Mica Redress

joe40

whatnow! wrote: »

A poster just mentioned this poll in the mica thread in the Donegal forum, which will obviously skew the results much more in favour of full payment by taxpayers that would otherwise have been if the poll was given to a random selection of people on boards with an interest in politics and the Irish economy versus a group of people who have a vested interest in getting a large sum of money from the government.

"A vested interest in getting a large sum of money from the government"
what a loaded and inflammatory statement.
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were interested in a debate. You're not, comments like that are extremely offensive to people looking at potential economic ruin.

Every county in Ireland has one off housing, that should not come into this debate. It is a separate planning issue. We are talking about houses that already exist and not forgetting mortgages that already exist which must be paid regardless of the condition of the house.
This is extremely upsetting, it may be an interesting debate for you but it is an unfolding disaster for people affected.

fash

Swindled wrote: »

Actually It's business as usual for the block manufacturer involved, they are currently suppling the state with blocks from the same quarry, for social housing projects and also supplying private developers. With no assistance or enforcement from the state, local taxpayers have been trying to blockade their lorries from getting into the sites, but some supplies are still getting through. The local authority recently granted the same quarry a 25 year extension to its planning permission, despite it being in breach of several existing planning conditions !

Absolutely, law abiding people should not pay for something someone else has done, that's the whole point, and the state is letting it continue to happen as we speak and no hassle or penalty whatsoever for the those responsible. Big industry and corporations do as they please in Ireland with complete freedom and the little Irish taxpaying victims pick up the tab.

If "big industry & corporations" are responsible for it, sue them and leave the government out of things. If they are indeed responsible, then they will pay/go bankrupt

Swindled

fash wrote: »

If "big industry & corporations" are responsible for it, sue them and leave the government out of things. If they are indeed responsible, then they will pay/go bankrupt

That was already tried by a group of the homeowners, after 5 years of very expensive legal challenges, and stalling and dragging them out in every possible way, it was eventually revealed by the manufactures solicitor that they have no product liability insurance whatsoever and are allowed to continue to operate like that. The homeowners were also advised by their legal team that after many more years of legal expense and challenges, they would almost certainly secure a judgement against the manufacture, but would never see a penny of it. Also, the assets of the manufacture involved wouldn't rebuild 10 houses, let alone the many involved. The homeowners could not afford to proceed and waste any more years. Also products liability extends only 10 years, and many are just beyond that now. The homeowners were advised their only recourse for this mess at this stage is the state, and the state should then try to recover the costs in some way. Basically the law totally protects the industry and large corporations, and there is no enforcement of the national and EU structural material regulations by the state, and that's the way the CIF and many cosy politicians and officials in Ireland down through the years like it.

[Deleted User]

fash wrote: »

If "big industry & corporations" are responsible for it, sue them and leave the government out of things. If they are indeed responsible, then they will pay/go bankrupt

Their net assets are about €2 million on paper and likely a lot less if they had to sell them off in a hurry.

I'm not in favour of 100% redress up to whatever the cost is to replace the houses affected but I would be in favour of 100% up to a limit which is the lower of the cost to rebuild the original affected house or somewhere in the region of €250,000 per house which should buy quite a nice house in Donegal.

I don't see the country being able to afford to offer more than that.

[Deleted User]

joe40 wrote: »

"A vested interest in getting a large sum of money from the government"
what a loaded and inflammatory statement.

The primary aim is to get enough money from the government to rebuild their houses to original spec at a minimum and probable better due to better building methods and materials since some of the houses were originally built.

This is going to cost a large sum of money which will be given by the government and there is nobody for the government to claim any of this back from.

I don't intend for it to be loaded or inflammatory nor end up in a dispute with you about it. It is exactly what the people affected are asking for.

Swindled

whatnow! wrote: »

This is not acceptable apparently as they 'want what they paid for'.

That's what all consumers rightly expect in a civilised law and order society.

No one is asking for any more than that, nor should they accept anything less.

Restoring the financial position of the injured party back to the way it was before the loss occurred is a core principle of any just civilised system, and always has been.

fash

Swindled wrote: »

That was already tried by a group of the homeowners, after 5 years of very expensive legal challenges, and stalling and dragging them out in every possible way, it was eventually revealed by the manufactures solicitor that they have no product liability insurance whatsoever and are allowed to continue to operate like that. The homeowners were also advised by their legal team that after many more years of legal expense and challenges, they would almost certainly secure a judgement against the manufacture, but would never see a penny of it. Also, the assets of the manufacture involved wouldn't rebuild 10 houses, let alone the many involved. The homeowners could not afford to proceed and waste any more years. .

