MICA - Who should pay?

StupidLikeAFox

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

What's the alternative- 5k or 10k homeless families, with mortgage debt hanging over them, who need to be housed. As a taxpayer youre still gonna have to pay for those people to be housed btw. If the state tells them "tough ****, you're on your own", who is the actual winner in that case?

I've said multiple times I don't propose leaving them high and dry.

The aim is to house the families, not build 5,000 houses to their original spec with builders having a field day with their fees once they see the government is picking up the bill.

overshoot

overshoot wrote: »

Feel free to cite examples of houses with far more bedrooms than occupants being replaced. Tbh I've yet to do a house where more than one spare/guest room was ever design in and did plenty of bespoke houses before my current job.… but sure you need a bit of drama to rile people up.

If you find it that example, you might also cite the costs of that 5 bed in Donegal v the costs of the apartments the government are taking from glenveagh in the docks. We are heavily in debt and 300k for a studio.... 640k for 3 beds, money is always there if they want it to be.

The docks in Dublin? Why are you introducing a few apartments on the docks into a conversation about 5000+ houses in Donegal?

Graham

whatnow! wrote: »

Nobody has explained to me, a taxpayer, why I should contribute towards more than the €222,750 offered by the government which I think is very generous considering I don't think that they taxpayer has any liability in this case and any contribution is a gift rather than an obligation when we are already heavily in debt.

Vote in the poll.

National spending (fortunately) isn't decided on the basis of liability.

Here we have a small but significant number of the population who have found themselves through no fault of their own with unfit housing.

While I don't think the state should become insurers of last resort, in cases like this and pyrite before it, yes. The state has a moral duty to intervene.

We're not talking about irresponsible borrowing, or reckless risk taking here. It is families that worked and bought homes with a realistic expectation they'd be safe to live in.

StupidLikeAFox

whatnow! wrote: »

Would that stop with houses? If the state is going to underwrite this why not underwrite multiple other things? You could say that housing is covered as it is a basic necessity however that opens the door to shoddy building work at rock bottom prices and when things go bad the government comes in with the funds and now the owner has a house worth much more than they paid the cowboy builder who has disappeared off into the sunset.

I was talking about a redress scheme for mica, which is a real issue. You are going on about a redress scheme for all sorts of dodgy builders, which only exists in your head

Potential-Monke

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

But sure thats like saying you've never stayed in hospital, why are your taxes going to the hse?

It's all well and good saying **** them, but then what? You will have 5k+ families on the housing list, all with massive debt and no way to pay both a mortgage and rent/second mortgage. Your talking about thousands of people here - surely something should be done by the state to give them a dig out?

I have stayed in a hospital, once when I was a kid so couldn't exactly pay for that myself, second time was paid for by private health insurance. And let them join the housing list, they stuffed their noses at 90% so let em off now. Pure greed is all it is. Give them all a shipping container instead, they already have the land.

Dontfadeaway

I don’t know.
What are they doing to prevent it from happening again?

I don’t know why the company who supplied them are still allowed to go on. Even when these 5000 are covered, it’s not the end of it. That would’ve been 5000 new homes which is badly needed right now.



What are they doing to prevent it from happening Again?

StupidLikeAFox

whatnow! wrote: »

I've said multiple times I don't propose leaving them high and dry.

The aim is to house the families, not build 5,000 houses to their original spec with builders having a field day with their fees once they see the government is picking up the bill.

Well the you just have an issue with the parameters/regulation of the scheme, not the scheme itself right? I dont think anybody is proposing to knock a 3 bed and build a 5 bed on the government's dime - we are all agreed there

Graham

Graham wrote: »

National spending (fortunately) isn't decided on the basis of liability.

Here we have a small but significant number of the population who have found themselves through no fault of their own with unfit housing.

While I don't think the state should become insurers of last resort, in cases like this and pyrite before it, yes. The state has a moral duty to intervene.

We're not talking about irresponsible borrowing, or reckless risk taking here. It is families that worked and bought homes with a realistic expectation they'd be safe to live in.

