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

malinheader

listermint wrote: »

Where are you getting these figures from though let's say they get the full 90% due to level of works in your scenario the house is literal falling around them. Are you saying that full works are costing 500-600 grand? I'm just using your example figures.

We're sick trying to explain this, there is a whole lot of things not covered by the scheme that these people are going to have to pay for. The scheme they are offering at the minute is more like 60%..I'm sure it's been mentioned numerous times over this thread.

malinheader

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Relative to the alternative, where they are 100% on the hook for the cost of repairs, it is a decent offer of help.

The State didn't cause this problem but is expected to pay to remedy it to a level that exceeds 100% of the cost of repair? The State isn't even obliged to assist at all.

You still didn't explain where they will get the money needed from and where do they go if they can't afford to have house repaired or rebuilt

MrMusician18

muffler wrote: »

You posted a couple of times that you were a "construction professional" and you used this in an attempt to lend weight to the points you were making. I asked you to clarify what this profession was but you refused. As a result of that refusal I cant see anyone taking your comments seriously.

I don't feel the need to out myself or make myself vulnerable to doxxing thanks. I don't really care if people take my comments seriously, but pointing out the counter argument has clearly touched a nerve here.

I've been accused of being a government yes man, but all I've simply pointed out is that the State has done nothing wrong here and could leave the homeowners high and dry paying 100% if it wanted to. It isn't obliged to help.

malinheader

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I don't feel the need to out myself or make myself vulnerable to doxxing thanks. I don't really care if people take my comments seriously, but pointing out the counter argument has clearly touched a nerve here.

I've been accused of being a government yes man, but all I've simply pointed out is that the State has done nothing wrong here and could leave the homeowners high and dry paying 100% if it wanted to. It isn't obliged to help.

Do governments not help in other countries when there citizens are affected by a disaster.

Should of mentioned other counties too.

Swindled

listermint wrote: »

Where are you getting these figures from though let's say they get the full 90% due to level of works in your scenario the house is literal falling around them. Are you saying that full works are costing 500-600 grand? I'm just using your example figures.

Not that you really care what the real costs are, 80% of applications are not for demolish and rebuild, but for the removal and repair of outer leaf only, the limits mean after you pay all the engineering and lab report fees 10% of all costs, the max funding left in reality for that work is 50k inc VAT, that might be just enough for a small semi detached, but for any detached house this costs far more. Many people's mortgages/loans are already maxxed out, average household income in Donegal is among the lowest, if not the lowest in Ireland For the Pyrtie scheme all costs were fully covered, and they were made exempt from property taxes until their house was fully sorted. But I guess it depends where you are from.

jj880

muffler wrote: »

I think we all know thats not true


People are entitled to express an opinion though. It may not be the popular opinion but it's an opinion.

He's expressing his opinion that people who cant access the mica scheme in its current form should be grateful they are being abandoned because they dont have pyrite and live in leinster.

Im expressing my opinion only someone with a vested interest could express such an opinion. Am I close to a ban? If so go ahead. I dont care.

Thepoet85

MrMusician18 wrote:

I've been accused of being a government yes man, but all I've simply pointed out is that the State has done nothing wrong here and could leave the homeowners high and dry paying 100% if it wanted to. It isn't obliged to help.

They weren't obliged to help the banks when they were struggling to stay open (and self inflicted for that matter), but they did.

What sort of message does it send to the people of Donegal, if they're happy to bail out the banks for billions, help the people affected by the pyrite issue 100%, but only allow the people of Donegal 90% redress.

malinheader

Thepoet85 wrote: »

They weren't obliged to help the banks when they were struggling to stay open (and self inflicted for that matter), but they did.

What sort of message does it send to the people of Donegal, if they're happy to bail out the banks for billions, help the people affected by the pyrite issue 100%, but only allow the people of Donegal 90% redress.

Sorry but it's not 90% redress .
Sounds great 90 %but it's nowhere near it.

MrMusician18

jj880 wrote: »

He's expressing his opinion that people who cant access the mica scheme in its current form should be grateful they are being abandoned because they dont have pyrite and live in leinster.

Im expressing my opinion only someone with a vested interest could express such an opinion. Am I close to a ban? If so go ahead. I dont care.

That is a complete and utter misrepresentation of the points I've been making. The mica scheme is to help people get out of a problem they find themselves in. The State didn't create this problem and the supports offered will result in a bill to the taxpayer of €1bn according to Martin. The help on offer is considerable, considering who is actually at fault here.

