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

Mcdock

NIMAN wrote: »

I bought my house in 2010/11.

Mica wasn't even spoken about then. It was an unknown until maybe 2014.

Mica issues are now being seen in homes from 1996 onwards. Everyone who bought or built a house from 1996 - 2014 had no clue they were potentially buying trouble in the future.

There are houses from 1991.with mica

NIMAN

Re: builders who saw the odd crumbling block, or guys who found a block easier to chase, I'm sure they didn't have any idea even then that the blocks would eventually turn to weetabix and lose most of their strength.

If so, you would think there wouldn't be a builder with a mica house. Yet I am sure there are plenty out there.

mickdw

NIMAN wrote: »

Re: builders who saw the odd crumbling block, or guys who found a block easier to chase, I'm sure they didn't have any idea even then that the blocks would eventually turn to weetabix and lose most of their strength.

If so, you would think there wouldn't be a builder with a mica house. Yet I am sure there are plenty out there.

Local blocklayers here in mayo wouldnt build the defective brand here for a number of years if given the choice as they were different weights and cut so badly that it was a pain in the ass.
Lots of houses still got built where you had blow in trades who didnt give a damn or where home owners insisted on using the slightly cheaper blocks despite warnings.

Ive seen this firat hand and i was well advised by a local tradesman not to touch them a number of years back. I wotk as a supervising Engineer on house builds.
I find some of the comments here re Engineers being held liable quite sickening. We have indemnity insurance however some people seem to believe this is a building guarantee even when they take the most basic package of works from Engineer.

joe40

mickdw wrote: »

Local blocklayers here in mayo wouldnt build the defective brand here for a number of years if given the choice as they were different weights and cut so badly that it was a pain in the ass.
Lots of houses still got built where you had blow in trades who didnt give a damn or where home owners insisted on using the slightly cheaper blocks despite warnings.

Ive seen this firat hand and i was well advised by a local tradesman not to touch them a number of years back. I wotk as a supervising Engineer on house builds.
I find some of the comments here re Engineers being held liable quite sickening. We have indemnity insurance however some people seem to believe this is a building guarantee even when they take the most basic package of works from Engineer.

I'm not interested in scapegoats in this but if what you are saying is true then you as an engineer knew blocks were defective, some tradesmen knew they were defective then why were houses been approved by engineers.

Not you of course, but why were other engineers certifying the work.

muffler

joe40 wrote: »

you as an engineer knew blocks were defective

How do you figure that?

joe40

muffler wrote: »

How do you figure that?

I'm only going by what the poster said in their own post.
"I was well advised by a local tradesman not to touch them"

I do know of actual builders that now have issues so I don't think it was as obvious at the time that blocks were defective but some are saying it was. I just don't know.

I know when my house was been built in 2000 I just assumed all blocks were fit for purpose. It never crossed my mind there might be issues.

Triangle

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

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!

It's all well and good saying this, but there's currently no laws to do what you're saying and bringing them in now only works forward.

Unless the entity is a public body (or majority shareholder is the state) .....

The only way forward is public money that could possibly be got back by levies on the above industries ( but we all know who will end up paying anyways!)

Edit: I'm 100% behind a 100% redress scheme, just saying the best and fastest (and possibly only) way forward is for the Government to step up.

RandomViewer

joe40 wrote: »

I'm not interested in scapegoats in this but if what you are saying is true then you as an engineer knew blocks were defective, some tradesmen knew they were defective then why were houses been approved by engineers.

Not you of course, but why were other engineers certifying the work.

Lots of these houses were built in the Tiger years, I would suspect that the assumption was that the blocks were to minimum specification but within regulation, them being lighter and easy to cut and chase meant quicker builds so quicker sale,

joe40

RandomViewer wrote: »

Lots of these houses were built in the Tiger years, I would suspect that the assumption was that the blocks were to minimum specification but within regulation, them being lighter and easy to cut and chase meant quicker builds so quicker sale,

Yeah I agree, I don't think builders or engineers were knowingly using defective blocks. Otherwise you would not have the situation where builder themselves are affected by this, which is happening.

I just hate the idea that is floating in some areas that this is somehow people's own fault for trying to cut costs with sub standard building materials.

Technique

The blocks concerned were definitely not the cheapest. I hindsight, I should have gone for one of the cheaper block suppliers.

FFVII

Technique wrote: »

The blocks concerned were definitely not the cheapest. I hindsight, I should have gone for one of the cheaper block suppliers.

Ive read about 40+ pages and you are only one to say this.

When this is paid off and added to bank bail out and added borrowing....the "tiger", what a joke.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Triangle wrote: »

It's all well and good saying this, but there's currently no laws to do what you're saying and bringing them in now only works forward.

