The Curse of Defective Concrete (Mica, Pyrrhotite, etc.) in Donegal homes - Read Mod warning Post 1

MrMusician18

NIMAN wrote: »

You really think people would be willing to toss a perfectly good home, just to get a new one?

I'd say the numbers willing to do that could be counted on one hand, which a few fingers missing.

No one would get their home renovated for free. Sure. The wish list I heard on the radio from one person effected included wanting replacement windows and a heat pump to be included. The more expansive the scheme the more it encourages the 'marginal' shall we say, cases to present for compensation.

I've still not had anyone explain why the State is responsible here. Not enforcing standards is not a valid argument. As I pointed out, I can still speed and cause an accident and the gardai are not liable. I can go to a restaurant and get food poisoning but the FSAI are not liable. I can buy defective goods but the State is not liable. Once we recognise this, we see there is no liability generated. Therefore the grants (note they don't call it compensation or redress) size and scope are essentially a gift of the State to ease hardship.

There been some misrepresentation of my position and rather hostile posting might I add. I'm not against the scheme. It is right and good that the State helps people fix problems. But the help the State gives has to be limited and proportional. It wouldn't be fair either for the homeowners to end up with houses of much higher standard than the original build, paid for by the taxpayer through this scheme. It's not fair that the homeowners expect the State to fund this in its entirety either since it has to be acknowledged that it had no role (which I've explained several times now) in creating this mess. A significant contribution to get these houses to a serviceable standard is fair, given the amount of money involved.

Donegalforever

MrMusician18 wrote: »

No one would get their home renovated for free. Sure. The wish list I heard on the radio from one person effected included wanting replacement windows and a heat pump to be included. The more expansive the scheme the more it encourages the 'marginal' shall we say, cases to present for compensation.

I've still not had anyone explain why the State is responsible here. Not enforcing standards is not a valid argument. As I pointed out, I can still speed and cause an accident and the gardai are not liable. I can go to a restaurant and get food poisoning but the FSAI are not liable. I can buy defective goods but the State is not liable. Once we recognise this, we see there is no liability generated. Therefore the grants (note they don't call it compensation or redress) size and scope are essentially a gift of the State to ease hardship.

There been some misrepresentation of my position and rather hostile posting might I add. I'm not against the scheme. It is right and good that the State helps people fix problems. But the help the State gives has to be limited and proportional. It wouldn't be fair either for the homeowners to end up with houses of much higher standard than the original build, paid for by the taxpayer through this scheme. It's not fair that the homeowners expect the State to fund this in its entirety either since it has to be acknowledged that it had no role (which I've explained several times now) in creating this mess. A significant contribution to get these houses to a serviceable standard is fair, given the amount of money involved.

Perhaps you would be more sympathetic if your house was crumbling down.

muffler

MrMusician18 wrote: »

There been some misrepresentation of my position and rather hostile posting might I add.

(mod hat on) If you have an issue with any comments just report them and myself or my co-mod, Cherry Blossom, will have a look.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's not fair that the homeowners expect the State to fund this in its entirety either since it has to be acknowledged that it had no role (which I've explained several times now) in creating this mess.

(mod hat off) First of all I think its safe to say that, just like myself, you are not a member of the legal profession and as such we can only express an unqualified opinion. The state, in my opinion, does carry responsibility due to the failure of the Building Control Authority (Donegal CoCo) to inspect and prohibit the use of a defective product. This is well covered under the Building Control Act 1990 particularly Section 13.

Penfailed

Swindled wrote: »

This is about visibility, a few thousand people will have a great visual impact if the right location / street is chosen in Dublin.
If we block any traffic or stop any business / inconvenience the ordinary public, the powers that be will try to use it against us.

When farmers / taxi drivers / lorry drivers in the past blocked traffic, it always ended up turning the public against them.

The initial talk about the Dublin protest is for a gathering at the Convention Centre where the Dail is sitting and then what sounds like a rolling roadblock of the M50...!

malinheader

Penfailed wrote: »

The initial talk about the Dublin protest is for a gathering at the Convention Centre where the Dail is sitting and then what sounds like a rolling roadblock of the M50...!

I wonder would that make the rte news.

Penfailed

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's not fair that the homeowners expect the State to fund this in its entirety either since it has to be acknowledged that it had no role (which I've explained several times now) in creating this mess.

The state had no role in creating this mess except for the fact that it didn't regulate the industry as it was supposed to. I'll tell you who else had no role in creating this mess - the homeowners. This has the potential to turn into a crisis like no other. Our government give money (rightly so IMHO) to help with crisis situations all over the world. This should be no different. The current 90/10 scheme is not fit for purpose.

NIMAN

MrMusician18 wrote: »

No one would get their home renovated for free. Sure. The wish list I heard on the radio from one person effected included wanting replacement windows and a heat pump to be included. The more expansive the scheme the more it encourages the 'marginal' shall we say, cases to present for compensation.

