Key Post Pyrite in Foundations leading to cracks

Pyriteengine, thank you for your input on this thread have been following it all the way through.

We are just waiting now for the builders solicitors to come back to us with an offer. They want to replace the infill now in the house but we need the walls fixed as there is also structural damage so replacing the infill is not going to solve all of ours problems. The builders also wnt us to sign a waiver so that if we ever have problems again or cracking, we cant go back to them. There is no way we are signing this.

We were hoping to sue them as we feel that no matter what we will find it very difficult to sell our house now in the future that it has been associated with pyrite. The only problem with sueing is that I dont know how long it would take to get to court and in these times I would be afraid the builder would be gone and then we would be left with nothing, not even a fixed house.

Its just so stressful and really hard to move on and plan things with this constanly at the back of our minds and I am also pregnant and due end of Feb so at this stage really want this sorted. Really dont feel comfortable bringing a baby home to our house which is cracked everywhere and where plaster is coming away from the ceiling, just dont think its safe

ssb said:

We were hoping to sue them as we feel that no matter what we will find it very difficult to sell our house now in the future that it has been associated with pyrite.

Click to expand...

I think with a problem as serious as this the paperwork offered at the completion of the remedial works will need to be significant and comprehensive.
I would expect as a minimum, to see proofs, not merely assurances, that will put peoples minds at rest should they choose to buy the houses in question.
As a minimum, these could include:

1. A full photographic survey of the problems of each house, and fully recorded work stages for each stage in the remedial works process, with all photographs taken by and attested to by a qualified building professional of at least 10 years standing.
   
2. Architects Opinions of Compliance should be issued again, referring explicitly to the remedial works and containing Schedule A Assurances certification supporting the design of the remedial works [from the engineer(s) appointed to do so] and their execution [from the contractor(s) carrying out these works].

This isn't about letting the builder off because the market has turned, nor about not causing the local authority some expense because the economy is momentarily in a downturn.
This is a matter of protecting people's major lifetime investment - their sole domicile - and making sure people who are affected have the causes fully addressed and the remedies fully documented.

None of the documenting work above is hugely time consuming BTW

• photos and reports in .pdf form can be issued on DVDs to save time, money and paper
• its a lot easier to document building faults with photos than be writing extensive descriptions of the faults and remedies.

I think this may well be a time where state oversight and control is required in order to give adequate assurances to existing homeowners and potential future purchasers of these homes.
In fact I think that this is a matter so serious that the Building Control Officers should be fully involved if they are not already.
Their role would be one of normal enforcement procedures where defects are discovered.

• issuing building defects sheets detailing the remedial works, a commencement date, a timescale for their repair and a completion date.
• inspecting the remedial works on a regular and extensive basis to ensure they are being carried out.
• making a public announcement when these matters have been dealt with.

Although I haven't dealt with pyrite before I have dealt with remedial works to housing and can state that fully engaging the Building Control Officer is my preferred way to go, assuming he/she is competent and will commit to doing this work.

• Where there is co-operation between the house owner and builder, overseen by the Building Control Officer it can be both cost-effective and done in a timely manner to mitigate disruption and stress.
• It avoids multiplying costs by limiting the adversarial involvement of solicitors and focussing on dealing with the substantive issues.
• It allows for the faults to be rectified swiftly, compliantly and competent and a reasonable view to be taken of compensation.

If proper assurances are not given then I think the state may well have a case to answer in terms of the way it has governed and is governing the building industry and in particular this pyrite problem.
In my opinion, the state totally washing its hands of an issue of contaminated materials which has affected so many is simply not acceptable.
I don't mean to suggest that the state is in any way liable for the repair, nor do I support a state-sponsored compo-culutre.
I am stating that I think is is appropriate that the state should oversee the repairs.

