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

malinheader

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Nothing to refute my point I note. The fact is that this scheme is being run for political and social solidarity reasons not because of a legal liability on behalf of the State. The State could turn around tomorrow and say that this is a civil matter between the homeowners, builders and block suppliers and step completely back from it, and there is nothing legally the homeowners could do about it.

If the homeowners sued the State for negligence they would lose. That's not to say I don't have sympathy for the homeowners, I very much do. They've done nothing wrong but have been wronged, however it's not the State that's wronged them.

Your points have been answered and alot of very detailed explanations if you had even bothered to read them.
Or perhaps you did.

malinheader

Swindled wrote: »

I suppose they think their sly personal remarks are clever, says a lot more about them and their lack of any decent arguments, than the families effected that's for sure.

Some sympathy for the families affected alright.
Just shows what we're up against,

MrMusician18

Swindled wrote: »

So the state are doing it out of the kindness of their heart, and they just feel like being kinder to those in Leinster with Pyrite, than those in Donegal and Mayo with Mica/Pyrite, and they got no legal advice on it. Got it.

You'd like your points refuted ? No problem. In that case now some genuine and fair questions for you, in your view :

(1) Who should pay (2) Why should they pay it ? (3) How do they pay it ?

Effectively, yes the State is stepping in here out of the goodness of its heart or rather social solidarity. The pyrite scheme was different to the mica one afaik as the pyrite one is funded through a levy of hardcore. So effectively all new housebuilders are paying for the remediation of the pyrite houses through this tax.

Who should pay: the builders, block suppliers and their insurers. Why: because they are responsible for providing a defective product. How: through the sale and liquidation of their assets.But you'll note that nowhere does liability lie with the State.

I know, sadly that these liabilities far exceed the assets of the builders and block suppliers and that they can escape their creditors through bankruptcy and limited liability. Yes, this isn't fair but unless we want to change the legal structures of business then sadly we are stuck with it.

Swindled

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Effectively, yes the State is stepping in here out of the goodness of its heart or rather social solidarity. The pyrite scheme was different to the mica one afaik as the pyrite one is funded through a levy of hardcore. So effectively all new housebuilders are paying for the remediation of the pyrite houses through this tax.

Who should pay: the builders, block suppliers and their insurers. Why: because they are responsible for providing a defective product. How: through the sale and liquidation of their assets.But you'll note that nowhere does liability lie with the State.

I know, sadly that these liabilities far exceed the assets of the builders and block suppliers and that they can escape their creditors through bankruptcy and limited liability. Yes, this isn't fair but unless we want to change the legal structures of business then sadly we are stuck with it.

There's some other questions there as well that you may have missed, that I added

jj880

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Effectively, yes the State is stepping in here out of the goodness of its heart or rather social solidarity. The pyrite scheme was different to the mica one afaik as the pyrite one is funded through a levy of hardcore. So effectively all new housebuilders are paying for the remediation of the pyrite houses through this tax.

Who should pay: the builders, block suppliers and their insurers. Why: because they are responsible for providing a defective product. How: through the sale and liquidation of their assets.But you'll note that nowhere does liability lie with the State.

I know, sadly that these liabilities far exceed the assets of the builders and block suppliers and that they can escape their creditors through bankruptcy and limited liability. Yes, this isn't fair but unless we want to change the legal structures of business then sadly we are stuck with it.

So tough sh!t is your solution.

Legislation should be changed I agree but what about the home owners who need help now?

Swindled

jj880 wrote: »

So though sh!t is your solution.

But only depending on where you are from

NIMAN

To fix this issue properly would cost a small fraction of what the government has spent this last 12 month's paying for COVID, yet everyone in the state thought that that debt was acceptable.

malinheader

Mr musician, I'm not being smart but do you really have any idea how bad things are here at the moment. Only last week a young couple had to leave their new home because one of the outer walls collapsed. There are people living in homes feared that the house will collapse during the night are you aware how bad this has got.