I've still not had anyone explain why the State is responsible here. Not enforcing standards is not a valid argument. As I pointed out, I can still speed and cause an accident and the gardai are not liable. I can go to a restaurant and get food poisoning but the FSAI are not liable. I can buy defective goods but the State is not liable. Once we recognise this, we see there is no liability generated. Therefore the grants (note they don't call it compensation or redress) size and scope are essentially a gift of the State to ease hardship.

There been some misrepresentation of my position and rather hostile posting might I add. I'm not against the scheme. It is right and good that the State helps people fix problems. But the help the State gives has to be limited and proportional. It wouldn't be fair either for the homeowners to end up with houses of much higher standard than the original build, paid for by the taxpayer through this scheme. It's not fair that the homeowners expect the State to fund this in its entirety either since it has to be acknowledged that it had no role (which I've explained several times now) in creating this mess. A significant contribution to get these houses to a serviceable standard is fair, given the amount of money involved.

Although we are seeing examples of homes really badly affected, and ones that are minor, you have to accept that they are both built with poor quality blocks. So although some look minor now, perhaps in 5 or 10 years time, they too will look terrible.

It might be simply down to a particular batch of blocks that came out of a certain part of the quarry, some may have 50% Mica, others might have 10%, but either way, the end effect is going to be the same in the long run.

As for people asking for heat pumps etc, well unfortunately that is how planning is now. You have to remember that anyone who has to tumble their home will have to rebuild it to modern standards to get planning. They can't say to the local council they want to build it to 2001 standards. And with new houses, they have to include better quality windows, heating systems etc, so it will obviously cost more than when it was built. It might also have been one person you heard demand heat pump, but doesn't mean they speak for all home owners. I'm sure those getting their house rebuilt will settle for good old fashioned OFCH.

MrMusician18

muffler wrote: »

(mod hat on) If you have an issue with any comments just report them and myself or my co-mod, Cherry Blossom, will have a look.



(mod hat off) First of all I think its safe to say that, just like myself, you are not a member of the legal profession and as such we can only express an unqualified opinion. The state, in my opinion, does carry responsibility due to the failure of the Building Control Authority (Donegal CoCo) to inspect and prohibit the use of a defective product. This is well covered under the Building Control Act 1990 particularly Section 13.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. I was a construction professional so I know the role of the BCA on a site. The specific section you mention is really designed to prohibit the use of hazardous materials like asbestos, though in theory it could be used regarding defective blocks. The key test however is that the BCA has to know that the product is defective and being used and make the order. The BCA has no role in testing materials used on site nor monitoring deliveries to site. As far as I'm aware, the houses were constructed with these blocks before it was known they contained mica anyway.

If you actually think about it, the BCA couldn't resonantly have liability unless it has permanent man for man supervision on every site where the regulations apply. There are hundreds if not thousands of products used on any given construction site. It's just not feasible for the BCA to know about everything and every product.

It would therefore be ridiculous for the State to have to accept even partial liability for what private individuals and businesses do in this instance.

MrMusician18

NIMAN wrote: »

Although we are seeing examples of homes really badly affected, and ones that are minor, you have to accept that they are both built with poor quality blocks. So although some look minor now, perhaps in 5 or 10 years time, they too will look terrible.

It might be simply down to a particular batch of blocks that came out of a certain part of the quarry, some may have 50% Mica, others might have 10%, but either way, the end effect is going to be the same in the long run.

As for people asking for heat pumps etc, well unfortunately that is how planning is now. You have to remember that anyone who has to tumble their home will have to rebuild it to modern standards to get planning. They can't say to the local council they want to build it to 2001 standards. And with new houses, they have to include better quality windows, heating systems etc, so it will obviously cost more than when it was built. It might also have been one person you heard demand heat pump, but doesn't mean they speak for all home owners. I'm sure those getting their house rebuilt will settle for good old fashioned OFCH.

The new building regulations do not apply to houses rebuilt under this scheme afaik. They can be reconstructed to the regulations that were in force at the time of the original build.

NIMAN

Didn't know that to be honest.

I had heard some folk saying "sure my windows won't be able to be used as they aren't energy efficient enough to go back in".

But I'll take your word for it.

muffler

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I was a construction professional

Painter? site manager? resident engineer? Can you define your professional status please.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard ....... The specific section you mention is really designed to prohibit the use of hazardous materials like asbestos, though in theory it could be used regarding defective blocks.

hmm. ridiculous and then possible. You need to make up your mind.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The key test however is that the BCA has to know that the product is defective and being used and make the order. The BCA has no role in testing materials used on site nor monitoring deliveries to site. As far as I'm aware, the houses were constructed with these blocks before it was known they contained mica anyway.

