Mica Redress

Yes, he has another 30 years before he could expect to undertake major repair. Since he's only reporting minor cracking, it sounds like major repair is not necessary yet. It may never be within the 50 year timeframe.

While I know there is value in catching the issue early, but not every contaminated block will turn to dust within 50 years. Some sites will be sheltered, some blocks will have lower concentrations of contaminants or higher cement content and be ok.

I have a 6 year warranty on my TV. The vendor was quite clear though, that if anything goes wrong in say the third year, it's not a replacement I'll be getting. While the family home is different, the refusal of repair as an adequate measure is unreasonable. Providing new again neglects the fact that these structures are carrying wear and resets the maintenance by 20 years in this case. That is extra value that is being added by the state to the homeowner.

So pointing out his house is "nearly half way through it's design life" as you did was irrelevant. It may need major repair within it's design life but you dont know if it will. You were just pointing that out because you wanted to make any request for rebuild in his case seem greedy / unreasonable. Sound.

This whole crisis isn't about peoples 'net worth', its about the home they have paid for.

As for the nonsense about houses only having a 50yr lifespan, this is just more trolling. The country is full of houses that age and more. And there is no sign of 99% of them needing any major structural work. My own parents 1st house was built 54 years ago, in an estate of maybe a couple hundred houses. They moved then to a bigger house in a street of maybe 80 houses built 52 years ago. In both these locations, every single house is still standing strong.

My sisters house is over 100 years old. Still stand strong, in a terrace of about another 20 houses, all built 100yr ago.

Cut out the cr@p talking, its ruining any debate on the thread.

it's a minimum expectation, that the building will last at least 50 years. Then work may or may not be needed. Technically something like pvc Windows are expected to last 20 years because of sun UV damage but they can last a lot longer

And should homeowners have their mortgages increased if the value of their properties increase? Tends to be less acceptance of that idea.

Look, if folk end up in negative equity (for whatever reason) they simply have to pay back whatever they borrowed. Because the loan doesn't vanish just because the property falls in value.

Good job you're not NIMAN then. I have no intention of attacking his response, but it would be good to understand what a typical homeowner with a latent or emerging defect considers reasonable. The majority of houses seem to fall into this category.

This bit is very important. If a house has been impacted by Mica but is not suffering any structural issues in the short term nothing needs to done. In the long term something will have to be done but it changes the scenario a bit. One even assuming all the houses impacted will have to be rebuilt there is a big difference between 3.5 billion spread over 10/20 years and the same amount spread over a year or two. Number 2 it opens up the option to strengthen the homes impacted that does not involve a complete rebuild.

Agreed, you would think they would follow their own advice and stick the their private, insulated Donegal forum.

Well, if you see me as "no better than the police and their heavies with the battering ram during the evictions in Ireland 150 years ago", I see you as no better than the landlord class during the Famine, not caring one jot about how people might pay rent so long as their own property rights were vindicated.

That takes the whole discussion to a very sustainable place, doesn't it?

The scheme proved to be inaccessible for many due to the upfront cost that many did not have.

Homeowners went to government and government have agreed the Co. council scheme was not fit for purpose. We are now waiting on what comes out of government.

I'm not looking for a new house I want blocks replaced. If there is some engineering solution to achieve that without demolition then fine by me so long as my house is then approved by an engineer and insurable.

What would you suggest I accept. Ultimately I'll have to accept what I get.

My ideal would be for an engineer to tell me my house is fine. That would be a fantastic weight ofy shoulders.

Your house will never be "approved" by an engineer. No constructed house is ever approved - the only engineer that can do that is the one that was there at construction.

As for insurance, it would be no harm if the government legislated that the presence of unremediated inner leaf mica was not grounds to refuse insurance.