I agree, the state should step in here. If the state just opens the chequebook it will be carnage and the effect on the national debt will be significant.

StupidLikeAFox

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Well the you just have an issue with the parameters/regulation of the scheme, not the scheme itself right? I dont think anybody is proposing to knock a 3 bed and build a 5 bed on the government's dime - we are all agreed there

I don't have an issue with 3 bed semi detached estate houses with a basic finish as costs and resources for that can be reliably measured. It's the ones that don't fit into that category that will drive the costs out of control and man of those houses are nice to have for the owner but definitely more that what is needed when the taxpayer is picking up the bill.

My issue by and large is that these families need to be housed which is what I believe we should do bit not in like for like houses but in houses that are broadly similar and can be mass produced at the lowest cost to be fair to the people affected and to the people picking up the bill.

Graham

whatnow! wrote: »

I agree, the state should step in here. If the state just opens the chequebook it will be carnage and the effect on the national debt will be significant.

Would it be fair to suggest 'open the chequebook' is meant to be the rabble-rousing equivalent of allocate spending to repair people homes so they're safe to live in?

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Would it be fair to suggest 'open the chequebook' is meant to be the rabble-rousing equivalent of allocate spending to repair people homes so they're safe to live in?

It is not repair buddy, the houses have to be knocked and rebuilt.

If it was a repair job there wouldn't be much to discuss as it would be the quickest, easiest and cheapest option.

Graham

OK, let's start at the beginning whatnow!

whatnow! wrote: »

The bill to rebuild the 5,000 houses that are falling apart due to mica will come to close to €5,000,000,000 or possibly more when everything is finished.

Can you link to a source showing how we arrived at a figure of €5,000,000,000+ for 5,000 homes.

That's what €1,000,000+ per property by your reckoning.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

OK, let's start at the beginning whatnow!



Can you link to a source showing how we arrived at a figure of €5,000,000,000?

It is anecdotal and I have taken it from people in Donegal as an estimate as many people in Donegal will tell you the number of houses is at least double the 5,000 officially cited as they haven't tested the majority showing signs of mica and there are reports of other counties being affected so the number of affected houses could be much higher than 5,000. Estimates range between 2bn and 5bn but it won't be clear for quite a while more what the true number is but it is in the billions. At the moment building materials are at an all time high and the houses are unfortunately well spread out so there is not much cost savings to be made on a large scale.

At roughly €350,000 costs to demo a d rebuild and finish with the possibility of the number of properties hitting 15,000 by the time it is done and dusted that is €5bn.

The people looking for 100% redress will tell you also that there is the expectation that the number of houses is far in excess of 5,000.

It is one reason the government is reluctant to agree to 100% redress as they don't know yet how much it will actually end up costing.

Nobody has a definite source yet.

Graham

whatnow! wrote: »

It is anecdotal and I have taken it from people in Donegal as an estimate

If your annoyance is predicated on a 5 billion spend, it's not unreasonable to expect you to be able to provide a source is it?

Either that or you're saying your 5 billion euro figure is pulled out of the air.



Which leads us to the next question.

Where did you just pull another 10,000 properties from. How come they only came to light when the ridiculous €1million per property figure was highlighted?



You said 5000 homes at the start of the thread, but now it's 15,000?

Are you just making up numbers as you go along?

No it's not pulled out of thin air. The government budgeted 5,000 houses would cost them over €1bn and that was with a cap which those affected have rejected.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/scheme-to-fix-mica-damage-to-houses-could-cost-state-over-1bn-1.4587961%3fmode=amp

Since that article many more houses have been identified and the cost to the government is expected to be above the previous capnif they offer 100% redress.

Therefore billions in total.

The exact amount won't be know for years but it likely to be closer to €5bn than €1bn with more houses being identified each week.

Graham

whatnow! wrote: »

No it's not pulled out of thin air. The government budgeted 5,000 houses would cost them over €1bn and that was with a cap which those affected have rejected.

So to be clear

Not 5 billion.

