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

NIMAN

RandomViewer wrote: »

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

I don't think anyone wants to see Cassidys involved in any future work, at all.

RandomViewer

NIMAN wrote: »

I don't think anyone wants to see Cassidys involved in any future work, at all.

They have the equipment to make blocks, they just need to open the cement valve to the right setting, it's only fair they take the hit, letting them stay in business with little or no repercussions is not on, they are trading happily under their other business names, Churchill Stone for one, them walking away unharmed is a kick in the teeth for their victims

jj880

RandomViewer wrote: »

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

I agree on Cassidys signing over their assets. Thats all though.

Cassidys and the council are 2 major causes of this scandal. Keep them out of it. The roadblocks the council are throwing up in the current scheme are outrageous. To the point where you might think its deliberate.

RandomViewer

jj880 wrote: »

I agree on Cassidys signing over their assets. Thats all though.

Cassidys and the council are 2 major causes of this scandal. Keep them out of it. The roadblocks the council are throwing up in the current scheme are outrageous. To the point where you might think its deliberate.

Same as Ferry Refuse,

MrMusician18

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.

That understanding appears to be a misinterpretation of the standard. Please refer to appendix 4 of the Expert Group on Blocks. As far as I can tell, a No. 200 sieve has an opening of 75 microns. Material not passing the sieve is not subject to the test.

jimmycrackcorm

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.

Maybe they are incompetent?
How did they end up having so much mica in their blocks?

Ace2007

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That understanding appears to be a misinterpretation of the standard. Please refer to appendix 4 of the Expert Group on Blocks. As far as I can tell, a No. 200 sieve has an opening of 75 microns. Material not passing the sieve is not subject to the test.

I’ve also read that technically cassidys didn’t break any law or regulations so it’s not the open/shut case that is portrayed by some.

NIMAN

Sorry but that is all in legalese to me!

So is it saying that its ok to have more than 1% Mica in a block?

If so, what is the maximum limit now that is acceptable?
2%
7%
58%

Technique

RandomViewer wrote: »

They have the equipment to make blocks, they just need to open the cement valve to the right setting, it's only fair they take the hit, letting them stay in business with little or no repercussions is not on, they are trading happily under their other business names, Churchill Stone for one, them walking away unharmed is a kick in the teeth for their victims

Do Cassidy's own Churchill Stone? What other quarries do they own?

NIMAN

Technique wrote: »

Do Cassidy's own Churchill Stone? What other quarries do they own?

I think they own a handful of other quarries now.

MrMusician18

NIMAN wrote: »

Sorry but that is all in legalese to me!

So is it saying that its ok to have more than 1% Mica in a block?

If so, what is the maximum limit now that is acceptable?
2%
7%
58%

No. The standard is saying that the only requirement is that less than 1% passing the 200 sieve can be mica. It has nothing to say about the rest of the material. Since the 200 sieve is quite small, there is a lot of material that doesn't pass it.

I don't have EN771-3 to hand so I can't tell you exactly what the current % permitted currently is.

NIMAN

So the Taoiseach is very angry, thats a great sign for homeowners, at least he's on their side.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/i-am-very-angry-its-on-a-scale-that-is-absolutely-shocking-micheal-martin-to-meet-attorney-general-over-micadefects-40532403.html

I've heard he was genuinely shocked about what he saw when he met with a homeowner last week.
Think he was given a sample of a Mica block.

malinheader

First thing has to happen imo Is the homes and public premises have to be made safe. Every day these homes are left the more dangerous they become and the more work is needed to rectify them. I hope it will not take a fatality to finally make people in power finally sit up and act. Hate using the word fatality but so often in this country it's after one that a danger Is rectified even though it had been highlighted and waiting to be addressed.

Secondly people are not stupid and everyone can see a pattern of wrong doing here by people,companies and councils that seriously needs investigation.
Mica very much flagged in 2014 and before, Blocks tested in 2018 still high Mica content and council estates and homes showing bad affects of cracking and worse. Yet in 2020/21 a multi million pound health centre in Buncrana is being built by a contractor with strong connections to Cassidys and still using the blocks and concrete from the quarry where the Mica problem is coming from and the council are demolishing outside skins of blocks in homes on council houses and replacing with blocks from the same quarry.

As I said first priority is people's homes but there is a serious investigation and even a tribunal about what has happened here and for so long.

Dempo1

NIMAN wrote: »

So the Taoiseach is very angry, thats a great sign for homeowners, at least he's on their side.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/i-am-very-angry-its-on-a-scale-that-is-absolutely-shocking-micheal-martin-to-meet-attorney-general-over-micadefects-40532403.html

I've heard he was genuinely shocked about what he saw when he met with a homeowner last week.
Think he was given a sample of a Mica block.