This whole "poor neglected north west" is tiresome as well as being wrong. The State spends far more per capita providing services to Donegal than it does to Dublin. The payouts per household in Donegal are likely to be double that for those that had pyrite according to Martin notwithstanding the schemes limitations. There is no scheme in place to address fire safety failings in apartments in Dublin. So please, less of the "neglected north west" since it's not true in any way. At all.

The scheme is limited because the State doesn't have endless resources to pay for these repairs. It (the scheme) will only be tweaked and perhaps combined with deep retrofit but that's about it. The wish list is far far too much liability for the State to want to take on.

malinheader

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That is a complete and utter misrepresentation of the points I've been making. The mica scheme is to help people get out of a problem they find themselves in. The State didn't create this problem and the supports offered will result in a bill to the taxpayer of €1bn according to Martin. The help on offer is considerable, considering who is actually at fault here.

This whole "poor neglected north west" is tiresome as well as being wrong. The State spends far more per capita providing services to Donegal than it does to Dublin. The payouts per household in Donegal are likely to be double that for those that had pyrite according to Martin notwithstanding the schemes limitations. There is no scheme in place to address fire safety failings in apartments in Dublin. So please, less of the "neglected north west" since it's not true in any way. At all.

The scheme is limited because the State doesn't have endless resources to pay for these repairs. It (the scheme) will only be tweaked and perhaps combined with deep retrofit but that's about it. The wish list is far far too much liability for the State to want to take on.

Answer the 2 or 3 questions you gladly ignored or are you just going to carry on baiting till someone gets banned or thred derailed.
A disaster to you would be forgetting the wine in the middle of fair city.

jj880

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That is a complete and utter misrepresentation of the points I've been making. The mica scheme is to help people get out of a problem they find themselves in. The State didn't create this problem and the supports offered will result in a bill to the taxpayer of €1bn according to Martin. The help on offer is considerable, considering who is actually at fault here.

This whole "poor neglected north west" is tiresome as well as being wrong. The State spends far more per capita providing services to Donegal than it does to Dublin. The payouts per household in Donegal are likely to be double that for those that had pyrite according to Martin notwithstanding the schemes limitations. There is no scheme in place to address fire safety failings in apartments in Dublin. So please, less of the "neglected north west" since it's not true in any way. At all.

The scheme is limited because the State doesn't have endless resources to pay for these repairs. It (the scheme) will only be tweaked and perhaps combined with deep retrofit but that's about it. The wish list is far far too much liability for the State to want to take on.

Was responding to a moderator but since you are still on here trying to justify your stance get a look at this. That'll do for me in this thread.

https://www.rsvplive.ie/news/irish-news/mica-contaminated-blocks-donegal-crisis-13079341

Thepoet85

malinheader wrote:

Sorry but it's not 90% redress . Sounds great 90 %but it's nowhere near it.

Sorry, you're right. That wasn't point I was trying to make however.

Penfailed

MrMusician18 wrote: »

No, I think it's the mica homeowners are not used to anything other that getting sympathy from the general public. Asked any probing questions about why they think the State is liable or why they don't consider the voluntary support they're getting up to €250k for their issue generous and they have no answers. Instead we get incorrect interpretations of what standards are, and playing regions ('Leinster Government' borderline conspiracy theories) and schemes off one another.

Do you think people shouldn't be entitled to the dole? It's not the government's fault that they are out of work. Why should the government help them out?

MrMusician18

Penfailed wrote: »

Do you think people shouldn't be entitled to the dole? It's not the government's fault that they are out of work. Why should the government help them out?

The government should help them out and I've agreed (I think several times on thread now) that assistance is warranted here. The degree of assistance is what's under question. The proposed scheme is generous and the State is helping out when it is under no obligation to do so. What the campaigners are asking for is essentially a blank cheque.

If Martin is to be believed, the average payout will be €140k, which is twice the average pyrite payment. The total scheme will cost over €1bn, the State is pulling its weight here.

Swindled

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The government should help them out and I've agreed (I think several times on thread now) that assistance is warranted here. The degree of assistance is what's under question. The proposed scheme is generous and the State is helping out when it is under no obligation to do so.

If Martin is to be believed, the average payout will be €140k, which is twice the average pyrite payment. The total scheme will cost over €1bn, the State is pulling its weight here.

