Mica Redress

In Donegal & Mayo over 5,000 houses were built with blocks that have been discovered to be faulty and the houses that were built are falling down.

The supplier of these blocks would be able to contribute less than 0.1% of the cost to fix this so the owners of these houses are looking to the government (taxpayers) to pay for the cost to fix this.

The cost at this time is difficult to estimate but will be in the region of €1.5 billion to €5 billion.

This equates to a contribution by every man, woman and child in Ireland of between €300 and €1,000 to fix this issue to the satisfaction of those affected.

Should the taxpayer fund 100% of this cost?


EDIT:

This thread was identified in the mica information thread in the Donegal forum and there has been an influx of people who have been affected by mica and therefore have a strong personal motivation to get 100% redress so the poll is no longer a fair representation unfortunately.

Cookie_Monster

Shouldn't it be on the council that signed off on the build that is responsible? Why should central govt and taxpayers be on the hook.
Inspectors should have caught it and the councils insurance should be liable as a result of their failure if the actual supplier cannot be made financially liable

ancapailldorcha

whatnow! wrote: »

Should the taxpayer fund 100% of this cost?

I'm from Donegal and I'd never even heard of Mica until recently. Thanks for providing some background as I'd no clue what this was all about.

If it affects 5,000 homes and they all fall apart, that's going to be devastating for the individuals and families involved so I think some form of state assistance is going to be on the table no matter what happens.

I don't know much about it so I'd hesitate to outline a solid position but if I were living in Ireland, I'd have no issue with the state helping these people. If some solution isn't found, it'll be a bigger scandal than it is currently and there'll be chaos in the communities affected.

retalivity

How much did the pyrite redress cost?
Also, think this will turn out to be a lot more than 5k houses - that's whats been identified so far.

L1011

I would be in favour of providing redress here - but it may need to be provided in the form of entire replacement conventional houses in estates, in towns/village - not one-off 200-300sqm 'dormer bungalows' the size of small aircraft hangars as has become the vernacular style in Donegal in recent years.

This is an opportunity to fix some of the awful planning in Donegal that has ensured it is near impossible to provide proper services to the towns and villages that exist and has created total car dependency.

NIMAN

This is going to be a massive issue.

Its been known about since 2013 in Donegal, and at least a redress scheme was set up in 2019, but it wasn't really fit for purpose so is being rethought by Government.

It also affects Mayo.

And more worryingly, I heard a piece on radio today where houses in Clare and Limerick are falling down too. It appears we have let too much dodgy material out of quarries around the country for years, and its coming to bite us now.

I appreciate that many taxpayers won't be happy about paying for this as they aren't affected, but I don't see any other way. We have thousands of families still paying big mortgages on houses that have no value and which are crumbling dangerously. There is no way of suing the block supplier, the builders etc. No Homebond recourse. Banks not accepting liability for loaning on the asset, and insurance companies not liable either. So the owners have no choice but to ask Gov for help.

IF the State doesn't help, then there could be 5000 (bare minimum figure) in Donegal alone that are on the path to homelessness, and the State will have to house these people. I know personally there is next to no rental properties in the affected areas close to me, so a massive house building program will have to be undertaken.

Its a disaster of a situation, and I think we are going to see it get a lot worse if other parts of the country are affected. Not sure why some think it was ok to use taxpayers money to pay for other things in the state, but its grand to leave these families high and dry?

NIMAN

L1011 wrote: »

I would be in favour of providing redress here - but it may need to be provided in the form of entire replacement conventional houses in estates, in towns/village - not one-off 200-300sqm 'dormer bungalows' the size of small aircraft hangars as has become the vernacular style in Donegal in recent years.

This is an opportunity to fix some of the awful planning in Donegal that has ensured it is near impossible to provide proper services to the towns and villages that exist and has created total car dependency.

:rolleyes:
Is that you Leo?