ONQ.

well you are really putting the cat among the pigeons.
1) The building control officers are the keepers of the biggest red tape fiasco in Ireland. Building Regulations first came into effect in Ireland in 1992 and were to be controlled by the Building Control Departments of the Local Authorities. None were ready for this nor had any wish to have this new role foisted upon them. Accordingly no local authority that I know has any structures in place to monitor the enforcement of the regulations as the properties are built. It is only when a major problem arises that they put their head above the parapet.
Look at the english scenairo where since the early 80's they have had a proactive certification system whereby they inspect each and every property and then issue a certificate of compliance. They charge a nominal fee but at least it is an independent system. In Ireland we must hace fully dependent and self monitoring systems that then run for cover whenever a problem arises.
I cannot see a situation whereby the Local Authority would be willing to have any certifying role in properties affected by this pyrite problem. However the opportunity to do something about it now. I would suggest that the residents from affected estetes get together and lobby their local councillors and Local Authority Building Control Officers to examine the problems with the houses. You will have to hound them to get them moving as there will be a huge reluctance on their behalf to get involved.

As to certification I agree with ONQ. This is exactly what is happening with a lot of the current cases. Certainly Homebond along with the reputable developers are issuing completion certificates that include Certificates of compliance from the Supervising Engineer, to cover the work being done, Where estates with private residents committees are present I would recommend that a full file is given to it, upon completion.
ONQ, it does not need to be an architect. IN fact I would believe that the only competent certification body is one registered with the INstitution of Engineers of Ireland as the problem is an engineering one.
Each houseowner should check what will be provided upon completion of their repairs prior to the works starting.
Bear in mind that the only people that you can seek compensation from will be the original developer / builder andpossibly the quarry owner, if you bought the material directly from them. Homebond is not an avenue for compensation. They insure the house against structural defects and that is all. They will sort the problem, subject to the conditions / limits of your particular policy, but you have no chance of any compensation from them. If you think I am wrong then discuss it with your solicitor. If anyone finds a different answer, you might let us all know.

Pyriteengine said:

well you are really putting the cat among the pigeons.

Click to expand...

I think that's my Red Indian name from a former life -

"Cat Amongst the Pigeons"



<snip>

Your comments about the Building Control situation are well taken, but I note that in Meath at least there is a pro-active and committed Building Control Officer, who I had the pleasure of working with in the early to mid Noughties to resolve building defect issues on several properties in one estate.

Were I a conspiracy nut, I would wonder aloud whether or not this "self-certification" strategy was the clearing out of the previous highly restrictive regime of the Building Bye-Law Officers - which legends say would ask you to take out foundations of they were a foot out of position on a half-acre house site - in order to pave the way for the recent rapid pace of Celtic pussy-cat development, much of which according to a Prime Time Report in the last two years was authorised by Councillor votes and against the advice of the Council's own Planing Departments.

I've certainly heard horror stories about incompetent work.

ONQ, it does not need to be an architect. IN fact I would believe that the only competent certification body is one registered with the Institution of Engineers of Ireland as the problem is an engineering one.

Click to expand...

<snip>

I am happy to stand corrected on this Pyriteengine.

My intent was that if the original certs, which are usually architects certs, require to be replaced/superseded, it would naturally fall to the architect to re-issue them and include the updated engineers cert.

If a supplemental cert from the engineer is deemed the acceptable way to go this could be appended to the original architect's cert.

The reason I was thinking along the lines of the former option is the dates on the certs - the original architect's cert will pre-date the works everyone is so concerned about carrying out and will have been undermined by the cracking caused by the - originally unknown - pyrite issue.

So to keep matters "clean" the ideal situation [from my point of view, had I certified any of these unfortunate dwellings] would be to re-issue my cert and include specific reference to the new engineers cert dealing with the pyrite problem.

As usual your advice seems level-headed and spot on, Pyriteengine.

ONQ.

