You are missing the point
I know they understand yet the focus is on attacking the victims rather than look for answers as to why the State is admitting liability.Your repeated use of this phrase is a little condescending. Just because an opinion is different to yours it doesn’t not mean that people misunderstand what you are trying to say.
That does not mean those affected should not have help/compensation of some kind.
What do you mean by 'local authority allowed self regulation'?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?
It's very relevant. Without effective regulation, regulations are worthless.The regulations should be enforced. Whoever does it is not relevant.
It's easy to say that 'the regulations should be enforced' but are you really suggesting that Government needs to be testing every supplier of bricks, wood, insulation, cables, switches, pipes, taps and much, much more that go into every house build? Do we need to be stopping lorries coming over the border to Donegal to look check for certification of building goods?The regulations should be enforced. Whoever does it is not relevant.
Allowing the suppliers to self regulate with light touch auditing, is why it is where it is today.
The local authority in this instance knew well that the products were dodgy but continued to use them, despite it being public knowledge for over 13 years.
And I suppose this is a fear in the government. If they admit lability here are they setting precedent for the state up to take responsibility for every fault going forward....are you really suggesting that Government needs to be testing every supplier of bricks, wood, insulation, cables, switches, pipes, taps and much, much more that go into every house build? Do we need to be stopping lorries coming over the border to Donegal to look check for certification of building goods?
So, in the current case, the homeowners purchased their house and got a certificate saying it was sound.The primary responsibility here is with the purchaser of the property or the purchaser of the supplies.
Completely agree with this. At a max this is what should happen.Seems they now want the full rebuild of their houses to be paid by the taxpayer.
A rebuild in today's standards would be substantially higher quality than many/all of these houses.
If the government is to pay then they should pay the value of the houses as they are (if they did not have mica) and not a rebuild to today's standards which is what the people behind the protests are now looking for. And those people most likely have a different agenda.
Legislation in Ireland offers much stronger protections for the purchase of a car or a toaster than the purchase of a house. Caveat emptor applies to the purchase of property and it is the purchaser's responsibility to satisfy themselves that all is in order. Of course that is difficult to achieve in practice, but that doesn't change the law.If you buy a new car should you then take it straight to a garage to get it tested make sure it's ok, or put faith in the fact that the manufacturer is suitably monitored?
If the supplier is legally obliged to test and certify a product and they did not do so or falsified their certification then those involved should be going to prison for decades. The State is liable, if not legally then morally and certainly politically. But the argument that we had/have 'light touch' regulation is not the issue. The issue is that we, the State, didn't enforce that regulation. Therefore the people who falsified the certification should be joined in prison by the State employees who were employed to enforce regulations but didn't bother doing their job.It's easy to say that 'the regulations should be enforced' but are you really suggesting that Government needs to be testing every supplier of bricks, wood, insulation, cables, switches, pipes, taps and much, much more that go into every house build? Do we need to be stopping lorries coming over the border to Donegal to look check for certification of building goods?
The primary responsibility here is with the purchaser of the property or the purchaser of the supplies.
To the best of my knowledge, there was no certification required at this stage, before the changes in Building Control regs brought about after Priory Hall. At that stage, the BC regs existed, but there was no legal requirement for local authorities to inspect every site and certainly no requirement for local authorities to test every component. The target set by Government was for inspection of 12%-15% of sites, so no-one was working on the assumption that every site and every component was tested and certified.If the supplier is legally obliged to test and certify a product and they did not do so or falsified their certification then those involved should be going to prison for decades. The State is liable, if not legally then morally and certainly politically. But the argument that we had/have 'light touch' regulation is not the issue. The issue is that we, the State, didn't enforce that regulation. Therefore the people who falsified the certification should be joined in prison by the State employees who were employed to enforce regulations but didn't bother doing their job.
The most galling thing about all of this is that, just like every other scandal involving the State, nobody will actually be held accountable or sanctioned. This required a catastrophic failure by State employees to do their job.
One wonders what % of inspections were actually / in reality properly carried out by Donegal CC.To the best of my knowledge, there was no certification required at this stage, before the changes in Building Control regs brought about after Priory Hall. At that stage, the BC regs existed, but there was no legal requirement for local authorities to inspect every site and certainly no requirement for local authorities to test every component. The target set by Government was for inspection of 12%-15% of sites, so no-one was working on the assumption that every site and every component was tested and certified.
With the exception of some medical devices and a small number of components that go into aircraft engines no manufactured products are 100% tested and certified. I would expect batch testing on raw materials, batch testing on finished components (blocks and bricks) to a specific AQL, audits of the key suppliers in the supply chain, up to date certification (ISO standards etc) of those key suppliers, and a supplier quality management system in place for the main contractor who built the properties in question.so no-one was working on the assumption that every site and every component was tested and certified.
Dunno about Donegal, but I do recall from about 15 years back that Mayo had one building control officer, and he had at least one other role in the Council too. So that's one person responsible for inspecting every development, commercial and residential in Mayo, along with all the prep work, dealing with queries and complaints. You wouldn't have a hope of doing a high level of inspections, and for ones they did do, it would most likely be one or maybe two visits, which gives little opportunity for really getting to grips with what goes on at building sites.One wonders what % of inspections were actually / in reality properly carried out by Donegal CC.
What would you have expected them to do? The Councils have very limited powers in regulating private building activity. When they do start enforcement proceedings, they'll be faced with injunctions and hearings and appeals and more.If reports on social media are belived then it seems the council knew about this as far back as 2009 so that is worrying as they dont seem to have done anything
In this case, the council was the biggest customer of the main quarry in question, and still was up until summer 2021.What would you have expected them to do? The Councils have very limited powers in regulating private building activity. When they do start enforcement proceedings, they'll be faced with injunctions and hearings and appeals and more.
The Council would rarely buy raw materials like this directly. They would be contracting with a contractor to build a bridge or an office or sewage, and the contractor would make their own decisions around raw materials. So I'm not sure it is fair to say that the Council were the biggest customer. Is there any records to verify this? The only award notice I can find for concrete products for Donegal refers to a supplier based in Limerick: https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Suppl...=ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLEIn this case, the council was the biggest customer of the main quarry in question, and still was up until summer 2021.
That's why every public building, houses, septic tanks, manhole structures, bridges, etc etc, built since the late 90s, are all wrapped up in this scandal.
Imagine trying to find and repair every single inspection chamber built in the NW of the country since the late 90s....
When the families who took a case we're told in 2014 that the supplier had no insurance, the council were still the biggest customer, before and after.
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?