What I meant was for the government to make laws in order to compel them to do these things.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Technique wrote: »

The blocks concerned were definitely not the cheapest. I hindsight, I should have gone for one of the cheaper block suppliers.

Just out of interest, when did you build and roughly how much did you pay for blocks?

My house was built with blocks from another company in 2008 and from receipts it looks like blocks were roughly 42c each at the time.

MrMusician18

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Just out of interest, when did you build and roughly how much did you pay for blocks?

My house was built with blocks from another company in 2008 and from receipts it looks like blocks were roughly 42c each at the time.

To be fair when looking at the price of the blocks one needs to consider carriage too. So while it may look like one supplier is more expensive on a unit basis, that isn't the case for the whole job when all things are considered.

It's for this reason that blocks are generally supplied by relatively local companies. I don't know what the alternative companies are there in Donegal though and if the market is particularly competitive. Capacity to supply can also be another factor as well.

MrMusician18

MrMusician18 wrote: »

How can I link to something that doesn't exist?

What I find odd is that seemingly it was well known that the blocks were rubbish (easy to chase, bales collapsing under their own weight) while at the same time no one had any idea that they were rubbish.

You made the comment, back it up, or retract it - because I suspect we both know that you're presenting wishful thinking as fact...

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That's because you can prove that a regulation exists by pointing to it. What exactly can I link to?

The absence of a regulation is shown by the lack of successful legal action taken against the State on this issue.

Now you're really stretching it! You say in one post you can't prove something that "doesn't exist" - yet, the slightest bit of research would prove you're being less than honest...


In the next post, you try to insist that the absence of a court case against the state proves a regulation doesn't exist...


Are you dizzy, yet? That's some twisting and turning...

Penfailed

Good segment on Ireland AM this morning. They've a mica documentary that will air this evening at 7:30 on Virgin One.

https://www.virginmediatelevision.ie/player/show/809/186518/0/Ireland-AM

jj880

Some big ideas coming out on the redress group. 1 poster came up with the following:

Maybe an option if you live on a large site. Could you continue to live in your mica home while your new home is being built next to it, solving rent and storage issues

I'd imagine it would help home owners to see their new restored home ready before seeing the mica home demolished.

Cee-Jay-Cee

jj880 wrote: »

Some big ideas coming out on the redress group. 1 poster came up with the following:



I'd imagine it would help home owners to see their new restored home ready before seeing the mica home demolished.

The problem with that is that it would make sense and save money so therefore it will never even be considered. The government only do expensive, ineffective, cumbersome, lengthy and nonsensical solutions to problems.

mondeoman72

jj880 wrote: »

Some big ideas coming out on the redress group. 1 poster came up with the following:



I'd imagine it would help home owners to see their new restored home ready before seeing the mica home demolished.

Cool idea, but if you decided to stay in the house while a new house was built next to it, what happens if it crashes in on you. Imagine the law suits.

jj880

mondeoman72 wrote: »

Cool idea, but if you decided to stay in the house while a new house was built next to it, what happens if it crashes in on you. Imagine the law suits.

That is true. If we ever get to a stage where mica houses in the early stages of cracking get redress it could work. There is the short supply of suitable rental properties to consider also i.e. long term not airbnb.

RandomViewer

jj880 wrote: »

That is true. If we ever get to a stage where mica houses in the early stages of cracking get redress it could work. There is the short supply of suitable rental properties to consider also i.e. long term not airbnb.

Government will probably do a deal with some Portacabin company, it'll be like all the demountable dwellings they put up for the old people in the 70s a B d 80s, houses might never be sorted

mickdw

Technique wrote: »

The blocks concerned were definitely not the cheapest. I hindsight, I should have gone for one of the cheaper block suppliers.

In Mayo, the defective blocks were the cheaper supplier. Only 30 to 50 euro per load cheaper if i remember right but this was a deciding factor for some.

Penfailed

The documentary that just aired on Virgin Media One was excellent. Hard hitting.

NIMAN

Penfailed wrote: »

The documentary that just aired on Virgin Media One was excellent. Hard hitting.

Bloody missed it.

Do they repeat those type of shows?

Have they got an iPlayer?

Penfailed

NIMAN wrote: »

Bloody missed it.

Do they repeat those type of shows?

Have they got an iPlayer?

Yeah, there's a Virgin Media Player.

Penfailed

Penfailed wrote: »

Yeah, there's a Virgin Media Player.

Or Sky 203/Virgin One +1 now.

Atlantic Dawn

NIMAN wrote: »

Bloody missed it.

Do they repeat those type of shows?

Have they got an iPlayer?

It was on my EPG as Red Rock, here it is on the player...
https://www.virginmediatelevision.ie/player/show/2105/186555/0/

joe40

Penfailed wrote: »

The documentary that just aired on Virgin Media One was excellent. Hard hitting.

Yeah worth watching. Good that the issue is getting national attention. All the homeowners interviewed came across really well.