You started off by coming in to the forum and making sly prejudicial remarks about road accidents in Donegal, despite Donegal not having the highest road death rate by head of population, and you're still here trying to disrupt and take over a forum being used to help those with Mica, and complaining about the cost, while having no issue with the Leinster Pyrite scheme.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Take for example, something which you might be familiar with in Donegal, Jimmy thundering down the road at 200kmh and plows through Mary's garden wall.

Well, let me tell you something, us so called "Dogs in the Street" are not as stupid as you would like to think

" As of Sept. 2020, Since 2013, 2,800 applications have been received under the Pyrite Remediation Scheme. Of these, 2,000 dwellings have been remediated under the scheme at an average cost of approx. €70,000 per dwelling.

The remediation process involves excavation and replacement of the entire ground floor structure within a dwelling, includes for all associated replacement of finishes, plumbing and electrical services. It normally requires the scheme participant to vacate their home for 3 months while the works are completed.
http://www.housingagency.ie/news-events/pyrite-scheme-extended-number-homes-remediated-reaches-2000 "

2019 saw the largest number of homes receive works: 512 properties at a total cost of €32m.

And at least 200 homes are expected to be done even with the Covid in 2021

So "costing more than the pyrite scheme", which you're happy with being paid for every year since it came in 2013, is the only repetitive soapboxing you have left.

Not a very decent argument I'm afraid.

Lots of assistance by the state cost a huge amount more than the pyrite scheme, or what the Mica scheme will cost if that's your bar for everything. I can provide you with a long list of distance provided by the state that costs many times more than the Mica scheme will, but I bet you are not on those forums whining about it. 7 billion was thrown into Anglo Irish Bank in just ONE DAY by the state to try and keep them afloat, and 30 billion was thrown away in total to keep it in business. Also this isn't a "payout" as you like to call it, the people applying for this scheme will not see one cent of actual money for themselves, they are literally trying to keep a roof over their head, and in turn save the government a lot in social housing. Also 23% of everything is going back to the government in VAT, not to mention all the taxes/prsi etc. on the labour, all going back to the government. In Net terms this scheme will actually cost the government a lot less.


Now, we want you to adequality justify, row by row, each of the following disparities :
(It will cost more is not a justification, otherwise no cancer patient, or any of the more severe cases in Ireland would ever be treated if it was more expensive than other issues, or the Leinster Pyrite scheme you are so fond of)

Penfailed

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The government should help them out and I've agreed (I think several times on thread now) that assistance is warranted here. The degree of assistance is what's under question. The proposed scheme is generous and the State is helping out when it is under no obligation to do so. What the campaigners are asking for is essentially a blank cheque.

If Martin is to be believed, the average payout will be €140k, which is twice the average pyrite payment. The total scheme will cost over €1bn, the State is pulling its weight here.

How is the proposed scheme generous if it's unaffordable to most?

RandomViewer

Naill Blaney <SNIP> on Highland this morning,

https://www.highlandradio.com/2021/05/28/senator-blaney-doesnt-believe-a-100-redress-scheme-should-be-sanctioned/

NIMAN

It's being discussed in Matt Coopers Last Word today.

Hasn't been on yet, so can still catch it.

He opened the show with a monologue on it, so hopefully it will get a good amount of time.

Swindled

RandomViewer wrote: »

Naill Blaney <SNIP> on Highland this morning,

https://www.highlandradio.com/2021/05/28/senator-blaney-doesnt-believe-a-100-redress-scheme-should-be-sanctioned/

Sorry to say, a career ending interview if he ever leaves the comfort of the Seanad and goes before the electorate again.

Car crash interview, insinuating it was largely workmanship to blame (this has long since been disproven), and also a shocking lack of knowledge of the detail.

This is not good, it sounds very much like he's been put up to this by the FF housing minister, Darragh O'Brien, and Micheál Martin.

RandomViewer

Swindled wrote: »

Sorry to say, a career ending interview if he ever leaves the comfort of the Seanad and goes before the electorate again.

Car crash interview, claiming it was largely workmanship to blame not the actual blockwork (this has long since been disproven), and also a shocking lack of knowledge of the detail.

This is not good, it sounds very much like he's been put up to this by the FF housing minister, Darragh O'Brien, and Micheál Martin.

Don't know why he returned to politics, seems bored in every interview and seems to do no research on any subject,

NIMAN

Poor enough piece on the radio tbh.