So there is someone to blame- however you do not wish to pursue them on the basis that they may not have sufficient funds. Isn't it your fault that they continue to operate in that case?

The homeowners were advised their only recourse for this mess at this stage is the state, and the state should then try to recover the costs in some way.

If you can't do it, how can the state? Arbitrarily designate someone responsible and recover the money from them? Why is that better than leaving the loss where it arose?

Basically the law totally protects the industry and large corporations, and there is no enforcement of the national and EU structural material regulations by the state, and that's the way the CIF and many cosy politicians and officials in Ireland down through the years like it.

The law protects everyone and there is enforcement - however it seems that the tax payer is expected to backstop everyone for everything. That is going to be very, very expensive. If people are unhappy with the price of housing now, you ain't seen nothing yet.

jimmycrackcorm

NIMAN wrote:

Why does the size of someone's house matter at all? They saved and built the home of their choice. Paid all the fees and charges and VAT on that home. Took out a mortgage like everyone else in the country, making big repayments, but now you think they should relocate into a housing estate?

I've paid all the fees, charges and vat on my home as has everyone else who owns a home. These go into general taxation and provide public services.

Swindled wrote:

Just to clarify, no one, including the taxpaying homeowners affected through no fault of theirs want the taxpayer to lumbered with the bill.

The problem isn't redress itself as people need to be helped but they want the taxpayer to pay for everything even though it's not the taxpayers fault and don't want to make any contribution.

Swindled wrote:

The Sunday Business Post commissioned a national Red C at the weekend, poll shows that 71% of respondents believe the Government should provide a redress scheme to cover 100% of costs for those whose taxpayers who's homes are impacted by the mica block controversy.

Of course, if someone suggests should people get free pints at the pub then 70% will probably say it's great and the rest might say: Hang on.

But if that poll suggested putting a national levy on property tax to cover the billions needed, then let's see how people vote.

Swindled

fash wrote: »

So there is someone to blame- however you do not wish to pursue them on the basis that they may not have sufficient funds. Isn't it your fault that they continue to operate in that case?

If you can't do it, how can the state? Arbitrarily designate someone responsible and recover the money from them? Why is that better than leaving the loss where it arose?

The law protects everyone and there is enforcement - however it seems that the tax payer is expected to backstop everyone for everything. That is going to be very, very expensive. If people are unhappy with the price of housing now, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Victims who are also taxpayers, are not the people responsible for enforcing the states laws and regulations. The state is the one respsonble for enforcing the states laws allowing these rogue suppliers to operate and continue the way they do, if they don't enforce any of the states current regulations, and they are not, we the little taxpayers carry the can as usual while the state protects those responsible and allows them to continue operating.

[Deleted User]

Swindled wrote: »

That's what all consumers rightly expect in a civilised law and order society.

No one is asking for any more than that, nor should they accept anything less.

Restoring the financial position of the injured party back to the way it was before the loss occurred is a core principle of any just civilised system, and always has been.

Absolutely. Restored by the vendor or in some cases the manufacturer of the product or service.

I'm not sure why that burden automatically falls on the taxpayer.

We have been over this and you mentioned things about pyrite repair and bankers getting baled out but didn't make a case of why taxpayers should compensate mica victims 100% for their misfortune so having the same chat again is pointless.

I do believe that the taxpayer needs to help the mica victims but where we differ is that I believe it should be capped and you don't and talking about the bank bailout doesn't bridge that gap.

alchemist33

L1011 wrote: »

One-off housing is not sustainable and Donegal is destroyed with it.

It really isn't destroyed. There are holiday areas where a loy of houses were built in the early noughties but they make up a small proportion of the county.

The J Stands for Jay

For Forks Sake wrote: »

A rise in LPT in Donegal to offset some of the cost would sort those in genuine solidarity from the bandwagon hopping spoofers.

You're forgetting that the LPT revaluation is coming up, and lots of Donegal homes are worth less than the value of the land.

Nats9314

This is banded about in every forum or discussion on mica...that the majority of effected homes are one off donegal mcmansions...and the 100% redress scheme is unpalatable to pay for the same again. This could not be further from the truth...the majority of homes are modest size and in estates....drive about letterkenny or buncrana and you'd be shocked at the extent of the issue and thats not even looking at the community halls..Public buildings...doctors surgeries...apartment blocks etc. I will admit .. even though the recent media coverage is great, skewing the coverage to the one off large self builds doesn't help getting public backing.

