MICA - Who should pay?

fash

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I'd be in favour of 100% of the costs if the person/people ultimately responsible are put into prison.

There was clearly no quality control done on any of this stuff, when really there should have been.

I'd also be in favour of punishing insurers that won't pay out.

Imagine being in a position where you've worked your whole like to pay off a mortgage/build and house, only for it to fall to bits as the blocks that were supplied to you were defective.

I know you said the houses are big etc, but they aren't worth a huge amount as most of them are in the back arse of Donegal

do you include the homeowners who clearly failed to do sufficient investigations/ put in place sufficient insurance in that? If not, why not?
I will assume that any actors who are criminally or civilly liable are being/have been suitably punished.

Beta Ray Bill

fash wrote: »

do you include the homeowners who clearly failed to do sufficient investigations/ put in place sufficient insurance in that? If not, why not?

I don't understand what you mean by this?
If you buy anything from new, you expect that it's built to an acceptable standard. You cannot do investigations into a build quality of X if you have no experience in that field. If you buy a new car and it fall apart after a few years then the manufacturer of that car is liable, not you. All you know about a car is how to drive it.

In terms of the insurance, you are asked for contents cover valuation and rebuild costs valuation, and you can pull that number out of the air really, I'd imagine most people have it, as it's a requirement for many banks now to provide a mortgage.

fash wrote: »

I will assume that any actors who are criminally or civilly liable are being/have been suitably punished.

I'd hope so too, but we don't really put people in Prison in Ireland for these kinds of things.

overshoot

whatnow! wrote: »

The docks in Dublin? Why are you introducing a few apartments on the docks into a conversation about 5000+ houses in Donegal?

Because you're complaining of the price of the states social responsibilities which those units are also, I'm only following your wider lead with regard to the states financial capability but you only seem to have a particular issue with paying out in Donegal.
To the extend you've banged on in the DL thread for quite a while now and set up at least 2 other threads across boards on the same topic

Smee_Again

I voted that the tax payer shouldn't pay. I just don't understand why home insurance isn't covering this. I have asked this before but no one has given a clear answer.

1 option that isn't on the poll is to build higher density houses and offer those to the people affected and then just knock the affected houses. Donegal is destroyed with one off houses and this is an opportunity to undo that damage.

It also allows for economies of scale while building, should make it easier to provide high speed internet too.

NIMAN

fash wrote: »

do you include the homeowners who clearly failed to do sufficient investigations/ put in place sufficient insurance in that? If not, why not?

What nonsense is this?

I bought a 2nd hand house in 2010.
I got a structural engineer to check it out, as required by my bank who was lending me the money. He gave the all clear.

The bank accepted his report.
An insurance company took my money to insure my building for 11 years.

Now all of them are washing their hands if my house starts to fall down.

But its my fault?

overshoot

fash wrote: »

do you include the homeowners who clearly failed to do sufficient investigations/ put in place sufficient insurance in that? If not, why not?
I will assume that any actors who are criminally or civilly liable are being/have been suitably punished.

What investigations are you looking for, when you did bought a house did you get the standard pre-purchase survey which the banks request which could show nothing as it's visual, or look for core samples of the blockwork, and sent them off to England for testing at a cost of thousands?

Home builders need employers, public liability and all risks (covering during construction) insurance. Cassidys should have product liability insurance, do you ask for that on every item you buy?

NIMAN

overshoot wrote: »

What investigations are you looking for, when you did bought a house did you get the standard pre-purchase survey which the banks request which could show nothing as it's visual, or look for core samples of the blockwork, and sent them off to England for testing at a cost of thousands?

Home builders need employers, public liability and all risks (covering during construction) insurance. Cassidys should have product liability insurance, do you ask for that on every item you buy?

Surely that is up to the council or Government to ensure they have such insurance? Yet many on Boards seem to think its the homeowners fault!

The fact that they didn't, and they have admitted this is a letter which is in the public domain, is shocking. Yet they were allowed to continue selling faulty blocks, despite Mica being a known issue since 2013/14, without said insurance.

blackbox

When there were problems withe the car insurance industry many years ago, a levy was introduced on every policy to help recoup losses.

A levy on the construction industry would be the appropriate way to recoup costs here. It might also encourage the construction industry to manage its own standards and require insurance throughout the supply chain.

ec18

life can be a bit **** but it's not the states problem. Take the 90% on offer and be happy it's more than 0

ThunbergsAreGo

blackbox wrote: »

When there were problems withe the car insurance industry many years ago, a levy was introduced on every policy to help recoup losses.

A levy on the construction industry would be the appropriate way to recoup costs here. It might also encourage the construction industry to manage its own standards and require insurance throughout the supply chain.