MrMusician18

Swindled wrote: »

There's some other questions there as well that you may have missed, that I added

4) The State would end up housing most of those individuals
5) The homeowners would be responsible for securing/making safe their dangerous properties
6) I do genuinely think that homebond is no longer fit for purpose and that limited liability companies are being abused for development. Government should consider creating a fund similar to MIBI for domestic housing construction. It would need to be very carefully managed because the temptation would be for a lot of corner cutting that the fund would fix later.

I have no problem with the state helping out the Mica homeowners. As I've said they've been very wronged through no fault of their own but the resources of the state are not limitless. The help the homeowners are getting should be gratefully received since as I said the State doesn't actually have a legal obligation to assist at all.

overshoot

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Why is this the States problem though? Legally they have no liability, so any form of compensation could be considered generous.

You might want to Google "joint and several liability"
Considering they received commencement notices for each house, have building control to inspect works, set the certification standards... Pretty sure you can argue the 1% responsibility needed to put them on the hook

Swindled

malinheader wrote: »

Mr musician, I'm not being smart but do you really have any idea how bad things are here at the moment. Only last week a young couple had to leave their new home because one of the outer walls collapsed. There are people living in homes feared that the house will collapse during the night are you aware how bad this has got.

Given the earlier sly remarks I think we know the answer to how much they would care about that.

MrMusician18

overshoot wrote: »

You might want to Google "joint and several liability"
Considering they received commencement notices for each house, have building control to inspect works, set the certification standards... Pretty sure you can argue the 1% responsibility needed to put them on the hook

They're not. The old building regulations and BCAR are worded very specifically as to not draw liability on the State.

Mica has been an issue for years now, I'm not aware of anyone successfully suing or settling with the State over it.

jj880

MrMusician18 wrote: »

5) The homeowners would be responsible for securing/making safe their dangerous properties

If you were the owner of a mica infested home would you honestly be happy with this?

You know what dont bother answering.

I put you in the same bracket as a person who was on facebook last week trying to humiliate a woman who posted pictures of her crumbling house in Letterkenny.

The reason for it: the mica homeowner would jepardise the sale of other houses in the same estate. Nevermind that the homeowner is not responsible for her crumbling home. Nevermind what she and her family are going through. In other words just shut up in case you cost me the sale of my house. Shameful and embarassing. Some real humanitarians in this country.

Swindled

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Effectively, yes the State is stepping in here out of the goodness of its heart or rather social solidarity. The pyrite scheme was different to the mica one afaik as the pyrite one is funded through a levy of hardcore. So effectively all new housebuilders are paying for the remediation of the pyrite houses through this tax.

So again, it's ok to pay out for Leinster residents, but not the second class ones from Donegal / Mayo ?

MrMusician18 wrote: »

1. Who should pay: the builders, block suppliers and their insurers.

-Builders are not labile for the suppliers liability, and many of the blocks were also bought directly and homes built using direct labour.
-Can you point us out the the Quarry insurance clause that covers a Quarry not regularly testing their aggregate or blockwork strength as they are supposed to ?

MrMusician18 wrote: »

[2.] Why: because they are responsible for providing a defective product. How: through the sale and liquidation of their assets.But you'll note that nowhere does liability lie with the State.

They are indeed, and did so for years
Who was also responsible for providing them with permits and licensing to operate for years ?
Also sale of what assets ? The company dissolved as soon as the first claims started coming in.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

3. I know, sadly that these liabilities far exceed the assets of the builders and block suppliers and that they can escape their creditors through bankruptcy and limited liability. Yes, this isn't fair but unless we want to change the legal structures of business then sadly we are stuck with it.

So who pays when the companies disappear ? and how do they pay ?

MrMusician18 wrote: »

4) The State would end up housing most of those individuals

So the state will have to provide them with housing, I see. Do you ?
And what do you then do with the thousands of derelict uninhabitable homes ?