Mcdock

Concrete block prices 2003
Cassidys.€385
Barrs. € 360
Chambers €366

For 880 load of 4 inch

lulu1

Penfailed wrote: »

The documentary that just aired on Virgin Media One was excellent. Hard hitting.

Really heartbreaking

Atlantic Dawn

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It was on my EPG as Red Rock, here it is on the player...
https://www.virginmediatelevision.ie/player/show/2105/186555/0/

Poor souls. My heart goes out to them.

Atlantic Dawn

Mcdock wrote: »

Concrete block prices 2003
Cassidys.€385
Barrs. € 360
Chambers €366

For 880 load of 4 inch

Out of interest how many blocks would be needed to build a typical 3 bedroom house?

It is awful to see that happen to 5000 families.

I'm still not sure why those affected want their fellow taxpayers to share the cost of rebuilding.

Personally if given the choice between my tax going towards this or improving the health service I want my money going to things like hiring more nurses and paying all of them better.

Penfailed

whatnow! wrote: »

It is awful to see that happen to 5000 families.

I'm still not sure why those affected want their fellow taxpayers to share the cost of rebuilding.

We have no choice!

Atlantic Dawn

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Out of interest how many blocks would be needed to build a typical 3 bedroom house?

Around 4,000 - 5,000, give or take, depending on actual house size.

Technique

whatnow! wrote: »

It is awful to see that happen to 5000 families.

I'm still not sure why those affected want their fellow taxpayers to share the cost of rebuilding.

Personally if given the choice between my tax going towards this or improving the health service I want my money going to things like hiring more nurses and paying all of them better.

Helping the families whose homes have been destroyed by Mica will have zero impact on whether nurses are hired or not. Please don't try to turn this into a Mica versus nurses issue.

Cee-Jay-Cee

whatnow! wrote: »

It is awful to see that happen to 5000 families.

I'm still not sure why those affected want their fellow taxpayers to share the cost of rebuilding.

Personally if given the choice between my tax going towards this or improving the health service I want my money going to things like hiring more nurses and paying all of them better.

If you were one of those effected you’d understand.

Thankfully people like you don’t have a choice where tax money goes and hopefully all those thousands of families effected get full redress and the help they need.

It was an example, however as someone who is not affected by Mica I'm not sure why I should contribute anything. This is a consumer versus private company issue.

The government should have set better minimum standards to protect consumers but that doesn't make us all liable. It's a huge amount of money at a time when we have taken on more debt with covid and inflation is about to hit hard so funds are quite stretched as is.

One issue that many taxpayers have is that quite a few of these houses are nicer than what they will ever have and far above what would be considered minimum viable living standard.

It's a fair question.

whatnow!

whatnow! wrote: »

It is awful to see that happen to 5000 families.

I'm still not sure why those affected want their fellow taxpayers to share the cost of rebuilding.

Personally if given the choice between my tax going towards this or improving the health service I want my money going to things like hiring more nurses and paying all of them better.

According to the HSE, the average pay of a staff nurse is €53k in this country and we spend a 3rd more on average than other OECD members per head on healthcare. The HSE does not need any more money. The HSE obsession in the country is becoming a bit cult like, akin to the NHS.

These fellow taxpayers deserve to have their houses rebuilt. The bought and paid for something now worthless. The absence of governmental oversight and regulation is to blame, not to mention the acceptance of liability with the pyrite scandal.

That’s where I want my tax going, to house people, to help people, not to pay the HSE managers more to do nothing.

I agree they deserve to have their houses rebuilt.

Regulations can't cover every eventuality.

I'm asking why should any of the tax I paid go towards this?

It's something that will need to be answered to get people on your side and have government sign off on it.

Cee-Jay-Cee

whatnow! wrote: »

It was an example, however as someone who is not affected by Mica I'm not sure why I should contribute anything. This is a consumer versus private company issue.

The government should have set better minimum standards to protect consumers but that doesn't make us all liable. It's a huge amount of money at a time when we have taken on more debt with covid and inflation is about to hit hard so funds are quite stretched as is.

One issue that many taxpayers have is that quite a few of these houses are nicer than what they will ever have and far above what would be considered minimum viable living standard.

It's a fair question.

They might be bigger but they still cost considerably less than what a 3 bed semi in Dublin Cork or Galway. You chose to live where you live, no one made you. You could have lived anywhere you wanted.

Donegal has been the forgotten county for decades, in fact since day one, we have less investment in every single sector, we have no rail links or motorways (or even dual carriageways) but yet all the city people will see is a nicer house and begrudge them for it.

whatnow! wrote: »

I agree they deserve to have their houses rebuilt.

Regulations can't cover every eventuality.

I'm asking why should any of the tax I paid go towards this?

