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

MrMusician18

Ace2007 wrote: »

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

To be fair, I'm not part of the group and my post, including the ">" is my interpretation of their wants. The group are calling it 100% redress, but when you tot up the wants it will come in greater than the rebuilding cost.

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

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

The discrepancy between existing/modern spec is not of campaigners making - but because of planning issues surrouding rebuilds.
Ideally, there would be exemptions to allow a full rebuild to the old spec - but IIRC any full rebuilds are subject to current planning and building regs - this is one of the issues with the existing scheme.

jj880

Ace2007 wrote: »

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

I agree the finer points of the scheme need ironed out. That will come in time.

If a homeowner has to get their kitchen professionally removed and stored for the duration of the redress process then reinstalled I would bet my left nut the cost would be similar to a new kitchen install.

People are trying to skew the perception here. No-one I know is asking for "all the mod cons" or extensions or a converted attic to be thrown in at the expense of the state. They just want their homes restored.

Ace2007

jj880 wrote: »

I agree the finer points of the scheme need ironed out. That will come in time.

If a homeowner has to get their kitchen professionally removed and stored for the duration of the redress process then reinstalled I would bet my left nut the cost would be similar to a new kitchen install.

People are trying to skew the perception here. No-one I know is asking for "all the mod cons" or extensions or a converted attic to be thrown in at the expense of the state. They just want their homes restored.

I get that it will come in time - but even reading the public FB page that they have over the last week, there are some saying that the initial mica group sold out when they accepted the 90/10 deal, but in reality they never accepted it, it whats what was given - but it's the communication that was lacking.

And again now, if they aren't clear on what they want, they could end up getting a deal that they think is great, but then on paper it's different. As one put it - bit like Oliver, please sir can i have some more. They got a deal, some aren't happy - and now looking for more. What's to say that if they get a deal this time, that another group wont' go again looking for more again?

On the spec point, it was another poster who said:

or new designs to the current building regulations (so including heat pumps, solar panels and the like)

Examples of deals that could be offered, that some might think are good, while others wouldn't include:

Government gets equity in house to be repaid when sold, or when owners die. That would mean no upfront costs - likely to be shot down.

Government to cover cost of mortgages, but home owners fix houses - this way they could walk away no debt and start again at their own expense, and/or sell the home that's worth a fraction of the price - but overall they should be up in the deal.

Government/investors essentially buy the properties and rebuild and rent out to the families at agreed rates over their lifetimes.

Those 3 options off top of head would fix the issues at hand - but and this is the big but - how many would accept them offers? No stress, no financial hardship, etc. But it's likely most would say no deal.

emo72

Would I be bad for thinking let them have their mod cons? These people have been through hell, I wouldn't begrudge them having a new kitchen, modern windows and doors, and some solar heating. That's just me though.

overshoot

emo72 wrote: »

Would I be bad for thinking let them have their mod cons? These people have been through hell, I wouldn't begrudge them having a new kitchen, modern windows and doors, and some solar heating. That's just me though.

Tbh there's 2 different groups in that...
Windows, solar/heat pumps go towards your BER rating/compliance with building regs. A demolition and rebuild means the new house should comply with the current building regs and A-rated.

Then again with just outer leaf replacement, that would affect more than 25% of the envelope and would mean you should be bringing the house up to a B2 which could be onerous enough too... That's just statutory requirements since the tweaks to Part L in 2019, not anything superfluous

Mod cons are new kitchens and doors

muffler

Ace2007 wrote: »

Two answers in space of 2 minutes and two different answers - and that's where the problem lies

First of all you're not keeping up to speed with who is posting what and more so their views on the redress scheme.

Secondly people (just like you) are expressing opinions only so dont assume that the opinion of any person here is representative of the views of any support / action groups.

MrMusician18

[PHP][/PHP]

overshoot wrote: »

Tbh there's 2 different groups in that...
Windows, solar/heat pumps go towards your BER rating/compliance with building regs. A demolition and rebuild means the new house should comply with the current building regs and A-rated.

Then again with just outer leaf replacement, that would affect more than 25% of the envelope and would mean you should be bringing the house up to a B2 which could be onerous enough too... That's just statutory requirements since the tweaks to Part L in 2019, not anything superfluous

Mod cons are new kitchens and doors

The proposed scheme has an exception for those in the pyrite/mica. Buildings only need be reconstructed to the building regulations in force at the time of the original build.

