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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Mica Redress

145791028

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,928 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    The government should pay for the restoration of the house to its original condition. However, people will likely be getting a better house, more insulation, new windows, new wiring, Ethernet cable, solar panels etc. So the house will increase in value, this latter "gain" should be funded by the government in the form of low interest loan. Payment on this load should commence when any regular mortgage is paid off or the loan should be paid if the house is sold.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,486 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    The cap of 350k is no problems for the modest homes and the semi-detatched in estates.

    The taxpayers could provide two or three houses for people sleeping on the streets for the cost of rebuilding a McMansion that was originally built by direct labour on the cheap with shoddy materials.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    Why should the government/we pay? Why are these more deserving than others? Why should they get more than someone else looking for social housing? Because others are poor and as such don’t deserve and shouldn’t expect more? Because social housing is only for “sub-“REAL”-people”?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,030 ✭✭✭10000maniacs


    Because there is this money tree growing at the back of Leinster House, and €3.2 billion can be picked from it at any time, and there will be more than enough left for 100,000 social houses. 🙄



  • Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭MBE220d


    It is great to see so many concerned about social housing, we need houses ASAP for the usual crowd that has never done a days work in their lives or never will.

    A nice A-rated for one at a cost of 500k will do nicely, no outrage about this crowd I notice.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,089 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Whatever this scheme costs will be spread over many years, maybe up to 20yrs, so in the long run when you consider everything else the government will waste money on in the next 2 decades, I see this as a decent expense. Plus they will recoup quite a bit back in taxes, vat etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,928 ✭✭✭Charles Babbage


    These people should get help because the government failed to have proper standards for the production of concrete blocks.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,286 ✭✭✭jj880


    Once again your response has no weight. "It's nonsense" is not an argument. Your Nigerian prince reference is immature.

    The working group reps didn't even know there was a delegation going to the European Commission so no-one is begging because "the case is very weak" as you state. One group is trying to negotiate directly with the government to get what they can for homeowners in the short term. The other group sees that these negotiations arent going to produce what is needed to fix all homes and have taken the first step to get justice and full compensation under EU legislation.

    You can keep shouting "nonsense" all you want. Time will tell what can be done under EU law.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,215 ✭✭✭Good loser


    If, as someone has said, this thing will be going on for up to 20 years it means those at the end of the 'queue' will have used up a lot of their lifetimes by the time they get redress. Plus how will the winners - the first to be relieved - get chosen? I suppose party affiliation will not be a factor!

    How about Sinn Fein proposing the introduction of water charges to pay the bills. It would be one way of raising €500 to €700m per annum. Or even a surcharge on the LPT countrywide? That would be like the insurance levy paid to bail out the insurance companies when they failed. Of course it's the policy of SF to abolish LPT.

    I don't see any reference in this thread to the proposal by that Govt working group. That the outer walls of the houses only be replaced at a cost of €220k per house, as it's only the blocks exposed to rain/moisture that are giving way. This would have a big impact on the gross costs of the redress. Notice with the mica only external damage shown in videos, whereas with the pyrite the views were invariably internal.

    Would like to know some background. How many quarries were involved? From when to when? when did the problem cease? At what % mica did the blocks fail? Are houses in NI affected?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,089 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Will try those in order.

    1) The people fixed first are the ones whose home might not see out another winter or serious storm without collapsing. Some houses are very very bad, and you can pull away the walls with your hands. Then other houses are only showing the initial signs of cracking, and may be a decade or so before they need fixed. The issue is, the sooner you fix them, the less the chance of the damage affecting the inner leaf.

    2) I see no issue with LPT. I think we should all pay it. SF have made many promises of what they will do if in power, and the way this current coalition is going, they might get to prove their point to us all sooner than we think.