If you actually think about it, the BCA couldn't resonantly have liability unless it has permanent man for man supervision on every site where the regulations apply. There are hundreds if not thousands of products used on any given construction site. It's just not feasible for the BCA to know about everything and every product.

It would therefore be ridiculous for the State to have to accept even partial liability for what private individuals and businesses do in this instance.

You are more than entitled to your opinion. As shown it isnt valid at times.

muffler

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The new building regulations do not apply to houses rebuilt under this scheme afaik. They can be reconstructed to the regulations that were in force at the time of the original build.

What are the "new" building regulations?

Penfailed

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The new building regulations do not apply to houses rebuilt under this scheme afaik. They can be reconstructed to the regulations that were in force at the time of the original build.

That's what I was lead to believe too.

Penfailed

Penfailed wrote: »

In my case the builder ceased trading years ago and the block supplier is the one that used the loophole of changing name and having the same people run it. Who do I go after now?

MrMusician18...?

Blub123

Fair play to the folk in Derry.. See attached

MrMusician18

muffler wrote: »

Painter? site manager? resident engineer? Can you define your professional status please.

hmm. ridiculous and then possible. You need to make up your mind.

You are more than entitled to your opinion. As shown it isnt valid at times.

I don't think I really need to give my profession to be honest. All I'll say is that it requires a good knowledge of the regulations. I'm not involved with mica but did give advice during the pyrite problems. And I'm seeing the same problems here with the people affected, there is a huge gap between what people expect the building regulations and the Authorities to do and what they actually do.

The reason what you posted was ridiculous, that while it is possible to ban blocks, it is because it is not possible for the BCA to know everything going on on sites while you suggest it is liable for those activities. It's a crazy proposition and if you carry it through to a logical conclusion it creates an almost unlimited liability on the State.

The 'new regulations' are the various amendments and updates to the technical guidance documents. For example a house built in 2000 would not have to achieve the same energy and thermal standard as a new build today.

jj880

You say you are seeing the same problems with mica as you saw with pyrite but you persist with the idea that mica homeowners should be grateful with substantially less redress than people who have pyrite. It doesnt make sense.

I think we know where you stand on this now. Its starting to derail the thread which had a lot of helpful and constructive posts. I think we should leave it now.

MrMusician18

Penfailed wrote: »

MrMusician18...?

If neither company exist well then there is no one to chase. I've explained this several times and I'm sure has been explained by the homeowners solicitors too. That's the nature of limited liability companies.

So that's why the government has created this 90% scheme, because without it the affected would be 100% on the hook for repairs.

MrMusician18

jj880 wrote: »

You say you are seeing the same problems with mica as you saw with pyrite but you persist with the idea that mica homeowners should be grateful with substantially less redress than people who have pyrite. It doesnt make sense.

I think we know where you stand on this now. Its starting to derail the thread which had a lot of helpful and constructive posts. I think we should leave it now.

The same problems in that the pyrite homeowners couldn't understand how this could happen. I think this was because what they thought the regulations did and what they actually did was very very different.

In absolute terms, the mica homeowners are likely to receive larger grants that the pyrite homes. It is much cheaper per unit to replace the subfloor of what were largely semi-d units then the walls of bungalow houses.

listermint

To fair to musician he is responding to every question reasonably and I understand emotions are high on this but it's a bit of a climb on.

And I'd argue that he's correct 90% redress is a absolutely huge. When there are thousands of people in apartments that get 0 zilch nothing nada.

jj880

listermint wrote: »

To fair to musician he is responding to every question reasonably and I understand emotions are high on this but it's a bit of a climb on.

And I'd argue that he's correct 90% redress is a absolutely huge. When there are thousands of people in apartments that get 0 zilch nothing nada.

No climb on here. He's repeatedly saying that homeowners should be grateful for a scheme the majority cant afford to avail of when their houses are falling down around them.

The apartment owners/resident should not accept that. They should get together and demand equal treatment.

If they did and managed to get "90%" redress (that is closer to 60% and most of them couldnt afford to pay the difference like the current mica scheme) would you tell them to suck it up and be happy with that?

jj880

I think 1 of the main problems we are facing is the 90%. Outside Donegal people hear 90% and think "what are they gurning about?". Let's get it clear here. The current scheme is nowhere near 90%.



As the few people who can afford (or in reality have to put themselves into debt for the rest of their lives) to avail of the current scheme are finding out this is not an exhaustive list - add to the above:

- total grant capped at 247500 (many are being quoted 300k+ due to price rises in materials)
- foundations not included
- planning application fees not included (2000-3000)
- demolition fees not included
- disposal fess not included

Maybe someone who is going through the scheme can correct/add to this list. I've probably left some out.

