MICA - Who should pay?

listermint

Why so many threads with polls by the OP on different forums ? With the same subject

Smee_Again

listermint wrote: »

Why so many threads with polls by the OP on different forums ? With the same subject

OP not getting the desired answer I presume.

NIMAN

ec18 wrote: »

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

But its not 90%, thats the issue that started the current campaign in Donegal. Its closer to 60%.
And why would one set of citizens get 100% redress and another set 60% or 70%?



Also, say there is no redress at all, how do you think the Government are going to house perhaps 5000 - 8000 homeless families in Donegal? There is a severe shortage of properties for rent up here, so they will have to undertake a massive house building project to build enough houses to home them all. They know this, and thats why they probably see fixing peoples houses as the more sensible option.

fash

NIMAN wrote: »

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?

If your engineer did something wrong, sue him.
If your insurance covers it, collect off them.
If you can't- why is the tax payers' problem?

StupidLikeAFox

ec18 wrote: »

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

What's the point of punishing them for the 10%? I mean if the government can afford the 90% then they can cover the whole lot. As a taxpayer who is unaffected by this issue, I'd be happy to see my money spent on this

Bear in mind it isn't like these homeowners pulled a fast one and are trying to game the system, if you pay 100% they're no better off than where they should have been.

You could maybe look at building in something for the state to recoup something if the house is sold for a profit in the next x years or something, but 10% up front is basically a fine.

NIMAN

fash wrote: »

If your engineer did something wrong, sue him.
If your insurance covers it, collect off them.
If you can't- why is the tax payers' problem?

1) Engineer isn't liable as he can't see inside blocks when doing his survey.
2) Insurance doesn't cover it.
3) It is the government job to regulate the industry and ensure quality of products being put into that industry. They failed to do this.

Another question for you.

Why was it the taxpayers problem with Pyrite in Leinster a few years back, when all homeowners got 100% redress, every cost covered including rent, storage etc. But now its not the taxpayers problem?

fash

NIMAN wrote: »

1) Engineer isn't liable as he can't see inside blocks when doing his survey.

So the engineer did nothing wrong - and the limitations of what he did were clearly communicated.

2) Insurance doesn't cover it.

So again the limitations were clearly communicated.

3) It is the government job to regulate the industry and ensure quality of products being put into that industry. They failed to do this.

If you think it is the government's job and they failed - sue them and you will win. But I do not believe

Another question for you.

Why was it the taxpayers problem with Pyrite in Leinster a few years back, when all homeowners got 100% redress, every cost covered including rent, storage etc. But now its not the taxpayers problem?

I don't believe it was the tax payers' problem and the tax payer needs to ensure that the principle is not established that the tax payer will pay out for every bond holder, pyrite or mica sufferer, bad fire-stopping sufferer, bad septic tank owner etc.

fash

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

What's the point of punishing them for the 10%? I mean if the government can afford the 90% then they can cover the whole lot. As a taxpayer who is unaffected by this issue, I'd be happy to see my money spent on this

Bear in mind it isn't like these homeowners pulled a fast one and are trying to game the system, if you pay 100% they're no better off than where they should have been.

You could maybe look at building in something for the state to recoup something if the house is sold for a profit in the next x years or something, but 10% up front is basically a fine.

The state has no legal responsibility here and a precedent is being established that the tax payer will backstop everything. "Tax payer paid out for pyrite and mica, tax payer should now pay out for fire protection, bond holders, people who built on a flood plain/next to a cliff etc.
Creates moral hazard and makes construction even more expensive.

upandcumming

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Firstly, your calculations don't factor in that we could take out a loan and finance over many years. Its a once off cost, meaning that while it sounds massive its actually e a pittance in the grand scheme of things. You mention a cost of 2500e per head, we'll if that was financed over 20 years it is literally nothing

Secondly, the government should pay for the whole lot, for the simple reason that it's the right thing to do.

This is the best you have? Woeful arguments.

FWIW I believe the government should assist these families.

Glaceon

I'd say give them the 100%, even though I'm not overly happy about it. The government set a trend by giving 100% to those affected by pyrite in the east. To turn around now and say that those in the west can't have the same thing would only fuel the "Dublin gets everything" fire in the west. And I say that as someone from Dublin.

Kimbot

MOD There is already a thread on the MICA topic over in the Donegal forum: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057901409

Do not spam multiple forums with the same threads please.