    3) Replacing only the outer leaf is a controversial topic. A lot of the Gov experts and council engineers want this done as its the cheaper option (although why its being costed at 220k I'll never know, I know people who did it themselves and the labour cost maybe 15k), but most independent engineers won't stand over it, as there is no guarantee the inner leaf and the foundations will not be affected by damp and freeze/thaw. If the scheme was to replace outer leaf now for huge money, and then the inner leaf starts to crack in 10yrs, and the house has to be demolished and rebuilt, then the money spent initially on the outer leaf only was wasted. Its also been reported that those who got their cavities pumped with beads have actually helped the damp move between the 2 leaves of the house, and probably made the problem worse. And finally, some of the worst affected Mica homes do show serious internal damage too. Many homes are letting water in inside, and many internal walls are crumbling and pvc windows not fitting correctly any more.

    4) The initial quarry was one in Buncrana. They were the largest supplier of blocks in Donegal. Their blocks were also bought in by other quarries during boom times, so many people thought their homes were grand because they didn't use the original quarry, but then found out they actually had the bad blocks. The earlier house showing signs of Mica is 28yrs old I think. And as for when it stopped! Well there is the 64 million Euro question! The council and Government first were told about crumbling blocks in 2013/14, but its looks like there was no investigation and the quarry continued to churn out the defective blocks up until recently. I read the other day that a block from August 2020 was found to have 15% Mica content. The spec is often argued. I have heard 1% is the upper limit, and I have also heard there is no upper limit. Believe who you want to believe on that one. Its as clear as mud. As for houses in NI, well recently when al this broke, Derry City council said they did a review of their housing stock and none were affected. But that doesn't mean there aren't private homes, businesses and other buildings which may have used that quarrys blocks. There would be a massive trade between Derry/Tyrone and Donegal, and its easy to think that many Donegal blocks made their way into the North. In fact, coming out of Strabane on the road to Derry, there was a detached house I saw maybe 5 or 6 years ago, and I said "that house has Mica".

    Post edited by NIMAN on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    So those others are lazy and poor and so undeserving.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    The government standards were very clear about the quality of concrete blocks - and the Donegal blocks were in breach of those standards. So why is it the tax payers' problem?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    Sure if there is so much money available, why not just give it to me? I promise to spend it all - which will give rise to lots of tax and ongoing benefits for the economy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,089 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Because the Government is meant to regulate the industry and ensure that materials being produced are fit for purpose. They didn't.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    The tax payer is not meant to "ensure" anything about materials being for for purpose (please specify the law you believe has been broken)

    And there are far more deserving cases for extremely limited amount of tax payers' money.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,089 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Give me a few examples that are more deserving that perhaps 10,000 families homes literally falling down and leaving them homeless?

    Funny how taxpayers money is always limited when its being spent on something certain people don't agree with. There was no limited amount of money to fund the PUP for folk to sit on their arses watching Netflix for a year, and we now hear that it was completely mismanaged and many got far too much given to them. There was no shortage of money when we had to get 64bn to save the banks. There is no shortage of money when we get a quote for a hospital yet inside a couple of years the real price is 500% higher. There was no shortage when Dublin properties had Pyrite and all the owners were given 100% of the cost as well as money for storage and rent while out of their homes.

    The MICA issue is as deserving as anything else that is happening or has happened. Its an issue that is wrecking thousands of peoples lives, and not to even think what its doing to the mental health of many of them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    "Carries no weight!" You were the one trying to sell a pig in a poke that "ah sure the tax payer should just hand over cold hard money and in return a Nigerian prince -involving vague EU stuff to sound EU-ish somehow will give the tax payer back the money". And when asked to explain what they "vague EU stuff" actually was you first tried to say "I already explained" and when asked a second time showing you hadn't explanted you essentially say "stop asking questions".

    So it remains the same: if the tax payer hands over money for this, the tax payer gets nothing in return - (and certainly less than if the tax payer handed the €3.2 billion to me and I promised to spend it a large chunk of it on higher VAT rated services and goods



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,089 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Sometimes this is what you pay your taxes for, for Governments to do good with.

