Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1565759616293

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Pussyhands


    The owners should be given the 90% option or 100% option but the house is owned by the council after the owner dies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,583 ✭✭✭Penfailed


    Gigs '24 - Ben Ottewell and Ian Ball (Gomez), The Jesus & Mary Chain, The Smashing Pumpkins/Weezer, Pearl Jam, Green Day, Stendhal Festival, Forest Fest, Electric Picnic, Ride, PJ Harvey, Pixies, Public Service Broadcasting, Therapy?, IDLES(x2)



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,339 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    Who are you referring to as insane?

    I think it is insane to suggest that the state hands out 300k to someone to rebuild a house for free. If the state is liable and should provide compensation for its actions, as does happen, then that's justified. But as I've said previously, the 100% Mica redress crowd won't go to court because they know they can't win that battle. Instead, it's the cheap shots of bussing to Cavan to harass the FF think-in, the protests in Dublin amongst people who cannot buy or rent houses, let alone get free money to replace their detached houses on an acre with a view.

    Why would it be insane to suggest that the government provide alternate social housing to accommodate those affected but it remains publicly funded social housing owned by the state? Surely it's insane to suggest the government hands out billions in free money?

    I'll reiterate that the right thing to do is for the state to provide redress as that is what we are about as a country and an Irish people, but it's costing us all and needs to be put in context. That's not insane.

    How about you answer what's suggested is insane?



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,339 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    It's not ridiculous but is very flawed in the percentage. For example, people own the site so that's a value that isn't taken into account. Also, people are given various grants so that's also a precedent. Of course, the Pyrite scheme is a primary example of when the state has to step in. Ultimately the balance is in how much the state has to pay out and what value, we as the state, get back. It's not only the basis for providing social housing but also, for example, industry grants to employers to create jobs.

    For example, the state gives 300k to rebuild a mica-affected house, after that the owner dies and their children inherit and sell that house. Is that a fair outcome?

    One thing is for sure, there is far too much emphasis put on the campaign for the state to fund the redress and not enough on the banks who hold the properties as collateral assets. If you stop paying the mortgage, the house belongs to the bank and I can't understand why Paddy Diver and his followers don't push that.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,339 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    At this stage, after years of this going on, it's unfathomable if this is the case.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I feel very sorry for those impacted by this and they need to have things put right having bought materials and homes in good faith, but there absolutely needs to be a clawback of funds from those who actually produced the flawed materials too and a genuinely serious investigation into how it happened, what regulatory framework and legal structures actually existed, were they complied with, if not why not and so on.

    It doesn’t sit well with me at all that this will just be a big state bailout with zero consequences. If it is, we are likely to rinse and repeat.

    Standards also need to be enforced. We rely far too much on self-regulation of some of this kind of stuff and when it goes wrong, the cost burdens land on the state, which isn’t some vague third party construct. It’s us.

    This ultimately comes out of the same budget that is generated from income tax, VAT, and every other type of tax and takes money that could have been used for public expenditure on stuff we all need.

    By penny pinching on regulatory enforcement, we have dumped a very large burden on the people who’ve been hit with the problems - the nightmare of homes falling down around them, and also back on the general public purse too.

    It’s short sighted, light touch, laissez-faire nonsense.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,339 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    You sir are overburdened by common sense. But it's impossible to claw back the funds from those who are to blame unless people boycott Cassidy-related quarries.

    It's another thing that is relegated in favour of the government handing out free money.



  • Registered Users Posts: 46,082 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    Lets get one thing straight. The government is NOT handing out free money so please desist with the trolling comments.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,339 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    I didn't say the government is handing out free money. I said clawing back funds from those to blame "in favour" of the government is correct. Because the moeny is not free. Please explain how it's getting paid back.

    This is the second time...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,583 ✭✭✭Penfailed


    The government hands out 'free money' every single day. It's what governments do. Social welfare, foreign aid, medical cards, etc., etc.

    Gigs '24 - Ben Ottewell and Ian Ball (Gomez), The Jesus & Mary Chain, The Smashing Pumpkins/Weezer, Pearl Jam, Green Day, Stendhal Festival, Forest Fest, Electric Picnic, Ride, PJ Harvey, Pixies, Public Service Broadcasting, Therapy?, IDLES(x2)



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,583 ✭✭✭Penfailed


    Yes, it's a fair outcome. That's what would have happened had the house not have had mica. It's not the fault of the homeowners.

