Compensation for mica contaminated blocks in houses.

[kinnjohn]

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.

Although the liquidators and the lawyers will love you - they're first in the queue to be paid.

not so straightforward if you have an inkling of how they might go about mounting a defense, would they get sued on their own?if there are others who might they be? you never know they others might be in a position to pay out billions,

note the language 100% redress coming from the governing parties,

 

[colin79ie]

It's interesting that the entire discussion here clearly shows no real knowledge of the issues, except for what the media are drip feeding, and many assumptions.

Here's some insight.

The local authority allowed self regulation.
The quarry also supplied materials into northern Ireland. They have themselves stated that it was a different block supplied across the border.



The quarry changed names overnight. It still trades under that new name.
Families have already tried the legal route. With no ability for a class action, it was a bill of 40-60k to go to court. Legal people advised it was a waste in any case.

The local authority is apparently up to its neck in it. That's a scandal which will come to light after the mica redress is dealt with.

They are not the only supplier....
There are still poor blocks being supplied, as recently as late last year.

No matter what the size of the houses, they can't be insured currently.

This is not just private houses. Public buildings, hospitals, roads, farm buildings, community buildings, septic tanks, etc etc.

The LPT value argument is not relevant. That's related to market value. When the Dublin homes become involved, would it be acceptable in that case if a home valued at 800,000 got 100%, even if it cost half that to rebuild it?

 

[kinnjohn]

Hope underwriters don't start to worry about the value of the security they hold against Mortgages Issued in Ireland,
Without a core test at 7K a pop being carried out,

 

[skrooge]

Hope underwriters don't start to worry about the value of the security they hold against Mortgages Issued in Ireland,
Without a core test at 7K a pop being carried out,

Factored into our mortgage rates already? Unregulated building standards isn't new and not like enforceability of collateral wasn't an existing problem already.

 

[kinnjohn]

Factored into our mortgage rates already? Unregulated building standards isn't new and not like enforceability of collateral wasn't an existing problem already.

A state paying out billions after washing its dirty linen through the court system could change all that,

 

[nest egg]

Here's one solution... Given we're talking about a moral obligation, shouldn't we look at the full picture?

Many of these houses are one-off / ribbon development, isn't there a question in the morality of repeating past mistakes, and allowing these houses to be rebuilt in the same location? What about the morality of providing someone with a 250+ sqm home, when so many others in the country are unable to afford one of their own? Clearly the mica problem wasn't of the homeowners making, and the state should step in, the question is how far should that obligation go?

As an alternative, the state could build replacement homes in clusters close to towns/villages. If affected, you get a free house nearby, built to modern standards. In return, the state achieves economies of scale building multiple homes, and in doing so, addresses past planning mistakes. It could also breath new life into local towns/villages who benefit from increased footfall. If you don't like your new home, of course, you're free to sell it, and buy something else.

Do I think it will fly politically? No. Do I think it's fair / moral? I do.

 

[kinnjohn]

Here's one solution... Given we're talking about a moral obligation, shouldn't we look at the full picture?

Many of these houses are one-off / ribbon development, isn't there a question in the morality of repeating past mistakes, and allowing these houses to be rebuilt in the same location? What about the morality of providing someone with a 250+ sqm home, when so many others in the country are unable to afford one of their own? Clearly the mica problem wasn't of the homeowners making, and the state should step in, the question is how far should that obligation go?

As an alternative, the state could build replacement homes in clusters close to towns/villages. If affected, you get a free house nearby, built to modern standards. In return, the state achieves economies of scale building multiple homes, and in doing so, addresses past planning mistakes. It could also breath new life into local towns/villages who benefit from increased footfall. If you don't like your new home, of course, you're free to sell it, and buy something else.

Do I think it will fly politically? No. Do I think it's fair / moral? I do.

We are not talking about moral obligation, where are you getting the idea it is one-off housing, looks like there are around 1000 Council Houses affected in Donegal do you really think they are all one-off houses,
Reading many of the above posts gives me a feeling there is a disconnect no one is looking for a free house just redress for state failures,
If you read post 62 you will see a different block from the same quarries was supplied to Northern Ireland, Go figure out why,
I voted for the people in charge who let these people down, I say pay up, I know well it will not stop them from making the same mistakes again in other areas, we put up with it so we cant complain can we?

 

[skrooge]

Reading many of the above posts gives me a feeling there is a disconnect no one is looking for a free house just redress for state failures,

What's the difference in this case? Covering 90% of the cost has been rejected. Can't go much higher than 100% surely.

There is a balance to be struck between taxpayers money versus the affected peoples quality of life.

 

[kinnjohn]

What's the difference in this case? Covering 90% of the cost has been rejected. Can't go much higher than 100% surely.

There is a balance to be struck between taxpayers money versus the affected peoples quality of life.

