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

jj880

A poster in the redress group summed up this scandal best a few days ago.

She said people are not looking for a handout here. They want what they have already paid for.

It has taken a year since the current scheme was launched for the first home to be demolished.

At the end of July changing the redress percentages alone isnt going to cut it. This scheme needs binned and whatever replaces it needs to process applicants as quickly as possible. No more messing about.

NIMAN

FFVII wrote: »

Are houses still being built with mica? If not when did it stop?

The scandal here is that it didn't stop back in 2014 when it was first spotted. If not before.

That the authorities let another 6 or 7 years of building go ahead when hundreds of houses were showing the issue is shocking and something only an independent investigation can get to the bottom of.

malinheader

NIMAN wrote: »

The scandal here is that it didn't stop back in 2014 when it was first spotted. If not before.

That the authorities let another 6 or 7 years of building go ahead when hundreds of houses were showing the issue is shocking and something only an independent investigation can get to the bottom of.

Don't forget to mention an independent investigation with no one with a conflict of interest sitting in the group or committee, especially the chairman.

jj880

JCJCJC wrote: »

Would it not be even simpler to trace the sales records from the quarries and block makers?

Not sure about this. I think a % content of mica should be tested for to qualify for redress. For instance i had my developer in to look at my house. He couldn't tell me who my block supplier was for definite. Another resident knows the foreman personally who worked on our houses (built from 2005 to 2007). He said they got lorry loads of blocks from 3 suppliers. 1 of which has been confirmed for selling mica blocks.

Cee-Jay-Cee

The testing needs to be revisited and streamlined. There is no need to take samples from every wall. If two outer leaf walls and one inner leaf are found to contain mica that should be enough. Why the need to test every wall. I personally know someone who has been approved for a total demolition except for one inner wall! The CoCo engineer will not allow for it to be demolished too as it doesn’t contain the required amount of mica to make it unsafe. Obviously the person is going to toss it and rebuild it anyway and pay for it themselves but it just goes to show the level of stupidity and ignorance being applied to the scheme by idiotic CoCo desk jockies.

Donegal CoCo need to be removed from the process as they are part of the problem. They have frustrated the scheme since it started. Their engineers are desk jockies with no experience and they should not be allowed anywhere near it. They need to be investigated for their criminal behaviour in continuing to use defective blocks/concrete in public projects despite knowing for the last 8 years that there were serious problems with the quality of the products.

An independent test centre should be established and independent engineers assigned to the projects who are willing to sign off on the rebuilds. Costs for reports and paintwork for the process should be capped, if they don’t want the work, that’s fine, there are plenty of other companies that will.

Banks need to be instructed/ordered to suspend mortgages with no back interest or fees for the duration of the rebuild while the people are not living in the house.

Insurance companies need to be taken to task where people who have insurance are able to claim some of the costs back from them.

Homebond should be ordered to pay out on the hundreds of bonded homes. They should not be simply allowed to walk away from it. They made millions from builds in the boom times and so now is time to pay it back!

NIMAN

@Cee Jay Cee

What you're advocating all sounds like accountability.

Don't you know we don't worry about that sort of stuff in Ireland!

Thargor

Would be interesting to know if the quarry owners and brick suppliers and their kids/relations who built houses during this time are caught up in this aswell or if they mysteriously used blocks from a different source...

JCJCJC

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

<snipped>
Banks need to be instructed/ordered to suspend mortgages with no back interest or fees for the duration of the rebuild while the people are not living in the house.


Homebond should be ordered to pay out on the hundreds of bonded homes. They should not be simply allowed to walk away from it. They made millions from builds in the boom times and so now is time to pay it back!

Who has authority to give the orders you propose? I can’t see any legal basis for what you suggest.

The banks’ position is interesting. If a mica-affected house has a substantial mortgage, it seems reasonable to assume that it now has no market value except site value, less the considerable cost of demolition, site clearance and licensed waste removal. The homeowner therefore has no equity in the property - the mortgagor’s interest exceeds the value of the asset. If at the end of all this some sort of financial compensation becomes payable, who should get it? The homeowner, who has only bare legal title, or the bank, which has a legal interest exceeding the current value? I’m only throwing this out for debate and discussion, not offering any opinion.

If the houses have Homebond cover, or had when faults appeared, why are Homebond not paying out?