I have to question the sudden shock to be honest, I've no doubt local representatives have been highlighting this issue at party level and certainly in the Dail and more publicly for years as too have the home owners . There was a heated debate yesterday between bumbling Sean Fleming (FF) & Louis O Reilly (SF) on the Saturday with Katie HANNON show, Fleming (my local TD as it happens) made a very cutting statement that the suppliers of the offending materials were SF supporters, it wouldn't take a genius to work out what the inference was and whilst not a SF supporter or affiliated to any Political party, I was quite taken aback by his comments, offering solutions may have been more productive rather than making wild accusations and attempting political point scoring.

Regardless, I hope a solution is found, I'm sticking to my belief, Insurer's, Mortgage provider's, Surveyors, Engineers or architects, whomever signed off on these properties and the suppliers are ultimately accountable, I just find it beggar's belief everyone but the home owners were able to walk away from this disgraceful debacle with no sanction or financial responsibility.

Ace2007

Dempo1 wrote: »

I have to I was quite taken aback by his comments, offering solutions may have been more productive rather than making wild accusations and attempting political point scoring.

But sure that’s what all political parties do - it’s point scoring - I’m sure it was also coming from SF side as well - just look at their website - they talk more about what government parties have done than what they will do.

What will SF do to solve this problem? We’ve heard one of their TDs come out and say that the state can’t pay full costs - but have SF actually said what they will do or is that carefully guarded so not to lose any potential votes?

Dempo1

Ace2007 wrote: »

But sure that’s what all political parties do - it’s point scoring - I’m sure it was also coming from SF side as well - just look at their website - they talk more about what government parties have done than what they will do.

What will SF do to solve this problem? We’ve heard one of their TDs come out and say that the state can’t pay full costs - but have SF actually said what they will do or is that carefully guarded so not to lose any potential votes?

I'm not going to get into a political debate, there's ample threads that deal with those issue's,

I accept of course there is insesant political point scoring going on and that's partly my point, with few solutions being offered. However I find it a bit rich for the Taoiseach (who I actually admire generally) to suddenly be genuinely shocked, it's as if this story just broke.

I think those affected by this appalling situation know full well who politically have genuinely made efforts on their behalf locally and nationally.

The dig by Sean Fleming who is hapless at the best of times, seemed to me to be completely uncalled for, the issue is not the political leanings of a developer or the suppliers of faulty products, it's about their responsibilities and lack of accountability that's at issue along with scant regulations that have in essence not been enforced for years.

Mcdock

Technique wrote: »

Do Cassidy's own Churchill Stone? What other quarries do they own?

Different cassidys, cousins own Churchill stone

babybuilder

Mcdock wrote: »

Different cassidys, cousins own Churchill stone

No business connections. Just blood.

NIMAN

Free to read piece on a pyrite case in Mayo
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/pyrite-in-mayo-we-worked-hard-we-bought-our-house-in-good-faith-1.4592276

The pieces in the Indo website on Donegal homes are behind a paywall unfortunately.

jimmycrackcorm

NIMAN wrote:

Free to read piece on a pyrite case in Mayo

What people will see in this is a a big detached house and the people also want the state to pay for a new kitchen.

"The scheme covers 90 per cent of the repair costs, with a €247,500 cap, but Ms Pye said there are many other “hidden†costs, such as replacing doors, windows and kitchen cabinets."

This is why I don't think looking for 100% redress is a runner. Instead those affected should be looking at getting the existing scheme to operate efficiently such as sorting out the testing costs.

Ace2007

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

This is why I don't think looking for 100% redress is a runner. Instead those affected should be looking at getting the existing scheme to operate efficiently such as sorting out the testing costs.

It's why the 100% redress scheme need to define it - shouting from the rooftop that you want 100% redress but not saying what that is, and then having articles like the above - will put the general public off.

To put in in context, there are thousands of people homeless in Ireland, there are many thousands more than can't get on the property ladder (although that's another argument), however in all these cases the government isn't simply going out and building homes for these people - so really asking the government to rebuild the house with all the fittings and associated costs that come with him without the owner taking some responsibility and hardship is not going to win many supporters outside of those counties.

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

It's why the 100% redress scheme need to define it - shouting from the rooftop that you want 100% redress but not saying what that is, and then having articles like the above - will put the general public off.

To put in in context, there are thousands of people homeless in Ireland, there are many thousands more than can't get on the property ladder (although that's another argument), however in all these cases the government isn't simply going out and building homes for these people - so really asking the government to rebuild the house with all the fittings and associated costs that come with him without the owner taking some responsibility and hardship is not going to win many supporters outside of those counties.