MrMusician18 wrote: »

5) The homeowners would be responsible for securing/making safe their dangerous properties

And how do they afford to do that ?, they are in social housing at this stage

MrMusician18 wrote: »

6) I do genuinely think that homebond is no longer fit for purpose and that limited liability companies are being abused for development. Government should consider creating a fund similar to MIBI for domestic housing construction. It would need to be very carefully managed because the temptation would be for a lot of corner cutting that the fund would fix later.

I have no problem with the state helping out the Mica homeowners. As I've said they've been very wronged through no fault of their own but the resources of the state are not limitless. The help the homeowners are getting should be gratefully received since as I said the State doesn't actually have a legal obligation to assist at all.

Actually as we've pointed out, the state do, and ends up having to provide housing either way. The scheme is not fit for purpose, and second class citizen style in comparison to the Pyrite redress scheme. And so far the state has done nothing about preventing this issue happening again elsewhere in Ireland, and it more than likely will happen again, if it is not already happening. But I suppose they are banking on it not happening in Leinster again, so everything's cool.

MrMusician18

jj880 wrote: »

If you were the owner of a mica infested home would you honestly be happy with this?

You know what dont bother answering.

I put you in the same bracket as a person who was on facebook last week trying to humiliate a woman who posted pictures of her crumbling house in Letterkenny.

The reason for it: the mica homeowner would jepardise the sale of other houses in the same estate. Nevermind that the homeowner is not responsible for her crumbling home. Nevermind what she and her family are going through. In other words just shut up in case you cost me the sale of my house. Shameful and embarassing. Some real humanitarians in this country.

Of course I wouldn't be happy with it. I'd be absolutely devastated and I do genuinely feel sympathy for those affected. That said, I wouldn't blame the State though. As a former construction professional I do know where liability lies for defective materials - the builder in the first instance who then sues the supplier. The State takes a largely hands off approach to construction regulation, which suits the industry, itself and to be honest, the self builder too. The current system is effectively a strict framework of self certification with a paper trail back to the decision makers.

Penfailed

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Of course I wouldn't be happy with it. I'd be absolutely devastated and I do genuinely feel sympathy for those affected. That said, I wouldn't blame the State though. As a former construction professional I do know where liability lies for defective materials - the builder in the first instance who then sues the supplier. The State takes a largely hands off approach to construction regulation, which suits the industry, itself and to be honest, the self builder too. The current system is effectively a strict framework of self certification with a paper trail back to the decision makers.

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

Swindled wrote: »

So again, it's ok to pay out for Leinster residents, but not the second class ones from Donegal / Mayo ?

That a bit much tbh. There is no remediation scheme for fire safety works btw. an issue that is concentrated in the Dublin region. And that's because of the overall cost, just like this.

Swindled wrote: »

-Builders are not labile for the suppliers liability, and many of the blocks were also bought directly and homes built using direct labour.
-Can you point us out the the Quarry insurance clause that covers a Quarry not regularly testing their aggregate or blockwork strength as they are supposed to ?

Builders are responsible for the quality of the materials they use in the first instance. One would normally sue a builder, who would then in turn sue the supplier.

Swindled wrote: »

They are indeed, and did so for years
Who was also responsible for providing them with permits and licensing to operate for years ?

Permits relate to environmental controls and pollution. The quarry permit have nothing to do with the quality of the extracted material

Swindled wrote: »

Also sale of what assets ? The company dissolved as soon as the first claims started coming in.

I agree, this is a problem. Companies can escape their liabilities by winding up.

Swindled wrote: »

So who pays when the companies disappear ? and how do they pay ?

In the ordinary course of events, the creditors get into a queue and take cents on the euro. That's what normally happens when companies fold.

Swindled wrote: »

So the state will have to provide them with housing, I see. Do you ?
And what do you then do with the thousands of derelict uninhabitable homes ?

In the ordinary course of events they'd be fenced off and left to rot sadly.

Swindled wrote: »

And how do they afford to do that ?, they are in social housing at this stage

Presumably the affected individuals can still work and earn a wage, even in a social house. It doesn't cost a lot to secure a site.