Swindled

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I've paid all the fees, charges and vat on my home as has everyone else who owns a home. These go into general taxation and provide public services.

So have the homeowners affected.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The problem isn't redress itself as people need to be helped but they want the taxpayer to pay for everything even though it's not the taxpayers fault and don't want to make any contribution.

No one wants the taxpayer to pay for this, they should not be, the state should enforce the laws and regulations that they are supposed to prevent this and ensure those responsible pay, but they don't. As we speak this supplier is still supplying these blocks from the same quarry to the state.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Of course, if someone suggests should people get free pints at the pub then 70% will probably say it's great and the rest might say: Hang on.

But if that poll suggested putting a national levy on property tax to cover the billions needed, then let's see how people vote.

There's no "free pints", these are peoples homes and lives, and they have to pay property tax same as everyone else does. This is going to keep on happening to taxpayers all over Ireland until the state is held to account for not holding the industry responsible to account.

Swindled

whatnow! wrote: »

I do believe that the taxpayer needs to help the mica victims but where we differ is that I believe it should be capped and you don't

False, it should be capped at the financial loss involved, no more, no less.

[Deleted User]

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Of course, if someone suggests should people get free pints at the pub then 70% will probably say it's great and the rest might say: Hang on.

But if that poll suggested putting a national levy on property tax to cover the billions needed, then let's see how people vote.

The question posed in the red c poll was:

Who believe the government should provide a redress scheme to cover 100% of the costs (or 'all costs') for those whose homes were impacted by the mica block controversy.

71% of 1020 respondents who replied said yes.

This is from 40,000 people who have signed up to be polled regularly on various things. They are paid a very small amount to do the polls so I would say that this will have a strong influence on the type of people that participate and are more likely to want the government to pay out to everyone and anyone who needs it as if they care about making €1 for 5 minutes of their time they are probably not paying much tax.

---

If the question was posed in the form that they would need to contribute close to €1,000 in tax to fund this scheme I'm fairly sure that the percentage would drop.

[Deleted User]

Swindled wrote: »

False, it should be capped at the financial loss involved, no more, no less.

How is the financial loss calculated?

Swindled

The J Stands for Jay wrote: »

They've already been wound up.

They haven't, they are still supplying the state and other developers with blocks as we speak from the same quarry. No consequences whatsoever from the state, no action whatsoever from the state, no enforcement whatsoever from the state.
Their quarry planning permission has in fact been recently extended for another 25 years, despite them being in breach of several existing planning conditions.
Also there is absolutely nothing being done to prevent this happening all over Ireland by unscrupulous structural material manufacturers.

Swindled

whatnow! wrote: »

How is the financial loss calculated?

The same as it always is, what it takes to replace what the person had, not less than what they had, not more than what they had.

fash

Swindled wrote: »

Victims who are also taxpayers, are not the people responsible for enforcing the states laws and regulations. The state is the one respsonble for enforcing the states laws allowing these rogue suppliers to operate and continue the way they do, if they don't enforce any of the states current regulations, and they are not, we the little taxpayers carry the can as usual while the state protects those responsible and allows them to continue operating.

The state isn't protecting those responsible: the people who bought houses without suitable guarantees and who refuse to pursue the companies responsible are.
If you have a problem with the company- sue that. If you believe the state has failed in its legal obligations regarding regulation- sue that.
Otherwise, why should anyone else pay for this loss?

fash

whatnow! wrote: »

Absolutely. Restored by the vendor or in some cases the manufacturer of the product or service.

I'm not sure why that burden automatically falls on the taxpayer.

We have been over this and you mentioned things about pyrite repair and bankers getting baled out but didn't make a case of why taxpayers should compensate mica victims 100% for their misfortune so having the same chat again is pointless.

I do believe that the taxpayer needs to help the mica victims but where we differ is that I believe it should be capped and you don't and talking about the bank bailout doesn't bridge that gap.

All of this creates further moral hazard: "so what if we are a bank/insurance company and f**k up- the tax payers will bail us out" "why should I get a reputable builder with lots of warranties, and a full design team - the tax payers will bail me out"; "why should I pay this mortgage- the tax payer will bail me out" etc

[Deleted User]

Nats9314 wrote: »

This is banded about in every forum or discussion on mica...that the majority of effected homes are one off donegal mcmansions...and the 100% redress scheme is unpalatable to pay for the same again. This could not be further from the truth...the majority of homes are modest size and in estates....drive about letterkenny or buncrana and you'd be shocked at the extent of the issue and thats not even looking at the community halls..Public buildings...doctors surgeries...apartment blocks etc. I will admit .. even though the recent media coverage is great, skewing the coverage to the one off large self builds doesn't help getting public backing.

