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

IP freely

Ace2007 wrote: »

Exactly - and shouting you want 100% redress without stating what that means won't win any sympathy.

I also find the day a bit odd - protesting on a random Tuesday in Dublin when 90% of office workers are at home, so their protest won't affect anyone really. Surely those who have jobs or those with kids won't be able to take part in the protest????, which won't leave too many??

It was a public poll with a few dates on it and thats the date got the most votes.

Again I 100% the efforts the group have made and have made some great leaps but the within the above sentance lays the problem, It would have been very easy for someone to sway the poll, say someone who might have a begrudgment towards the group, like a building provider.

Its a great idea and has the potential to be huge but its a bit slapdash.

jj880

Ace2007 wrote: »

Ok let's say that redress scheme follow this man's lead and build all the houses for 150k. You will then have home owners paying a mortgage that could be 200k, and be in negative equity straight away. They could then be living in houses that no one want to buy or wouldn't touch for the price, as they could too build a house of their own for 150k. I don't think that will fly with the residents, who want their houses rebuilt to the way they built them.

As for the carbon tax - if you don't tax it we'll never get the emissions down and hit targets - we'll be fined from Europe.

Lets not say 150k. You're saying that. Are you reading the thread? Material costs are getting out of hand. People are suggesting people build smaller houses through redress to keep costs down. People are suggesting the state takes a share of people's homes. What I have posted is another option to provide lower cost more energy efficient housing. Is it workable? Im not sure. Maybe.

As for emissions. There is already enough tax levied. Why not provide some realistic alternatives to reduce carbon tax people have to pay? Its obvious to see why this wont happen. It doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

NIMAN

Ace2007 wrote: »

Exactly - and shouting you want 100% redress without stating what that means won't win any sympathy.

I also find the day a bit odd - protesting on a random Tuesday in Dublin when 90% of office workers are at home, so their protest won't affect anyone really. Surely those who have jobs or those with kids won't be able to take part in the protest????, which won't leave too many??

Afaik, they couldn't do a weekend day, as the Dail don't sit.

So it had to be midweek, and soon. As the Dail is about to go into lazy mode for the summer.

I can't make it on Tuesday, as one of us has to stay behind and put kids to school, be there when they come home. OH is taking the oldest down with his cousin.

I think the numbers would have been a lot higher had it suited more people.

RandomViewer

Ace2007 wrote: »

Ok let's say that redress scheme follow this man's lead and build all the houses for 150k. You will then have home owners paying a mortgage that could be 200k, and be in negative equity straight away. They could then be living in houses that no one want to buy or wouldn't touch for the price, as they could too build a house of their own for 150k. I don't think that will fly with the residents, who want their houses rebuilt to the way they built them.

As for the carbon tax - if you don't tax it we'll never get the emissions down and hit targets - we'll be fined from Europe.

Negative equity isn't really something up here, very few would be selling and after this even with remedial work these houses will be keepers, Lots of Donegal houses are never sold on after the owner dies, they are just left

NIMAN

Any homes built on family land NEVER get sold.

One of the first things I learnt as a blow-in.

Penfailed

malinheader wrote: »

Do you know who the contractor is.

McCallions are constructing the new medical centre in Buncrana and using Cassidys. One of the McCallions is allegedly married into the Cassidys. They do work all over the country.

Penfailed

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

This is a huge potential problem for the taxpayer and is significant enough to warrant that the scheme shouldn't be 100%. If you have to put some of your own money into it, you'll be less inclined to inflate the figure.

We all pay for this fraud.



The original planning conditions should be allowed to apply. If you put a twenty-year-old car through the NCT, it only has to pass the standards that apply for it originally even if you replace the rusted bodyshell.

I disagree with the first part of your post but agree with the second part. Regarding the first part, it's a potential problem. If there are sufficient checks and balances, it will no longer be a problem.

Penfailed

IP freely wrote: »

It was a public poll with a few dates on it and thats the date got the most votes.