Taxpayers don't mind there is very little anger at how long this has been going on and no action taken,
if action was taken when it appeared first the cost would be a lot lower on the taxpayers,
The Action Group was formed in 2014 ,

 

[colin79ie]

Taxpayers don't mind there is very little anger at how long this has been going on and no action taken,
if action was taken when it appeared first the cost would be a lot lower on the taxpayers,
it was first reported in 2007/8 close on13 years ago, houses were reported to have been built in 2001
The Action Group was formed in 2014 no changes to the standard until 2020,

The standard for mica content in building blocks was made in 1949....no more than 1%.
The quarry who is at the centre of all this was selling blocks in August 2020 with a mica content of 15%.

The action group was made aware by a whistleblower last year that the local authority had already secured 100% cover for all their own housing stock and other buildings. Thereafter, houses were bought by the council, knowing they had mica. These houses belonged to relations/friends of some councillors....

The quarry were still Donegal county council's biggest supplier of blocks and concrete earlier this year. The council knew about this for 13+ years.

The private homeowners had enough, and rightly so .

One must not forget that every single manhole, water, sewer system built for the last 25+ years contain concrete blocks that are crumbling...

The recent report estimates 10000 houses. I say double it.

 

[colin79ie]

Here's one solution... Given we're talking about a moral obligation, shouldn't we look at the full picture?

Many of these houses are one-off / ribbon development, isn't there a question in the morality of repeating past mistakes, and allowing these houses to be rebuilt in the same location? What about the morality of providing someone with a 250+ sqm home, when so many others in the country are unable to afford one of their own? Clearly the mica problem wasn't of the homeowners making, and the state should step in, the question is how far should that obligation go?

As an alternative, the state could build replacement homes in clusters close to towns/villages. If affected, you get a free house nearby, built to modern standards. In return, the state achieves economies of scale building multiple homes, and in doing so, addresses past planning mistakes. It could also breath new life into local towns/villages who benefit from increased footfall. If you don't like your new home, of course, you're free to sell it, and buy something else.

Do I think it will fly politically? No. Do I think it's fair / moral? I do.

You've obviously never lived in rural Ireland. If you did, you'd know that that suggestion is not ever going to be considered.

If you discovered that your new house had mica or pyrite, would you move 20 or 30 miles away to a new house worth half your current one and still pay the mortgage on the previous one even though it's a pike of rubble or a site?

 

[kinnjohn]

The standard for mica content in building blocks was made in 1949....no more than 1%.
The quarry who is at the centre of all this was selling blocks in August 2020 with a mica content of 15%.

The action group was made aware by a whistleblower last year that the local authority had already secured 100% cover for all their own housing stock and other buildings. Thereafter, houses were bought by the council, knowing they had mica. These houses belonged to relations/friends of some councillors....

The quarry were still Donegal county council's biggest supplier of blocks and concrete earlier this year. The council knew about this for 13+ years.

The private homeowners had enough, and rightly so .

One must not forget that every single manhole, water, sewer system built for the last 25+ years contain concrete blocks that are crumbling...

The recent report estimates 10000 houses. I say double it. 1

how many were built after the problem first been hightlighted
I have seen reports but cannot seem to find them now repairs were carried out in 2008 on houses built in 2001,

Most of the cost to the taxpayers will be the failure to act in time costs, which will form the biggest burden on the taxpayers,

 

[kinnjohn]

You've obviously never lived in rural Ireland. If you did, you'd know that that suggestion is not ever going to be considered.

Expecting people who down through the generations brought cattle to the fair if they did not get their value brought them home again to buy into that,

If you discovered that your new house had mica or pyrite, would you move 20 or 30 miles away to a new house worth half your current one and still pay the mortgage on the previous one even though it's a pike of rubble or a site?

and to think the underwriters of the existing Mortgage would agree to secure the mortgage against a lower-valued property,

 

[kinnjohn]

What's the difference in this case? Covering 90% of the cost has been rejected. Can't go much higher than 100% surely.

There is a balance to be struck between taxpayers money versus the affected peoples quality of life.

I think most of the taxpayers money is going to come from people who are coming up with all kinds of ideas to shortchange the people affected,
You are on a slippery slope when you turn a blind eye at the mismanagement of liabilitys at the expense of victims,
It will come back to haunt you

 

[Delboy]

The LPT value argument is not relevant. That's related to market value. When the Dublin homes become involved, would it be acceptable in that case if a home valued at 800,000 got 100%, even if it cost half that to rebuild it?

Of course not. Buy any house in a city valued at that price has more to do with site value.
A cap on redress should apply there too as well as a cap on size.