    What's the benefit of not paying the mortgage and the bank taking the house? That just leaves you homeless.

    Gigs '24 - Ben Ottewell and Ian Ball (Gomez), The Jesus & Mary Chain, The Smashing Pumpkins/Weezer, Pearl Jam, Green Day, Stendhal Festival, Forest Fest, Electric Picnic, Ride, PJ Harvey, Pixies, Public Service Broadcasting, Therapy?, IDLES(x2)



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,325 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    You literally half a dozen posts back said that those affected are asking the government to hand out free money.


    It's the same old baiting bullshit, implying that the victims are profiteering and looking to benefit rather than simply being made whole.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,801 ✭✭✭jj880


    "the state hands out 300k to someone to rebuild a house for free

    ...

    let alone get free money to replace their detached houses

    ...

    the government hands out billions in free money"

    "I didn't say the government is handing out free money"

    If you are in favour of the funds being clawed back from those to blame that's great. Give home owners 100% redress now then lets see if the government has the stomach to strip quarry owners through CAB and make their indemnity insurance pay up. There are cases coming to the high court soon that can easily set a precedent to allow this. If they really had some balls they could bring forward the class action legislation that's slated for 2022/2023 but in this country it will probably be kicked into infinity as someone might actually be held accountable for wrongdoing. Doubtful we will ever see it. If they fail to follow through on reclaiming the funds then it's not the home owners fault and it's abuse of taxpayer funds. Then you can direct your anger towards the government since you missed out on your new kitchen.



  • Registered Users Posts: 46,082 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    "I didn't say the government is handing out free money."

    Yes you did and not for the first time either so lets leave it at that and dont post such comments again.


    "This is the second time"

    Whats this?



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,801 ✭✭✭jj880


    "I said clawing back funds from those to blame"

    What you are talking about here is justice.

    I heard a good quote from someone recently: "You dont get justice in Ireland. If you are lucky you get money!"

    Well that has to change. This scandal is a great chance for the government to hold those responsible to account and to make those who indemnified the quarries pay what they should.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,339 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    I am as you say, totally in favour of "the funds being clawed back from those to blame". I am totally, in favour of your suggestion that the government goes after the quarry owners, through CAB, but I'm not in favour of chasing imaginary indemnity insurance that won't cover the circumstances. There are no billions there.

    You haven't addressed this in my comment How will that be described: For example, the state gives 300k to rebuild a mica-affected house, after that the owner dies and their children inherit and sell that house. Is that a fair outcome?

    It's a transfer of money from the state to some citizens without a return - what would that be described as?



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,801 ✭✭✭jj880


    Ive already told you what I believe SHOULD happen. If you think there is nothing to be got from indemnity insurance thats your opinion which you are entitled to. Im not sure what you want me to say - your question is pretty vague - why dont you go ahead and say what you have in mind for the answer as its obvious you're trying to get at something. I suspect we've heard it already though.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,708 ✭✭✭firemansam4


    There seems to be a complete lack of empathy or understanding from some on here.

    Thinking that people are getting "Free money" to build there "mansions" at tax payers expense...

    People have already worked hard for and payed for their homes out of there own money (And BTW contributed to the state in the way of indirect taxes to building their own homes)

    They are now living through a complete nightmare where they are set to lose everything from no fault of their own.

    People sneering here about maybe having to contribute out of their own taxes and sneering that they shouldnt get to own house at the end of it all, should just for one second put themselves in the shoes of the people caught up in this horrible mess.

    Imagine your house falling down all around you, not safe for you and your family to live in, seeing all of your lifes savings and assets going down the drain.

    Then imagine some random internet person sneering at you because they dont think you should get "Free money" or you should just get a social house instead that will never really belong to you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,589 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    I think its clear that the vast majority of people think those affected deserve full redress, and will just suck it up as something else the government will have to pay for using their taxes.

    Those arguing against this are a small minority of angry folk on the internet.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 61 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    As someone living in Dublin and trying to save for a mortgage while paying a large rent I agree the state should pay to fix these houses as there is nobody else liable and able to cover the cost and i agree it's only fair that some of my taxes go towards this.