Not even in the ballpark of 5 billion?

200k per home, not €1million per home.


Right?

Graham

Graham wrote: »

If your annoyance is predicated on a 5 billion spend, it's not unreasonable to expect you to be able to provide a source is it?

Either that or you're saying your 5 billion euro figure is pulled out of the air.



Which leads us to the next question.

Where did you just pull another 10,000 properties from. How come they only came to light when the ridiculous €1million per property figure was highlighted?



You said 5000 homes at the start of the thread, but now it's 15,000?

Are you just making up numbers as you go along?

The number is increasing each week. You can keep picking and poking but the numbers are going up each week and the cost per unit are expected to be higher than originally budgeted so where the actual total number ends up is still unknown but to have a conversation it is useful to try to estimate a reasonable number and be prudent.

However don't let that stop you from trying to discredit everything because there are no rock solid numbers available. You watching Ally McBeal:)

Graham

whatnow! wrote: »

You can keep picking and poking but the numbers

I will, as long as you keep making them up.

So we're suddenly not 5 billion. Cool

What was your next claim...

Graham

Graham wrote: »

So to be clear

Not 5 billion.

Not even in the ballpark of 5 billion?

200k per home, not €1million per home.


Right?

I'll put it to you this way. The number of houses this week that have been identified is more than it was last week. We are not going anywhere so I'll let you have a moment where you feel smug. In the meantime there are others who are concerned what the final bill will end up being. Next time I'll use the word roughly or approximately to make it clear to you that the final number is still unknown so an estimate is required for the moment

Graham

whatnow! wrote: »

This will be a cost to each person in Ireland of approx €1,000.

ok so I think we've established that's complete cobblers, it's just a figure you've plucked out of the air.

What's next.

Wait a few more weeks and see how close my estimate is;)

The government have already said it will be well in excess of a billion with their cap, it will be much more without it and the number of houses is also already more than their estimate.

I expect I won't be too far off.

Graham

whatnow! wrote: »

There is no insurance. The company that supplied the blocks have assets that wouldn't even cover 1% of the cost.

I haven't checked but I assume you've got that right. Others may have an opinion.

whatnow! wrote: »

Some of these houses are modest and some of these houses are large 5 bed houses. They want all of these houses to be fully rebuilt and the cost to be assumed 100% by all of us.

It's probably not unreasonable to think when you work to buy a house that it's going to be safe for you and your family. When the system let's you down that probably is where the state should step in.

What do you think should be a reasonable bedroom limit for a safe house expectation?

Graham

whatnow! wrote: »

The government have already said it will be well in excess of a billion with their cap, it will be much more without it.

Cool, maybe you can link to the government's 5 billion estimate. That might substantiate your figures.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

I haven't checked but I assume you've got that right. Others may have an opinion.



It's probably not unreasonable to think when you work to buy a house that it's going to be safe for you and your family. When the system let's you down that probably is where the state should step in.

What do you think should be a reasonable bedroom limit for a safe house expectation?

I'm not going to play your game and the cost of a house is not simply down to the number of bedrooms. I don't care about how many bedrooms there are, just the cost.

GSBellew

Swindled wrote: »

Unfortunately isn't some mystery burglary that you can claim off your house insurance, or the motor insurance bureau of Ireland for damages and injuries caused by uninsured drivers.

Can you explain why a manufacturer of critical structural materials is allowed to operate without any product liability insurance on a massive scale producing defective materials for years for an entire region, without any enforcement of the state regulations whatsoever ? and is still allowed to do so ? and is still supplying the state with blocks for social housing ? And is recently able to get a renewed planning permission for the quarry in question for another 25 years, despite all their planning breaches ? Of course the taxpayer should not be picking up the tab for this.

I find it interesting that you have brought up the MIBI.

Because essentially this is the scenario those seeking 'redress' from the taxpayer are looking for, I highlight redress as I feel the term to be inappropriate, this suggests compensation for a wrongdoing. The taxpayer has not wronged the victims, the government has not wronged the victims, the manufacturer of the defective products has.