Swindled wrote: »

Actually as we've pointed out, the state do, and ends up having to provide housing either way. The scheme is not fit for purpose, and second class citizen style in comparison to the Pyrite redress scheme. And so far the state has done nothing about preventing this issue happening again elsewhere in Ireland, and it more than likely will happen again, if it is not already happening. But I suppose they are banking on it not happening in Leinster again, so everything's cool.

Whether or not the scheme is as good as the pyrite one is a matter of conjecture. The individual payouts here even at 90%
are likely going to dwarf the size of the individual payments for those affected by pyrite. Houses have to be effectively rebuilt.

A 90% scheme where there was no liability on the State to provide anything and the average compensation is likely to exceed €200k would be considered generous by most.

NIMAN

MrMusician18 wrote: »

.... but the resources of the state are not limitless.

The state can always find the money when there is a will to do something.

It found 64bn to bail out the banks.

It found 30bn this last 12 month's to pay for COVID. And will probably have to add another 10bn to that over the next 12 month's to continue paying for it.

Yet you think for them to find 1bn to fix 5000 homes in Donegal is a step too far?

ramirodelojo

NIMAN wrote: »

Since this is primarily a Donegal issue (although some other counties may be affected in small numbers), it's good to see it finally get some national coverage.

There has been a shockingly slow response to this major issue by the authorities. People's homes are worthless, can't be insured and are literally crumbling.

A lot of homes near me are affected, and I do think if this was happening in Dublin it would have been addresses years ago. Pyrite anyone?

Hopefully all these people affected can get some sort of redress scheme. It's going to cost a lot to fix, but surely these people can't be abandoned.

It will cost a lot to fix it, but surely these people cannot be abandoned. You are very right with that the truth will cost much more work than it normally would.

Swindled

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That a bit much tbh. There is no remediation scheme for fire safety works btw. an issue that is concentrated in the Dublin region. And that's because of the overall cost, just like this.

What's a bit much is the blatant double standards at play here depending on where you are from.

Can you explain why for Priory hall, to take one example, the apartment owners mortgages were written off and the rebuilding work was carried out by the city council and funded by the Department of Housing ?

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Builders are responsible for the quality of the materials they use in the first instance. One would normally sue a builder, who would then in turn sue the supplier.

The builders and the self builders where provided with IS certs from the suppliers, and were listed as IS certified. What happens when the builders do as the suppliers do and fold up company. And what do the large proportion of self building home owners do, who bought directly from the suppliers ?

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Permits relate to environmental controls and pollution. The quarry permit have nothing to do with the quality of the extracted material

There's a lot more onus on the block manufactures than that, and there is an onus on the state to inspect and enforce it's regulations, laws, and legislation. If not, then all laws and regulations in practice are effectively pointless.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I agree, this is a problem. Companies can escape their liabilities by winding up.

In the ordinary course of events, the creditors get into a queue and take cents on the euro. That's what normally happens when companies fold. [/QUOTE]

Yet then you turn round and claim homeowners can recover their costs from the suppliers etc. lol

MrMusician18 wrote: »

In the ordinary course of events they'd be fenced off and left to rot sadly.

But lovely plan when you don't have to look at them I suppose, so much for the importance of tourism / regional development etc.
Funny how this doesn't happen in Leinster though for Pyrite or Priory hall, etc. etc. etc.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Presumably the affected individuals can still work and earn a wage, even in a social house. It doesn't cost a lot to secure a site.

Presumably, you haven't checked the unemployment rates in Donegal, nor the average hourly wage there. Nor haven't priced how much it takes to properly secure a site in accordance with all safety regs, maintain it etc.

And yet again you've acknowledged the state will end up having to provide them with housing.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Whether or not the scheme is as good as the pyrite one is a matter of conjecture. The individual pay outs here even at 90%
are likely going to dwarf the size of the individual payments for those affected by pyrite. Houses have to be effectively rebuilt.