Again I 100% the efforts the group have made and have made some great leaps but the within the above sentance lays the problem, It would have been very easy for someone to sway the poll, say someone who might have a begrudgment towards the group, like a building provider.

Its a great idea and has the potential to be huge but its a bit slapdash.

There were two dates, not 'a few' dates. One was last Wednesday and the other was this Tuesday. I didn't see any poll. From what I can gather, they were waiting to see which days the Dáil was sitting and where.

muffler

IP freely wrote: »

One group is quietly going about their business in the background, although i have to admit i didnt even know they had exsisted until fairly recently, not in the public eye.

So are there now 2 groups representing those affected by mica?

IP freely

muffler wrote: »

So are there now 2 groups representing those affected by mica?

3 now I think.

The mica action group was set up in I believe late 2014 early 2015 from what I make out (that's first mention of them from I can find) I'm sure they've done great work but I've not heard of them until recently.

There is a 100%redress scheme (initially called boycott cassidys, then boycott cassidys 100% redress but now dropped the cassidys stuff) which is the Diver inspired group making most of the noise recently.

There is another group on Facebook too but I don't know if it's an official action group as such but I know of a few meeting that took place from that group. They feed of info from both other groups.

NIMAN

To be fair to MAG they are the ones who did all the initial ground work, and got the 90/10 scheme set up by the government.

Now I realise that the new 100% redress group believe this scheme is totally unworkable and have much costlier demands for homeowners. I'm sure plenty of MAG supporters and members are now in that camp too. I have heard them state in the media that they now believe 100% redress is the way to go.

I think the government will try to find some middle ground between the 2 schemes, such as paying testing costs, to try to take the heat out of the 100% support.

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

Because that's what your supposed to do if you buy goods/services that are faulty - you take a case against the company that you buy from. For some unknown reason that doesn't want to be made public, this has never happen in the history of these mica issues - which depending on what social media post you read/listen to has not just happened in the last 3 years - some have been having the problem 5 years and some even longer than that. So why has no one ever took a case against the supplier and make it public knowledge.

The most recent and similar thing that i can think of that had defective building material used was the Grenfell tower fire - Did the people protest and demand the government pay up? Or did the sue and have the insurance companies on the hook for millions/billions?

Johnson and Johnson were found guilty of having asbestos in products - but did the governments pay out billions for this? no - the insurance companies did. Where is J&J now? making vaccines to save the world.... international investors as you like to put don't really care - because insurance is there to pick up anything. Indeed for those that do care, they can demand a higher yield for their capital.

Insurance companies rob us blind with the premiums individual/companies pay and yet he is what some are describing as an open/shut case against them - except no one is taking legal action. Mind boggles.

And before you say that they folded and reopen under a different name, the OP of this thread said only yesterday that this wasn't accurate, and those campaigning have made a similar statement recently - Any half decent legal team would be able to confirm that one way or the other - but guessing that didn't happen - or did it and that's why the story has changed in recent days??.

What makes you so sure no-one has taken a case?


In one of the links I posted for you, Cassidy's themselves stated there was an ongoing legal action. In 2018, if I remember correctly.


As to Grenfell, that's totally irrelevant. It's a different jurisdiction.

Ace2007 wrote: »

If you statement is true about National accreditation service - then those affecting would be taking legal action against them - but they aren't - why is that????

You want to talk about reputational damage - what about the cerivcal cancer scandal - that made world wide headlines where people died and was basically covered up - and those labs all have experts and accreditation services - but legal actions was taken against all the labs. This was probably 1000 times the scandal and yet legal action was still taken and will probably cost a fraction of what the redress scheme is looking for. And you think that the mica issue will have repurational damage internationally - like i said before that being way OTT.

You mean the cervical cancer scandal where action was taken against the HSE and mostly American labs?
If only the labs were liable, why do you think there were actions against the HSE? It's interesting that you only mentioned the labs, though.


You may consider International reputational damage to be non damaging.