I know they had limited time but a lot of stuff left out. No mention of the protest in Dublin, that should have been a definite mention. No mention about so many costs not being covered like demolition, rent whilst out of house, planning permission etc.

Also think they should have tried to say about everyone concerned about their homes having to come up with 6k at least to get tested. This is a fundamental issue and one of the reasons why uptake is so slow at present.

Swindled

NIMAN wrote: »

Also think they should have tried to say about everyone concerned about their homes having to come up with 6k at least to get tested. This is a fundamental issue and one of the reasons why uptake is so slow at present.

It's a big one, and if you can't come up with that, and not surprising many can't you certainly haven't a hope in hell of funding and going ahead with any of the actual works, which make the process a farce. ( The junior housing Minster seems to think the 6k up front is the only issue worth looking at, this shows he hasn't studied the problems at all )

All the works have to be paid for in full, before claiming the money back from DCC and then hoping they pay out, which there is no guarantee of at all. Then there's the added strain that even if you can borrow the money up front, and afford the loan payments on top of the mortgage, until you get all the work done and claim it back (and very few will get credit approval for that on top of an existing mortgage) it still won't be enough.

Just doing the external walls on an average sized house you will not be paid anywhere near what it costs you via the "grant", and then how do you afford that on top of the existing mortgage for another 20-30 years ?

As usual the people that came up with all this, are the ones that will never have to go through it, and have not thought through it all, and couldn't care less.

NIMAN

I know Blaney and his thoughts on Highland this morning didn't go down well with many listeners, but I think I heard him say many things are still down for consideration.

He did mention that Gov know that building inflation has made the scheme not as viable as it was when it was first drawn up, and that it doesn't cover higher building costs.

Did I also hear him mention that the 6k upfront cost is being looked at? Would be great if the government at least covered this for everyone who wants to get a test done. I know this would cost the taxpayer 30mill, but it's a small amount in the great scheme of things.

Swindled

NIMAN wrote: »

I know Blaney and his thoughts on Highland this morning didn't go down well with many listeners, but I think I heard him say many things are still down for consideration.

He did mention that Gov know that building inflation has made the scheme not as viable as it was when it was first drawn up, and that it doesn't cover higher building costs.

Did I also hear him mention that the 6k upfront cost is being looked at? Would be great if the government at least covered this for everyone who wants to get a test done. I know this would cost the taxpayer 30mill, but it's a small amount in the great scheme of things.

He was teeing up for them making a few minor tweaks of the scheme and then when they do, going "there you now it's brilliant and all fixed." People are not that stupid, and won't be fobbed off by those political stunts. Not paying the 6k up front would be a start, but that's nothing compared to the other problems with the scheme, it's just kicking the can down the road, and moving the bottleneck, and means everyone will be stuck a the next stage of the scheme instead, and then told, "we already fixed the scheme once, we're not revisiting it"

listermint

Swindled wrote: »

He was teeing up for them making a few minor tweaks of the scheme and then when they do, going "there you now it's brilliant and all fixed." People are not that stupid, and won't be fobbed off by those political stunts. Not paying the 6k up front would be a start, but that's nothing compared to the other problems with the scheme, it's just kicking the can down the road, and moving the bottleneck, and means everyone will be stuck a the next stage of the scheme instead, and then told, "we already fixed the scheme once, we're not revisiting it"

To be fair, reading through the entire thread it appears and I may be wrong but folks seems to want complete 100 redress i.e the state just rebuilds 5000 homes.

That's the perception. Is it the reality?

RandomViewer

Back peddling statement release, FF just realised he's scuppered McConalogues re-election chances too

Swindled

listermint wrote: »

To be fair, reading through the entire thread it appears and I may be wrong but folks seems to want complete 100 redress i.e the state just rebuilds 5000 homes.

That's the perception. Is it the reality?

No, 80% of the applications to date are for rebuild of the external leaf. This is not some free house scam, or house renovation scam, where people apply for money for the craic, you've no idea what people are going through. People have taken their own lives over it. Families have been destroyed over it.

To just apply for the scheme you have to spend 6-7k in total, getting a Chartered Engineer's recommendation that you should go forward for house testing, then taking and sending 6 large coring samples, cored from the walls of your house, including the rising walls below ground, to one of the accredited labs in England and on getting a Chartered Geologist's lab report, and then a Chartered Engineer's report PROVING the Mica content, and what remedial works needs to be done, in accordance with the Dept's expert committee recommendations. (This testing and report work takes at least 4 months)

Only 20% of houses come back with the demolish and rebuild recommendation, 80% with rebuild external leaf.
This is then further scrutinised by the Council.

