No, that's not liability. Politicians making a decision due to popular (or noisy) demand to improve their chances of reelection does not in any way make the state liable.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,
Labour had 37 seats when Pat made his famous quote in 2013 at the next election in2016 labour had its worst election in its 104 year history going from 37 seats to 7 well done Pat,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.
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.
Honestly, if the State is funding rebuilds, we should certainly be ensuring a high standard of insulation.They will want hi spec replacement houses...
Underfloor heating, solar panels, big fridges with ice and water dispensers.
There probably should be very different contracts for purchasing a new home that would offer warranties against defects like you get by default when buying a toaster. Second hand you're always going to be taking your chances to a degree.I remember our solicitor made a big fuss about how bad the standard Law Society house purchase contract is, in terms of consumer protection when we buying our house. That's a good few years ago, so I don't know if it has gotten any better.
If you want the full story GOOGLE mica FG Donegal Leo says 100%A listener to Today with Claire Byrne suggested that the valuation used for the local property tax be used. That would be an interesting study to compare that valuation and what’s now being claimed.
That’s a different take to your earlier stance where you hold them responsible because of no regulationThe 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,
Exactly this. This could cost double the 3bn figure quoted today for all we know. They were still selling mica blocks in August 2020 according to a report on RTE today.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.
But The people who are better off than you found a money tree and are promising you 100% would you not take it,I'm imagining this happened to me. Suppose my house was crumbling dangerously around my ears through no fault of my own. And suppose it would cost hundreds of thousands to put right. Money which I don't really have. But then I'm imagining that my neighbours, workmates and people I don't even know - many of whom are worse off than I am - come together and organise a whip around to help me out. Wonderful, I'd imagine I must be delighted! Imagine they present me with the proceeds, which come to 90% of the remediation costs. Imagine I throw it back in their faces telling them that I want an entirely new house, plus rent while it's being built, plus compensation for my mental distress, and I expect them to pay for it all.
I don't imagine they'd be best pleased, do you?
Freedom of information reports shows the government looked at putting a levy on building Insurance the Insurance Industry threatened legal action and the Government dropped the Idea,Because insurance won't retrospectively cover building defects.
Builders should be legally liable for building defects found within ten years of construction. Sure, this will be expensive to insure against and will be passed on to consumers. But it's probably better than ad hoc state schemes like this.
2) is again missing the point. If the state had a legal liability, the matter would be resolved in court. The question is one of public interest and fairness. There are many things that the state pays money on for which it has no legal liability. So really this is a judgment call on whether or not this is a sensible spending priority. But arguments about legal liability of the state don’t progress the discussion.1) What exactly did the state fail to regulate?
2) What legal principle makes the state liable for the consequences of not regulating something?
I don't know who you are,all I can say is you are correct, The question is one of public interest and fairness but the state seam to not want it to come to that,2) is again missing the point. If the state had a legal liability, the matter would be resolved in court. The question is one of public interest and fairness. There are many things that the state pays money on for which it has no legal liability. So really this is a judgment call on whether or not this is a sensible spending priority. But arguments about legal liability of the state don’t progress the discussion.
Leo Varadkar and Michael Martin Don't think so, Both are calling for 100% compensation the only Issue they have is the cost,In my humble opinion, I feel the home owners are getting well compensated for their houses, but they say they want 100% compensation from the tax payer. 100% of what exactly and why aren't the block makers being sued? What do others think?
The block manufacturers could well be sued. Straightforward enough case, I would expect. And you could easily rack up judgments against them for multiple billions. Then the question is: do the block manufacturers have billions in assets? Because if they don't, your judgment is nothing but an expensive useless piece of paper.If the block makers get sued it Could open up an unthinkable can of worms...
Why would you say something like that?If the block makers get sued it Could open up an unthinkable can of worms,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?