I, on the other hand, already know of a case where a major construction firm, operating in both the UK and Ireland, is already looking for alternative suppliers for a quote they had been preparing for upcoming work in N.I.
I know this because my son works for them in a management position, and is privy to information that is not necessarily in the public domain.
You don't seem to be aware that Companies in the UK, particularly those involved in state projects, sign contracts guaranteeing the quality of their work - including the materials used. N.I is a stones throw from border Counties, with very different legislative practices where construction is concerned, though. Hence the difference in the Grenfell and Mica scandals.

Ace2007 wrote: »

What are you talking about? Have firms who have accreditation from companies who failed in numerous medical scandals suffered adversely - of course not. As for your questions is it worth that risk - if as has been posted a chimney fell on a child - what do you think the answer to your question would be?

As I said, several Companies have already suffered, due to this scandal.
There will be others that I don't have information about.
Realistically, no major Company, looking at large projects, is going to bother having to check materials where there is a even a hint of suspicion re. quality. Why would they? They can - will, and do - just source elsewhere.

Ace2007 wrote: »

You say it's been proven - but not in a law of court where it matters. Like i said above it this was an open/shut case the legal cases would be mounting up and that would be public knowledge - but they aren't so what's happened there?

Now you're literally clutching at straws.
Courts accept expert witnesses - in this case, that would be the testing facilities who determined the level of mica present in the blocks in the first place...

Ace2007 wrote: »

You yourself stated that a quarry that the supplier uses hasn't had any deflective blocks - in which case the accreditation stated on the website would be accurate - would it not?

No. Because the accreditation was granted to the quarry that supplied the blocks for the houses affected by mica.
Cassidys own more than one quarry.

Ace2007 wrote: »

Because if this is accurate, there would be thousands of legal cases, none more so that potential criminal action being brought against the directors - whether the company has wound up or not (which is very questionable).

So again why has no investigation - civil or criminal ever happened, or made public if it has - just like the numerous other cases I've mentioned above.



It's not for the government to pursue said Company - just look at the Cervical Cancer scandal - dying women had to go to court to fight for their cases. Why didn't the government stand up there and say they would fight for them? Where was the marches on the streets to demand the government etc - these cases are still going on - and sadly long since forgotten in the public yet.

Again, you're clutching at straws - or deliberately misunderstanding. When have you ever heard of an Irish government supporting the people in cases against the HSE? We've had two major scandals, Cervical check, and Hepatitis C. The turkeys didn't vote for Christmas...


Mica, on the other hand, is an issue involving a private company. Apples and Oranges...


I'm sure you are aware that those who may be taking legal action will have been instructed by their legal advisors not to make any public statements.


Yet, you continue to question the legal aspect. Why?
I'm not affected by Mica - I just have enough common decency to have sympathy for those who are. I'm not a member of any action group either, nor do I personally know any of the people affected.

I do, however, have enough sense to know that they're not going to share their personal legal advice with me, you, or anyone else. And rightly so.
That would prejudice any case brought before the courts - as I'm sure you already know.


So, again, why do you keep pushing questions that you know people can't answer on a public forum? If people had legal advice that suggested suing insurance Companies, or Quarries, would solve their problems, do you not think they wouldn't need to expend time and energy mounting a campaign for Government redress?

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

To be fair to MAG they are the ones who did all the initial ground work, and got the 90/10 scheme set up by the government.

Now I realise that the new 100% redress group believe this scheme is totally unworkable and have much costlier demands for homeowners. I'm sure plenty of MAG supporters and members are now in that camp too. I have heard them state in the media that they now believe 100% redress is the way to go.

I think the government will try to find some middle ground between the 2 schemes, such as paying testing costs, to try to take the heat out of the 100% support.

I think they would also need to ensure that funding was available upfront so that people can avail of the scheme in the first place.


From what I've read, a major problem is accessing funds to get the work done, before being refunded by Government.


There's no earthly point in a scheme that people cant access through lack of funding, and no bank is going to issue a second mortgage to people who already have a mortgage, and would have to pay rent, too.


