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

Swindled

NIMAN wrote: »

I would guess that most people would prefer to only have to get the outer leaf done if it was at all possible.

We have all seen the extreme examples of homes that even us laypeople know are probably demolish cases, and these will likely have only 1 solution.

I get the logic of course if you have a brsnd new outer leaf, your inner leaf should be protected going towards, plus it should have had little to no damage up to now if the outer leaf took all the damage.

Correct. Demolishing the house is a last resort, and also a huge financial gamble, and logistical nightmare for families.

NIMAN

I know a few folk who have replaced their outer leaf themselves over the last few years.

Will be interesting to see how these fare over the coming years.

It was their only option though, as they were paying for it themselves.

NIMAN

Story on the Indo website (behind a pay wall).

Hopefully we will see more coverage appearing nationally.

https://m.independent.ie/news/we-would-be-sitting-on-the-couch-at-night-and-hearing-the-cracks-in-the-wall-crumbling-40481173.html

Donegalforever

MrMusician18 wrote: »

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.

Was there not an obligation on the "Powers to be" to ensure that building materials (including concrete blocks) were suitable for purpose ?

Markcheese

Donegalforever wrote: »

Was there not an obligation on the "Powers to be" to ensure that building materials (including concrete blocks) were suitable for purpose ?

How many government inspectors do you think should be at each concrete block plant .. ?
There's a set of government regs . There's probably an acreditarion scheme, there were engineers on site, - they operaters knew what they were doing when they put out crap blocks ...

Donegalforever

Markcheese wrote: »

How many government inspectors do you think should be at each concrete block plant .. ?
There's a set of government regs . There's probably an acreditarion scheme, there were engineers on site, - they operaters knew what they were doing when they put out crap blocks ...

There would be no necessity to inspect each concrete block plant on a regular basis.
However, unannounced inspections could have been carried out a few times each year.

MrMusician18

Donegalforever wrote: »

There would be no necessity to inspect each concrete block plant on a regular basis.
However, unannounced inspections could have been carried out a few times each year.

It's not within the remit of the state to carry out quality checks on blocks.

So no, there is no obligation on "the powers that be". As I've said several times there is a huge gap between what the lay person expects of the building regulations and what they actually do.

Donegalforever

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's not within the remit of the state to carry out quality checks on blocks.

So no, there is no obligation on "the powers that be". As I've said several times there is a huge gap between what the lay person expects of the building regulations and what they actually do.

Says who ?

NIMAN

Cassidys getting some column inches today in the Indo to claim they did nothing wrong and were working within all guidelines and regulations.

MrMusician18

NIMAN wrote: »

Cassidys getting some column inches today in the Indo to claim they did nothing wrong and were working within all guidelines and regulations.

I'm not an expert in the block manufacturing standard but often the way these kinds of documents are written is that there is usually a catch all statement eg "shall be free from deleterious material" and then shall go on to give testing thresholds for different compounds eg sulphur. Problems can arise when a deleterious material is not tested for specifically within the standard. This can arise when a new mineral finds its way into the supply chain, such as when a new quarry opens and results in a mineral that has never been encountered in Irish blocks before.

For example, cl. 804 fill was just a grading standard and didn't have a pyrite test. In response to the pyrite problem, SR21 was subsequently released which did have a test for pyrite.

NIMAN

Afaik or have read, Mica content in blocks is not allowed to be >1%.

One of the homeowners tested in Inishowen had 58%.

Penfailed

NIMAN wrote: »

Afaik or have read, Mica content in blocks is not allowed to be >1%.

One of the homeowners tested in Inishowen had 58%.

Yep. It's has been part of the standard since 1949.

NIMAN

Penfailed wrote: »

Yep. It's has been part of the standard since 1949.

Ok, so if it's been there that long, how come the supplier thinks they were doing no wrong by supplying material with 58% mica content?

How did the supplier test their product?
How often would samples be taken to see that they were within guidelines?
We're results supplied to government for the records?

MrMusician18

Penfailed wrote: »

Yep. It's has been part of the standard since 1949.

Thanks, I must dig out the old IS20. It's not used anymore it's EN771 these days. I'm certainly not an expert in it, but if it has a testing regime it would seem strange that the block suppliers can claim that the manufacturing process they have meet the standard.


Very rarely are actual items certified, but the process that made them is. The testing regime is set out in the standard. Results are not sent to the government. Generally when you are certified you get audited on a regular basis by the certifing body. The certifying body though doesn't guarantee the quality of the product though at the end of the day.

NIMAN

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Results are not sent to the government. Generally when you are certified you get audited on a regular basis by the certifing body. The certifying body though doesn't guarantee the quality of the product though at the end of the day.

So basically what is the point of it all then?

Is it just a paper exercise?

And in the end, no-one is responsible for faulty material?

malinheader

NIMAN wrote: »

So basically what is the point of it all then?

Is it just a paper exercise?

And in the end, no-one is responsible for faulty material?

We all know a big part of the problem was the lack of cement used in making the blocks too.
So fault lies with the block producer making the blocks.
Maybe if the correct amount of cement had of been used it would of counteracted the mica in alot of cases.

MrMusician18

NIMAN wrote: »

So basically what is the point of it all then?

Is it just a paper exercise?