Why does the size of someone's house matter at all?
They saved and built the home of their choice. Paid all the fees and charges and VAT on that home.
Took out a mortgage like everyone else in the country, making big repayments, but now you think they should relocate into a housing estate?

L1011

NIMAN wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Is that you Leo?

Why does the size of someone's house matter at all?
They saved and built the home of their choice. Paid all the fees and charges and VAT on that home.
Took out a mortgage like everyone else in the country, making big repayments, but now you think they should relocate into a housing estate?

If they expect the State to sort out their housing, yes.

One-off housing is not sustainable and Donegal is destroyed with it.

coylemj

The issue as I see it is that if the state agrees to a 100% redress scheme, it means we (the taxpayers) are signing up to what will effectively be a financial black hole involving unlimited liability. Never mind what numbers you're reading, you can triple them or just add an extra zero.

It's easy for the likes of Pearse Doherty (SF Donegal TD) to scream '100% redress'. Just wait for him to get into government and he'll be singing a different tune.

NIMAN

coylemj wrote: »

The issue as I see it is that if the state agrees to a 100% redress scheme, it means we (the taxpayers) are signing up to what will effectively be a financial black hole involving unlimited liability. Never mind what numbers you're reading, you can triple them or just add an extra zero.

It's easy for the likes of Pearse Doherty (SF Donegal TD) to scream '100% redress'. Just wait for him to get into government and he'll be singing a different tune.

For clarity, its not just SF that are calling for 100% redress.

In Donegal, McConnellogue (FF) and McHugh (FG) are also asking for it.

Furze99

Householders in Limerick & Clare also now looking for 100% redress. I'm going to have a look at our gaff later when I get home - there's a wee crack in the render. If 100% funding is good for the above, this could be a great scheme to investigate

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

For clarity, its not just SF that are calling for 100% redress.

In Donegal, McConnellogue (FF) and McHugh (FG) are also asking for it.

Every Donegal politician better ask for it if they want to be reelected:)

Calahonda52

coylemj wrote: »

The issue as I see it is that if the state agrees to a 100% redress scheme, it means we (the taxpayers) are signing up to what will effectively be a financial black hole involving unlimited liability. Never mind what numbers you're reading, you can triple them or just add an extra zero.

It's easy for the likes of Pearse Doherty (SF Donegal TD) to scream '100% redress'. Just wait for him to get into government and he'll be singing a different tune.

Give the gig to BAM and add what ever number of zeros you think fit:D

NIMAN

Furze99 wrote: »

Householders in Limerick & Clare also now looking for 100% redress. I'm going to have a look at our gaff later when I get home - there's a wee crack in the render. If 100% funding is good for the above, this could be a great scheme to investigate

Demolishing your family home is not something most people will find easy to do.

Despite what most on Boards think.

fash

If there is an implied warranty on the part of the state in relation to construction issues in general, then regulation and construction costs in future are going to get expensive... or rather even more eye wateringly expensive.

coylemj

The practical effect of a Govt. 100% redress scheme is that a victim of this scandal can ask three local builders for a tender to demolish and rebuild his house. Knowing that the state is picking up the tab, the local builders will jack up their prices accordingly.

Hyperinflation will be too mild a word to describe what will happen.

Furze99

fash wrote: »

If there is an implied warranty on the part of the state in relation to construction issues in general, then regulation and construction costs in future are going to get expensive... or rather even more eye wateringly expensive.

100% - people should be careful what they wish for.

For Forks Sake

A rise in LPT in Donegal to offset some of the cost would sort those in genuine solidarity from the bandwagon hopping spoofers.

coylemj

For Forks Sake wrote: »

A rise in LPT in Donegal to offset some of the cost would sort those in genuine solidarity from the bandwagon hopping spoofers.

LPT would be a bad place to look for extra revenue. Income from LPT in the county in 2021 was just €26.8 million. Not sure what you have in mind when you talk about a 'rise' but I'm guessing it wouldn't make the tiniest dent in the redress bill.