It's completely unaffordable for the majority of those affected, afaik.

NIMAN

..... and the reason for the new 100% redress groups formation I'd say.

I think the original scheme was unaffordable for the vast majority. That's why the uptake was so low.

Even if the government could start covering the testing costs, it would allow so many to get their homes on the system. I wonder is there no way the government could handle the testing themselves rather than have a private company do it?

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

..... and the reason for the new 100% redress groups formation I'd say.

I think the original scheme was unaffordable for the vast majority. That's why the uptake was so low.

Even if the government could start covering the testing costs, it would allow so many to get their homes on the system. I wonder is there no way the government could handle the testing themselves rather than have a private company do it?

Agreed.


I have absolutely no doubt that the Government could, as a bare minimum, obtain group rates from private labs, even if they didn't have the facilities to do it themselves.


But, the more I look at the conditions attached to the original scheme, the more I wonder if it wasn't constructed to make it as inaccessible as possible. From upfront costs, that are impossible for the majority, to insisting on using original windows, etc, with neither the option for homeowners to replace them at their own expense, or help to pay for storage for God knows how long, to a complete failure to recognize a need for alternative accommodation in many cases - the whole thing is completely unrealistic.



That's before you even look at the shortage of rental properties that are available...


How any Government can come out and defend such a scheme is totally beyond me.

NIMAN

Penfailed wrote: »

McCallions are constructing the new medical centre in Buncrana and using Cassidys. One of the McCallions is allegedly married into the Cassidys. They do work all over the country.

It would be a perfect time for the coco to test some of the blocks being used in that build.

If they don't, surely it's a dereliction of duty?

muffler

NIMAN wrote: »

It would be a perfect time for the coco to test some of the blocks being used in that build.

I would think there was never a better time to buy blocks from Cassidys. They arent going to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Id also be fairly sure that different batches would have been tested but I dont think the council or any contractor is going to announce that. In fairness that would be their private business.

jj880

muffler wrote: »

I would think there was never a better time to buy blocks from Cassidys. They arent going to repeat the mistakes of the past.

You could be right.

If you were building your new home tomorrow would you get Cassidys blocks?

Personally not a fvcking chance in hell.

muffler

jj880 wrote: »

If you were building your new home tomorrow would you get Cassidys blocks?

Good point! Probably not but then again by going to a different supplier Id still be thinking of where did the quarry stone come from and are they free from mica.

jj880

jj880 wrote: »

You could be right.

If you were building your new home tomorrow would you get Cassidys blocks?

Personally not a fvcking chance in hell.

Same here. I've a son wanting to buy his 1st home, ideally in the Letterkenny area, as it suits his fiance, and they're absolutely terrified.


Their solution is to buy and older home for now, and build when they start a family.



My advice to them is to buy nearer to home, even if it means she has to travel a bit for work, but, I don't think she wants to listen...

Ace2007

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What makes you so sure no-one has taken a case?


In one of the links I posted for you, Cassidy's themselves stated there was an ongoing legal action. In 2018, if I remember correctly.


As to Grenfell, that's totally irrelevant. It's a different jurisdiction.







You mean the cervical cancer scandal where action was taken against the HSE and mostly American labs?
If only the labs were liable, why do you think there were actions against the HSE? It's interesting that you only mentioned the labs, though.


You may consider International reputational damage to be non damaging.

I, on the other hand, already know of a case where a major construction firm, operating in both the UK and Ireland, is already looking for alternative suppliers for a quote they had been preparing for upcoming work in N.I.
I know this because my son works for them in a management position, and is privy to information that is not necessarily in the public domain.
You don't seem to be aware that Companies in the UK, particularly those involved in state projects, sign contracts guaranteeing the quality of their work - including the materials used. N.I is a stones throw from border Counties, with very different legislative practices where construction is concerned, though. Hence the difference in the Grenfell and Mica scandals.