    What about the money we send abroad in foreign aid, think thats around 1bn annually. We get nothing from that, yet we still do it.

    We live in a society where people pay taxes and the Gov use them. The homeowners affected by Mica paid their taxes when building their homes. They pay VAT, income tax etc like everyone else. And the nature of a functioning society is that when 10,000 citizens need helping, they are helped as best as the state can.

    If we didn't , why even build social housing? Why pay people PUP? Why give people fuel allowance? By your reckoning we should just tell everyone "hard luck, you're on your own".

    Thankfully we don't live in the society you want to live in.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    Actually homeless people Sick children - we could build a second, even bigger even more expensive hospital for them. Sick people - there are lots of areas in Ireland where health services are awful. That's just for 3 for starters.

    I love the rant about the undeserving poor - and why the teeming masses (who will also be burdened with the bill for paying for this) are such awful scum.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,089 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    I didn't say the undeserving poor, I was pointing out how Gov taxes are used for the betterment of society, to help those in need.

    And there are currently potentially 10,000 Irish families in severe need of help which they can't fund themselves. The first thing you said was homeless people, well there will be a lot more homeless people in the state if the Mica issue isn't sorted.

    Thats where the social contract comes into play, which we are all in as taxpayers. I know you might not like 'your money' getting used to fix crumbling homes, but thankfully the government have seen that they need to act and are trying to sort the problem as best they can. There are some things I don't want my taxes being used for, but hey what are you gonna do?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    They (and other equally or more deserving homeless) can be best helped by building social housing - which would be owned, sized and specc'ed by the government. As a bonus, if there was a further mica issue- it would be for the government to worry about.

    As regards what I and others should do- aside from counteracting online propaganda from those who wish the tax payer to carry the can, we should make sure politicians know that we do not appreciate our money being unnecessarily handed out for nothing in return.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,118 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Just to address some topics raised.

    Foreign aid buys global soft power whilst also helping those who have nothing. It's not money sent away for no reason.

    PUP made sure the country didn't fall on its knees economically during a global disaster if it needs to be pointed out why it was needed and the fact we are pulling out of the period without an incredible economic collapse shows that it worked. A few people always try to get rich on a scheme. (I'd imagine mica would be no different so that was a silly point to raise)

    The majority of people wanted that hospital built elsewhere outside the M50 ring it's a farce from start to finish as is the Vincent's hospital site. I don't think you'll find any takers disagreeing with you.


    Once again the 350k is more than Reasonable and the outer leaf debate. If a government engineer clears the fixes then that should be enough. You can find any independent engineer to say what you like tbh and most won't certify anything if it's a public issue and they've to put their name on it. Ducking away from an issue where they can make easy money elsewhere surveying houses.

    Post edited by listermint on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,690 ✭✭✭jackboy


    If a house collapses and kills a family this winter then 100% redress will be agreed the next morning and the whole country will be attacking the government for not agreeing with that day one. We are always reactive rather than proactive.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,646 ✭✭✭Penfailed


    A recent poll showed that most of an already squeezed middle Ireland is fully behind 100% redress.

    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, Pixies, Ride, Therapy?, Public Service Broadcasting, IDLES(x2), And So I Watch You From Afar

    Gigs '25 - Orbital, Supergrass



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,646 ✭✭✭Penfailed


    As it stands, the current (inadequate) redress scheme mandates that the homeowner will not be getting a better house. That is completely fair. They must reuse as much as possible. Any betterment must be paid for. I'm fully behind that.

    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, Pixies, Ride, Therapy?, Public Service Broadcasting, IDLES(x2), And So I Watch You From Afar

    Gigs '25 - Orbital, Supergrass



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,646 ✭✭✭Penfailed


    Any chance you could stop repeating falsehoods? I don't live in a McMansion. My house is crumbling down around me. It wasn't built on the cheap. No one knew at the time (except possibly the manufacturer) that the blocks were shíte. My builder is in the same situation. His house is also falling apart.