There is a huge number of one-off houses in the county and for a valuation, the owner can pick a number out of the air. The result is that 90% of the houses in Donegal have an LPT valuation of less than 150K. Of course it will be a different matter when they need to be rebuilt.

https://www.donegalcoco.ie/services/financepublications/local%20property%20tax%20adjustment%20factor/

ednwireland

and clare and limerick to the list now as well

Swindled

Just to clarify, no one, including the taxpaying homeowners affected through no fault of theirs want the taxpayer to lumbered with the bill, but due to the mess and emergency that this is, the government is the only ones that can sort this out for now, and then should pursue those and the industries/sectors actually respsoibsile and recover as much of the costs as possible for the taxpayer. Also measures need to be put in place to ensure no mass manufacturing of structural materials for entire regions and nationwide can carry on like this in future. To date nothing has been done to prevent suppliers carrying on manufacturing supplying blocks with defective aggregates elsewhere in Ireland, and cases are now appearing nationwide. Lord knows what other structural materials not fit for purpose are also being mass manufactured out there for the Irish national market.

NIMAN

coylemj wrote: »

LPT would be a bad place to look for extra revenue. Income from LPT in the county in 2021 was just €26.8 million. Not sure what you have in mind when you talk about a 'rise' but I'm guessing it wouldn't make the tiniest dent in the redress bill.

There is a huge number of one-off houses in the county and for a valuation, the owner can pick a number out of the air. The result is that 90% of the houses in Donegal have an LPT valuation of less than 150K. Of course it will be a different matter when they need to be rebuilt.

https://www.donegalcoco.ie/services/financepublications/local%20property%20tax%20adjustment%20factor/

Well to be fair, most people would have valued their house based on what other similar houses in their area were selling for.

Thats what I did.

It might be tough to accept, but in Donegal a detached house on a half acre site would often cost less than a small apartment in Dublin.

A poster just mentioned this poll in the mica thread in the Donegal forum, which will obviously skew the results much more in favour of full payment by taxpayers that would otherwise have been if the poll was given to a random selection of people on boards with an interest in politics and the Irish economy versus a group of people who have a vested interest in getting a large sum of money from the government.

Swindled

The Sunday Business Post commissioned a national Red C at the weekend, poll shows that 71% of respondents believe the Government should provide a redress scheme to cover 100% of costs for those whose taxpayers who's homes are impacted by the mica block controversy.

A clear majority of the public support full compensation being given to owners of crumbling homes due to blocks containing mica, a new poll suggests.

https://extra.ie/2021/06/27/news/irish-news/clear-majority-of-public-support-full-compensation-for-mica-victims

The government of course should ensure the state recovers as much as possible for the taxpayer from those in the sectors and industries actually responsible.

Swindled

Furze99 wrote: »

Householders in Limerick & Clare also now looking for 100% redress. I'm going to have a look at our gaff later when I get home - there's a wee crack in the render. If 100% funding is good for the above, this could be a great scheme to investigate

The scheme rightly does not operate like that. Effected homeowners must first prove they have the contaminated blocks by spending € 6-8,000 having large concrete cores drilled and taken from throughout their house after being recommended to do so by a Chartered Engineer approved by the state. The cores then have to transported to to a lab in England for petrographic analysis by an accredited lab and chartered Geologist. (no labs in Ireland able to do it apparently). IF the accredited lab report confirms high levels of contamination and structurally deficient blocks, then the Charter Engineer makes further recommendations which are then submitted to the local authority for further scrutinisation and approval. If only the block manufactures in the first place were placed under the same level of scrutiny we would not be in this mess now or in the future.

We absolutely should have those testing facilities in Ireland with regular independent testing of quarries.