 

[skrooge]

I think most of the taxpayers money is going to come from people who are coming up with all kinds of ideas to shortchange the people affected,
You are on a slippery slope when you turn a blind eye at the mismanagement of liabilitys at the expense of victims,
It will come back to haunt you

Yes the money will come from most of us who are unaffected - that's simply how it works. The policy response needs to be credible for all sides. I'm not trying to victim blame but there is a danger if you compensate by 100% you create perverse incentives. If the State pays out fully for this why should anyone ever pay attention to how building standards are met as we will have the cash cow of the state to look after us.

Plus what does an agreement here leave the State open to in the form of other compensation claims. It's not that many years since the State's contingent liability went through the roof thanks to the bank guarantee, surely it can't be another blank cheque?

Likewise is it the government's policy to promote the compensation of mica victims over and above all other projects? Government policy right now is to build on scale. Its not going to be as efficient to repair these houses one by one as it would be to build the equivalent number of high(er) density housing. Diverting funds/builders to rebuild these homes will mean forgoing new homes elsewhere. In other words someone else will have to do without a planned home.

 

[kinnjohn]

Yes the money will come from most of us who are unaffected - that's simply how it works. The policy response needs to be credible for all sides. I'm not trying to victim blame but there is a danger if you compensate by 100% you create perverse incentives. If the State pays out fully for this why should anyone ever pay attention to how building standards are met as we will have the cash cow of the state to look after us.

Plus what does an agreement here leave the State open to in the form of other compensation claims. It's not that many years since the State's contingent liability went through the roof thanks to the bank guarantee, surely it can't be another blank cheque?

Likewise is it the government's policy to promote the compensation of mica victims over and above all other projects? Government policy right now is to build on scale. Its not going to be as efficient to repair these houses one by one as it would be to build the equivalent number of high(er) density housing. Diverting funds/builders to rebuild these homes will mean forgoing new homes elsewhere. In other words someone else will have to do without a planned home.

You are missing the point The only thing that will make taxpayers sit up and start holding governments to account is a compensation claim that the taxpayers know they could have avoided if they were more careful about who they elected to represent them,
The reason someone else will do without a planned home is that the people they elected were not up to the task,

blaming the victims of the people they elected for looking for full redress because they were not careful who the elected will only result in more compensation and recklessness in the future,
Do you find it strange the blocks supplied to N Ireland were different to the ones supplied in the republic, from the same block supplier, If it is true do you see anything wrong if post no 62 is correct

Failure to enforce Regulation has cost this state billions in the last 10years I cannot see anything less than full compensation changing our lax attitude to regulation,
Better regulation is a bit like the carbon tax idea,

 

[skrooge]

The way I see it there are 2 issues:

The first is what do we do to try and stop this happening in the future or at least insure ourselves against it,and

second what do we do to look after those who have already suffered.

You are missing the point The only thing that will make taxpayers sit up and start holding governments to account is a compensation claim that the taxpayers know they could have avoided if they were more careful about who they elected to represent them,
The reason someone else will do without a planned home is that the people they elected were not up to the task,

That's a hell of a game of brinkmanship. But bankrupting the economy to make the point serves no one in the long run.

How many of these elected officials are still there? Of those that are will this really be a Eureka moment for the electorate.... If these politicians have survived the financial crises they will get through this. Prepared to be underwhelmed by change in officials.

Have we not introduced changes to address these issues already? It's a genuine question. I'd like to think we've learned albeit too late for some. But it might be wishful thinking on my behalf.

I'd like to think we've also learned not to look in the rear view mirror for the next problem. The next issue probably won't be mica. We should have something in place - be it some form a construction levy - to act as an insurance fund for the future unknowns. If the State is going to be the backstop let them at least part find it through a toll on the industry. No point looking for the builders after the event, they won't be there. The money should be ringfenced to avoid being used for current expenditure.

blaming the victims of the people they elected for looking for full redress because they were not careful who the elected will only result in more compensation and recklessness in the future,

I'm not blaming them in just not seeing the sense of 100% compensation, for the greater good. Did they bring it on themselves, I doubt it but we have a limited budget, we need to cut our cloth accordingly. I'm not saying throw them to the wolves but while we try to ease their pain I'm not sure we should offer the State up as a sacrificial lamb

How many homes were built in the Celtic Tiger, should we start budgeting to repair every loose tap in these?

Do you find it strange the blocks supplied to N Ireland were different to the ones supplied in the republic,

It's a sad fact we were so shortsighted that were Happy to give the fools down south a heap of magic beans.
I'll reiterate my earlier point - If we haven't learned to regulate we need to learn to levy.

 

[kinnjohn]

Even at less than 100% redress, it looks like it will still come to over 3 billion, should we have a general election to weed out any people linked to lack of enforcement rather than a levy, once there is a large liability payout by the state

 

[skrooge]

How does that ensure something similar doesn't happen again. There's always another idiot to be elected just waiting around the corner and plenty of us to vote for them.

I'd prefer a system in place that works in spite of the politician not because of.