Pyriteengine said:

well you are really putting the cat among the pigeons.
1) The building control officers are the keepers of the biggest red tape fiasco in Ireland. Building Regulations first came into effect in Ireland in 1992 and were to be controlled by the Building Control Departments of the Local Authorities. None were ready for this nor had any wish to have this new role foisted upon them. Accordingly no local authority that I know has any structures in place to monitor the enforcement of the regulations as the properties are built. It is only when a major problem arises that they put their head above the parapet.
Look at the english scenairo where since the early 80's they have had a proactive certification system whereby they inspect each and every property and then issue a certificate of compliance. They charge a nominal fee but at least it is an independent system. In Ireland we must hace fully dependent and self monitoring systems that then run for cover whenever a problem arises.

Click to expand...

A tad harsh, no? The Fire Certificate process has worked pretty well for years now, and the Disability Access Certs will come into place from Jan.

you might find that the original Architect or Certifying person is in hiding. In a lot of the current cases, other defects have been found as well, and these would fall back on the signatory. I believe that a lot of them will be drawin into the litigation for recovery.

I stand corrected. I totally agree about the Fire Certification process. I compliment all Fire Officers that I have dealt with. They are superb and helpful. However the general construction monitoring leaves a lot to be desired. As an example take the BER certifiaction process. If this is to be done properly, it would take a competent professional at least two hours to measure up the property and ascertain the information required. All windows, door opes etc need to be measured. The type of boiler, insulation etc needs to be known. It then takes approx 2-3 hours to input all the gathered information and get the result. All told it amounts to approx 5 hrs per dwelling and then you have the cost of registering that property with SEI as well. Some people are out there doing this for €140 in total. What a Joke. Bear in mind that I have even found plumbers, doing these certs. When I ask them what they are at, and how they are qualified to issue the Certs, the standard answer is, well whos checking the results and who cares. They are not even botherig to inspect the house, simply producing the cert. The true cost for these certs if done properly is approx €450-550. Rem, if you pay peanuts, then expect a monkey answer.

I second the good comments on the Fire Officers - diligent, thorough in approach and knowledgeable in all matters in relation to Fire Safety.

I will draw a distinction between the current almost laissez-faire regime and the former admittedly somewhat dictatorial rule of the Building Bye-law Officers, where authority was shared uneasily on fire safety issues.

ONQ.

hi all... not sure if this is any help but will give as much as i know on the problem of pyrite.
i bought this house in the leinster area 3 years ago. i soon discovered, after plaining doors to allow them to close, that something was up when it neeed to be done again within months. after moving in i found out that there had been a problem with pyrite in a house at the top of the eustate but had already bought the house and knew nothing about it. long story short, realized i also had the problem so approached homebond and went through the usual ****e with them..
i'm sure you all know the hassle with dealing with them so wont bore you with details. i'm on the old contract (house built in 2003) therefore only intitled to 38k, which because of there being 54 house built by the builder and only 508k cover for him homebond are only willing to payout 9.5k, thats the 508k divided by the 54 house. the reason for this is that homebond feel that there is a possibility that all the houses will have problems therefore they can not payout moneys now that maybe needed to help others under the same cover. as houses come out of cover (after their 10 years cover is up) their share of the the 508k will be distributed between all the other homes. so, i will receive 9.5k now, if no more then 13 houses claim at the end of the 10 year cover of the last house built then i shall receive the full 38k, if more then 13 claim the 38k will be reduced accordingly. all this is stated in the contract and i am still trying to find a way around this, and i'm not giving up.
today i had a meeting with a pyrite expert,(as everyone claims to be at the moment) he claims to have been involved with this problems for a couple of years and told be some intersting things. i have had a quote from a builder (also an expert in pyrite) who is fixing a lot of houses at the moment. he assured me that the footpaths need not be done as the pressure can escape without affecting the house itself, makes perfect sense. the guy i spoke to today informed me that the problem is that the sulpher etc starts to eat into the foundation blokes, causing them to crumble, which of course is all thats holding up your house. this problem is something that may come back to bit unless the foundations are correctly treated, inside and out. so my advise is to be sure that the work is being done to the highest standard as its expensive enough to do first time around.