NIMAN

Swindled wrote: »

The scheme rightly does not operate like that. Effected homeowners must first prove they have the contaminated blocks by spending € 6-8,000 having large concrete cores drilled and taken from throughout their house after being recommended to do so by a Chartered Engineer approved by the state. The cores then have to transported to to a lab in England for petrographic analysis by a an accredited lab and chartered Geologist. (none labs in Ireland able to do it apparently). IF the lab report confirms high levels of contamination and structural deficient blocks, then the Charter Engineer makes further recommendations which are then submitted to the local authority for further scrutinisation and approval. If only the block manufactures in the first place were placed under the same level of scrutiny we would not be in this mess.

You forgot to add that when the English engineers advise demolition to the scheme, Donegal CoCo have often told homeowner that they need only replace outer leaf.

coylemj

NIMAN wrote: »

It might be tough to accept, but in Donegal a detached house on a half acre site would often cost less than a small apartment in Dublin.

It’s not in the least bit ’tough’ to accept that proposition and I do accept it.

My point is that those valuations for LPT purposes will be out the window when it comes to the bill those people will present to any redress scheme.

Another factor and one which is no fault of the home owners is that by the time they manage to rebuild, there will be much higher minimum standards for insulation and that’s going to push the bill even higher.

Who will pay? We will.

Swindled

coylemj wrote: »

My point is that those valuations for LPT purposes will be out the window when it comes to the bill those people will present to any redress scheme.

Proof of property tax payment must be presented for scrutinisation as well as many other conditions rightly required to access the redress scheme.

fash

Swindled wrote: »

Just to clarify, no one, including the taxpaying homeowners affected through no fault of theirs want the taxpayer to lumbered with the bill, but due to the mess and emergency that this is, the government is the only ones that can sort this out for now, and then should pursue those and the industries/sectors actually respsoibsile and recover as much of the costs as possible for the taxpayer.

If there were a way of recovering the money from those responsible, there would be no need for the government to be involved. The companies involved have gone insolvent already and sold their assets to the next company. What does "industry" or "sector" mean in this context - and why should law abiding people pay for something someone else has done? Would you be ok if the government decided that you and your family alone should bear the cost - even if it has nothing to do with you? If not, why not?

Also measures need to be put in place to ensure no mass manufacturing of structural materials for entire regions and nationwide can carry on like this in future.

Kerching, kerching.

Swindled

fash wrote: »

If there were a way of recovering the money from those responsible, there would be no need for the government to be involved. The companies involved have gone insolvent already and sold their assets to the next company. What does "industry" or "sector" mean in this context - and why should law abiding people pay for something someone else has done? Would you be ok if the government decided that you and your family alone should bear the cost - even if it has nothing to do with you? If not, why not?

Kerching, kerching.

Actually It's business as usual for the block manufacturer involved, they are currently suppling the state with blocks from the same quarry, for social housing projects and also supplying private developers. With no assistance or enforcement from the state, local taxpayers have been trying to blockade their lorries from getting into the sites, but some supplies are still getting through. The local authority recently granted the same quarry a 25 year extension to its planning permission, despite it being in breach of several existing planning conditions !

Absolutely, law abiding people should not pay for something someone else has done, that's the whole point, and the state is letting it continue to happen as we speak and no hassle or penalty whatsoever for the those responsible. Big industry and corporations do as they please in Ireland with complete freedom and the little Irish taxpaying victims pick up the tab.

joe40

whatnow! wrote: »

A poster just mentioned this poll in the mica thread in the Donegal forum, which will obviously skew the results much more in favour of full payment by taxpayers that would otherwise have been if the poll was given to a random selection of people on boards with an interest in politics and the Irish economy versus a group of people who have a vested interest in getting a large sum of money from the government.

"A vested interest in getting a large sum of money from the government"
what a loaded and inflammatory statement.
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were interested in a debate. You're not, comments like that are extremely offensive to people looking at potential economic ruin.

