Mica Redress

Because it isn't as simple a suggestion as you suggest. Your argument is no different from any other such as a family facing eviction because they can't afford to keep paying their mortgage.

Until walls actually fall down and kill someone then there won't be much noise because there are more people complaining about being actually homeless.

If people get swindled, its sad, unfortunate and all that, but the taxpayer shouldn't be the one stop shop for every swindle that happens in the country. I don't want my tax contributions to be used as a money pit for everything that goes wrong in the country.

I don't get the connection between mica and the taxpayer.

Also these polls are meaningless. Poll only the people who don't have a "mica" house. They are the blameless group in all this.

A spokesman for one of the MICA lobby groups is on Morning Ireland rejecting out of hand the proposed offer of €350k to rebuild/repair the homes plus rent plus expenses plus medical costs.

Greedy fuckers should be told to piss off and sue the builders.

I think you need to get your facts right.

I'd imagine that info wouldn't be available due to GDPR as it's contained in personal redress applications.

@Penfailed wrote:

They could probably start by not calling it "redress" when they're talking to the government. The state is not at fault here and does not owe these homeowners compensation for what has happened.

"Assistance" or "subvention" seem more appropriate. "Charity", perhaps, but that's a bit loaded.

Everyone has sympathy for the people caught up in this, but a sense of entitlement will cause that sympathy to evaporate very quickly. They're going to the state with a begging bowl, because they've been badly burned. But legally the problem is theirs, not the state's, and falls under the Sh1t Happens Act, 1861.

I have no issue in principle with the state providing assistance to people who need to rebuild a family home out of this. Humanitarianism aside, it's probably cheaper for the state in the long run to provide a one-off payment of €350k to build the house, than it would be to otherwise provide housing for these people.

But it's obviously more complicated than that. For some these are holiday homes, they can go whistle for it. Anyone with a mortgage must also have had home insurance on it. Which means the insurer should pay. If the bank didn't check or enforce the need for insurance, then the bank should pay.

If you didn't have a mortgage on it and you don't own any other property, then it seems fair that you should receive some assistance to get back on your feet.

Some of this might require Government pressure on banks and insurers rather than money. But from what I'm reading, the campaigners want to bypass all this and just get the State to cover everything.

@Sam Russell wrote:

That's true, I wasn't thinking of that. Market value and rebuild value are two different things as well though. You generally don't need to spend the market value of a property to build one.

I wonder is the right approach here not direct compensation, but a tender agreement with construction companies to pay a fixed cost (say €2k per sq.m.) to rebuild each of the houses to the exact same dimensions they had previously and a fixed spec. If someone had put in a €20k kitchen with granite worktops and a glass atrium, then they can hack out a deal with the builder themselves to top up the cost, but otherwise the house will be finished to a standard spec.

The average cost of a house may well be €169k. That's how much it would cost to buy a house. That doesn't include the cost of demolition, disposal, rebuild (at current/future material prices), testing, planning, etc., etc.

You've also made an incorrect presumption. The houses must be built to the original spec. Anything better must be paid for by the homeowner. That seems fair.

You are comparing people who have their lives destroyed, watching their family homes crumble like a slow motion earthquake to holding a 'winning lottery ticket'. Aye. *rolleyes*

Come off it. The current scheme has a cap of €275k. That's completely inadequate for all but about 10% of the affected homes. You obviously have no idea what the current costs for building a house are.

If the €350k limit figure is rejected they will lose any support they had in the public. Such money would build a 4 or 5 bedroom palace when you already have the site, what more do they want? It's akin to a 100 cars being destroyed on a street and the insurance company won't cover any of the damage but the government offers them all a brand new Toyota Corolla and its thrown back in their face.

€350 wouldn't cover the testing, engineer's fees, architects, planning (yes, you have to reapply to build the same house), demolition, disposal and rebuild of a 4 or 5 bedroom 'palace' at current material/labour costs. It would, however, cover a modest home but that leaves 40% of affected homeowners in the red.

I was just curious, partly because of what went through over a relatively small claim and couldn't begin to imagine how those affected get insurance of any sort , never mind the cost

This post clearly demonstrates the misunderstanding that the general public has with the current redress scheme. The house must be built to the original specification. Yeah, that **** insulation included. You are expected to remove and reuse all your fixtures and fittings. At the end of it, you will still own a €200k house even if it cost €300k to build due to the massive increase in the cost of materials and labour in the intervening years since it was originally built. The current scheme has a cap of €275k for demolish and rebuild. That includes the 10% that the homeowner has to foot plus the VAT. Demolition, rental costs, storage costs and all the rest aren't included. If you take the 10% contribution by the homeowner and the 23% VAT off the €275, it's more like €200k. You couldn't toss, rebuild, store belongings, rent (where...there's nowhere to rent) and all the rest for €200k. All whilst continuing to pay a mortgage.

I would be quite happy to reuse my old windows.

(Correction, planning act applies but current building regs do not)

The protesters have been spreading a load of misinformation (1% mica standard is another distortion) in order to make their plight appear worse, and no one is scrutinising them. I guess the media don't want to end up the bad guys either in this popularity contest.

I have been informed by my engineer that I will have to apply for planning. I intend to rebuild like for like. Are you saying that a Chartered Engineer on the council select list of approved engineers is spreading misinformation?

The average size of a dwelling in Ireland is 160sqm. So yeah, these are big houses, some are very big.

And they're not all fully occupied either. There are empty nests among these too, where children have left to go live and work elsewhere.