There's no conjecture, all the terms of the Mica scheme for Donegal / Mayo are less than the terms for the Pryite scheme in Leinster.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

A 90% scheme where there was no liability on the State to provide anything and the average compensation is likely to exceed €200k would be considered generous by most.

Where do you get the average of 200k from ?

Funny how you're ok with the state paying out in the case of the Leinster Pyrite liability, but take great issue with any similar scheme for Donegal / Mayo.

MrMusician18

Once it became known that there were a lot more Priory Halls out there, the State has not provided the same level of assistance. In fact, I don't think it's providing any. Many apartment owners are facing bills of €40k+ in order to remedy their homes with the total bill likely to exceed €1bn.

You can talk about I.S. certs till the cows come home. The facts are that the State doesn't warranty building materials or guarantee their quality. If the supplier manufacturer is out of business when the defect becomes apparent then the individual is generally out of luck. This is true of every product you can buy.

Thankfully in this case the State is providing significant (90%) support to help the homeowners out of this mess. The fact is though that the state is not obligated legally to do this and therefore the size or comprehensiveness of the scheme is going to be linked to the method of funding and overall cost. It also isn't going to create a scheme that could be open to abuse.

malinheader

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Once it became known that there were a lot more Priory Halls out there, the State has not provided the same level of assistance. In fact, I don't think it's providing any. Many apartment owners are facing bills of €40k+ in order to remedy their homes with the total bill likely to exceed €1bn.

You can talk about I.S. certs till the cows come home. The facts are that the State doesn't warranty building materials or guarantee their quality. If the supplier manufacturer is out of business when the defect becomes apparent then the individual is generally out of luck. This is true of every product you can buy.

Thankfully in this case the State is providing significant (90%) support to help the homeowners out of this mess. The fact is though that the state is not obligated legally to do this and therefore the size or comprehensiveness of the scheme is going to be linked to the method of funding and overall cost. It also isn't going to create a scheme that could be open to abuse.

You should do a bit of investigation and you will find out the 90% is total horse siht.
A relation of mine is looking at a cost of over close on 50,000 even with the scheme to just put his house back to normal state.
Your last line about abusing the scheme is leaving me contemplating a ban.
You haven't a clue about the state some of these people are in, all they want is there homes repaired so they can finally start to get back to normality.
Only good thing about your points on this is it makes me more determined to make sure the people in Donegal get treated the same as the rest of the country. No matter what it takes.

MrMusician18

malinheader wrote: »

You should do a bit of investigation and you will find out the 90% is total horse siht.
A relation of mine is looking at a cost of over close on 50,000 even with the scheme to just put his house back to normal state.
Your last line about abusing the scheme is leaving me contemplating a ban.
You haven't a clue about the state some of these people are in, all they want is there homes repaired so they can finally start to get back to normality.
Only good thing about your points on this is it makes me more determined to make sure the people in Donegal get treated the same as the rest of the country. No matter what it takes.

And what would it cost without the State support, 3 to 4 times that? The point that is being willfully ignored here is that the State is not obliged to help at all because the State didn't force builders to use these blocks. So is it really fair to criticise the size of the support when the State had no role in creating the problem?

And just on the latter, what is being sought: A 100% funded scheme to current building regulations and standard finish with alternative accommodation paid would certainly be open to abuse. That would be trade in your 2004 home for a brand new one, mica would be turning up everywhere.

malinheader

MrMusician18 wrote: »

And what would it cost without the State support, 3 to 4 times that? The point that is being willfully ignored here is that the State is not obliged to help at all because the State didn't force builders to use these blocks. So is it really fair to criticise the size of the support when the State had no role in creating the problem?

And just on the latter, what is being sought: A 100% funded scheme to current building regulations and standard finish with alternative accommodation paid would certainly be open to abuse. That would be trade in your 2094 home for a brand new one, mica would be turning up everywhere.

You definitely have no idea about the tests that are carried out to prove it's mica. Even when the walls are crumbling round you..
Anyhow you're ignorance on this subject has left me totally disgusted and that is where I will leave it before I post what is really in my head.