Every county in Ireland has one off housing, that should not come into this debate. It is a separate planning issue. We are talking about houses that already exist and not forgetting mortgages that already exist which must be paid regardless of the condition of the house.
This is extremely upsetting, it may be an interesting debate for you but it is an unfolding disaster for people affected.

fash

Swindled wrote: »

Actually It's business as usual for the block manufacturer involved, they are currently suppling the state with blocks from the same quarry, for social housing projects and also supplying private developers. With no assistance or enforcement from the state, local taxpayers have been trying to blockade their lorries from getting into the sites, but some supplies are still getting through. The local authority recently granted the same quarry a 25 year extension to its planning permission, despite it being in breach of several existing planning conditions !

Absolutely, law abiding people should not pay for something someone else has done, that's the whole point, and the state is letting it continue to happen as we speak and no hassle or penalty whatsoever for the those responsible. Big industry and corporations do as they please in Ireland with complete freedom and the little Irish taxpaying victims pick up the tab.

If "big industry & corporations" are responsible for it, sue them and leave the government out of things. If they are indeed responsible, then they will pay/go bankrupt

Swindled

fash wrote: »

If "big industry & corporations" are responsible for it, sue them and leave the government out of things. If they are indeed responsible, then they will pay/go bankrupt

That was already tried by a group of the homeowners, after 5 years of very expensive legal challenges, and stalling and dragging them out in every possible way, it was eventually revealed by the manufactures solicitor that they have no product liability insurance whatsoever and are allowed to continue to operate like that. The homeowners were also advised by their legal team that after many more years of legal expense and challenges, they would almost certainly secure a judgement against the manufacture, but would never see a penny of it. Also, the assets of the manufacture involved wouldn't rebuild 10 houses, let alone the many involved. The homeowners could not afford to proceed and waste any more years. Also products liability extends only 10 years, and many are just beyond that now. The homeowners were advised their only recourse for this mess at this stage is the state, and the state should then try to recover the costs in some way. Basically the law totally protects the industry and large corporations, and there is no enforcement of the national and EU structural material regulations by the state, and that's the way the CIF and many cosy politicians and officials in Ireland down through the years like it.

fash

fash wrote: »

If "big industry & corporations" are responsible for it, sue them and leave the government out of things. If they are indeed responsible, then they will pay/go bankrupt

Their net assets are about €2 million on paper and likely a lot less if they had to sell them off in a hurry.

I'm not in favour of 100% redress up to whatever the cost is to replace the houses affected but I would be in favour of 100% up to a limit which is the lower of the cost to rebuild the original affected house or somewhere in the region of €250,000 per house which should buy quite a nice house in Donegal.

I don't see the country being able to afford to offer more than that.

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

"A vested interest in getting a large sum of money from the government"
what a loaded and inflammatory statement.

The primary aim is to get enough money from the government to rebuild their houses to original spec at a minimum and probable better due to better building methods and materials since some of the houses were originally built.

This is going to cost a large sum of money which will be given by the government and there is nobody for the government to claim any of this back from.

I don't intend for it to be loaded or inflammatory nor end up in a dispute with you about it. It is exactly what the people affected are asking for.

Swindled

whatnow! wrote: »

This is not acceptable apparently as they 'want what they paid for'.

That's what all consumers rightly expect in a civilised law and order society.

No one is asking for any more than that, nor should they accept anything less.

Restoring the financial position of the injured party back to the way it was before the loss occurred is a core principle of any just civilised system, and always has been.

fash

Swindled wrote: »

That was already tried by a group of the homeowners, after 5 years of very expensive legal challenges, and stalling and dragging them out in every possible way, it was eventually revealed by the manufactures solicitor that they have no product liability insurance whatsoever and are allowed to continue to operate like that. The homeowners were also advised by their legal team that after many more years of legal expense and challenges, they would almost certainly secure a judgement against the manufacture, but would never see a penny of it. Also, the assets of the manufacture involved wouldn't rebuild 10 houses, let alone the many involved. The homeowners could not afford to proceed and waste any more years. .

