Mica Redress

muffler

In the restaurant analogy the complaint would have been investigated by state backed inspectors and steps taken to ensure the problem was eradicated up to and including the shutting down of the premises followed by more inspections before they would be licenced to operate again.

Where were the building control officers of Donegal County Council when the issue was made known to them over 10 years ago?

I sent an email to the Minister for Housing a while back asking what procedures are in place to ensure that blocks currently being used are fit for purpose. He didn't get back to me.

There are health inspectors for restaurants and social welfare schemes and insurance policies for your restaurant analogy.

I'm worried I will end up buying a 'starter' house with mica/pyrite/other and being stuck in that situation long after it is no longer suitable for my family as I will have a mortgage on a house I can't sell to fund the next upgrade and I can't go spending thousands on tests for each house if they will even let me test it and take the house off the market for however long for it to be done.

There is no insurance company willing to insure this risk so I need to rely on the government to enforce standards which they are not currently doing.

Any of us could find ourselves in the situation the mica homeowners are currently in and we would need the government to bail us out.

The rest of us who are currently unaffected need to know tight cost controls will be implemented and that those responsible for standards enforcement are actually getting it done.

timmyntc

The issues causing pyrite, mica, pyrrhotite in blocks have not been fixed yet - so this scandal can happen again. That is one reason its so important to support the redress scheme, because it may finally yield some proper regulations of the construction industry. Self-regulation is no regulation, anyone could have a defective house and not know it yet - the next scandal could be already happening, only to reveal itself in 5-10 years. Would you support 100% redress if your house later turned out to have been built with defective materials?

SuperBowserWorld

What about houses built on a floodplain ?

Should you pay for a new house for someone in that situation. A bigger house, up in the mountains, with all services. Post, water, electricity, broadband, roads, sewage.

This mica situation is really truly awful,

but it's huge amounts of money and people are sick to death of bailing out the property developers and co and paying huge money for housing and associated taxes.

10 years after a property crash and bang in the middle of another boom.

So, the costs are artificially huge right now.

You've got people who can't afford a house or kids being asked to pay for this.

Really, the govt needs to reduce construction costs and artificial prices and people need to stop pushing up properly prices and incurring huge debts on housing.

It's a nuts country high on property and endless debt.

IAmTheReign

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117978920#Comment_117978920

Who in this thread has said the people affected shouldn't get any help from the government? I haven't seen anyone say that. What some people are against is the government agreeing to a blank cheque for anyone affected. Government assistance should be based on need, exactly like any other state assistance like illness benefit or unemployment benefit.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983721#Comment_117983721

Absolutely correct, nobody is saying that there should be no help from the government.

However, there is an opportunity to reduce bungalow blight for example, and people don't see it as fair and equitable to pay for McMansions for some.

IAmTheReign

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117980997#Comment_117980997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117980957#Comment_117980957

I work on large construction projects and in my industry it is standard practice that the company responsible for construction is expected to ensure that all materials come with documentation stating they are fit for purpose and spot checks are typically done to verify this. The cosntruction management company is 100% liable if the materials used are not suitable.

If you hire a friend to do the work and he thinks it's acceptable to build using materials bought 'in good faith' that is totally on you and the builder you chose to do the work.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983797#Comment_117983797

That is part of the problem here. A number of the houses were built on a nod and a wink, cash paid, no inspections, no nothing.

Is it any wonder that there were problems.

salonfire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983797#Comment_117983797

How did you test for the presence of Mica in the past?

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117982313#Comment_117982313

The fact that an engineer won't sign off on the repairs as completely durable is somewhat irrelevant. The repairs would only need sign off if the house was going to be sold, but the government isn't stepping in here to protect asset values. It's meant to be stepping in to ensure homes are safe.

I'd have no problem with a scheme that allows a second attempt at repair, if deterioration happens again. This should be limited to 50 years after the commencement notice of the original build or a change of ownership, including inheritance - whichever comes first.

I'd also argue, that if homes are rebuilt then they should be subject to claw-back on change of ownership too. Protesters are dead against these ideas though, because while they painted this as a safety issue, it's as much about an asset value one too.

joe40

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983907#Comment_117983907

That is complete nonsense.

10000maniacs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984176#Comment_117984176

Why is it complete nonsense? It sounds like a reasonable point to me.

Primary responsibility for demonstrating a construction product’s compliance with the requirements of the Construction Products Regulation rests with the manufacturer of the product. And the builder should have requested a Construction Products Regulation Certificate from the manufacturer of the blocks in the first instance.

People need to take responsibility for their own mistakes whether it's the house-owners/builders/block manufacturers/surveyors/banks etc, and stop trying to blame the State who have zero blame in this whole mess.

They would likely have gotten this certificate if asked for. What use would this piece of paper be to those affected by mica now?

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117982313#Comment_117982313

Grant system perhaps ?

I think you will find throughout this thread in trying to understand the issue and come up with Common sense approach tbh.

The council engineers came from one of your own posters i.e folks pushing for redress. Several times in this thread and others it has been stated the council said outer leaf fix is best approach. I didn't make that claim at all.

In terms of being dismissive. I'm dismissive of anyone who thinks the tax payer can and should just cover this carte blanche. I'm completely against that. It's not reasonable and it's not evidence or data based.

As soon as this working group start coming up with sensible plans that don't equate a simple byline of '100% redress or nothing' then I'm all ears.

joe40

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984307#Comment_117984307

I get that this process is complex and I do appreciate there are some fair minded posters here raising concern about no caps and large houses been rebuilt. I do get that.