Penfailed

Penfailed wrote: »

Protest in Dublin planned for either the 9th or the 15th of June.

Confirmed as the 15th of June.

NIMAN

See ye there!

NIMAN

MrMusician18 wrote: »

And what would it cost without the State support, 3 to 4 times that? The point that is being willfully ignored here is that the State is not obliged to help at all because the State didn't force builders to use these blocks. So is it really fair to criticise the size of the support when the State had no role in creating the problem?

And just on the latter, what is being sought: A 100% funded scheme to current building regulations and standard finish with alternative accommodation paid would certainly be open to abuse. That would be trade in your 2094 home for a brand new one, mica would be turning up everywhere.

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.

Swindled

I noticed MrMusician18 has not answered my other questions above, so why we are waiting on those answers . .

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Once it became known that there were a lot more Priory Halls out there, the State has not provided the same level of assistance. In fact, I don't think it's providing any. Many apartment owners are facing bills of €40k+ in order to remedy their homes with the total bill likely to exceed €1bn.

So your argument is it not what the state has set precedent for, it's that is costs more ? yet the Pyrite scheme for Leinster cost a lot more than Priory hall, but it's dandy. Also the claim in Donegal / Mayo is not the homes were not built to standard, with many induvial developers and architects and professional indemnity insurance involved, this is all caused by a very few suppliers but has massive implications.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

You can talk about I.S. certs till the cows come home. The facts are that the State doesn't warranty building materials or guarantee their quality. If the supplier manufacturer is out of business when the defect becomes apparent then the individual is generally out of luck. This is true of every product you can buy.

No one has anywhere has asked the state to warranty building materials or guarantee their quality, so stop pretending. They don't warranty food safety in coffee shops, but they stringently inspect every single food establishment at regular intervals for compliance, and ENFORCE where there is non compliance. We're asking the state to step up the obligations of not enforcing any of their own legislation, and trying to wash their hands of any obligation to the public. They've already set many precedents in the past by having to step in and pay up. But again that seems to depend where you live.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Thankfully in this case the State is providing significant (90%) support to help the homeowners out of this mess. The fact is though that the state is not obligated legally to do this and therefore the size or comprehensiveness of the scheme is going to be linked to the method of funding and overall cost. It also isn't going to create a scheme that could be open to abuse.

What is your proof that properly funding the scheme opens it to abuse ?
Where is your evidence that it has been ?

In theory, everything can be abused from the NCT, to motor tax, to manufacturing blocks, should these all be abolished ? It's up the state to follow up it legislation with actual enforcement and ensure it's not. No legislation or regulations work without any enforcement, why do you think the state spent so much enforcing compliance with it's COVID regulations ?

MrMusician18 wrote: »

And what would it cost without the State support, 3 to 4 times that? The point that is being wilfully ignored here is that the State is not obliged to help at all because the State didn't force builders to use these blocks. So is it really fair to criticise the size of the support when the State had no role in creating the problem?

The state is supposed to enforce it's regulations and legislation and the law of the land, and has had to spend millions where it doesn't, time, and time and time again.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

And just on the latter, what is being sought: A 100% funded scheme to current building regulations and standard finish with alternative accommodation paid would certainly be open to abuse. That would be trade in your 2094 home for a brand new one, mica would be turning up everywhere.

Ok, tell us how the scheme would be open to abuse and how all the vetting that is required, each step of it, can be circumvented ?

Swindled

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.

If ever we needed proof MrMusician18 hasn't a clue about the scheme or how it works in practice this is it.

Swindled

Penfailed wrote: »

Confirmed as the 15th of June.

I took the cement mixer off the 35 for now, and got a wee bit of welding done on her to get her ready for the trip. :pac:



Seriously folks, it's extremely important we listen to the organisers and any marshals on the day. This is a family day, and to be a very peaceful protest.
We need to heed any arrangements made with the Gardaí in advance etc.
We need to leave no litter behind, or inconvenience any of the ordinary public.
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.