And in the end, no-one is responsible for faulty material?

The block producer is responsible for the quality of their products

NIMAN

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The block producer is responsible for the quality of their products

They claim in the Indo today that they were following all guidelines and regulations.

So they are claiming they aren't liable and their blocks were grand.

MrMusician18

NIMAN wrote: »

They claim in the Indo today that they were following all guidelines and regulations.

So they are claiming they aren't liable and their blocks were grand.

Well they're obviously not grand. Or if that's their idea of a grand durable product I'm surprised they have any customers

RandomViewer

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Well they're obviously not grand. Or if that's their idea of a grand durable product I'm surprised they have any customers

Most of the houses were built mid-noughties, corners were cut at almost every level and government were riding high on all the cash rolling in so anything and everything was passed, it's obvious Cassidy was skimping on the cement mix and nobody was checking

Cee-Jay-Cee

This is going to be a huge thing in letterkenny too. The Maples, The Grange, Lismonsghan Heights were all built using cassidys blocks and showing the signs of mica/defectives blocks. There’s easily 1000 houses between the 3 of those alone and there are probably many more to be discovered. Sone houses in some of them are considerably worse than others, it may be down to how well they were painted/maintained over the years but it’s scary to see the level of damage in some of them.

timmyntc

NIMAN wrote: »

They claim in the Indo today that they were following all guidelines and regulations.

So they are claiming they aren't liable and their blocks were grand.

Mad - they were producing blocks of a higher standard for NI at the time also.

Strange thing is, I think building regs changed in 2018 for block strength?
But Cassidys were made known of MICA problems with blocks long before that - so theres lies in there somewhere.

RandomViewer

Highland gave Blaney a shovel so he could dig himself a deeper hole
https://www.highlandradio.com/2021/05/31/blaney-apolgises-over-mica-redress-scheme-comments/

muffler

RandomViewer wrote: »

Highland gave Blaney a shovel so he could dig himself a deeper hole
https://www.highlandradio.com/2021/05/31/blaney-apolgises-over-mica-redress-scheme-comments/

Yup, he was pathetic last Friday and while he came on this morning to apologise he still wasnt conducting himself well.

No doubt after Friday's performance he got a talking to from the party hierarchy. Its just a pity that he is a senator as he hasnt been voted in by the people.

NIMAN

From hearing the thoughts of the listeners read out by Greg after he was finished, it's clear the public aren't having any of his apology, if that's what it was.

It was clear he was told to get back on air and try to fix the mess he made, as some people from his party I.e. Charlie, are going to take the brunt of peoples anger come the next election. But he didn't really clear much up, other than to say this time he is in favour of a 100% redress scheme, which he didn't say last Friday.

Greg missed a great chance to put him on the spot, when he said he'd love a 100% redress but thinks it will be hard to achieve. If Greg had simply said "so how come the Dubliners got one", he'd have struggled to find a reply.

RandomViewer

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

This is going to be a huge thing in letterkenny too. The Maples, The Grange, Lismonsghan Heights were all built using cassidys blocks and showing the signs of mica/defectives blocks. There’s easily 1000 houses between the 3 of those alone and there are probably many more to be discovered. Sone houses in some of them are considerably worse than others, it may be down to how well they were painted/maintained over the years but it’s scary to see the level of damage in some of them.

I remember being out at Lismonaghan about 10 years ago and there was a lot of cracks evident, figured it was subsidence

NIMAN

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

This is going to be a huge thing in letterkenny too. The Maples, The Grange, Lismonsghan Heights were all built using cassidys blocks and showing the signs of mica/defectives blocks. There’s easily 1000 houses between the 3 of those alone and there are probably many more to be discovered. Sone houses in some of them are considerably worse than others, it may be down to how well they were painted/maintained over the years but it’s scary to see the level of damage in some of them.

Perhaps more should be protesting in Letterkenny then?

Or perhaps a lot of the houses are rentals, and those residents don't care as they don't own them. The scheme at present wouldn't cover properties that are rented out.

malinheader

Alot of builders knew their were problems with Cassidys blocks for a good while and kept on using them.
People who do the wall chasing for the electricity used to ask the builders whose blocks they were using, if they were using other blocks other than Cassidys the price was alot higher, as you could cut through Cassidys blocks like a hot knife through butter. Literally.

DrPhilG

My house in Burt was built in 2005, I've been bricking it a bit (pardon the pun) wondering if I have the curse.

Managed to get in contact with the fella who built it (I bought rather than built) and he confirmed that the blocks came from the North, in Claudy. Phew...

I have close friends and family afflicted though so I'll still support the fight whenever possible. Can't wangle out of work for the 15th sadly, would have loved to join the Dublin protest.

DrPhilG

malinheader wrote: »

Alot of builders knew their were problems with Cassidys blocks for a good while and kept on using them.
People who do the wall chasing for the electricity used to ask the builders whose blocks they were using, if they were using other blocks other than Cassidys the price was alot higher, as you could cut through Cassidys blocks like a hot knife through butter. Literally.

I had a fella out 2 years ago to install fibre to the house. He had to drill through the end wall to run the cable in and he said it was a brute to get through. He said he had done some installs in Mica houses and the drill went through way too easy and in most cases blew a huge chunk out at the exit hole.