But as a homeowner possibly affected by this, I find it extremely offensive the suggestion that it is somehow my fault, for cutting corners etc. I bought from a contractor so I assumed all products were fit for purpose. The house was inspected at every stage as per mortgage regulations. Where is that liability.

The poster I was responding to was making the allegation that this was largely caused by cowboy builders cutting corners. That is extremely offensive to people in a great deal of worry and concern.

No one would deliberately use defective blocks. Block are a very small cost in the overall build cost, there is no suggestion that these blocks were in any way cheaper.

I agree the govt are not to blame but they are the only one with resources to chase to that have liability including their insurers.

Again I welcome debate on this and I think the carte blanche 100% redress is a negotiating position, and will not be achieved. I do think support will be given and I do believe there is public support for that.

NIMAN

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983907#Comment_117983907

Have you any evidence for this sweeping statement?

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117982313#Comment_117982313

Oh council engineers are willing to sign off on outer leaf "repairs". That is the plan based on the following from the working group report:

2. Financial Barrier to Scheme Entry – Revise application processes so the homeowner is only required to submit a building condition assessment (likely cost €500-750), similar to the PRB scheme, and thereafter the Housing Agency, on behalf of Local Authorities takes on the assessment, testing and categorisation of homes and recommendation of the appropriate remediation option to the LA

Government are taking test results in-house. No more getting your own pesky independent engineer to recommend demolition. No more viewing your test results either. It'll be a take it or leave it email / letter from the housing agency offering outer leaf replacement in the vast majority of cases. How much of this is funded by the tax payer is only half the story. IS 465 is a money saving (in the short term) can kicking standard. It needs revised to make sure more billions arent wasted with outer leaf repairs having to be demolished in years to come when inner walls / foundations fail. They dont want to hear about testing poured concrete foundations or Suite C testing for other deleterious materials that are worse than mica e.g. pyrrhotite. IS 465 is mica only and no testing foundations. That is intentional.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984726#Comment_117984726

It is not a sweeping statement. Do you dispute that a number of the houses would have been self-build with cash-in-hand a feature of the payments?

joe40

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984828#Comment_117984828

It is a sweeping statement with no evidence unless that is how you function yourself.

Even if that were so it would have no relevance to the mica issue. Blocks are expected to last.

Houses are still inspected before mortgage draw down. Plenty of people had homebound but they went awol.

Blaming homeowners for this is reprehensible.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984945#Comment_117984945

Are you saying that there isn't a single homeowner affected who didn't take short-cuts in the build and buy some cheap material for cash? Like, every single one bought certified quality material paying full VAT with proper invoices?

This is Ireland, remember.

I am on board with repairing people's principle private residence.

I don't think I could get on board with covering the cost of repairing investment properties. I would view that as similar to someone buying Amazon shares and then looking to the government to pay them if they lose on their investment because the balance sheet proved to be misstated.

I assume investment properties make up a small percentage of houses so looking to lump them in would be a major stumbling block in reaching a deal.

joe40

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984955#Comment_117984955

In relation to blocks absolutely. They are a very small part of the overall build cost, there are no corners to cut when sourcing blocks.

There is zero evidence to suggest these blocks were any cheaper than others.

This is affecting houses on estates where owners had zero input to the build.

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117983907#Comment_117983907

You're talking through your hole.

VillageIdiot71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117982594#Comment_117982594

I agree, that that's exactly the question that Donegal people should ask themselves as they dig deep into their own pockets to help out their neighbours, now suffering because of the inaction of the Council they elected.

Great to see Donegal people accepting responsibility for their past mistakes.

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117985137#Comment_117985137

I would engage with you if your post was half sensible.

Dr Turk Turkelton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984481#Comment_117984481

No this certificate comes from an independent testing company who take away a few blocks from different loads to sample.

You are then given an analysis of the breakdown.

The cost of the test is 250 euros each time.

On big schemes this would happen around every 10000 blocks at the start and if everything is going well for the first few tests it's moved to every 25000 blocks and finally every 50000 blocks.

Small money for piece of mind for an average house with 5/6000 blocks in it to get it checked around the 3000 block mark and have a block from each load that came in.

10000maniacs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117984713#Comment_117984713

Most builders or owner/builders don't deliberately set out to use defective blocks. That is true.

But at least when sourcing the blocks, ensure that they adhere to the minimum standards of certification before buying them.

There are other block makers in Ireland who provide this certification before delivery. Don't tell me there are not. Because I know there are.

These builders, owner/builders should have went with block makers who could produce these certificates instead.

Responsibility, Responsibility, Responsibility.

Dr Turk Turkelton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117985301#Comment_117985301

10000maniacs is completely correct here, all the main block companies have download able technical certification available on their websites.

This in conjunction with material testing means a lot less hassle further down the line.

salonfire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117985352#Comment_117985352

If that's the case, you're only strengthing the argument put forward by the MICA home-owners. If other quarries were producing certs - and this one wasn't - why was it allowed to operate for so long by the Council? The Council were the Market Regulator.

Dr Turk Turkelton

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117985726#Comment_117985726

No unfortunately it's the homeowners responsibility for not asking their builder for the documentation or the results of the independent testing the builder should have done.

In the case of a self build it's all on the homeowner to have researched the documentation for themselves.