I suspect this is less about DCC being thorough, and more about using whatever tactics they can to delay the process still further

I genuinely am interested in why people think DCC are engaging in the above tactics. I can't see any motive for them being slow, but as I said, perhaps I'm missing something.

jimmycrackcorm

emo72 wrote:

Would I be bad for thinking let them have their mod cons? These people have been through hell, I wouldn't begrudge them having a new kitchen, modern windows and doors, and some solar heating. That's just me though.

The taxpayer will have to fund this scheme with billions. Would you agree to an increase in property tax for example to go towards this?

muffler

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I genuinely am interested in why people think DCC are engaging in the above tactics.

They aren't thinking but experiencing the issues.

muffler

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The taxpayer will have to fund this scheme with billions. Would you agree to an increase in property tax for example to go towards this?

Where are you getting the increase in property tax from?

Ace2007

muffler wrote: »

Where are you getting the increase in property tax from?

He's asking would people be happy if the government stuck a 1% property tax to pay for these homes.

I too had thought of that but is it fair that those that don't own a property don't contribute?

Would people be happy with a 1% increase tax in all bands to pay for it?

The money has to come from somewhere so whose going to pay for it?

NIMAN

Leo is talking tax decreases!

I don't think the government would sell any tax increase as being done to fix one issue in the country. It's not done that way.

If they tried to sell more tax as being done to fix Donegal homes, you can guarantee it wouldn't go down well. People would start shouting about education, hospital waiting lists, economy, homeless crisis etc.

Instead the government would raise extra tax and sort the homes out of the central pot.

Or they could borrow at near 0% to help?

MrMusician18

muffler wrote: »

They aren't thinking but experiencing the issues.

Indeed they are experiencing them and an ulterior motive for this was implied. I want to know what they think this motive is.

Because to me such suggestions appear to be entirely unfounded. It looks far more like a public unfriendly scheme that is under resourced at the administrative end.

Unless you or the poster I quoted could enlighten us?

Ace2007

muffler wrote: »

First of all you're not keeping up to speed with who is posting what and more so their views on the redress scheme.

Secondly people (just like you) are expressing opinions only so dont assume that the opinion of any person here is representative of the views of any support / action groups.

I understand that, but in all the social media posts and their FB pages, no where does it state it - last thing the group needs is for the TV reporters to ask random people on street tomorrow and then they all give different answers.

You could have people tomorrow say the government bailed out the banks, why not bail out the people, when in reality the government got equity in those said banks - but not many home owners protesting will want that.

A clear message, with everyone fighting and protesting for the same goal will get results a lot quick, instead of having 3 different groups.

NIMAN

There won't be any in-depth interviews on the news tomorrow, it appears it will break RTE hearts to even acknowledge the protest.

A few sound bites from marchers is the most you'll get. It will wash over most viewers watching the news.

NIMAN

Can someone explain what the Taoiseach chatting to the AG is of significance?

Technique

NIMAN wrote: »

Or they could borrow at near 0% to help?

The ECB is offering interest rates on state borrowing of as low as -1% to help rebuild economies post-Covid. There is always money available if the will is there.

NIMAN

Technique wrote: »

The ECB is offering interest rates on state borrowing of as low as -1% to help rebuild economies post-Covid. There is always money available if the will is there.

We have a debt of what, 200bn?

Surely sticking on another couple of bn in the great scheme of things won't make much difference?

muffler

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Unless you or the poster I quoted could enlighten us?

You need membership of our club to be entitled to that info!

muffler

NIMAN wrote: »

Can someone explain what the Taoiseach chatting to the AG is of significance?

With a view to looking for money basically. Can the government sue Cassidys and / or their insurers. Can the seek financial redress in turn from insurance companies, banks etc

Ace2007

NIMAN wrote: »

We have a debt of what, 200bn?

Surely sticking on another couple of bn in the great scheme of things won't make much difference?

Yea it won't, but at some stage we have to pay it back, and there are probably a 100+ other projects that would benefit from billions being poured into them. I could probably list 5 projects off top of my head that would benefit the country and it's people more than fixing the Mica issue, so there is a balancing act that the government need to fix

Finally - how much do you want to borrow for this scheme? 1billion? 3? 5?

Geuze

Technique wrote: »

The ECB is offering interest rates on state borrowing of as low as -1% to help rebuild economies post-Covid. There is always money available if the will is there.

The ECB does not lend to States. It never has, and never will.

The ECB lends to banks.

jj880

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Indeed they are experiencing them and an ulterior motive for this was implied. I want to know what they think this motive is.

Because to me such suggestions appear to be entirely unfounded. It looks far more like a public unfriendly scheme that is under resourced at the administrative end.

Unless you or the poster I quoted could enlighten us?

If you want to describe a scheme that is unfit for purpose as a "public unfriendly scheme that is under resourced at the administrative end" you are baiting.

