Compensation for mica contaminated blocks in houses.

So, it's going to cost us up to €3.2 billion

Mica home repairs may cost State up to €3.2bn, report finds

Government working group does not recommend 100% redress
www.irishtimes.com

If the government is worried about its popularity, they should stand up to these guys.

I have no problem with the taxpayer helping out, but that is all it should do. It should not rebuild huge houses and compensate them for rent and distresss which is what they are looking for.

Alternatively, give them priority on the housing list.

Brendan
 

Half a million to rebuild a house in Donegal
 
Coming up to the last general election most political parties agreed it was the state's lax regulation that resulted in
so many homes affected,
at least two Parties in the present government don't know the position taken by the Greens held meetings with groups affected by Mica and publicly stated if returned to power they would compensate and fund the rebuilding of their homes affected by Mica,

In other words, the public knew before going to the polls FF and FG had Found A Magic Money Tree and Homes affected by Mica were going to be paid out of it,
The people affected are holding those Parties to their word, I believe it is agreed up to 350K can be claimed, reading between the lines they are also going to pay for health issues connected to Mica along with storage of goods and renting,
 
The problem is they gave their word before the last general election to groups affected, I am not from or connected to any of the groups affected,
I read reports of their meetings in the national papers at the time, so it is no secret,
I can't understand why people are upset with the main political parties being held to account for undertakings given at elections time
and just to add insult to injury over 400 social houses in Donegal alone are affected by mica,
 
Last edited:
kinnjohn said:
The state is Liable it failed to regulate ,
Click to expand...
I think it is the local authority's responsibility, not the State.

There is no mention of the manufacturer or quarries. Where are they in it and where are they now? Surely they should be liable and footing some of the bill?

I have no problem with the State paying for the rebuild costs but not all of it. Home owners should have to pay some of the costs such as renting a new property while repairs are being carried out.
 
It was the main political parties that met these groups before the last General election, the meetings were arranged by TDs or selected members running for the Dail,

these groups knew they were getting assurances from TDs and Ministers, they were not
seek assurances from the local authorities, they are a cut above that,

The Manufactures or Quarries don't have a Magic Money Tree the size of the main political parties you know,
 
Last edited:
I meant it was the local authorities responsibility to check the quality of the blocks. Govt in Ireland is far too centralised for a LA to be able to give assurances!
 
Steven Barrett said:
I meant it was the local authorities responsibility to check the quality of the blocks. Govt in Ireland is far too centralised for a LA to be able to give assurances!
Click to expand...
A bit like Irish water only a matter of time before that money tree gets raided if they are not careful,
the Irish government was fined 5 million in 2019 and 15000 a day by the EU for the Derrybrien wind farm down to failures at the local level,
there is no hurry at the local level to sort it out in the meantime the Irish Government is happy to send the cost of a new House to the EU every 14 Days, If only we could build houses as fast,
 
Last edited:
Steven Barrett said:
I think it is the local authority's responsibility, not the State.
Click to expand...
It's been aserted numerous times on this thread that the state did not regulate mica/pyrite and also that the main political parties have "agreed it was the states lax regulation" which caused the issue. The quality of building materials is and was regulated by SI 288/1949. The same standards of imperfection are in place today.

The question of state liability is down to the moral obligation of the state to enforce the regulations at the time of construction, which was ineffective.

In my mind the balance of burden between manufacturer, builder, builders indemnity insurer, construction industry and the state is totally misaligned.
 
AFAIK, these builds pre-date the changes to building regulations around 2014 post-Priory Hall to put more specific responsibility on the architect and the building supervisor.
I think the liability is much clearer if you were building today.

Steven Barrett said:
I meant it was the local authorities responsibility to check the quality of the blocks. Govt in Ireland is far too centralised for a LA to be able to give assurances!
Click to expand...
What role did the local authorities have in quality assurance of building supplies?
 

But, to quote Pat Rabbitte..

“Yeah, well, I mean, isn’t that what you tend to do during an election?”

While I wouldn't often agree with him, I think he is right here. Political promises are fickle. Sometimes, when facts change the promise should change.

The news cycle is now talking about the redress scheme costing more than €3bn. I think this is the beginning of the govt offensive to control the message.
 
This is a really tough one as I would not wish this situation on anyone

Firstly, the fault surely lies in more than one pot - banks and their certification / sign off process, developers and their certification process, quarries and I'm sure there are more process and stages to where this should have been caught.

Secondly, on one hand you have people who bought homes in housing estates which when a person buys here they have no input to the material etc etc and you would assume that the building has been properly signed off etc etc at least by the banks if not the developers team. These people have a genuine complaint

However, and here is where I will make enemies but I believe it needs stated, there are people who have "self built" - they did not go down the road of a contractor but did all the sourcing of material, selecting the trades people and sign off themselves. They were good enough to take responsibility when they were "saving" money on the build however now it's the governments fault for not regulating.....

An interesting although not similar comparison is the families effected by the Volcano / lava in Spain. I read on BBC news the Spanish government has bought land and will build houses for all effected families. This is not a like for like but it is 100% covered by the government and you get a safe house for your family quickly. The Spanish families are happy with this. The reason I raise this is that the Spanish government moved quickly and decisively whereas here the politicians can't/won't make a decision and it has been allowed to grow all manner of legs.
 
Out of curiosity, I did a search on Daft for properties for sale in Donegal and out of 834 listed, 88 were for 350k and over so we're talking a subset of the overall number here. Yes, there will be demolition costs and rental costs whilst the family has to move out,, but that will be more then offset by the fact that the house owner has no site costs, they already own it.

Builders in the area are probably rubbing their hands with glee at all of this. How does the state ensure that they won't gouge the taxpayer?

Now I do have a lot of sympathy for the individuals concerned and am glad it is not me involved but I don't understand (and maybe this will happen) why they are not all over the previous builders and suppliers around this. Everyone seems to be saying "not my fault"
 
They will want hi spec replacement houses...
Underfloor heating, solar panels, big fridges with ice and water dispensers.
 
waterman said:
banks and their certification / sign off process
Click to expand...
Banks don't certify anything, their only aim is to protect their own interests.
The challenge here is that the principle of caveat emptor applies to property purchasers here. There is certification of some materials that are used in construction, but little in the way of guarantees over the finished product. Homebond have made a nice business of offering cover against structural defects for new homes, but if the threads on here over the years are anything to go by, claiming can be problematic.

Buyers are strongly advised to engage appropriate expertise to survey property in advance of purchases, but while they will have liability insurance, they will generally have pretty extensive exclusions in their contracts.
 
fistophobia said:
They will want hi spec replacement houses...
Underfloor heating, solar panels, big fridges with ice and water dispensers.
Click to expand...

If there was a selection of design to chose from (all to todays specification) that effected families could select, this would be more manageable (to cost, to project plan etc) than having how many thousand different builds. Today I can't see how this can be controlled as every building is potentially different and unique. If it only cost 3 billion I'd be impressed.
 
Sounds like a perfect prototype for @Purple to rollout modular homes...
 
Leo said:
That's not how liability works in our legal system.
Click to expand...
The state set a standard hired people to supervise the standard who did not have the equipment to test the standard,

go tell that to the other Leo Michael and Eamon, If the state fails to regulate and it directly affects the electorate Going legal and you are toast,
Michael Noonan went legal remember how that finished up,
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register