    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, Pixies, Ride, Therapy?, Public Service Broadcasting, IDLES(x2), And So I Watch You From Afar

    Gigs '25 - Orbital, Supergrass



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,646 ✭✭✭Penfailed


    Eh? Social housing exists. It is an actual thing. The fact that there is a shortage of social housing is on the government. Remember that when you place your next vote.

    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, Pixies, Ride, Therapy?, Public Service Broadcasting, IDLES(x2), And So I Watch You From Afar

    Gigs '25 - Orbital, Supergrass



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,646 ✭✭✭Penfailed


    'the winners'? There's no winners in this situation. People have already replaced their outer leaf and now their inner walls are cracking. My inner walls are cracking. I have to look at it every day. It's horrible.

    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, Pixies, Ride, Therapy?, Public Service Broadcasting, IDLES(x2), And So I Watch You From Afar

    Gigs '25 - Orbital, Supergrass



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,646 ✭✭✭Penfailed


    Because the government didn't enforce the standards and let the manufacturers self-regulate?

    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, Pixies, Ride, Therapy?, Public Service Broadcasting, IDLES(x2), And So I Watch You From Afar

    Gigs '25 - Orbital, Supergrass



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,646 ✭✭✭Penfailed


    Okay. Why are there checks on hygiene standards in restaurants? The taxpayer is not meant to 'ensure' that...are they?

    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, Pixies, Ride, Therapy?, Public Service Broadcasting, IDLES(x2), And So I Watch You From Afar

    Gigs '25 - Orbital, Supergrass



  • Registered Users Posts: 295 ✭✭carfinder


    I read this whole thread this morning and started out having great sympathies for the homeowners affected but having read some of the comments here, my sympathies have waned somewhat.

    Strong leadership from government is needed to face down the unreasonable sense of entitlement of these groups and a more robust challenge of their narrative from the media is absolutely essential.

    Some of the issues which are being, in my opinion, dishonestly debated by some are:

    1. The obligation of the state to provide redress/compensation. It simply isn't there despite what these groups would have you believe. Any state support for these homeowners would be properly called a "grant"

    2. Size matters. Any grant given by the state to affected homeowners should be capped to reflect average home size - the grant should not cover 100%. I would feel its a very good result for those affected to be grant aided to 80% of the cost of an average size house

    3. 2021 building standards will be applied to these rebuilds. It simply isn't credible that they would be rebuilt to standards of 10+years ago and I think some suggesting otherwise simply as a defense to the argument that homeowners should contribute to the costs

    I further believe that a grant scheme should be conditional on waiving any rights to sue the state and those who want to pursue the state should be excluded from the scheme and get nothing when their case eventually fails. Straight forward conditions would take the wind out of the sails of some of those mouthing about the obligations of the state.

    Again strong government is required to face down these pressure groups and unfortunately we don't have one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,333 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    Good man. Post up a copy of the complaint letter you sent to the politicians.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,118 ✭✭✭✭listermint




  • Registered Users Posts: 295 ✭✭carfinder


    Exactly the kind of post that turned me off this "cause". Well done - with PR like that I'm sure you'll win lots of support 🤔🤔🤔



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,286 ✭✭✭jj880


    Complaints were made to the Council in 2009. Mica blocks still being produced in 2020. Is that strong governance?

    This is why this needs to go to Europe. In a grant based scheme no-one is held to account. It needs to be compensation based with far reaching powers. This can be done.

    You call for strong governance now? Thats a laugh. People should really be having a close look at how this happened and how quarries are still operating that produced these blocks. That wont happen under Irelands legal system thats for sure as we have seen multiple times before.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    And why not spend this extra €3.2 billion on social housing - which the state here to keep - as opposed to just throwing it to some random people for nothing in return?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    The government had no obligation to do the regulation - and by having a self regulation system, it meant you paid lower taxes and were able to pay for your house. I imagine if Ireland had a "state regulates" system together with all of the extra public sector workers required, the tax needed to pay for it all would mean you wouldn't have been able to pay for the house in the first place.

