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

And that looks eminently reasonable to everyone else who'll be asked to fork out this 'redress'. More than reasonable. Far too reasonable IMHO.

I'm new to this and correct me if I'm wrong but the rebuild costs of mica affected home should be quite a bit lower than the cost to build a similar home from scratch? All utility connections, floors, foundations, roof timbers, slates, windows, doors etc should be perfectly serviceable and reuseabale. I'm very happy for the families that their unsafe homes are now going to be made safe but I can't stomach that the tax payer would end up paying for elements of the rebuild that don't require rebuilding.

My fear is that 5 years from now we'll have a new Mica scandal when it emerges that builders reused many of the house elements mentioned above but the full redress was claimed. It needs to be very closely regulated and each rebuild should be put to tender to ensure cost competitive rebuilding.

We need to remember that ever penny that is misallocated on this redress scheme is money that we won't have to build social and affordable housing. A blanket sum for redress based on square footage is the simplest answer but that blanket sum needs to reflect the actual situation, to rebuild the homes so they are structurally sound. Not to rebuild the homes from scratch with all new fittings.

"needs to be very closely regulated and each rebuild should be put to tender to ensure cost competitive rebuilding."

I'm sure some fat cats are already sorting this. Government is not forking billions from our pockets without getting something for their cats...

All that you have stated in your first paragraph is already happening.

I fully support the homeowners being compensated and having their homes rebuilt but I'm nervous that the scheme will be abused by builders, engineers, solicitors etc. Also, I find it incredulous that the state has no legal redress against the suppliers of the mica blocks or the builders who used them. The state should do everything possible to recoup the rebuild costs from those responsible. Legislation should be drafted to make that possible and if compensation isn't forthcoming from the mica suppliers then jail sentences should be handed out.

It's also in all voters interests that the building of homes in Ireland becomes more regulated and that building materials are inspected correctly. Otherwise we'll keep paying through the nose for defective properties and there will be more pyrite and mica type scandals.

What is the position with regards to homebond on this? Why didn't structural insurance pay out for this issue?

That's a serious cop out and something the government should have put more pressure on. Really goes to show what people say is true, that homebond isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Why should they have to? Because life is sometimes deeply unfair, and having a decent sized house built for €25k seems like an excellent deal, all things considered. Every €10k extra given to individual mica homeowners costs the taxpayer hundreds of millions of euro, plus interest- do you think that is fair and reasonable? Surely there has to be some give and take here.

I can only begin to image the years of stress and worry of living in a crumbling house and hope I am never in that situation- but surely the best thing now is to draw a line under it and move on, rather than prolonging the misery for something you are unlikely to ever get? All while pushing the rest of the country's sympathies further and further away?

Based on their (subject to change) sliding scale, I'll be on the hook for (at minimum) 13k euro. I don't have it, and based on my current status, will not be able to get a loan, nor additional mortgage borrowing (because additional mortgage is usually based on equity, of which my house is worth less than I paid already). My alternative is to wait until the house is no longer safe to live in, default on my mortgage and give the bank the deeds.

I was perfectly polite. I don't see the need to imply that I'm "ignorant and ill-informed". I still don't understand why the mica owners can't rebuild to a smaller size, to get the work done quicker and save the taxpayers like me hundreds of millions of euro. You've lost any sympathy from me anyway. I'm out.

A question for the accountants out there...

If this redress scheme is going to cost €2b for example, could anyone calculate a rough estimate for the actual impact on the taxpayer, per person? How much of the average individual's tax will be spent on the scheme?

We are also taxpayers. We were failed on multiple counts, by the suppliers and the regulators. Put yourselves in our shoes for one goddamn minute. I bought a house for 100k euro. I trusted that it was safe and structurally sound. I paid for a structural survey and was told it is safe. I cannot get money from insurance for it, as it's "not covered". A similar house to mine was recently auctioned off for 80k.

The suppliers have been taken to court and are not able to pay. Because of the stupid ******* laws around liability, it seems the suppliers will not be punished in a meaningful way.

There is a petition to the EU happening today to get some goddamn accountability.

Every possible avenue has been taken, this is a poor county, despite all the claims of mansions up here, most are mortgaged up to the eyes.

Statements like "25k for a new house, that's a bargain" ignore the fact that it's a house we already paid upwards of 100k for, and will be paying for decades to come.

All the comparisons to buying a dodgy car, or buying furniture do not compare to the house you live in, both in terms of impact and cost.

It still comes down to the fact that your fellow countrymen and women are helping you out in your time if need.

A bit of gratitude wouldn't go amiss.

I haven't seen any on this or the other thread.

Shelgas post was a suggestion of homeowners compromising a bit on the size of their houses and putting 20-30k towards it. You may not agree with it but it is not an unreasonable point to discuss. And yet the suggestion was that it didn't belong in this forum.

I'll be eternally grateful if this goes the right way. I don't think thanking random posters on Boards will achieve anything.

Do you expect people on the dole to thank everyone too?

Answered many times in the thread and the answer is no because they had no insurance.

The thing is, I'd rather pay nothing to have my old house (without defective blocks) back.

People living and paying rent in Dublin choose to do so. I didn't choose to buy a house that is falling apart.

I can completely understand people's reservations about this. The inverse is not true. People don't understand what it's like to live with this hanging over them. They can't understand unless it's happening to them. Attitudes would surely change if it was.

Thanks for that, I appreciate it, and understand that this is an emotive topic. I do try to think "how would I want to be spoken to, if it was my house that was falling down around me and my kids?" I am genuinely trying to understand what is a reasonable and realistic response to this.

It seems to me to be a huge mess (and to everyone else here I'm sure)- with everyone having different circumstances and requirements. If it is a case of reusing lots of materials, as you say, shouldn't that reduce costs by a fair bit? If it's mainly just new walls, wouldn't it cost less than €100-145 to reconstruct? I appreciate that the costs of demolition and disposal also add to the total, but if it's only walls really needed, as you say yourself, not a brand-new build, then shouldn't you end up with a surplus to cover these costs?

But when I hear people like Paddy Diver complain that the €10k allocated for rent while properties are being rebuilt ("That only covers a year- what if it takes longer than a year??")- can you appreciate how that sounds to people like me up and down the country, who have their own severe anxieties associated with housing, rent and security? That comes across as just finding fault with everything that is being suggested.

Both of mine were over six months old by the time I gathered all the rest of the information together. I submitted new proof and it seems to have worked as they're now looking for different information. It appears on mine as 'submitted' also.

Block maker and the council walk away scot free?

This is what ive been thinking. Should be another column in there for removing and pouring foundations. If the housing agency are not testing foundations (theres no funding for foundations so why would they) then everything has to be ripped up and redone. Drains and concrete pathways too. This is the real scheme.

The headline of 100% and 420k is bullsh!t.

I'm really worried about the foundation thing. I've been chatting to a neighbour who reckons our founds are very deep. That's going to be a substantial additional cost.

It's heartbreaking. I was quite optimistic that the new scheme would iron out all of the problems from the first one. It's just as bad from what I can see.