nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

FF/FG/Green Government - Part 3

Necro

Following on from

this thread

Please remain civil or posting privileges will be removed

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Calhoun

Deleted User wrote: »

Why should the taxpayer carry the can for builders cutting corners? Does their insurance not cover this?

The government should and does have laws protecting the tax payer. They need to enforce their building standards and make sure the builder pays up.

The tax payer carries the can when they fail to do their job. Sure Donegal county council still contracts primarily with the main culprit in the mica stuff.

Larbre34

It is a little odd to blame the State for their woes, when in this case the State had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Is this a protest against a redress scheme of free cash from fellow taxpayers just not being generous enough?

blanch152

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

They just said the buses have triclours in the windows.

Can someone explain??

They are proud of their country.

Hence, they don't blame the state for their woes.

Have I got it right?

timmyntc

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Mica was only part of the problem. The Sunday Indo has it that the cement content was only 50% of what it should be 3% instead of 6%. However local knowledge by builders and house owners was lacking here as well. When I was building I was advised away from a local block/Concrete. There was three other suppliers so I used one of them.

The regulator shod have flowed it up with the block supplier and got the company director's disbared by the director of Corporate enforcement. The problem in Ireland is lads can walk from things like that too easy.

I do not believe that house owners should be 100% compensated. They should definitely have to make a contribution as well after l they are going to end up with a house build to 2020 standard rather than 1990's standard. Pyrite owners should have been forced to do that as well

Agree on the bolded - however requiring homeowners who through no fault of their own now have a house thats crumbling, to pay up to fix it is madness.
Most people cannot afford it - what are they to do? Sell? Who would buy it?

The houses are unsellable, no bank will lend against them, the mortgage still needs paid. People would be more than happy with wall replacement or rebuild to existing standard - however the current scheme makes it difficult to impossible to achieve that, not to mention the costing.

There should be exceptions made to allow rebuilds to the existing spec of the house, it would save costs but also be fairest. What is not fair or just is expecting pensioners to just go homeless because they can neither sell nor afford to fix a house that shouldnt need fixing in the first place.

BASHIR

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Because they are concerned about the most recent polls, are weak generally, and thinking about the next election.

Again, this issue has nothing to do with Government or the taxpayer. These people should be taking this up with their builders/suppliers via existing legal avenues.

That's quite obvious. Yet they are intervening, making it a government issue whether you or I like it or not.

_Kaiser_

BASHIR wrote: »

Government seem to feel different, not going to oppose Sinn Fein motion.

Because they are concerned about the most recent polls, are weak generally, and thinking about the next election.

Again, this issue has nothing to do with Government or the taxpayer. These people should be taking this up with their builders/suppliers via existing legal avenues.

Bass Reeves

There is a few aspects to this issue. Regulation is one of them . Government regulates but then fails to re-enforce regulations. The idea of suing has limited ability to bring a result. Everywhere along the line is a company structure. Companies have limited liability. Trying to assertain what insurance they may or may not have had in place is limited. Which I Durance company is used....the builders is it the company that he was using 20 years plus ago or the present one.

Either insurance company will fight that the builder was not at fault it was a regulated product from another entity. You them have the same issue with supplier and finally you get to the manufacturer who liquidated his limited company.

Mica was only part of the problem. The Sunday Indo has it that the cement content was only 50% of what it should be 3% instead of 6%. However local knowledge by builders and house owners was lacking here as well. When I was building I was advised away from a local block/Concrete. There was three other suppliers so I used one of them.

The regulator shod have flowed it up with the block supplier and got the company director's disbared by the director of Corporate enforcement. The problem in Ireland is lads can walk from things like that too easy.

I do not believe that house owners should be 100% compensated. They should definitely have to make a contribution as well after l they are going to end up with a house build to 2020 standard rather than 1990's standard. Pyrite owners should have been forced to do that as well

Melanchthon

mikep wrote: »

Again ..has anyone heard who the manufactures are??
As others pointed out they should be the first call for compo..
They supplied a faculty product where the poor quality has serious consequences..
If during an investigation it's found that the regulator was negligent then go after them by all means but I expect there will be a clause in the legislation to establish the regulator that they can't be liable...