As I said, several Companies have already suffered, due to this scandal.
There will be others that I don't have information about.
Realistically, no major Company, looking at large projects, is going to bother having to check materials where there is a even a hint of suspicion re. quality. Why would they? They can - will, and do - just source elsewhere.








Now you're literally clutching at straws.
Courts accept expert witnesses - in this case, that would be the testing facilities who determined the level of mica present in the blocks in the first place...






No. Because the accreditation was granted to the quarry that supplied the blocks for the houses affected by mica.
Cassidys own more than one quarry.







Again, you're clutching at straws - or deliberately misunderstanding. When have you ever heard of an Irish government supporting the people in cases against the HSE? We've had two major scandals, Cervical check, and Hepatitis C. The turkeys didn't vote for Christmas...


Mica, on the other hand, is an issue involving a private company. Apples and Oranges...


I'm sure you are aware that those who may be taking legal action will have been instructed by their legal advisors not to make any public statements.


Yet, you continue to question the legal aspect. Why?
I'm not affected by Mica - I just have enough common decency to have sympathy for those who are. I'm not a member of any action group either, nor do I personally know any of the people affected.

I do, however, have enough sense to know that they're not going to share their personal legal advice with me, you, or anyone else. And rightly so.
That would prejudice any case brought before the courts - as I'm sure you already know.


So, again, why do you keep pushing questions that you know people can't answer on a public forum? If people had legal advice that suggested suing insurance Companies, or Quarries, would solve their problems, do you not think they wouldn't need to expend time and energy mounting a campaign for Government redress?

There is nothing wrong from stating in public that there are x legal cases - it hasn’t affected any other case - for example those sueing under the cervical cancer - those cases are openly discussed in the media. As for nothing mentioning the HSE - there no reason - but since you brought it up - they are being sued - the government aren’t been asked to pay up - they are being sued and forced to.

I understand that they own more than one quarry but the link you provided wasnt for a Speedo i quarry was it? I might be wrong there and can’t check currently.

I have sympathy and if you seen my other posts where I’ve stated that we’ll agree to disagree on the funding - and go on to state it’s much much more than covering the cost of the rebuild.

The reality of the situation whether they agree or not is that the government isn’t going to write a blank cheque and so it’s important that the 100% redress group know exactly what they are demanding and what’s included as no one here seems to know. Even SF have said in recent days that the state can’t afford to cover full costs - that tells you everything that you need to know if main opposition party won’t promise the sun moon and stars.

NIMAN

muffler wrote: »

I would think there was never a better time to buy blocks from Cassidys. They arent going to repeat the mistakes of the past.

In Paddy Diver's last video, they tested a 2018 block Cassidys supplied a homeowner to replace an outer leaf, and it had 7% Mica.

7 times the acceptable level set by Government (in 1949).

I would never buy another product from that company ever again. If they are still supplying blocks up to 3 years ago out of spec, would you ever trust them?
And this is why its shameful that they are allowed to get away with it, despite Mica being in the news since 2014 if not earlier. Shame on them, and the Government regulators.

jj880

NIMAN wrote: »

In Paddy Diver's last video, they tested a 2018 block Cassidys supplied a homeowner to replace an outer leaf, and it had 7% Mica.

7 times the acceptable level set by Government (in 1949).

I would never buy another product from that company ever again. If they are still supplying blocks up to 3 years ago out of spec, would you ever trust them?
And this is why its shameful that they are allowed to get away with it, despite Mica being in the news since 2014 if not earlier. Shame on them, and the Government regulators.

My wife's brother has mica. He gave Cassidys a roasting about it. They said they would provide replacement blocks for free with him to pay labour. He told them to go fvck themselves.

Just to be clear I dont blame the home owner with the 7% mica blocks for accepting the replacement blocks. Theres a good chance they were desperate. You would think Cassidys to save some shred of their reputation (nevermind doing the decent thing - the humaine thing) would at least supply the real deal blocks for people to fix their houses.