JCJCJC

Thargor wrote: »

Would be interesting to know if the quarry owners and brick suppliers and their kids/relations who built houses during this time are caught up in this aswell or if they mysteriously used blocks from a different source...

A classic Irish way of looking at things. Even if they did - so what? People contributing here seem to be saying that nobody is pursuing the quarries or block suppliers.

boombang

JCJCJC wrote: »

A classic Irish way of looking at things. Even if they did - so what? People contributing here seem to be saying that nobody is pursuing the quarries or block suppliers.

What's classically Irish about that perspective?

Thargor

JCJCJC wrote: »

A classic Irish way of looking at things. Even if they did - so what? People contributing here seem to be saying that nobody is pursuing the quarries or block suppliers.

So what? You cant see how it would be significant if those involved werent using the product they were supplying? You wouldn't think that would be suspicious in the slightest? Wow.

JCJCJC

Thargor wrote: »

So what? You cant see how it would be significant if those involved werent using the product they were supplying? You wouldn't think that would be suspicious in the slightest? Wow.

I can see how it would be significant if the quarry owners were taken to court for knowingly supplying bad blocks, then obviously they would be asked why they used somebody else’s blocks - assuming that could be established in the first place. But, since it seems they’re not being taken to court, it’s irrelevant whether they built their own houses and all their relations’s houses from their own blocks or Lego.

Cal4567

https://www.businesspost.ie/houses/obrien-to-put-housing-agency-in-charge-of-mica-redress-8859d4eb

O’Brien to put Housing Agency in charge of mica redress

The Housing Minister believes the revised €1.5 billion scheme would be too complex for Mayo and Donegal councils to administer

That bit in bold is the sub heading on the article. Yet another indictment for what we describe as 'local government'.

I think we should invent a thread entitled 'What do the Local Authorities actually do well?'

jj880

Cal4567 wrote: »

https://www.businesspost.ie/houses/obrien-to-put-housing-agency-in-charge-of-mica-redress-8859d4eb

O’Brien to put Housing Agency in charge of mica redress

The Housing Minister believes the revised €1.5 billion scheme would be too complex for Mayo and Donegal councils to administer

That bit in bold is the sub heading on the article. Yet another indictment for what we describe as 'local government'.

I think we should invent a thread entitled 'What do the Local Authorities actually do well?'

Interesting article.

Anyone know any history regarding the Housing Agency's track record?

boombang

Haven't read every post in the thread, but does anybody know the use of these blocks in the North? Geographically very close to Donegal. I know contractors would likely not buy in Ireland because of a currency difference, but it would be interesting to know if there's any difference from a regulatory perspective.

What is the expected cost to the taxpayer?

muffler

whatnow! wrote: »

What is the expected cost to the taxpayer?

3 posts above.

NIMAN

boombang wrote: »

Haven't read every post in the thread, but does anybody know the use of these blocks in the North? Geographically very close to Donegal. I know contractors would likely not buy in Ireland because of a currency difference, but it would be interesting to know if there's any difference from a regulatory perspective.

Afaik, Cassidys have said they supplied blocks to the north, but apparently they were supplying harder blocks as they have a different standard there to the south.

Derry city council have said they did a review and they do not have a mica issue.

But I always remember seeing a house on the way out of Strabane on the road to Derry that definitely had mica like cracking. So I would say there has to be some cases in the north of private homes built with Cassidys blocks. Time will tell.

Dempo1

jj880 wrote: »

Interesting article.

Anyone know any history regarding the Housing Agency's track record?

Honestly I don't know but I have an omnious feeling it's being kicked down another long road, All well in good getting the housing agency involved but if the current housing crisis is anything to go by as a metric of their success to date , I'd not be terribly inspired.

Their Mission statement reads

Our Mission is to promote the supply of housing to meet current and future needs and demand by being a centre of expert knowledge on housing, supporting housing policy development and implementing effective housing programmes in collaboration with key stakeholders.

In essence, gobbledegook or perhaps it should read, mission impossible?

Interesting however, they over saw the Pyrite scheme, but two very different problems.