Even by your own definition it is a scheme designed to delay applicants. Give it a rest with your pedantic nonsense.

NIMAN

Ace2007 wrote: »

Yea it won't, but at some stage we have to pay it back, and there are probably a 100+ other projects that would benefit from billions being poured into them. I could probably list 5 projects off top of my head that would benefit the country and it's people more than fixing the Mica issue, so there is a balancing act that the government need to fix

Finally - how much do you want to borrow for this scheme? 1billion? 3? 5?

No-one knows yet how much this is going to cost. But I'd guess 1bn isn't going to sort it, unless most homes get outer leaf only fixed.

Of course there will be projects that might benefit the country or a greater number of people more, but that doesn't mean you simply forget about thousands of citizens who need this issue fixed.

MrMusician18

muffler wrote: »

You need membership of our club to be entitled to that info!

Ha, fair enough.
My concern was that the anger at the system was resulting in a lashing out at it, with unfounded allegations of ulterior motives being levelled against it. All that will do is get the group you need help from to put up walls and be on the defensive. Ulterior motives is also the least likely reason why progress is slow.

Most likely is that the process has been inadvertently designed to be inaccessible to the lay man and the resources to administer it in DCC are inadequate - this happens all the time. So rather than lashing out, it would be much more productive to lobby government for a simplification of the process and increase DCC resources in administration of it.

Big lobby groups can be like herding cats at times so I hope those that lead it aren't going off on tangents, chasing false leads and keeping firmly focussed on the goal.They also need to be realistic with them and their followers about what can actually be achieved.

trixi001

Ace2007 wrote: »

He's asking would people be happy if the government stuck a 1% property tax to pay for these homes.

I too had thought of that but is it fair that those that don't own a property don't contribute?

Would people be happy with a 1% increase tax in all bands to pay for it?

The money has to come from somewhere so whose going to pay for it?

I think a long term solution is needed, pyrite and mica may just be the tip of the ice berg., who knows what other structure defects are lurking..

We need a tax that is ring-fenced to pay for these issues..eg: tax developers, purchasers of new developments, suppliers of construction materials etc.

Similar to the home bond scheme but not expiring after 10 years and government provided

As for the redress scheme not knowing what it is looking, it is clear, it's looking 100% redress, including storage and accommodation costs. It wants houses made from defective bricks in Donegal to be treated the same as houses made from defective bricks in Dublin..one of rhe hastags they use is paritywithpyrite.

Good luck to everyone going to Dublin tomorrow.

MrMusician18

trixi001 wrote: »

I think a long term solution is needed, pyrite and mica may just be the tip of the ice berg., who knows what other structure defects are lurking..

We need a tax that is ring-fenced to pay for these issues..eg: tax developers, purchasers of new developments, suppliers of construction materials etc.

Similar to the home bond scheme but not expiring after 10 years and government provided

As for the redress scheme not knowing what it is looking, it is clear, it's looking 100% redress, including storage and accommodation costs. It wants houses made from defective bricks in Donegal to be treated the same as houses made from defective bricks in Dublin..one of rhe hastags they use is paritywithpyrite.

Good luck to everyone going to Dublin tomorrow.

According to the Expert group on blocks, the majority of the affected here were direct labour builds. They also didn't adhere fully to the building regulation TGD's either (but if they had the same outcome would've been likely, so I'm not saying that was the reason here).

I don't know how you can extend homebond like insurance to direct labour builds tbh.

trixi001

MrMusician18 wrote: »

According to the Expert group on blocks, the majority of the affected here were direct labour builds. They also didn't adhere fully to the building regulation TGD's either (but if they had the same outcome would've been likely, so I'm not saying that was the reason here).

I don't know how you can extend homebond like insurance to direct labour builds tbh.

Many were self builds, but there are a lot of developments affected too, just driving around inishowen and letterkenny, you can see the tell tale cracks on the houses.

A additional tax in every new home registered, regardless of who builds it...essentially stamp duty, but paid by the builder..and if it was a self build, the owner pays..

Houses not adhering to building standards is not the issue here, completely irrelevant

MrMusician18

trixi001 wrote: »

Many were self builds, but there are a lot of developments affected too, just driving around inishowen and letterkenny, you can see the tell tale cracks on the houses.

A additional tax in every new home registered, regardless of who builds it...essentially stamp duty, but paid by the builder..and if it was a self build, the owner pays..

Houses not adhering to building standards is not the issue here, completely irrelevant

Agreed it's not the issue here. It would be however if the State were to provide what are essentially general structural warranties to all builds regardless of quality.

This is off topic so I'll leave that there.