Check out the thread on the Donegal forum here it will have more detail and less people arguing that there hasn't been a serious failure in regulation

FrancieBrady

mikep wrote: »

Again ..has anyone heard who the manufactures are??
As others pointed out they should be the first call for compo..
They supplied a faculty product where the poor quality has serious consequences..
If during an investigation it's found that the regulator was negligent then go after them by all means but I expect there will be a clause in the legislation to establish the regulator that they can't be liable...

Yes, Cassidy's were the main supplier in the Donegal cases.

The regulations (1947) were broken as up to 17% mica was found in their blocks when the regs said there was to be a limit of 1%.

FrancieBrady

ineedeuro wrote: »

If, but's, maybe
You would sue the restaurant as you originally said, trying to say now it would fold is irrelevant.

He would sue the restaurant and the FSAI if they were negligent. Happens all the time when multiple defendants are named in a writ.

mikep

Again ..has anyone heard who the manufactures are??
As others pointed out they should be the first call for compo..
They supplied a faculty product where the poor quality has serious consequences..
If during an investigation it's found that the regulator was negligent then go after them by all means but I expect there will be a clause in the legislation to establish the regulator that they can't be liable...

ineedeuro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The government have already accepted liability by introducing a redress scheme.

The protestors are saying it isn't enough.
If you have an issue with who is liable, then criticise the government for accepting it.

The government should remove the option if the people think it is not good enough and they can go after the builders themselves.

ineedeuro

timmyntc wrote: »

In other words, I would sue the FSAI.
As I stated - the restaurant would likely fold before having to pay out several claims that would leave it bankrupt. Same applies here with block suppliers.

The cost for redress goes way beyond what any block supplier would afford, and insurance likely would not cover gross negligence like this - so the only option is the state pays given it was the states lapse in regulating that allowed this to transpire in the first place.

If, but's, maybe
You would sue the restaurant as you originally said, trying to say now it would fold is irrelevant.

FrancieBrady

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Are the victims suing the manufacturers and the regulator?

They should be.

The government have already accepted liability by introducing a redress scheme.

The protestors are saying it isn't enough.
If you have an issue with who is liable, then criticise the government for accepting it.

timmyntc

ineedeuro wrote: »

So in other words you would sue the restaurant. Thank you, I 100% agree

In other words, I would sue the FSAI.
As I stated - the restaurant would likely fold before having to pay out several claims that would leave it bankrupt. Same applies here with block suppliers.

The cost for redress goes way beyond what any block supplier would afford, and insurance likely would not cover gross negligence like this - so the only option is the state pays given it was the states lapse in regulating that allowed this to transpire in the first place.

Jinglejangle69

timmyntc wrote: »

If I knew the FSAI were not conducting regular inspections like they should, then I would sue both. The restaurant wouldnt have enough cash to cover a multitude of claims either though.

Are the victims suing the manufacturers and the regulator?

They should be.

ineedeuro

timmyntc wrote: »

If I knew the FSAI were not conducting regular inspections like they should, then I would sue both. The restaurant wouldnt have enough cash to cover a multitude of claims either though.

So in other words you would sue the restaurant. Thank you, I 100% agree

timmyntc

ineedeuro wrote: »

Would you sue the FSAI or the restaurant?

If I knew the FSAI were not conducting regular inspections like they should, then I would sue both. The restaurant wouldnt have enough cash to cover a multitude of claims either though.

ineedeuro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Loads of cases like these where the HSA sues a negligent company.

https://www.hsa.ie/eng/news_events_media/archive/press_releases_2013_to_2020/press_releases_2016/company_fined_%E2%82%AC250_000_for_safety_breach.html

Company failed to observe regulations and the HSA sued them.