Also the hapless housing minister further mentions going after those responsible, prosecutions, recoup some of the costs? Perhaps I'm wrong but a little late in the day for that course of action, this should have happened years ago. This is going to cost far more than is being suggested and nothing but full demolition and rebuild is necessary, I'd reckon, minimum of €2 billion

malinheader

Cal4567 wrote: »

https://www.businesspost.ie/houses/obrien-to-put-housing-agency-in-charge-of-mica-redress-8859d4eb

O’Brien to put Housing Agency in charge of mica redress

The Housing Minister believes the revised €1.5 billion scheme would be too complex for Mayo and Donegal councils to administer

That bit in bold is the sub heading on the article. Yet another indictment for what we describe as 'local government'.

I think we should invent a thread entitled 'What do the Local Authorities actually do well?'

In my eyes eyes Donegal CC should have nothing to do with with the mica redress scheme and anyone who had any input into the council until an investigation determines how much and when they knew they were using defective blocks, and more to the point why they kept on using them until they were pressurised from the public to stop. That's if they have stopped.

malinheader

NIMAN wrote: »

Afaik, Cassidys have said they supplied blocks to the north, but apparently they were supplying harder blocks as they have a different standard there to the south.

Derry city council have said they did a review and they do not have a mica issue.

But I always remember seeing a house on the way out of Strabane on the road to Derry that definitely had mica like cracking. So I would say there has to be some cases in the north of private homes built with Cassidys blocks. Time will tell.

I always thought that was a damning statement to the way this country operates. "Stronger blocks have to be supplied in the north as they have a HIGHER standard. "

Says it all really.

10000maniacs

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I haven't been banned...yet.

But yes you are right, it started with one person and when they got a holiday for a week a few others appeared who continued in a similar vein, its like they were recruited as they all had the exact same line of thought. Maybe they're all the same person posting from different accounts???

I just find it strange how people are so insistent that families pay for this themselves. The country has spent €9billion on the pandemic which we will have to pay for. I worked every day throughout it, no working from home or PUP and I accept that my taxes will have to help repay it. These families took out mortgages to build their homes, VAT was payable on all the materials used to build, workers paid tax on their wages etc the government and banks have profited hugely from each one of those houses built and its only fair that they now give back to the people.

They're estimating that the MICA crisis could cost over €2 billion however that will be over the next 5-10years and not a one off payment this or next year. I have no issue that my tax will also go towards repaying this.

I think this thread has somehow just attracted a number of mean spirited begrudgers who somehow think that if this never happened and that the government weren't going to spend €2billion or whatever it costs, that they would somehow be better off and happier in their lives. :rolleyes:

The taxpayer is not meant to be a last stop insurance broker for everything that goes wrong. People don't want €5 billion of their hard earned tax blown on stuff like this. We will go bankrupt as a country if we continue down this path.

overshoot

10000maniacs wrote: »

The taxpayer is not meant to be a last stop insurance broker for everything that goes wrong. People don't want €5 billion of their hard earned tax blown on stuff like this. We will go bankrupt as a country if we continue down this path.

Considering you're going to bankrupt a lot of these people if you don't... Do you think it's going to come in above/below 5000 social/affordable homes? I've near 1000 social/affordable homes in Dublin on my desk as it is. At least the people this happened to went out and built their own house of their own back as a start.

Plus we already went down this path with redress and pyrite in Dublin/Leinster, had you an issue there?

10000maniacs

overshoot wrote: »

Considering you're going to bankrupt a lot of these people if you don't... Do you think it's going to come in above/below 5000 social/affordable homes? I've near 1000 social/affordable homes in Dublin on my desk as it is. At least the people this happened to went out and built their own house of their own back as a start.

Plus we already went down this path with redress and pyrite in Dublin/Leinster, had you an issue there?

I had an issue with taxpayers coughing up for pyrite too. We don't pay tax to be last stop building insurance for everyone, sad as it may be for them.

overshoot

10000maniacs wrote: »

I had an issue with taxpayers coughing up for pyrite too. We don't pay tax to be last stop building insurance for everyone, sad as it may be for them.

Yes we pay our taxes so the state can create bodies to create and enforce standards so as to avoid these situations

So you'd prefer footing the costs of a lot of new build social homes over this scheme?

jj880

malinheader wrote: »

In my eyes eyes Donegal CC should have nothing to do with with the mica redress scheme and anyone who had any input into the council until an investigation determines how much and when they knew they were using defective blocks, and more to the point why they kept on using them until they were pressurised from the public to stop. That's if they have stopped.