This is only the very start of the process. It then involves many more steps, and approval stages.

No one has any issue with providing the very substantial proof by the way.
There is rightly no way you can qualify for this scheme without your house being in dire straights, and the works being totally above board.

NIMAN

Swindled wrote: »

Only 20% of houses come back with the demolish and rebuild recommendation, 80% with rebuild external leaf.
This is then further scrutinised by the Council.

Hadn't heard these stats, interesting.

So if all these experts and the council agree that you only need the outer leaf redone, are they going to stand over any defect on your inner leaf down the line?

Swindled

NIMAN wrote: »

Hadn't heard these stats, interesting.

So if all these experts and the council agree that you only need the outer leaf redone, are they going to stand over any defect on your inner leaf down the line?

Short answer no, as it's not been tried over the long term before, as nothing similar has had to have been done before.

Long answer . . the expert committee and most of the Chartered Engineers feel confident that it should work, as the new outer leaf will protect the inner from any further water/freeze/thaw, and Mica only expands / reacts to water/freeze/thaw, and the quality of the work will be supervised by and signed off on by the Chartered Engineer.

You don't get to decide what level of works are done to your house, it entirely depends on the Chartered Geologist and the Charter Engineer's recommendations, which the Council then accept or reject, based on the proof provided.

NIMAN

I would guess that most people would prefer to only have to get the outer leaf done if it was at all possible.

We have all seen the extreme examples of homes that even us laypeople know are probably demolish cases, and these will likely have only 1 solution.

I get the logic of course if you have a brsnd new outer leaf, your inner leaf should be protected going towards, plus it should have had little to no damage up to now if the outer leaf took all the damage.

But it's a big decision for engineers to make and sign off on.

Swindled

NIMAN wrote: »

I would guess that most people would prefer to only have to get the outer leaf done if it was at all possible.

We have all seen the extreme examples of homes that even us laypeople know are probably demolish cases, and these will likely have only 1 solution.

I get the logic of course if you have a brsnd new outer leaf, your inner leaf should be protected going towards, plus it should have had little to no damage up to now if the outer leaf took all the damage.

Correct. Demolishing the house is a last resort, and also a huge financial gamble, and logistical nightmare for families.

NIMAN

I know a few folk who have replaced their outer leaf themselves over the last few years.

Will be interesting to see how these fare over the coming years.

It was their only option though, as they were paying for it themselves.

NIMAN

Story on the Indo website (behind a pay wall).

Hopefully we will see more coverage appearing nationally.

https://m.independent.ie/news/we-would-be-sitting-on-the-couch-at-night-and-hearing-the-cracks-in-the-wall-crumbling-40481173.html

Donegalforever

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. I was a construction professional so I know the role of the BCA on a site. The specific section you mention is really designed to prohibit the use of hazardous materials like asbestos, though in theory it could be used regarding defective blocks. The key test however is that the BCA has to know that the product is defective and being used and make the order. The BCA has no role in testing materials used on site nor monitoring deliveries to site. As far as I'm aware, the houses were constructed with these blocks before it was known they contained mica anyway.

If you actually think about it, the BCA couldn't resonantly have liability unless it has permanent man for man supervision on every site where the regulations apply. There are hundreds if not thousands of products used on any given construction site. It's just not feasible for the BCA to know about everything and every product.

It would therefore be ridiculous for the State to have to accept even partial liability for what private individuals and businesses do in this instance.

Was there not an obligation on the "Powers to be" to ensure that building materials (including concrete blocks) were suitable for purpose ?

Markcheese

Donegalforever wrote: »

Was there not an obligation on the "Powers to be" to ensure that building materials (including concrete blocks) were suitable for purpose ?

How many government inspectors do you think should be at each concrete block plant .. ?
There's a set of government regs . There's probably an acreditarion scheme, there were engineers on site, - they operaters knew what they were doing when they put out crap blocks ...

Donegalforever

Markcheese wrote: »

How many government inspectors do you think should be at each concrete block plant .. ?
There's a set of government regs . There's probably an acreditarion scheme, there were engineers on site, - they operaters knew what they were doing when they put out crap blocks ...

