Mica Redress

Penfailed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117961225#Comment_117961225

The bottom line is, the builder didn't know the blocks were defective...so much so, that his own house is now crumbling too. The builders didn't build on the cheap. The work wasn't shoddy. The amount of ignorance about the facts in this thread is staggering.

TheBeach

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117961341#Comment_117961341

You're right! The amount of ignorance is shocking! Please people go onto the 100% redress page and get the facts and then come back with your ideas, thoughts and opinions.

I suppose the lack of mainstream media attention, until today really, didn't help. I'd probably have the same opinions if I formed them from the news and prime time today.

10000maniacs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117961302#Comment_117961302

Its amazing that when it all comes out in the wash, so few people are prepared to take responsibility for what happened. "It's all the quarries fault".

No one else up the chain is prepared to take any of the responsibility.

So how are people ascertaining from that then that its the Government and the taxpayer who have all of the liability in the whole mess then?

Big leap don't you think?

Just because there was no regulation in quarries doesn't mean it was the Governments fault there was no regulation.

You can't regulate everything without hindsight. Otherwise there would be billions of things to regulate.

There has to be some trust in the people who make the blocks, bake the bread, make the butter, pack the sausages, treat the illnesses, make the medicine.... etc.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117961309#Comment_117961309

The fact they weren't insured shouldn't have stopped the families from suing. In fact, in that case you'd expect there to be a clamor to be the first in to get proper compensation. The reality is a bit different - the reason hardly anyone/no one has sued is because it seems highly likely that they wouldn't win. While the building regulations say building materials should be durable as a catch all (the onus is on the builder/designer to adhere to those), the standards have specific tests and it appears that the mica issue was able to slip through the testing as this doesn't appear to be specifically tested for. There is mention of a 1% limit in old standards from the 40's but this is a very limited test and only refers to the dust that used in block manufacture, rather than the larger grains of sand and pebbles. I'm fairly sure it was a test that was dropped from later standards anyway. So what you have is a manufacturer saying that the blocks passed all the tests at the time of manufacture and thus was as described.

There is another claim that the company involved has been wound up (and replaced with a similar one), but I haven't seen anything to substantiate that.

Additionally, I understand that there is a 10 year limit on product liability. Many of these houses only started to show issues just outside that period.

salonfire

Would you not equate this as a natural disaster type scenario though? Someone mentioned it as a slow acting earthquake.

I'm surely it's fairly expected Government provides assistance in the case of natural disasters and for flooding, they do provide money in flood relief and prevention schemes.

I see there'll be another Dublin protest October 8th. I don't know how much more than 350k + costs they'll manage to achieve though.

joe40

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117961494#Comment_117961494

There is regulation in all those things that is why we have trust.

This wasn't shoddy work by builders or cost cutting it was defective blocks that did not comply with government regulations.

Regulations that were not enforced.

The actual cost of blocks is a very small part of the overall build cost. Builders have been caught out with this that would not have happened if they knew blocks were defective.

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117961329#Comment_117961329

Is this 100 percent accurate.

is_that_so

Only half following this and I caught a brief clip of Prime Time last night where numbers were mentioned. Is €1bn+ right? Guy also suggested it could go to over €2bn. That is an awful lot of taxpayers' money.

Sam Russell

This is beginning to sound like the SHELL to SEA campaign where a few very loud campaigners led a long campaign that included civil disobedience, major blockades of the Shell construction site and prevention of the building of the pipeline bringing the Corrib gas field to production.

It was based on the proposition that the pipeline was a major danger to a few houses, the terminal should be built out at sea, and they should be compensated. It cost Shell a fortune, delayed the gas field coming on stream and soured relations between the gas prospecting companies and the Irish Gov. The state lost out big time. Some of the protestors ended up in Mountjoy for a while. Basically, the protesters wanted some state or Shell cash as compensation.

There was similar dispute about the provision of water meters in homes, but that was another matter. It was part of a disastrous implementation of Irish Water that was mishandled at every point in every way. But basically, the protesters did not want to pay water charges.

There was a similar protest about bin charges but now everyone pays them. Basically the protesters did not want to pay them.

There was a similar protest about fishing licences. Very noisy protests about a matter that was a sensible measure to bring order to the angling business. Basically, anglers did not want to pay for licences.

So, the mica protest is basically about the defective houses have to be rebuilt at the state's cost even though it has nothing to do with the state, but no-one else is prepared to pay, and the state is the deep pocket of last resort.

kirk.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117961494#Comment_117961494

Homebond were a joke

Just walked away from the problem

Cabaal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117961838#Comment_117961838

Figure I saw was 3.5billionSo assuming 5million pop, it seems its ok for everyone in the country to pay out 700e* each. Seems crazy

Spoiler Warning

(maths may not be 100%)

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117961839#Comment_117961839

Different issue but water should be funded socially not by residential users individually. It was setup for privatisation from the beginning more of the same Thatcherism politics. Much of why we have a national housing crisis right now with hilarous things like student accommodation that was planned built and then afterwards allowed to have planning permission changed to air bnb. There are certain things in the state we should protect with our own tax payer money. Basic water is one.

Anyway way off this topic but had to respond to lumping water protests in with shell to see landowners compensation. No equivalence.

Sam Russell

Water was mishandled completely in every way. It could not have been done worse.

However, I and everyone else pays for electricity based on my consumption. I and everyone else pays for gas based on my consumption. If I have Sky TV, (which I do not), I pay for that. I have phone and broadband and pay for that.