From the Business post article:

The agency would be responsible for processing applications from homeowners and selecting and paying for the consultants and building contractors required to carry out the remedial works. This would be different from the existing compensation scheme, where householders have to get quotes from builders themselves and then are given a council grant to cover the cost.

Sounds promising if they get it sorted quickly.

If companies like Cassidy are not required to have insurance for something like this and the taxpayer has to continue to pay for it the next company won't bother with insurance either because why would they lower their profits? It's the exact same as the banks lending irresponsibly when they know if things go bad the taxpayer will bail them out.

Why does it cost €8,000 to test for mica?

boombang

boombang wrote: »

Haven't read every post in the thread, but does anybody know the use of these blocks in the North? Geographically very close to Donegal. I know contractors would likely not buy in Ireland because of a currency difference, but it would be interesting to know if there's any difference from a regulatory perspective.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. Remember when sterling was trading at €1.40?

10000maniacs wrote: »

The taxpayer is not meant to be a last stop insurance broker for everything that goes wrong. People don't want €5 billion of their hard earned tax blown on stuff like this. We will go bankrupt as a country if we continue down this path.

True. The taxpayer shouldn't have to repeatedly pay up.


Here's the question, though.


Should Government ensure adequate legislation, and enforcement of regulations for building materials - or should we just pay for social housing for all of these people? Bear in mind, these people already paid for their homes. None of this is their fault...
Now they find themselves in a horrendous position, facing homelessness.


So, who should be held accountable? Surely you are not going to suggest it's the victims of this whole debacle?

JCJCJC

whatnow! wrote: »

If companies like Cassidy are not required to have insurance for something like this and the taxpayer has to continue to pay for it the next company won't bother with insurance either because why would they lower their profits? It's the exact same as the banks lending irresponsibly when they know if things go bad the taxpayer will bail them out.

Why does it cost €8,000 to test for mica?

Nobody would bother with insurance if they didn’t have a risk of being sued and having to meet the cost personally. From what I’ve read here, the suppliers are still trading because they claim to have no insurance, and people are not pursuing the company or it’s members, shareholders and directors any further.

Thargor

JCJCJC wrote: »

I can see how it would be significant if the quarry owners were taken to court for knowingly supplying bad blocks, then obviously they would be asked why they used somebody else’s blocks - assuming that could be established in the first place. But, since it seems they’re not being taken to court, it’s irrelevant whether they built their own houses and all their relations’s houses from their own blocks or Lego.

Bizarre attitude.

JCJCJC

Thargor wrote: »

Bizarre attitude.

Go on then... explain why it is relevant to know whether the relatives of the quarry owners used the defective blocks to build their houses, in circumstances where the claims are being made against Paddy the Taxpayer and the quarry owners are not being pursued to the extent of their assets? That’s what’s bizarre. And while you’re at it, how do you propose to establish if the quarry owners’s family used the bad blocks? Surely if they did, a drive-by of their houses should tell you?

muffler

NIMAN wrote: »

But I always remember seeing a house on the way out of Strabane on the road to Derry that definitely had mica like cracking. So I would say there has to be some cases in the north of private homes built with Cassidys blocks. Time will tell.

There is every chance the blocks came from Cassidys. Christopher Gallagher supplied blocks to lots of people / contractors within a 10 mile radius of Lifford and beyond. Gallagher got his blocks from Cassidys - fact.

Penfailed

10000maniacs wrote: »

I had an issue with taxpayers coughing up for pyrite too. We don't pay tax to be last stop building insurance for everyone, sad as it may be for them.

What do you pay tax for?

10000maniacs

Deleted User wrote: »

True. The taxpayer shouldn't have to repeatedly pay up.


Here's the question, though.


Should Government ensure adequate legislation, and enforcement of regulations for building materials - or should we just pay for social housing for all of these people? Bear in mind, these people already paid for their homes. None of this is their fault...
Now they find themselves in a horrendous position, facing homelessness.
So, who should be held accountable? Surely you are not going to suggest it's the victims of this whole debacle?

In this order

1: The Builder
2: The surveyor
3: The clients solicitor
4: The client
(I placed the client at 4 only because the assumption is they hired trained professionals to do his work, but others would place them higher. I wouldn't have allowed this to happen to me)

Penfailed

whatnow! wrote: »

Why does it cost €8,000 to test for mica?

It doesn't.