Hugely interesting read from start to end of this...
I am in the middle of a pyrite nightmare also at the moment in a small North County estate - Premier are sticking firmly to the letter of their policy schedule and are looking for significant testing (12 - 16 samples of core) per unit before they will even entertaining a claim. Even at this they are already hinting at other external causes of fault which I expect to be the next information they request.
The builder is firmly pointing the finger of action at Premier so looks like its €10 - €12k per unit of testing and reports to see if Premier will pony up!!!
Level of cover for the total bond is an issue too just like mrduke post but thats another issue at the moment.

Whats the overall opinion of going the legal route directly against the builder???

Houses are only 4 years old, all cost in excess of €500k and the deterioration is getting to a serious level at this point, including doors fully jammed closed, door surrounds detached from surrounds letting wind blow straight through from front to back!

TRL447 states that no material with excessive levels of pyrite should be present within 500mm of concrete structures. I include blockwork and foundations in this. See my previous threads for more detail. Anyone who states that the paths do not need to be taken up is NOT an expert at all. Be careful.

Full testing to prove floor movement and cracking due to pyrite should cost no more than 1800+vat max. I am not a testing facility so have no conflict of interest. However I know exactly what is required by Premier and I dont understand the total of 10-12 cores that you are suggesting. Perhaps it is your "Expert" that is misguiding you. One sample hole is all that is required. There is an Engineering Report that is required and I have seen a copy of it and it seems reasonable. The cost to produce that should not be any more than €1400-1600 + vat. All told this amounts to €3200 + vat approx. Any more than this is the "Expert" making money. PM me if you want a good independent Engineer to advise. Be very careful of "Experts" that say that they will manage your claim. They are invariably Loss Assessors pursuing a large fee and may not have the knowledge base that is needed. When the proper information is provided to Premier I know they move rapidly. If you go to sue the Builder directly seperate to Premier, I would caution you that thta might jeopardise your claim.

hey cruiser.... you can go after the builder within 6 years of the build, if he has anything to go after. mind you, there arguement is that they paid homebond/premier to sort out any future problems. unfortunatly my builder is no longer trading so have to go the homebond route....

Pyriteengine said:

If you go to sue the Builder directly seperate to Premier, I would caution you that thta might jeopardise your claim.

Click to expand...

hi Pyriteengine, why is this can you tell?

mrduke said:

hey cruiser.... you can go after the builder within 6 years of the build, if he has anything to go after. mind you, there arguement is that they paid homebond/premier to sort out any future problems. unfortunatly my builder is no longer trading so have to go the homebond route....

Click to expand...

Does anyone know, if you have your test to confirm you have pyrite, how long it might take to get the court with a claim like this? Like approx? Are we talking years ?

Arent new houses insured for ''such'' things? for about 10 years? Warranty from the builders?

i'm sure you all know the hassle with dealing with them so wont bore you with details. i'm on the old contract (house built in 2003) therefore only intitled to 38k, which because of there being 54 house built by the builder and only 508k cover for him homebond are only willing to payout 9.5k, thats the 508k divided by the 54 house. the reason for this is that homebond feel that there is a possibility that all the houses will have problems therefore they can not payout moneys now that maybe needed to help others under the same cover. as houses come out of cover (after their 10 years cover is up) their share of the the 508k will be distributed between all the other homes. so, i will receive 9.5k now, if no more then 13 houses claim at the end of the 10 year cover of the last house built then i shall receive the full 38k, if more then 13 claim the 38k will be reduced accordingly. all this is stated in the contract and i am still trying to find a way around this, and i'm not giving up.


If I have this correct, if you wait until the 10 years Homebond cover has expired you will get a higher compensation ? How liable would Homebond be to pay you after the 10 years is up ?

sorry, no. as house's come out of cover the funds are recalculated and the diffence is split between the claiments.... if you dont claim withinn the 10 years you have no claim..

You would be undermining the position of Homebond / Premier to pursue their own case for recovery. Effectively you would be going your own route and the policy would be difficult to invoke.

Bear in mind that a full and complete claim would have to be in within the ten years. If you lodge a claim outside the ten years, your would get nothing