I suggested on another thread about this, that should the victims expect to benefit from some scheme whereby all building materials are underwritten by the state, let's face it, this is what swindled and others seem to think it should be, then those individuals must bear some proportion of what will be vastly increased material costs (in the form of an MIBI style levy) going forwards.

Swindled seems to believe that the state is liable to inspect and ultimately underwrite every item produced, used or placed on the market.

Did the supplier / suppliers of the materials hold ISO or similar certification?
Did those specifying the materials specify ones meeting a minimum or any standard?

I do not believe that a blanket, unlimited liability should be bourne by nor expectd to be bourne by innocent tax payers that have had no part in the creation of this problem.

A state assistance scheme, yeah, let's help out, but if you want us to go all in, make the taxpayer liable for every building ever built, it's going to cost, a lot,
those benefiting by getting a new house should be contributing too, I get you
paid already, but if I'm going to pay for my house & my contribution to yours
on top as well I'd expect you to also pay that bit too, it's only fair.

Take the partial apartment collapse in Miami, will the US tax payer be picking up the tab on that one?

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Cool, maybe you can link to the government's 5 billion estimate. That might substantiate your figures.

They don't have one. You're wasting my time now.

The cost will be in the billions with 100% redress. There is not doubt about that. You can Google that yourself.

5bn is not an unreasonable estimate given the changes since the governments original announcment.

Anyway, bed time. As a concerned taxpayer you may be interested to do your own research and let me know what you find rather than playing this childish game.

Clearly people are concerned about the cost as currently only 24% of poll replies are in favour of 100% redress without knowing the full extend of how bad this situation will become and the total cost to solve it.

Graham

whatnow! wrote: »

I'm not going to play your game and the cost of a house is not simply down to the number of bedrooms. I don't care about how many bedrooms there are, just the cost.

But you don't have a bulls notion about the cost.

Your own claim of €1 million per house demonstrates that far better than I could.

Poor attempt at victim blaming op, do better

Graham

Graham wrote: »

But you don't have a bulls notion about the cost.

Your own claim of €1 million per house demonstrates that far better than I could.

The 5bn is an estimate of the final cost and I've already explained that many people including those affected in Donegal believe that the number of affected houses is over 10,000 and could be much higher than that. I'll leave you to find someone else to poke at while offering nothing yourself.

Graham

I just don't get any of this.

"I'm going to make up some really outrageous figures and try to get others outraged about them"

*shakes head*


To those whose lives and families have undoubtedly been massively impacted by this, I wish you well.

Graham

whatnow! wrote: »

The 5bn is an estimate

You're confusing estimate with completely made up.

Sorry whatnow!, your figures are just so blatantly removed from reality and shift so quickly, it destroys any credibility they may have otherwise had.

On that basis I don't think it's necessary to continue disecting your other claims.

99nsr125

If we're regulating and levying quarries there's an implicit responsibility there.

Personally I would set an upper limit based on average house size/price.

That would be neither preferential or discriminatory treatment.

Potential-Monke

This is from the 9th of June, where the Minister says that it has already exceeded €1bn. Further down, it says there at 5000-6000 homes affected, so I'm taking the max there as this is old and there are more building to be identified, as per the article. It says the max cost is €275,000 per home, but also notes that some are much larger than the 2000sqm covered (and Varadaker then does question if the taxpayer should foot the bill for anything bigger).

So 6000*275000=€1.65 billion. And we're not finished, with community buildings and all expected to be included. One of the providers, Cassidy Brothers, released a statement saying that's it's also affected homes in other counties such as Limerick, Mayo, Sligo and Clare, indicating there's more. I do like where they say it's the Governments fault for not predicting this back in 2013, like they bear no responsibility to make sure what they're using is the best, not the cheapest. Indeed, they ignore the Statutory Instrument number 288 of 1949 as quoted in this IT article where it explains that the % of mica should be at 1% or less, and these blocks were at 17%. Suddenly it's the governments problem that the providers didn't ensure this themselves? BS. That's blatant ignorance and passing the blame. Yeah, Government should ensure everything is properly enforced, but like everything Government related, it's understaffed.