So there is someone to blame- however you do not wish to pursue them on the basis that they may not have sufficient funds. Isn't it your fault that they continue to operate in that case?

The homeowners were advised their only recourse for this mess at this stage is the state, and the state should then try to recover the costs in some way.

If you can't do it, how can the state? Arbitrarily designate someone responsible and recover the money from them? Why is that better than leaving the loss where it arose?

Basically the law totally protects the industry and large corporations, and there is no enforcement of the national and EU structural material regulations by the state, and that's the way the CIF and many cosy politicians and officials in Ireland down through the years like it.

The law protects everyone and there is enforcement - however it seems that the tax payer is expected to backstop everyone for everything. That is going to be very, very expensive. If people are unhappy with the price of housing now, you ain't seen nothing yet.

jimmycrackcorm

NIMAN wrote:

Why does the size of someone's house matter at all? They saved and built the home of their choice. Paid all the fees and charges and VAT on that home. Took out a mortgage like everyone else in the country, making big repayments, but now you think they should relocate into a housing estate?

I've paid all the fees, charges and vat on my home as has everyone else who owns a home. These go into general taxation and provide public services.

Swindled wrote:

Just to clarify, no one, including the taxpaying homeowners affected through no fault of theirs want the taxpayer to lumbered with the bill.

The problem isn't redress itself as people need to be helped but they want the taxpayer to pay for everything even though it's not the taxpayers fault and don't want to make any contribution.

Swindled wrote:

The Sunday Business Post commissioned a national Red C at the weekend, poll shows that 71% of respondents believe the Government should provide a redress scheme to cover 100% of costs for those whose taxpayers who's homes are impacted by the mica block controversy.

Of course, if someone suggests should people get free pints at the pub then 70% will probably say it's great and the rest might say: Hang on.

But if that poll suggested putting a national levy on property tax to cover the billions needed, then let's see how people vote.

Swindled

fash wrote: »

So there is someone to blame- however you do not wish to pursue them on the basis that they may not have sufficient funds. Isn't it your fault that they continue to operate in that case?

If you can't do it, how can the state? Arbitrarily designate someone responsible and recover the money from them? Why is that better than leaving the loss where it arose?

The law protects everyone and there is enforcement - however it seems that the tax payer is expected to backstop everyone for everything. That is going to be very, very expensive. If people are unhappy with the price of housing now, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Victims who are also taxpayers, are not the people responsible for enforcing the states laws and regulations. The state is the one respsonble for enforcing the states laws allowing these rogue suppliers to operate and continue the way they do, if they don't enforce any of the states current regulations, and they are not, we the little taxpayers carry the can as usual while the state protects those responsible and allows them to continue operating.

Swindled

Swindled wrote: »

That's what all consumers rightly expect in a civilised law and order society.

No one is asking for any more than that, nor should they accept anything less.

Restoring the financial position of the injured party back to the way it was before the loss occurred is a core principle of any just civilised system, and always has been.

Absolutely. Restored by the vendor or in some cases the manufacturer of the product or service.

I'm not sure why that burden automatically falls on the taxpayer.

We have been over this and you mentioned things about pyrite repair and bankers getting baled out but didn't make a case of why taxpayers should compensate mica victims 100% for their misfortune so having the same chat again is pointless.

I do believe that the taxpayer needs to help the mica victims but where we differ is that I believe it should be capped and you don't and talking about the bank bailout doesn't bridge that gap.

alchemist33

L1011 wrote: »

One-off housing is not sustainable and Donegal is destroyed with it.

It really isn't destroyed. There are holiday areas where a loy of houses were built in the early noughties but they make up a small proportion of the county.

The J Stands for Jay

For Forks Sake wrote: »

A rise in LPT in Donegal to offset some of the cost would sort those in genuine solidarity from the bandwagon hopping spoofers.

You're forgetting that the LPT revaluation is coming up, and lots of Donegal homes are worth less than the value of the land.

Nats9314

This is banded about in every forum or discussion on mica...that the majority of effected homes are one off donegal mcmansions...and the 100% redress scheme is unpalatable to pay for the same again. This could not be further from the truth...the majority of homes are modest size and in estates....drive about letterkenny or buncrana and you'd be shocked at the extent of the issue and thats not even looking at the community halls..Public buildings...doctors surgeries...apartment blocks etc. I will admit .. even though the recent media coverage is great, skewing the coverage to the one off large self builds doesn't help getting public backing.

Swindled

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I've paid all the fees, charges and vat on my home as has everyone else who owns a home. These go into general taxation and provide public services.

So have the homeowners affected.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The problem isn't redress itself as people need to be helped but they want the taxpayer to pay for everything even though it's not the taxpayers fault and don't want to make any contribution.

No one wants the taxpayer to pay for this, they should not be, the state should enforce the laws and regulations that they are supposed to prevent this and ensure those responsible pay, but they don't. As we speak this supplier is still supplying these blocks from the same quarry to the state.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Of course, if someone suggests should people get free pints at the pub then 70% will probably say it's great and the rest might say: Hang on.

But if that poll suggested putting a national levy on property tax to cover the billions needed, then let's see how people vote.

There's no "free pints", these are peoples homes and lives, and they have to pay property tax same as everyone else does. This is going to keep on happening to taxpayers all over Ireland until the state is held to account for not holding the industry responsible to account.

Swindled

whatnow! wrote: »

I do believe that the taxpayer needs to help the mica victims but where we differ is that I believe it should be capped and you don't

False, it should be capped at the financial loss involved, no more, no less.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Of course, if someone suggests should people get free pints at the pub then 70% will probably say it's great and the rest might say: Hang on.

But if that poll suggested putting a national levy on property tax to cover the billions needed, then let's see how people vote.

The question posed in the red c poll was:

Who believe the government should provide a redress scheme to cover 100% of the costs (or 'all costs') for those whose homes were impacted by the mica block controversy.

71% of 1020 respondents who replied said yes.

This is from 40,000 people who have signed up to be polled regularly on various things. They are paid a very small amount to do the polls so I would say that this will have a strong influence on the type of people that participate and are more likely to want the government to pay out to everyone and anyone who needs it as if they care about making €1 for 5 minutes of their time they are probably not paying much tax.

---

If the question was posed in the form that they would need to contribute close to €1,000 in tax to fund this scheme I'm fairly sure that the percentage would drop.

Swindled

Swindled wrote: »

False, it should be capped at the financial loss involved, no more, no less.

How is the financial loss calculated?

Swindled

The J Stands for Jay wrote: »

They've already been wound up.

They haven't, they are still supplying the state and other developers with blocks as we speak from the same quarry. No consequences whatsoever from the state, no action whatsoever from the state, no enforcement whatsoever from the state.
Their quarry planning permission has in fact been recently extended for another 25 years, despite them being in breach of several existing planning conditions.
Also there is absolutely nothing being done to prevent this happening all over Ireland by unscrupulous structural material manufacturers.

Swindled

whatnow! wrote: »

How is the financial loss calculated?

The same as it always is, what it takes to replace what the person had, not less than what they had, not more than what they had.

fash

Swindled wrote: »

Victims who are also taxpayers, are not the people responsible for enforcing the states laws and regulations. The state is the one respsonble for enforcing the states laws allowing these rogue suppliers to operate and continue the way they do, if they don't enforce any of the states current regulations, and they are not, we the little taxpayers carry the can as usual while the state protects those responsible and allows them to continue operating.

The state isn't protecting those responsible: the people who bought houses without suitable guarantees and who refuse to pursue the companies responsible are.
If you have a problem with the company- sue that. If you believe the state has failed in its legal obligations regarding regulation- sue that.
Otherwise, why should anyone else pay for this loss?