Public backing would be much easier to obtain with a cap which is large enough to rebuild a house of modest size in an estate so that covers the majority of those affected.

It sounds like the majority need to negotiate for themselves and not have their lives held up because a small minority are demanding a mansion to be built with taxpayer funds.

[Deleted User]

Swindled wrote: »

The same as it always is, what it takes to replace what the person had, not less than what they had, not more than what they had.

Like I said, that is the root of our difference of opinion. I'm not willing to contribute to the rebuilding of a mansion but am willing to contribute to a modest size estate house.

You can keep shouting for the taxpayer to rebuild your house, maybe it will work, maybe it won't but make no mistake that you are looking to all of us to contribute our hard earned money so demanding like a stubborn mule and be unwilling to discuss the possible of compromise is turning people off helping you at all.

martingriff

L1011 wrote: »

If they expect the State to sort out their housing, yes.

One-off housing is not sustainable and Donegal is destroyed with it.

Should they not get back the house they have

[Deleted User]

martingriff wrote: »

Should they not get back the house they have

They should, the problem is the company responsible doesn't have the money to do it.

fash

whatnow! wrote: »

They should, the problem is the company responsible doesn't have the money to do it.

That's unfortunate and all, but that was the legal context in which they bought their houses. Now they wish to change the legal context setting a precedent for moral hazard and the state having to cover all such problems in future - as well as the state having to massively increase the cumbersomeness of testing, verifying, documenting & auditing everything - all at the tax payers expense.
What if the tax payer thinks (s)he is paying enough tax and already isn't getting services commensurate with those taxes? Tough?

Swindled

whatnow! wrote: »

Like I said, that is the root of our difference of opinion. I'm not willing to contribute to the rebuilding of a mansion but am willing to contribute to a modest size estate house.

You can keep shouting for the taxpayer to rebuild your house, maybe it will work, maybe it won't but make no mistake that you are looking to all of us to contribute our hard earned money so demanding like a stubborn mule and be unwilling to discuss the possible of compromise is turning people off helping you at all.

You can leave out the false personal mischaracterisations, name calling, and personal attacks if you want to discuss the actual topic. The taxpayers effected have worked just as hard as you. I certainly have no mansion and very very few people do. No different to the rest of regional Ireland, many of the houses are semidetached in estates, many of them are detached similar to any other similar region, and were granted full planning permission by the state, and a lot of taxes paid by the owners in the process. I want justice and law and order, and the state to enforce existing structural material laws and regulations, and prevent this from happening to others. None of which is currently happening.

[Deleted User]

fash wrote: »

That's unfortunate and all, but that was the legal context in which they bought their houses. Now they wish to change the legal context setting a precedent for moral hazard and the state having to cover all such problems in future - as well as the state having to massively increase the cumbersomeness of testing, verifying, documenting & auditing everything - all at the tax payers expense.
What if the tax payer thinks (s)he is paying enough tax and already isn't getting services commensurate with those taxes? Tough?

They don't care about the cost to the taxpayer or the precedent it sets. They only care about getting their house rebuilt and paid for by someone else. I understand that. We would all want the same if we were the ones affected so their unwillingness to compromise at this point in time is understandable. It is just a sh1tty situation with no good outcome.

[Deleted User]

Swindled, you and me have reached the end of our journey together. We don't agree so we will just have to agree to disagree. Ultimately those in government will weight up the situation and make the final decision. I want you to end up with a roof over your head and to feel safe in your home but I want to achieve that in a way that doesn't place an undue burden on the taxpayers of the country. Best of luck with life. xx.

Swindled

whatnow! wrote: »

They don't care about the cost to the taxpayer or the precedent it sets.

This is again false, time and time again we wanted and want those responsible and negligent to pay, yet the state allows them to operate with zero insurance, and zero responsibility, and zero enforcement. No one is asking for any more than the cost they are out. No taxpayer, including the taxpayers effected, want this bill landing at the taxpayers door. We have also asked time and time again, for the state to do something to ensure this can never happen again, but nothing is being done, and the supplier, and similar suppliers, continues to supply state housing and developers with no enforcement.