Government should run a mile from this, it's going to cost a lot. But that won't happen because feelings. The 90% is an amazing offer, and I'd imagine there are probably some jumping at it right now, because it's not going to be 100%, if anything it will drop, and most likely the longer this goes on, the more it will drop, because it just won't be affordable and is vastly unfair to the taxpayer.

fash

Potential-Monke wrote: »

This is from the 9th of June, where the Minister says that it has already exceeded €1bn. Further down, it says there at 5000-6000 homes affected, so I'm taking the max there as this is old and there are more building to be identified, as per the article. It says the max cost is €275,000 per home, but also notes that some are much larger than the 2000sqm covered (and Varadaker then does question if the taxpayer should foot the bill for anything bigger).

So 6000*275000=€1.65 billion. And we're not finished, with community buildings and all expected to be included. One of the providers, Cassidy Brothers, released a statement saying that's it's also affected homes in other counties such as Limerick, Mayo, Sligo and Clare, indicating there's more. I do like where they say it's the Governments fault for not predicting this back in 2013, like they bear no responsibility to make sure what they're using is the best, not the cheapest. Indeed, they ignore the Statutory Instrument number 288 of 1949 as quoted in this IT article where it explains that the % of mica should be at 1% or less, and these blocks were at 17%. Suddenly it's the governments problem that the providers didn't ensure this themselves? BS. That's blatant ignorance and passing the blame. Yeah, Government should ensure everything is properly enforced, but like everything Government related, it's understaffed.

Government should run a mile from this, it's going to cost a lot. But that won't happen because feelings. The 90% is an amazing offer, and I'd imagine there are probably some jumping at it right now, because it's not going to be 100%, if anything it will drop, and most likely the longer this goes on, the more it will drop, because it just won't be affordable and is vastly unfair to the taxpayer.

Fully agree. The cost that the tax payer is expected to take on (and remember it is not just this but the principle - so every future problem in whatever arena you can possibly think of) is eye watering.
(If this principle is established, should the tax payer also pay for every building/apartment block where fire protection has been badly done and there is no one left to sue? If not, why not? )
Not only is the tax payer expected to foot all of these bills, what it will require is a massive increase in inspection and regulation, paperwork and buckpassing - all at massive additional cost to be paid whenever anyone does anything. God forbid that a contractor develops an innovative new construction material or technique and brings it to market - the cost of proving it acceptable is going to rise massively. Also I hope no one was concerned about the existing cost of construction or the lack of supply of housing.

And all, let us not forget, in circumstances where the state/ tax payer is not legally responsible. If the state/tax payer were, it would be sued - but it is not and has done nothing wrong.

FullyComp

I think with these arguments you have to substitute the words "the state" or "the government" with "everyone else". It's an awful lot of money to hand over.

What I would like to see is that a government fund is set up to cover 99% of the cost, I think the homeowners should have stump up a small part of the funding,

The state should receive equity in the property for it's investment and if the property is ever sold, a significant part of the proceeds goes back to the rebuild fund. Homeowners should not be charged any rent in the meantime and are free to live there in definitely.

jimmycrackcorm

Swindled wrote:

They are demanding no such thing. After years of these home owning taxpayers pursuing those responsible, the state has had to step in, as only the state now has the powers needed to sort this emergency and hopefully get money back for the taxpayer from the sectors and industry responsible. The victims of this are taxpayers as well and want proper justice and measures put in place to ensure this never happens other homeowners and taxpayers as well.

They are demanding taxpayers completely foot the bill. If a business owner has his business fail through no fault of his own. The state won't help out. He may have employed many people, paid huge amounts in employer PRSI and won't even be entitled to the dole him or herself.

Swindled wrote:

No they want what they paid for, nothing more, nothing less, and they want this to stop happening.

I would like the government to give me the money I have paid for my house also.

