FF/FG/Green Government - Part 3 - Threadbanned User List in OP

BASHIR

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Because Irish people think the government are there to sort out every issue in their lives.

And what happens when both builder and building suppliers are now insolvent? Tough luck is it?

ineedeuro

BASHIR wrote: »

And what happens when both builder and building suppliers are now insolvent? Tough luck is it?

Is that the case? which builder and suppliers are insolvent?

BASHIR

ineedeuro wrote: »

Is that the case? which builder and suppliers are insolvent?

I didn't say any were hence the question mark.

Jinglejangle69

BASHIR wrote: »

And what happens when both builder and building suppliers are now insolvent? Tough luck is it?

Well it's no different to any other business if a company goes insolvent.

Jinglejangle69

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Government regulations and the law have failed these people. They are in the situation through no fault of their own.

More callous power swapism. Ordinary people don't matter over and above vested interests.

Why can't people use their solicitor and the legal route like everything else?

BASHIR

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Well it's no different to any other business if a company goes insolvent.

So that makes it restrictive on people to bring any claim to them is that right?

FrancieBrady

ineedeuro wrote: »

Builders have failed these people.

We have a massive legal system in place to help these people. If they trip over a chip in a street they have no problem using it so why not now.

One minute the government is been accused of been in bed with builders, when it is suggested they should push back and let people go after the builders you are saying they are failing the "ordinary people"?
It is simple, it doesn;t matter what party is in government, they should not be fixing builders problems. That is what the legal system is for. The "ordinary people" paying taxes don't want more billions wasted on resolving housing issues while a builder walks away with profits

Builders, the regulators and ultimately the government have.

If I trust in regulations and oversight I would expect full redress if that trust is broken.

If I don't regulate how my business premises are equipped and built and somebody injures themselves as a result I do not expect that person to be out of pocket due to my incompetence or lack of concern. Regardless of what my expectations are, a court would decide in favour of the injured party.

Nothing different here...these people trusted that the quarries and builders were compliant, quite simply and obviously, they weren't and they cannot get redress, so they are taking their protests onto the streets.

BASHIR

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Why can't people use their solicitor and the legal route like everything else?

Well I obviously can't speak for everyone but if I was paying a mortgage on a dangerous and defective house that I can't live in, plus rent on a home I have to live in I'm not sure I would be able to afford a solicitor. But again that's probably tough luck.

Jinglejangle69

BASHIR wrote: »

So that makes it restrictive on people to bring any claim to them is that right?

That's the same for all companies.

If a company goes bust, people owed money don't get it.

That's the way it is.

You want to change the rules for certain people?

BASHIR

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

That's the same for all companies.

If a company goes bust, people owed money don't get it.

That's the way it is.

You want to change the rules for certain people?

I never mentioned changing rules.

Jinglejangle69

BASHIR wrote: »

Well I obviously can't speak for everyone but if I was paying a mortgage on a dangerous and defective house that I can't live in, plus rent on a home I have to live in I'm not sure I would be able to afford a solicitor. But again that's probably tough luck.

There surely is something in the contract people get their solicitors to draw up when buying a house.

Maybe that's an idea going forward.

I agree the builders get away with murder but we can't expect the taxpayer to foot the bill all the time.

FrancieBrady

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

There surely is something in the contract people get their solicitors to draw up when buying a house.

Maybe that's an idea going forward.

I agree the builders get away with murder but we can't expect the taxpayer to foot the bill all the time.

There are 'Regulations' covering the amount of Mica allowed in blocks. They limit it to 1%. One of these suppliers had up to 17% Mica in their blocks. That is a failure by the manufacturer and the regulator which the homeowner could not be expected to detect. The homeowners (all home owners) trust the supplier is compliant and that the various regulators are doing their jobs.
They obviously weren't in these cases.

BASHIR

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

There surely is something in the contract people get their solicitors to draw up when buying a house.

Maybe that's an idea going forward.

I agree the builders get away with murder but we can't expect the taxpayer to foot the bill all the time.

I agree it shouldn't be the taxpayer too.

FrancieBrady

BASHIR wrote: »

I agree it shouldn't be the taxpayer too.

Let the regulator get redress from the builders and quarries.

Ordinary trusting people should not be on the hook for this. It's a disgrace really and will damage the government even more.

BASHIR

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Let the regulator get redress from the builders and quarries.

Ordinary trusting people should not be on the hook for this. It's a disgrace really and will damage the government even more.

Sorry I didn't elaborate on my shouldn't, but yes I agree this should be the case here.

ineedeuro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Builders, the regulators and ultimately the government have.

If I trust in regulations and oversight I would expect full redress if that trust is broken.

