Irish Sugar, PMPA, Mahon Tribunal, Quinn Life, Banking and Bondholders, Developers, Cervical Cancer negligence, Pyrite, to name just a few, and the many more that will no doubt pop up again in future, I've spend my whole taxpaying life paying for these scandals, and I will continue to do so, but I also accept the victims have to be compensated and fully restored for justices sake.
Yes, the taxpayer always ends up one way or another, paying for negligent governance, legislation, enforcement and administration.
Vote out negligent parties, and insist they remove incompetent state officials, or suffer more of the same. We collectively get what we collectively vote for.
The alternative is we live in anarchist state, we arm up into paramilitaries, and everyman for himself, and we make it Darwin's survival of the fittest, and obtain and enforce our own justice if the state fails. Pretty easy to do when your house and all you own is taken from you, your family and mental health destroyed, and you've nothing left to live for. That's not how any civilised society behaves, but we in the Northern counties are very experienced of what happens when state justice breaks down and where it can lead. And before any troll tries to claim otherwise, no, no one is advocating or threating this.
No one wants the taxpayer to pay for this, least of all the taxpayers that have Mica, who spent and continue to spend years working, saving and paying taxes and mortgages to have a home, and spent a huge amount in vat and taxes building their home originally, but in the meantime the government has to help. The government should also pursue the industries that are negligent in all of this and try to recoup as much of the taxpayers money, but only the government now has to the power and clout to do this in a timely manner, while helping the victims and restoring justice, if they want a modern civilised state and society.0 -
That so many families have been left without a resolution to this major crisis is a scandal to all the political parties. I can't even begin to imagine how it effects you daily.
However, and I think it is a fair question, what is 100% redress though?
Let's be honest it's nothing short of a demolition of your home and a complete re-build. If some people are lucky they might be able to save kitchen, bathroom, doors, maybe roof however in all likely hood it will be a build from the ground up - 1st fix electrics, plumbing, skirting, plastering etc etc etc.
I asked previously would people accept a smaller new build and the reason I did was as there are thousands of homes effected has anyone investigated if it might be best to have a selection of 3 houses (single story, 2 story & semi attached) all finished to a basic turn key spec and have this tendered out by the government? Surely the campaigners know how many of each house type there is out there.
I'm only floating the idea, I know it will not be for everyone, but I feel this is worth investigating as at least it can be costed properly. This is a point trying to be made by a few posters previously as right now there are too many variables between all houses to get a proper costing for the 100% redress.
I also think this would make it more appealing to a contractor to take on the work as they will know there are x amount of this house, y of this all built to that standard and therefore can plan how long each will take, how many people they will need where & when they need them etc etc.
Some people will no doubt end up with a smaller house which they may think is not fit for purpose but I'd counter that with is, is what you have now fit for purpose? However on the flip side some other people will also end up with a much improved insulation etc house.
That's just my thoughts.
Very valid points and in some cases it may suit people to build something smaller however the council need to speed up the planning process if that option is picked and in cases where the house is being rebuilt to the same size/design, waive the PP process completely.
My sister is effected. She has a large home and said that she had planned to sell and downsize in years ahead when her kids have moved out however she isn't in a position to downsize right now so will have to rebuild the same house again and unfortunately there are many like her.
There are possibly between 1500-2500 houses effected in Letterkenny, 95% (if not higher) of them are 2/3/4 bedroom houses in housing estates and so there is little or no option for those people to downsize as their houses are already modest in size.
I think what the action group really need to push for at this stage is the removal of Donegal CoCo from the programme, they are a huge part of the problem and creating even more problems every day for those already in the redress scheme, their involvement is keeping thousands from applying for the scheme as they are frustrating it at every opportunity, you'd swear the CoCo were actually paying for the scheme themselves by the way they are carrying on.0 -
Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »My sister is effected. She has a large home and said that she had planned to sell and downsize in years ahead when her kids have moved out however she isn't in a position to downsize right now so will have to rebuild the same house again and unfortunately there are many like her.
Even if she was in such a position, in terms of justice, why should your sister, a victim through no fault of her own, be forced by the state to demolish a house that she spent / was worth 300k, and replace it with something worth 150k?
If your new car was written of due to the criminal negligence of someone else who had no insurance, would you accept a moped as restorative justice ?0 -
Even if she was in such a position, in terms of justice, why should your sister, a victim through no fault of her own, be forced by the state to demolish a house that she spent / was worth 300k, and replace it with something worth 150k?
If your new car was written of due to the criminal negligence of someone else who had no insurance, would you accept a moped as restorative justice ?
True of course, but I think the poster threw the idea out there as it might, just might, suit some people.
Thing is, even if building a new smaller house, if it's built to the new modern standards, A rated etc, then it's probably going to cost the same, if not more, than the original bigger house.0 -
True of course, but I think the poster threw the idea out there as it might, just might, suit some people.
Thing is, even if building a new smaller house, if it's built to the new modern standards, A rated etc, then it's probably going to cost the same, if not more, than the original bigger house.
Yes but what the trolls are always politically pushing for is forcing victims to accept some version of a lessor house / settlement / local authority / shared ownership housing, instead of a just settlement. Compliance with current building regulations is always important, but Energy ratings don't greatly effect the property value of a house.
We haven't even touched on the mental health / distress compensation these families would be entitled to in any other case.
Families broken up, and fathers committing suicide has already occurred.
Leo Vradker and his current partner have just bought their "first home" for 820k
https://extra.ie/2021/06/27/property/leo-varadkar-matt-barrett-new-home.
If I burnt it to the ground, or decided to bring my bulldozer down to Dublin on a low loader, and drove my Cat D9 through it in a fit of rage, should they be forced to live in a lessor one because I was jealous of them, and I deem "that is all they need or should have" ? Or should restorative justice apply?
To date, we still live in a free trade civilised country, not North Korea or the wild west, and whether I like him or not, he's entitled to live in, own and enjoy any value of house safely and securely, and his private property that he has earned with his labour/work/enterprise, and legally bought and paid for legally.0 -
Even if she was in such a position, in terms of justice, why should your sister, a victim through no fault of her own, be forced by the state to demolish a house that she spent / was worth 300k, and replace it with something worth 150k?
If your new car was written of due to the criminal negligence of someone else who had no insurance, would you accept a moped as restorative justice ?
I am 100% behind full redress. I have strong suspicion I might be affected so very much have skin in the game.
However I'm not sure your example is a good analogy. If an uninsured driver wrecked my car would I get any compensation if my own insurance company refused to pay.
On rebuild to modern standards I thought that is mandatory. It would be illegal to build or rebuild a house to anything less than modern standards.
I may stand to be corrected on that though.0 -
Mod/ Please don't refer to anyone posting here as a troll. If you have an issue with any comment posted then report it and we can have a look. Thanks.0
-
Advertisement
-
However I'm not sure your example is a good analogy. If an uninsured driver wrecked my car would I get any compensation if my own insurance company refused to pay.
What if you also lost a limb or were made paraplegic ? Sure wouldn't just a new walking stick and Motability scooter do rightly for you ? "Sure that's all you would need." No hospital or long term care ever needed. No analogy is perfect, no, your insurance company is not liable for uninsured drivers, why on earth would they be?, if they were car insurance would be 20k a year, if available at all. That's why the Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland exists, and the state regulate and enforce car insurance via the Gardaí. Uninsured drivers will always exist, but it's a civilised state's job to prevent it as much as possible, keep it as rare as possible and keep the losses to a minimum, but also ensure justice is fully met when required.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement