Mica Redress

Well, he has over 50 clients, so he probably has a greater financial stake in this than any of the householders. That makes his views suspect for a start.

Sounds like you're arguing the repairs should be done correctly the first time, rather than half arsed and repeated again a few years later.

It sounds more like the grievances of a professional recognizing that a newly created standard is not fit for purpose, and basing a scheme on a bad standard is a bad scheme.

From his description, it seems I'll need to let my house go to ruin, and not bother repairing cracks, lest it be considered "not damaged enough" to qualify. That's a piss poor standard by any description.

Grand. But its not like he's completely disconnected from the issue, as reported above.

Like, he's not going to continue with his fifty clients while muttering under his breath "can't see why the taxpayer would want to pay even 90% of the costs, if the people who actually own these houses don't even want to chip in a penny".

Oh dear. Not a word about any of the issues McCloskey raises. Home owners are whiners and not qualified to critique the scheme. Now McCloskey isnt independent enough.

Maybe just maybe hes seeing families on their knees after being strung along for years by lads like McHugh and McConalogue. Maybe he doesnt want to take the word of a desktop standard with not a block tested to gamble his professional standing on. The audacity of him.

Im dying to know - who is sufficiently qualified and independent enough to assess this scheme?

Nice to see this highly qualified engineer have his professional character, reputation and integrity questioned.

But sure he's just out to make a quick buck.

Nice to see your hyperbole continues with abandon. That sort of stuff would get you chucked out across the way...

Not a single poster, Not one said anything about anyone trying to make a quick buck.

So you can retract pretty much your entire post. People said he is not independent because he has been paid for his opinion. This is factual.

I don't expect you to retract your hyperbole. Why would you start now.....

And that’s all that needs to be said.

Like, all he’s really saying is the scheme may not always leave you with a house you can sell on at full price. Whereas if the scheme knocked houses, at far greater expense, it would.

At no time does he show any understanding of the faultless taxpayer faced with signing the blank cheque he demands for all houses, explicitly including holiday homes no and full rebuilds for McMansions.

He includes a farcical comparison to the scheme being like the Government paying to fix all BMWs, but paying proportionately less for 7 series. Nowhere in his outlook does he consider that the taxpayer might suggest that dissatisfied BMW owners avail of the cycle to work scheme, or buy tax saver bus tickets.

Very weak paper, that only preaches to the converted.

None of them say that

You said that because that's what you want to read. .

Standard.

Similarly, I don't understand how anyone could question the obligation on the taxpayer to ensure that dissatisfied BMW owners suffer no financial loss.

Changing the subject completely, I notice that the advice on Donegal County Council's website seems to envisage that engineers fees on a remediation project costing €45,000 could be of the order of €8,500.

If that was typical (showing my grasp of higher maths), then if you'd 100 clients in the scheme, you'd be earning of the order of €850,000, With half that number of clients, you might have over €400,000.

And if a similar process was undertaken for 6,000 houses, that would create a market for engineering services worth over €50 million.

And, I suppose, if we were envisaging individual projects costing a multiple of that (say, if we were to habitually knock houses - at a cost of up to €420,000 and beyond), then the engineering fees might be even higher. Is that typically how it works?

Anyway, I digress from the important case being made for full financial restitution for BMW owners. There's a 2004 BMW 320 with an NCT on donedeal going for only €3,000. How is this poor owner not being compensated for the shocking depreciation experienced over the last 17 years?

I said that he probably had a greater financial stake in this than any of the householders. That didn't say that his priority was money, it was only pointing out a factual reality.

Scrap this ridiculous scheme and implement a straight forward 'Fair Deal' type loan scheme to householders at 0% interest rate.

Helps affected citizens and minimises costs. Let each householder decide what is prudent to borrow to remediate their properties.

Yes relatives may be affected down the line in terms of their inheritance, but f**k that. No one owes them a living.

Sure, no-one is attacking families. No-one is denying support. It's purely the unrealistic nature of the demand - 100%, even for holiday homes and investment properties.

I'm sure the mental health of people suffered if their savings evaporated in the aftermath of the banking collapse. And what those people would have been offered is the normal State supports for people who fall on hard times.

There's a very insular view being taken, which folk inside the campaign seem to struggle to appreciate. Like a poster raised above, that engineer has no problem blaming Government for the materials, while actually shying away from the actual supplier!

There's another poster here who says his surveyor commented on cracks at time of purchase, but said the cracks were not significant. But, apparently, that surveyor did nothing wrong.

It's like, Donegal builders build houses in Donegal with bricks made in Donegal, in a quarry some say Donegal County Council (elected by Donegal voters) needed to authorise in some way. Then a problem emerges. It's all Dublin's fault, and they must pay.

How many houses have being built with these faulty blocks in those 10 yrs. How many people bought crumbling buildings also. Any builder that used these blocks since is surely liable, any engineer that signed off on a building using these blocks must be liable also.