I dont want to sound over dramatic here but it hurts me as an Irishman to see this. Growing up I never would have thought something like this could happen in our country. Its shameful. Its not right. As Paddy Diver says often "where are people's morals?"

salonfire

If it's the case that internal leaf is mostly unaffected because it is dry, would it be possible to do an early intervention on the outer leaf to stop it getting wet? External cladding or insulation.

Obviously only feasible in homes not too far gone.

RandomViewer

jj880 wrote: »

My wife's brother has mica. He gave Cassidys a roasting about it. They said they would provide replacement blocks for free with him to pay labour. He told them to go fvck themselves.

Just to be clear I dont blame the home owner with the 7% mica blocks for accepting the replacement blocks. Theres a good chance they were desperate. You would think Cassidys to save some shred of their reputation (nevermind doing the decent thing - the humaine thing) would at least supply the real deal blocks for people to fix their houses.

I dont want to sound over dramatic here but it hurts me as an Irishman to see this. Growing up I never would have thought something like this could happen in our country. Its shameful. Its not right. As Paddy Diver says often "where are people's morals?"

Their morals were hitched to Berties Celtic Tiger bandwagon, I know of a 3 storey building that was closed in in a fortnight, nothing got a chance to dry, anything built late 90s to 2008 is suspect, whether Mica or just shoddy workmanship, heard today about a small estate near Ramelton having Mica, decent sized 2 storeys, ouch

jj880

salonfire wrote: »

If it's the case that internal leaf is mostly unaffected because it is dry, would it be possible to do an early intervention on the outer leaf to stop it getting wet? External cladding or insulation.

Obviously only feasible in homes not too far gone.

There is a rule in the current scheme that only allows 1 redress per home. So if you get outer leaf replaced and your inner leaf starts to deteriorate later on you get no further redress. What if you have a flood that sends the inner leaf mica blocks to weetabix? Does your house insurance cover it? Doubtful. This needs to be changed at a very minimum to allow another redress. After all an engineer is signing off on this but we are also in uncharted territory. If your inner leaf goes after an outer leaf replacement then you are looking at the house being demolished anyway.

I think if you have mica your house it should be demolished and rebuilt including foundation. OR at least a mica test of the foundation once the house is demolished. Do it right and be done with it.

RandomViewer

jj880 wrote: »

There is a rule in the current scheme that only allows 1 redress per home. So if you get outer leaf replaced and your inner leaf starts to deteriorate later on you get no further redress. What if you have a flood that sends the inner leaf mica blocks to weetabix? Does your house insurance cover it? Doubtful. This needs to be changed at a very minimum to allow another redress. After all an engineer is signing off on this but we are also in uncharted territory. If your inner leaf goes after an outer leaf replacement then you are looking at the house being demolished anyway.

I think if you have mica your house it should be demolished and rebuilt including foundation. OR at least a mica test of the foundation once the house is demolished. Do it right and be done with it.

Good chance there's not a lot of cement in the foundation either

Ace2007

jj880 wrote: »

I think if you have mica your house it should be demolished and rebuilt including foundation. OR at least a mica test of the foundation once the house is demolished. Do it right and be done with it.

Agreed, if your demolishing it then might as well do the all job and get it right. 100% agree with that.

I don’t think anyone would be arguing on that point - who pays for it and what exactly is covered is what needs to be agreed on which is why it’s important that there is agreement between all mica groups on the wants.

RandomViewer

This is going to cost a lot , a hell of a lot and the usual suspects will be looking for their cut,
Now we need to cut them off sharpish,
my suggestion is that Cassidy supply's the blocks at cost , the council employs direct labour to fix the houses and after its done Cassidy signs all assets over to the state

NIMAN

I think many owners would be happy to do outer leaf only (assuming the Mica damage hasn't moved too far), but they are going to have to stand over any engineer sign-off on the rebuild.

If the authorities in 20yrs won't stand over it, then what's the point?
It means they have no faith or belief in the repairs they are doing now.