Have many of the thousands of homeless people in this country paid for a house & mortgage (and continue to do so) but will be soon made homeless due to negligence?
Not comparable situations

jj880

Just an update on how the council are running the current scheme:

"Was told three weeks ago we should have approval in the next week, then received yet another spurious request for further information, which was duly submitted, but have now been told that this means we have lost our place in the queue. When an RFI is submitted, people are then placed back in the queue again based on the date order their RFI was answered. just been told now that we shouldn’t be making any plans for accommodation or anything else until DCC gives us approval. Do they have any idea how much worse their ineptitude is making this whole process???? I suspect this is less about DCC being thorough, and more about using whatever tactics they can to delay the process still further. It’s now been a year since our Applicaton was submitted, and six months since we gained Stage One approval, and we are still no further on…….."

There needs to be an independent panel setup for any updated scheme. They should at the very least have powers to access council staff and stamp this out. Call it whatever you like. Intentional/incompetence or something else. It's going to send families under with stress.

MrMusician18

jj880 wrote: »

Just an update on how the council are running the current scheme:

"Was told three weeks ago we should have approval in the next week, then received yet another spurious request for further information, which was duly submitted, but have now been told that this means we have lost our place in the queue. When an RFI is submitted, people are then placed back in the queue again based on the date order their RFI was answered. just been told now that we shouldn’t be making any plans for accommodation or anything else until DCC gives us approval. Do they have any idea how much worse their ineptitude is making this whole process???? I suspect this is less about DCC being thorough, and more about using whatever tactics they can to delay the process still further. It’s now been a year since our Applicaton was submitted, and six months since we gained Stage One approval, and we are still no further on…….."

There needs to be an independent panel setup for any updated scheme. They should at the very least have powers to access council staff and stamp this out. Call it whatever you like. Intentional/incompetence or something else. It's going to send families under with stress.

Why would DCC want to delay the scheme?

Ace2007

timmyntc wrote: »

Have many of the thousands of homeless people in this country paid for a house & mortgage (and continue to do so) but will be soon made homeless due to negligence?
Not comparable situations

It may not be comparable but that's how it will be perceived by the general public. I'll ask you - can you define what 100% redress actually covers?

MrMusician18

Ace2007 wrote: »

It may not be comparable but that's how it will be perceived by the general public. I'll ask you - can you define what 100% redress actually covers?

It's not 100% redress it's >100% redress. Basically from the various bits and pieces the group have said to the media they want an uncapped scheme that will rebuild houses in their entirety to either existing or new designs to the current building regulations (so including heat pumps, solar panels and the like). It should be fitted and finished to the standard determined by the homeowner. They also want 100% of storage as well as temporary accommodation costs covered by the scheme.

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

It may not be comparable but that's how it will be perceived by the general public. I'll ask you - can you define what 100% redress actually covers?

The cost to repair the house, either by replacing outer/inner leaf, or full demolition and rebuild to the same spec. & Costs of temporary accomodation & storage of furniture and fittings. Same terms as pyrite.

jj880

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Why would DCC want to delay the scheme?

Some of your more recent posts have been helpful to this thread.

But if you are going to start trying to bait again I hope the mods follow through on their promise to ban you.

The point of my post (which lets be honest you are already aware of) is the current scheme needs changed. It's too slow with too much red tape and adding unnecessary stress to famalies.

MrMusician18

jj880 wrote: »

Some of your more recent posts have been helpful to this thread.

But if you are going to start trying to bait again I hope the mods follow through on their promise to ban you.

The point of my post (which lets be honest you are already aware of) is the current scheme needs changed. It's too slow with too much red tape and adding unnecessary stress to famalies.

I genuinely don't know why DCC would want to delay the scheme. The State is centrally paying out these funds so it's not as if the money is coming from their budget.

I don't see any motive other than perhaps vindictiveness, but then there are likely council staff that are in mica homes themselves. The delays are more likely down to the design of the scheme and how the administration and controls are designed and resourced rather than any willingness to willfully delay claims.

Unless I'm missing something?

Ace2007

MrMusician18 wrote: »

It's not 100% redress it's >100% redress. Basically from the various bits and pieces the group have said to the media they want an uncapped scheme that will rebuild houses in their entirety to either existing or new designs to the current building regulations (so including heat pumps, solar panels and the like). It should be fitted and finished to the standard determined by the homeowner. They also want 100% of storage as well as temporary accommodation costs covered by the scheme.

timmyntc wrote: »

The cost to repair the house, either by replacing outer/inner leaf, or full demolition and rebuild to the same spec. & Costs of temporary accomodation & storage of furniture and fittings. Same terms as pyrite.

Two answers in space of 2 minutes and two different answers - and that's where the problem lies - one of you are saying rebuild to same spec, the other - rebuild same or new designs with all the mod cons, (even though they may not have had them before).

Also, I'm looking at the FB group right now - and states "100% redress no less!!!!" It doesn't state ">100%" so again - people have different ideas and the message is getting blurred. People adding to their FB profile page and there is no "greater than sign" -

You need one clear message - that everyone is following