This is the reality. The majority of people are locked out of the current scheme and the banks are not helping.

malinheader

Here is a scenario for listermint and musician.
A young couple with a mortgage of 150,000 on a house that is worth nothing. They need another 40,50 or 60,000 to add on to their existing mortgage to just get their home back to the way it was at the start. Number 1 where are they going to get this money from. And number 2 extra monthly payments on a mortgage that is already taking most of your income. Do you still think telling them they are getting a great deal is a fair answer.

Oh number 3,where do they go now. When they are told their home is not safe to occupy anymore and probably a couple of young children to look after.

Ah sure it's a great deal altogether for someone not affected by the true disaster that this is.

MrMusician18

malinheader wrote: »

Here is a scenario for listermint and musician.
A young couple with a mortgage of 150,000 on a house that is worth nothing. They need another 40,50 or 60,000 to add on to their existing mortgage to just get their home back to the way it was at the start. Number 1 where are they going to get this money from. And number 2 extra monthly payments on a mortgage that is already taking most of your income. Do you still think telling them they are getting a great deal is a fair answer.

Oh number 3,where do they go now. When they are told their home is not safe to occupy anymore and probably a couple of young children to look after.

Ah sure it's a great deal altogether for someone not affected by the true disaster that this is.

Relative to the alternative, where they are 100% on the hook for the cost of repairs, it is a decent offer of help.

The State didn't cause this problem but is expected to pay to remedy it to a level that exceeds 100% of the cost of repair? The State isn't even obliged to assist at all.

listermint

malinheader wrote: »

Here is a scenario for listermint and musician.
A young couple with a mortgage of 150,000 on a house that is worth nothing. They need another 40,50 or 60,000 to add on to their existing mortgage to just get their home back to the way it was at the start. Number 1 where are they going to get this money from. And number 2 extra monthly payments on a mortgage that is already taking most of your income. Do you still think telling them they are getting a great deal is a fair answer.

Oh number 3,where do they go now. When they are told their home is not safe to occupy anymore and probably a couple of young children to look after.

Ah sure it's a great deal altogether for someone not affected by the true disaster that this is.

Where are you getting these figures from though let's say they get the full 90% due to level of works in your scenario the house is literal falling around them. Are you saying that full works are costing 500-600 grand? I'm just using your example figures.

jj880

I think we have a couple of county council engineers here or similar. Government yes men. Waste of time.

MrMusician18

jj880 wrote: »

I think we have a couple of county council engineers here or similar. Government yes men. Waste of time.

No, I think it's the mica homeowners are not used to anything other that getting sympathy from the general public. Asked any probing questions about why they think the State is liable or why they don't consider the voluntary support they're getting up to €250k for their issue generous and they have no answers. Instead we get incorrect interpretations of what standards are, and playing regions ('Leinster Government' borderline conspiracy theories) and schemes off one another.

muffler

jj880 wrote: »

I think we have a couple of county council engineers here or similar.

I think we all know thats not true

jj880 wrote: »

Government yes men. Waste of time.

People are entitled to express an opinion though. It may not be the popular opinion but it's an opinion.

muffler

MrMusician18 wrote: »

No, I think it's the mica homeowners are not used to anything other that getting sympathy from the general public. Asked any probing questions about why they think the State is liable or why they don't consider the voluntary support they're getting up to €250k for their issue generous and they have no answers. Instead we get incorrect interpretations of what standards are, and playing regions ('Leinster Government' borderline conspiracy theories) and schemes off one another.

You posted a couple of times that you were a "construction professional" and you used this in an attempt to lend weight to the points you were making. I asked you to clarify what this profession was but you refused. As a result of that refusal I cant see anyone taking your comments seriously.

chasingpaper

listermint wrote: »

Where are you getting these figures from though let's say they get the full 90% due to level of works in your scenario the house is literal falling around them. Are you saying that full works are costing 500-600 grand? I'm just using your example figures.

A major issue with the 90-10 is the cap and the items not included.
For example my own house would cost at least 300k to demolish/rebuild.

If homeowner opts for a smaller house then they need to reapply for planning and comply with current building regs (ironic!). So that process may offset savings of rebuilding smaller.

The scheme is capped at 90% of 275,000 (247.5) for demolish & rebuild option.
The 300k construction costs do not include the stage 1 and stage 2 engineer reports & testing.
Which are 15k-20k approx.

Total cost will be at least 315k plus whatever storage costs etc.
Government will contribute 247.5 so owner would be contributing at least 67.5k.

That is without adding cost of temporary accommodation.
And shortage of builders means prices will continue to rise, contractors know there is money from the grant so prices quoted will reflect that.

The 90% could work for many (not all) people if it was actually 90%.

The other problem is homeowners/engineers/council are sometimes opting for cheaper alternatives, outer leaf only. Which will save money now but long term may leave them much worse off.