If I don't regulate how my business premises are equipped and built and somebody injures themselves as a result I do not expect that person to be out of pocket due to my incompetence or lack of concern. Regardless of what my expectations are, a court would decide in favour of the injured party.

Nothing different here...these people trusted that the quarries and builders were compliant, quite simply and obviously, they weren't and they cannot get redress, so they are taking their protests onto the streets.

Yes via the legal system. Not via the government.

If someone is injured on your premises they don't march on the government, they go via the courts. This should be the process now.

Fann Linn

ineedeuro wrote: »

Yes via the legal system. Not via the government.

If someone is injured on your premises they don't march on the government, they go via the courts. This should be the process now.

Govt set a precedent by forking out 100% for Dublin homes affected by Pyrite.

mikep

Is it just me or has anyone heard a mention about the manufacturer of the defective materials involved??
Isn't it them who should ultimately foot the bill??

I realise that these companies probably no longer exist but I expect previous owners are still merrily operating under a new entity..

Serious work needs to be done to ensure those at fault pay..

ineedeuro

Fann Linn wrote: »

Govt set a precedent by forking out 100% for Dublin homes affected by Pyrite.

So?
They shouldn't have and just because one person does it doesn't mean that is always the case
If anything that has proved that the government should not have got involved. They should have pushed back on builders. Mistakes got made lets not make them again. Repeating the same mistake over and over again is stupidity.

FrancieBrady

mikep wrote: »

Is it just me or has anyone heard a mention about the manufacturer of the defective materials involved??
Isn't it them who should ultimately foot the bill??

I realise that these companies probably no longer exist but I expect previous owners are still merrily operating under a new entity..

Serious work needs to be done to ensure those at fault pay..

If right was right this should be between the regulator and the supplier...that is where the failure occurred.

Jinglejangle69

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If right was right this should be between the regulator and the supplier...that is where the failure occurred.

Which regulator?

ineedeuro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If right was right this should be between the regulator and the supplier...that is where the failure occurred.

It should be
Homeowner to builder
Builder to builder supplier
Supplier to manufacturer

That is the route these people should be following. At no stage should they be marching on the government. Plus I repeat again it shouldn't matter who is in government.

FrancieBrady

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Which regulator?

The National Standards Authority

Statutory Instrument number 288 of 1949 set a 1 per cent at total limit for impurities such as pyrite and mica in concrete blocks. The Expert Panel on Concrete Blocks consulted the National Standards Authority on this for its 2017 report to government. The clear view of the authority – and expert panel – was that the 1 per cent limit still applies.

17% Mica has been found in some of the blocks used. How did that happen when there is a 'standard'.

ineedeuro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The National Standards Authority


17% Mica has been found in some of the blocks used. How did that happen when there is a 'standard'.

Because the manufacturer didn't follow the regulation and they should be paying to resolve this.
This has nothing to do with the government.

FrancieBrady

ineedeuro wrote: »

It should be
Homeowner to builder
Builder to builder supplier
Supplier to manufacturer

That is the route these people should be following. At no stage should they be marching on the government. Plus I repeat again it shouldn't matter who is in government.

Why 'should' it be?

Why when regulation failed here, should the homeowner have to go through expensive court proceedings to get redress?

BASHIR

Government seem to feel different, not going to oppose Sinn Fein motion.

Fann Linn

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Which regulator?

Building control in local authorities.

FrancieBrady

ineedeuro wrote: »

Because the manufacturer didn't follow the regulation and they should be paying to resolve this.
This has nothing to do with the government.

If there is a regulation (and there was, as shown) then there is a 'regulator'.

Let the 'regulator' who failed get the compensation and go through the court and let ordinary people who trusted the regulator get their lives back and get on with them.

ineedeuro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If there is a regulation (and there was, as shown) then there is a 'regulator'.

Let the 'regulator' who failed get the compensation and go through the court and let ordinary people who trusted the regulator get their lives back and get on with them.

Not how it works and not how it should work.
The ordinary people are the ones who are wronged. They need compensation. They go to the person that wronged them and get compensation

The regulator provides guidelines. That is it. If the company failed to adhere to them they are at fault and the person can sue them because they didn't follow the regulations.

If you at a company and get injured because they didn't follow H&S regulations, do you sue Health & Safety authority or do you sue the company and the legal team confirm the company didn;t follow the guidelines?

Jinglejangle69

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If there is a regulation (and there was, as shown) then there is a 'regulator'.

Let the 'regulator' who failed get the compensation and go through the court and let ordinary people who trusted the regulator get their lives back and get on with them.

That makes no sense.

Companies have insurance in case they make mistakes.

The regulator isn't there to go after companies for money.

They just said the buses have triclours in the windows.

Can someone explain??