Penfailed

10000maniacs wrote: »

In this order

1: The Builder
2: The surveyor
3: The clients solicitor
4: The client
(I placed the client at 4 only because the assumption is they hired trained professionals to do his work, but others would place them higher. I wouldn't have allowed this to happen to me)

How would you have ensured this didn't happen to you?

10000maniacs

Penfailed wrote: »

What do you pay tax for?

Certainly not for pyrite and mica issues.
Basically the government implement laws, pay people to ensure the law is upheld, and taxpayers’ money pays for these services and other government services of all kinds. The government is comprised of a few parts: the legislators (those who make laws), executives (those who enforce laws), judges (those who decipher laws), and many others. The money received from taxes pays individuals who work for the government, as well as for public programs like education and infrastructure like roads.

10000maniacs

Penfailed wrote: »

How would you have ensured this didn't happen to you?

I would have asked the surveyor to test the bricks. Which is part of his job.

Dempo1

10000maniacs wrote: »

I would have asked the surveyor to test the bricks. Which is part of his job.

Do surveyors actually test Block's? Just curious, as I wouldn't have thought so

10000maniacs

Dempo1 wrote: »

Do surveyors actually test Block's? Just curious, as I wouldn't have thought so

I asked my surveyors to test the bricks when I bought my properties over the years. They tested them.
I also asked them to check the separation material between adjacent apartments to ensure it was concrete brick separating the floors and walls.

muffler

10000maniacs wrote: »

I would have asked the surveyor to test the bricks. Which is part of his job.

100% wrong.

Penfailed

10000maniacs wrote: »

I would have asked the surveyor to test the bricks. Which is part of his job.

Would you? Really? Considering that this issue only came to light after houses were built and bought and sold and thousands of unsuspecting people are left with crumbling homes...but you would've had the foresight to get the 'bricks' tested?

muffler

Dempo1 wrote: »

Do surveyors actually test Block's? Just curious, as I wouldn't have thought so

Nope!. Like any product used in building the supplier and / or the manufacturer is responsible for all certification relating to its compliance with all statutory regulations.

10000maniacs

muffler wrote: »

Nope!. Like any product used in building the supplier and / or the manufacturer is responsible for all certification relating to its compliance with all statutory regulations.

Mine did it on request. Whether they do it if not requested to do so is another matter.

Penfailed

10000maniacs wrote: »

Certainly not for pyrite and mica issues.
Basically the government implement laws, pay people to ensure the law is upheld, and taxpayers’ money pays for these services and other government services of all kinds. The government is comprised of a few parts: the legislators (those who make laws), executives (those who enforce laws), judges (those who decipher laws), and many others. The money received from taxes pays individuals who work for the government, as well as for public programs like education and infrastructure like roads.

Your taxes are spent on so much more than government workers, education and infrastructure. It would cost less than 2% of the tax spend to sort this issue.

10000maniacs

Penfailed wrote: »

Your taxes are spent on so much more than government workers, education and infrastructure. It would cost less than 2% of the tax spend to sort this issue.

That's why I used the sentence:
The money received from taxes pays individuals who work for the government, as well as for public programs like education and infrastructure like roads.
I could have added more, but its a long list.

Also tax revenue last year was €50 billion. Fixing the Mica problem which is estimated at €5 billion is 10% of the total tax revenue for a whole year.

Penfailed

10000maniacs wrote: »

That's why I used the sentence:
The money received from taxes pays individuals who work for the government, as well as for public programs like education and infrastructure like roads.
I could have added more, but its a long list.

Also tax revenue last year was €50 billion. Fixing the Mica problem which is estimated at €5 billion is 10% of the total tax revenue for a whole year.

https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/

€90 billion spent. Not sure where you are getting the €5 billion figure from?

muffler

10000maniacs wrote: »

I asked my surveyors to test the bricks when I bought my properties over the years. They tested them.

Now you're just spoofing which leads to anything else you have to say being put in the "unbelievable" bracket.

muffler

10000maniacs wrote: »

Fixing the Mica problem which is estimated at €5 billion is 10% of the total tax revenue for a whole year.

Unbelievable!

10000maniacs

muffler wrote: »

Unbelievable!

If all the houses with this issue needed to be torn down and rebuilt, the figure is closer to €5 billion. That was a figure mentioned on the Morning Ireland last week.