Yeah that won't increase already ludicrous house prices at all...

listermint

Why so many threads with polls by the OP on different forums ? With the same subject

Smee_Again

listermint wrote: »

Why so many threads with polls by the OP on different forums ? With the same subject

OP not getting the desired answer I presume.

NIMAN

ec18 wrote: »

life can be a bit **** but it's not the states problem. Take the 90% on offer and be happy it's more than 0

But its not 90%, thats the issue that started the current campaign in Donegal. Its closer to 60%.
And why would one set of citizens get 100% redress and another set 60% or 70%?



Also, say there is no redress at all, how do you think the Government are going to house perhaps 5000 - 8000 homeless families in Donegal? There is a severe shortage of properties for rent up here, so they will have to undertake a massive house building project to build enough houses to home them all. They know this, and thats why they probably see fixing peoples houses as the more sensible option.

fash

NIMAN wrote: »

What nonsense is this?

I bought a 2nd hand house in 2010.
I got a structural engineer to check it out, as required by my bank who was lending me the money. He gave the all clear.

The bank accepted his report.
An insurance company took my money to insure my building for 11 years.

Now all of them are washing their hands if my house starts to fall down.

But its my fault?

If your engineer did something wrong, sue him.
If your insurance covers it, collect off them.
If you can't- why is the tax payers' problem?

StupidLikeAFox

ec18 wrote: »

life can be a bit **** but it's not the states problem. Take the 90% on offer and be happy it's more than 0

What's the point of punishing them for the 10%? I mean if the government can afford the 90% then they can cover the whole lot. As a taxpayer who is unaffected by this issue, I'd be happy to see my money spent on this

Bear in mind it isn't like these homeowners pulled a fast one and are trying to game the system, if you pay 100% they're no better off than where they should have been.

You could maybe look at building in something for the state to recoup something if the house is sold for a profit in the next x years or something, but 10% up front is basically a fine.

NIMAN

fash wrote: »

If your engineer did something wrong, sue him.
If your insurance covers it, collect off them.
If you can't- why is the tax payers' problem?

1) Engineer isn't liable as he can't see inside blocks when doing his survey.
2) Insurance doesn't cover it.
3) It is the government job to regulate the industry and ensure quality of products being put into that industry. They failed to do this.

Another question for you.

Why was it the taxpayers problem with Pyrite in Leinster a few years back, when all homeowners got 100% redress, every cost covered including rent, storage etc. But now its not the taxpayers problem?

fash

NIMAN wrote: »

1) Engineer isn't liable as he can't see inside blocks when doing his survey.

So the engineer did nothing wrong - and the limitations of what he did were clearly communicated.

2) Insurance doesn't cover it.

So again the limitations were clearly communicated.

3) It is the government job to regulate the industry and ensure quality of products being put into that industry. They failed to do this.

If you think it is the government's job and they failed - sue them and you will win. But I do not believe

Another question for you.

Why was it the taxpayers problem with Pyrite in Leinster a few years back, when all homeowners got 100% redress, every cost covered including rent, storage etc. But now its not the taxpayers problem?

I don't believe it was the tax payers' problem and the tax payer needs to ensure that the principle is not established that the tax payer will pay out for every bond holder, pyrite or mica sufferer, bad fire-stopping sufferer, bad septic tank owner etc.

fash

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

What's the point of punishing them for the 10%? I mean if the government can afford the 90% then they can cover the whole lot. As a taxpayer who is unaffected by this issue, I'd be happy to see my money spent on this

Bear in mind it isn't like these homeowners pulled a fast one and are trying to game the system, if you pay 100% they're no better off than where they should have been.

You could maybe look at building in something for the state to recoup something if the house is sold for a profit in the next x years or something, but 10% up front is basically a fine.

The state has no legal responsibility here and a precedent is being established that the tax payer will backstop everything. "Tax payer paid out for pyrite and mica, tax payer should now pay out for fire protection, bond holders, people who built on a flood plain/next to a cliff etc.
Creates moral hazard and makes construction even more expensive.

upandcumming

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Firstly, your calculations don't factor in that we could take out a loan and finance over many years. Its a once off cost, meaning that while it sounds massive its actually e a pittance in the grand scheme of things. You mention a cost of 2500e per head, we'll if that was financed over 20 years it is literally nothing

Secondly, the government should pay for the whole lot, for the simple reason that it's the right thing to do.

This is the best you have? Woeful arguments.

FWIW I believe the government should assist these families.

Glaceon

I'd say give them the 100%, even though I'm not overly happy about it. The government set a trend by giving 100% to those affected by pyrite in the east. To turn around now and say that those in the west can't have the same thing would only fuel the "Dublin gets everything" fire in the west. And I say that as someone from Dublin.

Kimbot

MOD There is already a thread on the MICA topic over in the Donegal forum: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057901409

Do not spam multiple forums with the same threads please.