There would be no necessity to inspect each concrete block plant on a regular basis.
However, unannounced inspections could have been carried out a few times each year.

MrMusician18

Donegalforever wrote: »

There would be no necessity to inspect each concrete block plant on a regular basis.
However, unannounced inspections could have been carried out a few times each year.

It's not within the remit of the state to carry out quality checks on blocks.

So no, there is no obligation on "the powers that be". As I've said several times there is a huge gap between what the lay person expects of the building regulations and what they actually do.

Donegalforever

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's not within the remit of the state to carry out quality checks on blocks.

So no, there is no obligation on "the powers that be". As I've said several times there is a huge gap between what the lay person expects of the building regulations and what they actually do.

Says who ?

NIMAN

Cassidys getting some column inches today in the Indo to claim they did nothing wrong and were working within all guidelines and regulations.

MrMusician18

NIMAN wrote: »

Cassidys getting some column inches today in the Indo to claim they did nothing wrong and were working within all guidelines and regulations.

I'm not an expert in the block manufacturing standard but often the way these kinds of documents are written is that there is usually a catch all statement eg "shall be free from deleterious material" and then shall go on to give testing thresholds for different compounds eg sulphur. Problems can arise when a deleterious material is not tested for specifically within the standard. This can arise when a new mineral finds its way into the supply chain, such as when a new quarry opens and results in a mineral that has never been encountered in Irish blocks before.

For example, cl. 804 fill was just a grading standard and didn't have a pyrite test. In response to the pyrite problem, SR21 was subsequently released which did have a test for pyrite.

NIMAN

Afaik or have read, Mica content in blocks is not allowed to be >1%.

One of the homeowners tested in Inishowen had 58%.

Penfailed

NIMAN wrote: »

Afaik or have read, Mica content in blocks is not allowed to be >1%.

One of the homeowners tested in Inishowen had 58%.

Yep. It's has been part of the standard since 1949.

NIMAN

Penfailed wrote: »

Yep. It's has been part of the standard since 1949.

Ok, so if it's been there that long, how come the supplier thinks they were doing no wrong by supplying material with 58% mica content?

How did the supplier test their product?
How often would samples be taken to see that they were within guidelines?
We're results supplied to government for the records?

MrMusician18

Penfailed wrote: »

Yep. It's has been part of the standard since 1949.

Thanks, I must dig out the old IS20. It's not used anymore it's EN771 these days. I'm certainly not an expert in it, but if it has a testing regime it would seem strange that the block suppliers can claim that the manufacturing process they have meet the standard.


Very rarely are actual items certified, but the process that made them is. The testing regime is set out in the standard. Results are not sent to the government. Generally when you are certified you get audited on a regular basis by the certifing body. The certifying body though doesn't guarantee the quality of the product though at the end of the day.

NIMAN

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Results are not sent to the government. Generally when you are certified you get audited on a regular basis by the certifing body. The certifying body though doesn't guarantee the quality of the product though at the end of the day.

So basically what is the point of it all then?

Is it just a paper exercise?

And in the end, no-one is responsible for faulty material?

malinheader

NIMAN wrote: »

So basically what is the point of it all then?

Is it just a paper exercise?

And in the end, no-one is responsible for faulty material?

We all know a big part of the problem was the lack of cement used in making the blocks too.
So fault lies with the block producer making the blocks.
Maybe if the correct amount of cement had of been used it would of counteracted the mica in alot of cases.

MrMusician18

NIMAN wrote: »

So basically what is the point of it all then?

Is it just a paper exercise?

And in the end, no-one is responsible for faulty material?

The block producer is responsible for the quality of their products

NIMAN

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The block producer is responsible for the quality of their products

They claim in the Indo today that they were following all guidelines and regulations.

So they are claiming they aren't liable and their blocks were grand.

MrMusician18

NIMAN wrote: »

They claim in the Indo today that they were following all guidelines and regulations.

So they are claiming they aren't liable and their blocks were grand.

Well they're obviously not grand. Or if that's their idea of a grand durable product I'm surprised they have any customers

RandomViewer

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Well they're obviously not grand. Or if that's their idea of a grand durable product I'm surprised they have any customers

Most of the houses were built mid-noughties, corners were cut at almost every level and government were riding high on all the cash rolling in so anything and everything was passed, it's obvious Cassidy was skimping on the cement mix and nobody was checking