Why should water be any different? A simple basic charge, with a meter for any premises that is deemed to be a heavy user. That is the way commercial premises are charged - which today are facing increased charges.

Why not have gas and electricity paid for by general taxation? After all, heat and light is a universal right. Why should water be any different?

Why should one group of people who find problems with their houses have them rebuilt on the public purse? Because they can shout loudly?

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117958479#Comment_117958479

..

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117961917#Comment_117961917

Simply if you go without water for a few days basically hours. You die .

That's my feelings on it and it's the only feelings I have for this particular life needing requirement.

You could survive without the other stuff. Maybe not pleasantly but you could.

seamus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117961635#Comment_117961635

It's not really a natural disaster scenario though, because someone is at fault. The people who produced the blocks made a balls of it, had poor (or absent) quality controls, and ultimately caused this issue. This to me, is why insurance companies shouldn't be allowed to wash their hands of it.

Unfortunately the company were wound up (deliberately of course), and a new one set up. This means that once the company's bank accounts are empty, anyone who is still owed money has to just write it off.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117961838#Comment_117961838

We have a rough figure of 5,000 homes. If they all avail of the €350k, that's €1.75bn and then you have expenses on top of it. I wasn't enamoured by the rep on Prime Time last night. Very aggressive and generally unreasonable - demanding 100% restoration of all of the original houses' footprints, including holidays homes, buy-to-lets, etc.

Overall a very entitled attitude, threatening Donegal TDs who would dare give them anything less than 100%. I appreciate they're probably coming from a point where if they go in and ask high, they might come out with something better, but they'll lose public support very quickly, especially when you start throwing around costs in the billions. They're not entitled to anything from the state, and they need to bear that in mind.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117961205#Comment_117961205

You work back until you can find someone legally culpable with deep pockets. The state is not legally culpable. One argument being made is that the state at the time were lax in their enforcement of regulations, but as a legal argument it won't fly. One entity cannot be legally liable for the actions of another. It's like saying that if you get hit by a speeding car it's the Gardai's fault for not having stopped him first.

Captain_Crash

@seamus I don’t know enough about the mica issue to know what, if any blame the state has (I’d imagine next to zero). I was only pointing out that it’s normal to work back to the deepest pockets. But yes your right there has to be culpability on the states part if that’s to be the case. Otherwise any state assistance is no more than a gesture of good will.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117961951#Comment_117961951

That is a nonsense argument.

If you need urgent medical attention you die if it does not arrive in time, so place an equipped ambulance at convenient places all over the country.

Most people are prepared to pay for a smart phone, Sky TV, etc., but apparently expect the state to pay from general taxation for a domestic water supply. I presume they expect the state to take the waste water away as well, because that is also part of Irish Water.

Because the domestic water supply was paid for out of general taxation for the last 50 years, it has been underfunded and now 40% of fresh clean water leaks into the ground.

If it is not funded properly, we will all be poisoned - either by the nasties in the water, or the nasties in the foul water.

Anyway, this thread is not about Irish Water.

listermint

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117962167#Comment_117962167

That's a legislative problem and nothing to down with homeowners frankly. Various other things are underfunded like housing for example. With quick get rich schemes the Lay of the land. Our water infrastructure would have come under that and like everything else walking blindly and straight into the abyss. Water is the next major commodity funds will be after world over. I'm sure you are well aware of this as you seem to be fairly up on the subject.

We have to maintain a fully public and social hold on it. Wether you agree or disagree with my point I don't care. So don't call my thoughts on the subject nonsense.

Back to mica cheers.

ednwireland

blocks supplied in aug 2020 contain 15% mica ffs !

Shedite27

A lot of the counties affected are border counties, were these bricks used north of the border too? And if so, has there been any response from government there?

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117962167#Comment_117962167

Why are you so fixated with water supply? I thought the topic was mica.

is_that_so

Apparently there is a plan putting the cost at potentially over €3bn. There is likely to be a long way to go on this especially if it has knock-on effects on other planned State infrastructure spending.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ulster/2021/1001/1250080-mica-redress-cost/

.42.

I still dont understand why it looks like the Government will bear 100% of the cost for the Mica issue.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117962249#Comment_117962249

And Donegal still won't return Government TD's at the next election anyway.

Other needed capital projects will be outright cancelled because of this.

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117961995#Comment_117961995

The insurance company should only be liable is the terms of the insurance policy cover it. Otherwise, why not go after the health insurer? Or travel insurer? If one person got very basic cover which didn't cover this risk, why should the insurer pay? That's changing the rules after the game has been played so that the loser is now the winner.

ednwireland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117962286#Comment_117962286

Michael Clifford: People suffer because of slipshod regulation of construction (irishexaminer.com)

homebond initially paid out until they realised the size of the problem

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117962032#Comment_117962032

Next to zero is correct. The argument is "yes the state/tax payer is not responsible - but they should have had stricter (more expensive) rules in place forcing these companies to do more testing and employing people to check the audits"

fash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117962301#Comment_117962301

Do you have more details on that? What you are suggesting is that it paying out was a discretionary - i.e. not obligatory matter- for them (because if it were an obligation, they obviously couldn't stop). However it sounds like a lot of money to be paying out just to be nice to people.

ednwireland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117962322#Comment_117962322

no only whats in that article where he says

"Initially, the home insurance group Homebond paid out on claims from homeowners, but discontinued as the extent of the problem became apparent. "