    Complaining afterwards about the negatives of low cost regulatory system after getting the benefit seems a bit much to me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,333 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    And there we have it. The people whose houses are falling down around them are now just "random people". That single comment serves to illustrate the level of ingorence in this thread.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,333 ✭✭✭✭muffler




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    Because unlike here, there is a legal obligation on the state to do so. So yes, the tax payer is meant to ensure it ( to some extent)- as a matter of EU law. Nevertheless, if you get food poisoning, you get to sue the restaurant- not the tax payer.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 295 ✭✭carfinder


    Complaining of ignorance while unable to correctly spell the word wins ironic post of the morning 😂😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 295 ✭✭carfinder


    Says the poster being offended by the "ignorance" on this thread (I didnt bother quoting your misspelling as it would be rather childish). You are single handedly turning people against this "cause". Kudos to you - some achievement 👏



  • Registered Users Posts: 295 ✭✭carfinder


    Compensation is paid where a legal obligation exists. No one has successfully proven state liability here so I stand by my post. Any state support would be a grant. I'm actually now quite opposed to pandering to this entitled narrative you and others have been peddling here. I now wouldn't be surprised if this sense of entitlement results in some homeowners taking money from the state and suing for more.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,333 ✭✭✭✭muffler




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,275 ✭✭✭fash


    Lots of people have had unfortunate things happen to them: businesses fail, accidents, diseases, disabilities, children born with severe disabilities, they are the victims of crime - they don't get compensation from the state unless there was a breach of some duty.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,286 ✭✭✭jj880


    Yes obviously that is what going to Europe is about. Accountability is being included.

    Cases are coming to the High Court soon about compensation AND IS 465. As has happened before with other IS legislation when the case gets thrown out by our courts Irish citizens have to go to Europe for justice. It has happened and will continue to happen. I find it the attitude here very dismissive / defeatist but I guess it suits the narrative of people who dont want a proper scheme in place. Not just some headline of 350k being thrown around. That figure includes all kinds of conditions that will exclude the majority of people from finishing the scheme or being forced to accept a substandard "repair" for their home. It's well documented by now for anyone that can be bothered to look but it's easier to just pretend everyone who fills in a form on the council website magically gets a 350k cheque to spend on marble fireplaces, high spec kitchens and triple glazing.

    What country do you think you live in? Does anyone on here think Irish courts will hold anyone to account without being forced to by Europe?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,118 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    You're pinning alot of this on 'going to europe' via some 'working group' . You may find that there isn't nirvana there. Must have endless pockets to fill this legal challenge gap ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,286 ✭✭✭jj880


    1. The working group arent the ones going to Europe. Ive explained this already.

    2. Its costs nothing to go to Europe if they back your case once it fails in our courts. All it takes is at least 1 person/group to go to the High Court first.

    3. Thats a pretty poor response. Anything actually worth reading to add here? At least you used the word "may" and didn't pretend you somehow know for sure it wont happen as some other posters have stated.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,030 ✭✭✭10000maniacs


    That sounds like dubious information. Show me the poll.

    The thing about polls is people don't generally take part unless they have a vested interest in the outcome.

    And last week when people saw that €3.2 billion figure, they would have even less sympathy. A lot of the squeezed middle threw up in their mouths at that figure.



  • Registered Users Posts: 295 ✭✭carfinder


    As a taxpayer I think the Irish state should hold off on any grant scheme while legal action is pending. It seems strange that a legal case wasn't brought before now if all you have to do is wait for the case to fail in the High Court and appeal it to Europe. Why have people waited for years if that's the case? Why have you not taken such a case?



  • Advertisement
Advertisement