How is that relevant?
The money is not going to the victims.

ineedeuro

timmyntc wrote: »

If the FSAI neglected to perform food safety inspections on restaurants and people subsequently got ill - they would be found negligent in addition to the restaurant.

Would you sue the FSAI or the restaurant?

FrancieBrady

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

It's quite clear this is been turned into another political football by certain people.

AW NO JJ, the opposition holding the government to account again...how awful! Bad sports there. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

ineedeuro wrote: »

We should change our legal system. Everyone should just sue the HSA etc and they can then sue the company. Sure it will only cost billions in legal fee's but sure thats the way it should be

Loads of cases like these where the HSA sues a negligent company.

https://www.hsa.ie/eng/news_events_media/archive/press_releases_2013_to_2020/press_releases_2016/company_fined_%E2%82%AC250_000_for_safety_breach.html

Company failed to observe regulations and the HSA sued them.

Jinglejangle69

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You were the one making the claim the regulator was not there to go after money. Two seconds to prove you wrong. Now you want proof that they were successful.

Deary me.

The protestors here are already successful and have made the government accept their responsibilities in securing some redress, they want 100% redress and I think they will get it. Why? Because they are ordinary people who have been failed by state incompetence.

And I said that's great and have they been successful before?

Probelm could be solved for all parties involved.

timmyntc

ineedeuro wrote: »

I will make the point again. You have Health and Safety. Is everyone currently suing the Health and Safety Authority? No they are suing the company that didn't follow the H&S.

That is why we have a legal system. You can't change the legal system just because it suddenly doesn't suit your point. That's not how it works.

If the FSAI neglected to perform food safety inspections on restaurants and people subsequently got ill - they would be found negligent in addition to the restaurant.

Jinglejangle69

It's quite clear this is been turned into another political football by certain people.

FrancieBrady

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Any links to any successful outcomes?

Wouldn't it be nice.

Maybe we should all stop paying insurance for our companies seems the regulator can look after everyones issues.

You were the one making the claim the regulator was not there to go after money. Two seconds to prove you wrong. Now you want proof that they were successful.

Deary me.

The protestors here are already successful and have made the government accept their responsibilities in securing some redress, they want 100% redress and I think they will get it. Why? Because they are ordinary people who have been failed by state incompetence.

ineedeuro

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I quoted the law above on Mica regulations. Let the regulator sue and recoup the money. The regulator and by consequence the government have failed ordinary trusting people here. They have every right to protest. The government has given way already that they have that right, by accepting some responsibility.

No they haven't, the manufacturer have failed the building suppliers and contractors.
You seem to want a nanny state when the government controls everything. I can tell you that certainly is not what we require.

Majority of the population are not idiots and we don't need the government holding our hand and wiping our bum at every turn. Anytime the government get involved just slows the process and ends up with more issues for the ordinary people.

ineedeuro

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Any links to any successful outcomes?

Wouldn't it be nice.

Maybe we should all stop paying insurance for our companies seems the regulator can look after everyones issues.

We should change our legal system. Everyone should just sue the HSA etc and they can then sue the company. Sure it will only cost billions in legal fee's but sure thats the way it should be

FrancieBrady

ineedeuro wrote: »

I will make the point again. You have Health and Safety. Is everyone currently suing the Health and Safety Authority? No they are suing the company that didn't follow the H&S.

That is why we have a legal system. You can't change the legal system just because it suddenly doesn't suit your point. That's not how it works.

I quoted the law above on Mica regulations. Let the regulator sue and recoup the money. The regulator and by consequence the government have failed ordinary trusting people here. They have every right to protest. The government has given way already that they have that right, by accepting some responsibility.

Jinglejangle69

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/regulator-sues-google-over-sponsored-links-1.969761?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fregulator-sues-google-over-sponsored-links-1.969761

https://postandparcel.info/45491/news/irish-regulator-sues-an-post-over-poor-service-quality/

Any links to any successful outcomes?

Wouldn't it be nice.

Maybe we should all stop paying insurance for our companies seems the regulator can look after everyones issues.