    Obviously I want there to be robust regulations that are enforced by a government department over the long term but in the short term there needs to be very tight cost controls on the rebuilding of the mica homes and I just can't see that happening as there will absolutely be price gouging so very difficult to budget accurately for this from the perspective of the government which may be the primary reason they are hesitant to agree to a 100% redress scheme so if your group could work towards addressing these concerns it might get you closer to a solution.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,078 ✭✭✭salonfire


    Are house sales of non damaged houses affected? I heard cases of a tiny amount of mica being found causing sale to fall through. Even though the amount of mica was perfectly normal and would not cause damage.

    Banks and lenders will be very risk adverse lending to Donegal buyers.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,583 ✭✭✭Penfailed


    If there's over 1% of mica present, it's outside the specification for blocks.

    Gigs '24 - Ben Ottewell and Ian Ball (Gomez), The Jesus & Mary Chain, The Smashing Pumpkins/Weezer, Pearl Jam, Green Day, Stendhal Festival, Forest Fest, Electric Picnic, Ride, PJ Harvey, Pixies, Public Service Broadcasting, Therapy?, IDLES(x2)



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,078 ✭✭✭salonfire


    Jesus. Does that mean that people who discover that they have 1.1% mica will need to enroll in the redress scheme as well? Even if their house is perfectly fine? Can they even apply to it without any sign of damage?



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,801 ✭✭✭jj880


    I was talking to guy who was trying to sell his house. Average of 6% mica in the blocks from all the cores (suite A and suite B testing). His engineer said they cant sign off structurally on anything over 3%. What that sign off entitles you to exactly Im not sure. His sale was scuppered and he cant insure (for structure) or re-mortgage until he rebuilds the house so he left paying the mortgage on a worthless home that is crumbling.

    The newest problem is people are getting suite C testing done which is showing up pyrite and pyrrhotite. Pyrrhotite only needs moisture to activate whereas mica needs moisture and freeze/thaw to cause problems. The obvious issue here is that inner walls and foundations are crumbling and the government have not even included pyrrhotite or foundations (poured concrete) in their current redress scheme. Engineers are bucking and threatening to abandon the standard IS 465 which limits what they can look at when giving their assessments as they fear they will be left open to future litigation. There is going to be war over it. It's an ever evolving situtation and there is a lot of fear and anger involved. A 1.1% mica house could be fine for 50 years but I would not take a chance on it at the moment as there could be pyrrhotite in the buildings that have only been tested for mica through Suite B.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,078 ✭✭✭salonfire


    Is 6% enough for damage to start showing? I heard figures of 30 and 40%. I did not know as little as 6 is enough for damage.


    House values could drop or be unsellable in Donegal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,583 ✭✭✭Penfailed


    Gigs '24 - Ben Ottewell and Ian Ball (Gomez), The Jesus & Mary Chain, The Smashing Pumpkins/Weezer, Pearl Jam, Green Day, Stendhal Festival, Forest Fest, Electric Picnic, Ride, PJ Harvey, Pixies, Public Service Broadcasting, Therapy?, IDLES(x2)



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,801 ✭✭✭jj880


    The worst I have seen is 58%. House is destroyed. Falling apart and not safe to live in.

    6% is showing thin cracks inside and outside. Cracks havent opened yet but there are other houses in the same estate (1 I know of is 9%) that are further on with a lot more cracking, wider cracks and render falling off. Driveways and pathways around the houses cracking up aswell. Problem is no-one has long term data. Some houses are unliveable after 5/10 years. 6% looks to be just a slower deteriation. I have yet to see a house that stops cracking once it starts. So who is going to buy / insure / give a loan against these houses before they are rebuilt and rebuilt with a clean test for ALL blockwork / foundations and for ALL deliterious materials that are now showing up in the newest tests? It's a **** show. I myself have cracking all the way down my gable and other internal signs. Of course until I get my house cored I dont know for sure but I'm 99.9% sure at this stage. So Im keeping a close watch on the redress scheme and going to protests. In my eyes I will need a rebuild in 5, 10, 20 years? It's in the post for sure.



  • Registered Users Posts: 33,589 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    The sickening thing is that houses with mica are still being sold in Donegal.

    I think its time the government did something about agents selling mica houses. I'm guessing some people are buying houses and don't know the house has it. They are in for a major shock in the near to medium future.

    And they may not qualify for the redress if bought after a certain date.

    Talking of dates, I heard recently that the oldest house now showing mica deterioration is 28yrs old.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,801 ✭✭✭jj880


    I would be very interested in the test results from that 28 year old house as an indicator for newer houses with low %s of mica.



Advertisement