It's something that will need to be answered to get people on your side and have government sign off on it.

It’s not something to be answered. The vast majority of intelligent people know that a house in Donegal or Mayo costs way less than one in Dublin. They don’t need that explained to them by anyone.

water-man

Maybe this has been discussed before however would the effected families accept a a smaller more basic designed house built to todays standards or are they expecting the tax payer to replace with like for like?

The lack of motorways in Donegal has nothing to do with taxpayers contributing towards the cost of replacement of Mica homes (or Pyrite homes in Dublin).

whatnow!

whatnow! wrote: »

It was an example, however as someone who is not affected by Mica I'm not sure why I should contribute anything. This is a consumer versus private company issue.

The government should have set better minimum standards to protect consumers but that doesn't make us all liable. It's a huge amount of money at a time when we have taken on more debt with covid and inflation is about to hit hard so funds are quite stretched as is.

One issue that many taxpayers have is that quite a few of these houses are nicer than what they will ever have and far above what would be considered minimum viable living standard.

It's a fair question.

Exactly. And then they should have ensured the standards and regulations were enforced....


They didn't! That's the point...
So lay the blame for this where it belongs - not on the poor unfortunate people whose houses are falling down round them - houses that they paid for, and are continuing to pay for - despite the fact that the materials used were not "fit for the purpose for which they were intended" through no fault of the buyers or builders... who had reasonable expectations that the materials were fit for purpose..

Cee-Jay-Cee

whatnow! wrote: »

The lack of motorways in Donegal has nothing to do with taxpayers contributing towards the cost of replacement of Mica homes (or Pyrite homes in Dublin).

It was just an example of how Donegal has been neglected in state projects for years getting less of everything and in many cases, getting nothing yet there are still have people like you that would begrudge a Donegal person for having a nicer house than you despite the fact it probably cost less than half of what you may have paid for a home elsewhere in Ireland.

timmyntc

whatnow! wrote: »

I agree they deserve to have their houses rebuilt.

Regulations can't cover every eventuality.

I'm asking why should any of the tax I paid go towards this?

It's something that will need to be answered to get people on your side and have government sign off on it.

Why should the tax you pay, pay for redress to cervical check victims?
Or pyrite victims?
Or the umpteen other types of compensation that the state has to pay out?

Why should your tax fund a bank bailout or social housing?


Like it or not, the state has to pay for plenty of things you might personally disagree with, but its seen as being for the greater good. These people with MICA would otherwise be homeless and need state housing - and the banks would have hugely significant losses on their balance sheet, which would impact on their viability or else require another hike in mortgage interest rates.

joe40

whatnow! wrote: »

It was an example, however as someone who is not affected by Mica I'm not sure why I should contribute anything. This is a consumer versus private company issue.

The government should have set better minimum standards to protect consumers but that doesn't make us all liable. It's a huge amount of money at a time when we have taken on more debt with covid and inflation is about to hit hard so funds are quite stretched as is.

One issue that many taxpayers have is that quite a few of these houses are nicer than what they will ever have and far above what would be considered minimum viable living standard.

It's a fair question.

Most of the houses affected are not large mansions, the vast majority standard homes.

When you have a consumer issue (as you call them) on this scale where neither suppliers, home insurance, engineers indemnity insurance, or banks are willing to take any responsibility the only other recourse is government involvement.
The tax payer should not take the full hit (The people affected are tax payers as well remember) but only the government have the resources at this stage to chase the other parties. The government should step in with a workable accessible recourse scheme as a matter of urgency.
In parallel chase all the other parties that are abdicating their responsibility.

This is tantamount to a natural disaster. The scale may be much bigger than previously thought since many 20 year old houses are now showing signs of defective blocks, therefore severe damage is only a matter of time.

It is like a slow moving earthquake has affected a region and houses are going to collapse as a result. It would be immoral in any civilised society to abandon people in this situation.

NIMAN

whatnow! wrote: »

It's something that will need to be answered to get people on your side and have government sign off on it.

Government have already signed off on it.

Penfailed

water-man wrote: »

Maybe this has been discussed before however would the effected families accept a a smaller more basic designed house built to todays standards or are they expecting the tax payer to replace with like for like?

Like for like. I wouldn't mind if it was built to the old standards.

NIMAN

water-man wrote: »

Maybe this has been discussed before however would the effected families accept a a smaller more basic designed house built to todays standards or are they expecting the tax payer to replace with like for like?

I'm sure if you put it to the families affected, some might accept a smaller house.

But I'm sure there are plenty of families who maybe have 3 or 4 small kids and couldn't have a smaller house built. They would need something of the same size.

Also re: smaller homes, if it's that option, then since it's a new design/house it will have to go through the planning process again. Adding to the delay and cost. As it stands with the current redress scheme I think planning was to be waived as the house was bring rebuilt to original plans.