Jaylen High Skier wrote:

The state failed the homeowners by lack of enforcement of regulations.

That's such a weak argument. If you want to argue that then show it was an identified problem in all the decades since the regulations were put in place in the 1940's.
I.e. if that's your argument then why didn't you or anyone raise that point about enforcement in 1960, 80, 90 etc

hurleronditch

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I would like the government to give me the money I have paid for my house also.

This is a nonsensical thing to say. The people affected here are still paying mortgages on their houses, so it’s not like fixing the mica issues suddenly gives them a free house as you seem to be implying.

The simple fact here is that the vast majority of people can’t afford to pay for this on top of their mortgage and living costs, but I do agree that the redress scheme should have some element of payment by the homeowners, however small.

If the government were to not pay anything here, there are a lot of families who would need council accommodation, so to not pay causes the same end cost to the taxpayer

NIMAN

Potential-Monke wrote: »

The 90% is an amazing offer, and I'd imagine there are probably some jumping at it right now, because it's not going to be 100%, if anything it will drop, and most likely the longer this goes on, the more it will drop, because it just won't be affordable and is vastly unfair to the taxpayer.

This is part of the issue you see.

There is no 90% scheme. Seeing that figure on paper looks great but it never existed. Many costs like demolition, storage, rent, planning permission, engineers etc were not covered (like they were in the Leinster Pyrite scheme), so in reality most applying to the scheme found it to be 70/30 at best, with it really being more like a 60/40 in most cases. Many homeowners have come out and said it was going to cost them 100k - 150k. Where do you think people paying big mortgages, raising families etc were going to get an extra 100k minimum?

If it was a true 90%, I am sure many people would jump on the scheme now.

And another side issue is the management of the scheme itself. Donegal CoCo are bending over backwards to make it was awkward as possible for people to use it. Some peoples houses are literally in pieces, and 6 months into the application process, they are asking for photos of the inside of the house, delaying the progress. They are a disaster and adding to the stress felt by so many.

NiceFella

Markus Antonius wrote: »

If this thread is any reflection of the nations intelligence then I think it's time to jump in the ocean and start swimming in any direction.

Nobody is denying how awful a situation the home owners are in, but to expect any redress at all from the government/tax payer is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard.

Cowboys in the construction industry are ten a penny. Unfortunately, nobody (except for the cowboy/supplier etc. or maybe an insurer if you are covered) is responsible if you fall foul of one of them. It's nuts!

Ah yeah, sure why bother with any social protection at all! May as well disband the gardai and health services and let everyone fend for themselves. Dog eat dog it is.

Being part of a nation means that you get benefit of regulatory standards which protect consumers. Does every person in ireland now need to be an expert in construction raw materials? Under your notion they would. Sounds like a real wild west society, one that I would not like to be apart of.

Beta Ray Bill

I'd be in favour of 100% of the costs if the person/people ultimately responsible are put into prison.

There was clearly no quality control done on any of this stuff, when really there should have been.

I'd also be in favour of punishing insurers that won't pay out.

Imagine being in a position where you've worked your whole like to pay off a mortgage/build and house, only for it to fall to bits as the blocks that were supplied to you were defective.

I know you said the houses are big etc, but they aren't worth a huge amount as most of them are in the back arse of Donegal

fash

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I'd be in favour of 100% of the costs if the person/people ultimately responsible are put into prison.

There was clearly no quality control done on any of this stuff, when really there should have been.

I'd also be in favour of punishing insurers that won't pay out.

Imagine being in a position where you've worked your whole like to pay off a mortgage/build and house, only for it to fall to bits as the blocks that were supplied to you were defective.

I know you said the houses are big etc, but they aren't worth a huge amount as most of them are in the back arse of Donegal

do you include the homeowners who clearly failed to do sufficient investigations/ put in place sufficient insurance in that? If not, why not?
I will assume that any actors who are criminally or civilly liable are being/have been suitably punished.

Beta Ray Bill

fash wrote: »

do you include the homeowners who clearly failed to do sufficient investigations/ put in place sufficient insurance in that? If not, why not?

I don't understand what you mean by this?
If you buy anything from new, you expect that it's built to an acceptable standard. You cannot do investigations into a build quality of X if you have no experience in that field. If you buy a new car and it fall apart after a few years then the manufacturer of that car is liable, not you. All you know about a car is how to drive it.

In terms of the insurance, you are asked for contents cover valuation and rebuild costs valuation, and you can pull that number out of the air really, I'd imagine most people have it, as it's a requirement for many banks now to provide a mortgage.

fash wrote: »

I will assume that any actors who are criminally or civilly liable are being/have been suitably punished.

I'd hope so too, but we don't really put people in Prison in Ireland for these kinds of things.

overshoot

whatnow! wrote: »

The docks in Dublin? Why are you introducing a few apartments on the docks into a conversation about 5000+ houses in Donegal?

Because you're complaining of the price of the states social responsibilities which those units are also, I'm only following your wider lead with regard to the states financial capability but you only seem to have a particular issue with paying out in Donegal.
To the extend you've banged on in the DL thread for quite a while now and set up at least 2 other threads across boards on the same topic

Smee_Again

I voted that the tax payer shouldn't pay. I just don't understand why home insurance isn't covering this. I have asked this before but no one has given a clear answer.

1 option that isn't on the poll is to build higher density houses and offer those to the people affected and then just knock the affected houses. Donegal is destroyed with one off houses and this is an opportunity to undo that damage.

It also allows for economies of scale while building, should make it easier to provide high speed internet too.

NIMAN

fash wrote: »

do you include the homeowners who clearly failed to do sufficient investigations/ put in place sufficient insurance in that? If not, why not?

What nonsense is this?

I bought a 2nd hand house in 2010.
I got a structural engineer to check it out, as required by my bank who was lending me the money. He gave the all clear.

The bank accepted his report.
An insurance company took my money to insure my building for 11 years.

Now all of them are washing their hands if my house starts to fall down.

But its my fault?

overshoot

fash wrote: »

do you include the homeowners who clearly failed to do sufficient investigations/ put in place sufficient insurance in that? If not, why not?
I will assume that any actors who are criminally or civilly liable are being/have been suitably punished.

What investigations are you looking for, when you did bought a house did you get the standard pre-purchase survey which the banks request which could show nothing as it's visual, or look for core samples of the blockwork, and sent them off to England for testing at a cost of thousands?

Home builders need employers, public liability and all risks (covering during construction) insurance. Cassidys should have product liability insurance, do you ask for that on every item you buy?

NIMAN

overshoot wrote: »

What investigations are you looking for, when you did bought a house did you get the standard pre-purchase survey which the banks request which could show nothing as it's visual, or look for core samples of the blockwork, and sent them off to England for testing at a cost of thousands?

Home builders need employers, public liability and all risks (covering during construction) insurance. Cassidys should have product liability insurance, do you ask for that on every item you buy?

Surely that is up to the council or Government to ensure they have such insurance? Yet many on Boards seem to think its the homeowners fault!

The fact that they didn't, and they have admitted this is a letter which is in the public domain, is shocking. Yet they were allowed to continue selling faulty blocks, despite Mica being a known issue since 2013/14, without said insurance.

blackbox

When there were problems withe the car insurance industry many years ago, a levy was introduced on every policy to help recoup losses.

A levy on the construction industry would be the appropriate way to recoup costs here. It might also encourage the construction industry to manage its own standards and require insurance throughout the supply chain.

ec18

life can be a bit **** but it's not the states problem. Take the 90% on offer and be happy it's more than 0

ThunbergsAreGo

blackbox wrote: »

When there were problems withe the car insurance industry many years ago, a levy was introduced on every policy to help recoup losses.

A levy on the construction industry would be the appropriate way to recoup costs here. It might also encourage the construction industry to manage its own standards and require insurance throughout the supply chain.

Yeah that won't increase already ludicrous house prices at all...