FF/FG/Green Government - Part 3

highgiant1985 wrote: »

The company should be prosecuted and held accountable. The degree to which depending on if this was a knowing fraud or accidental and the company not having insurance shouldn't be a reason not to prosecute them.

Otherwise why would any company follow regulations in the future or bother with insurance - allowing companies away with this is basically saying sure its grand the Government can fix it up and I've already made my profit.

Note: I'm not saying there shouldn't be some government support for this but I'm saying the companies / providers involved also need to be held accountable.

...by the regulator. And the regulator should face sanction if negligent too.

Ordinary people who have no fault here, need to get on with their lives as quickly as possible. They succeeded in getting the government to take liability which is were the liability lies ultimately in my book.

Fann Linn

ineedeuro wrote: »

Seemingly it is not up to the company to follow the regulations or guidelines anymore. They can do whatever they want and it's the government fault.

I can see a few problems

It's upto statutory bodies to enforce the regs and so ensure companies comply.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Local knowledge comes into play here. They probably know the company have no money and were not insured. Frogs san feathers etc etc. And they only have one life to lead which has effectively been destroyed.

A house is a house. More to life than a house.

Local knowledge should have come into play when the house was been built and not use the s**t block. Personally if I heard someone say they can chase a wall with a hammer and chissel I ask the builder not to use that block.

Out of interest, how many builders in the area are affected with the block?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Local knowledge comes into play here. They probably know the company have no money and were not insured. Frogs san feathers etc etc. And they only have one life to lead which has effectively been destroyed.

I know and if this wasn't deliberate then I'd say fair enough but it was still a deliberate decision by the Directors of that company not to take out insurance and there should be some penalty applied otherwise why should anyway follow the rules.

ineedeuro wrote: »

Seemingly it is not up to the company to follow the regulations or guidelines anymore. They can do whatever they want and it's the government fault.

I can see a few problems

If the government were enforcing said regulations in the first place, we wouldnt be in this mess. Similarly if they required the suppliers have insurance for their products.

Jinglejangle69

highgiant1985 wrote: »

The company should be prosecuted and held accountable. The degree to which depending on if this was a knowing fraud or accidental and the company not having insurance shouldn't be a reason not to prosecute them.

Otherwise why would any company follow regulations in the future or bother with insurance - allowing companies away with this is basically saying sure its grand the Government can fix it up and I've already made my profit.

Note: I'm not saying there shouldn't be some government support for this but I'm saying the companies / providers involved also need to be held accountable.

Sure the government are expected to fix everyone's issues nowadays.

This is no different.

timmyntc wrote: »

Because the company have no insurance and so wont be able to afford the redress for all the houses affected - even if they are liquidated and all assets sold etc, it wont come close.

It is a totally pointless endeavour and its no surprise no homeowner would waste their money on it when their house is crumbling around them

Its not pointless though. It ensures accountability in the future otherwise why would anyone bother with insurance or following regulations.

ineedeuro wrote: »

Mr & Mrs in Inishowen will be still sitting in a house with the walls falling down waiting for recourse, if they had to do the proper thing in the first place and go after the company a lot of them would already be fixed up.

Local knowledge comes into play here. They probably know the company have no money and were not insured. Frogs san feathers etc etc. And they only have one life to lead which has effectively been destroyed.

highgiant1985 wrote: »

The company should be prosecuted and held accountable. The degree to which depending on if this was a knowing fraud or accidental and the company not having insurance shouldn't be a reason not to prosecute them.

Otherwise why would any company follow regulations in the future or bother with insurance - allowing companies away with this is basically saying sure its grand the Government can fix it up and I've already made my profit.

Seemingly it is not up to the company to follow the regulations or guidelines anymore. They can do whatever they want and it's the government fault.

I can see a few problems

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'You can't take feathers off a frog' as they might say in Donegal.

They may have won, they may have lost, but would they get actual money to do the work?

All immaterial as the government has accepted the liability long ago.

The company should be prosecuted and held accountable. The degree to which depending on if this was a knowing fraud or accidental and the company not having insurance shouldn't be a reason not to prosecute them.

Otherwise why would any company follow regulations in the future or bother with insurance - allowing companies away with this is basically saying sure its grand the Government can fix it up and I've already made my profit.

Note: I'm not saying there shouldn't be some government support for this but I'm saying the companies / providers involved also need to be held accountable.

Fann Linn

ineedeuro wrote: »

Mr & Mrs in Inishowen will be still sitting in a house with the walls falling down waiting for recourse, if they had to do the proper thing in the first place and go after the company a lot of them would already be fixed up.

But now they're sitting in a house knowing that the problem is going to be resolved, as opposed to forking out infinite €000s on court adjournments.

Fann Linn wrote: »

Govt are going to chase those companies and the banks according to latest reports. So they may have better luck than Mr & Mrs from Inishowen.

Mr & Mrs in Inishowen will be still sitting in a house with the walls falling down waiting for recourse, if they had to do the proper thing in the first place and go after the company a lot of them would already be fixed up.

Fann Linn

ineedeuro wrote: »

It's not a waster and what the TD should have told them to do. At this stage if they had to go after the companies they would have a couple of million in back pockets and a court case to point out proving the company was negligent....

Even now some places are not covered by the government, those millions could have covered those buildings.

Govt are going to chase those companies and the banks according to latest reports. So they may have better luck than Mr & Mrs from Inishowen.

ineedeuro wrote: »

It's not a waster and what the TD should have told them to do. At this stage if they had to go after the companies they would have a couple of million in back pockets and a court case to point out proving the company was negligent....

Even now some places are not covered by the government, those millions could have covered those buildings.

'You can't take feathers off a frog' as they might say in Donegal.

They may have won, they may have lost, but would they get actual money to do the work?

All immaterial as the government has accepted the liability long ago.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Bizarrely, one of the company's is supporting the campaign for 100% redress.

Not bizarre at all.

If I had sold a pile of sh*t to people I wouldnt want them coming after me either.

timmyntc wrote: »

Because the company have no insurance and so wont be able to afford the redress for all the houses affected - even if they are liquidated and all assets sold etc, it wont come close.

It is a totally pointless endeavour and its no surprise no homeowner would waste their money on it when their house is crumbling around them

It's not a waster and what the TD should have told them to do. At this stage if they had to go after the companies they would have a couple of million in back pockets and a court case to point out proving the company was negligent....

Even now some places are not covered by the government, those millions could have covered those buildings.

ineedeuro wrote: »

Probably because the locals rocked down to a TD who said they would sort it all out.

Because the company have no insurance and so wont be able to afford the redress for all the houses affected - even if they are liquidated and all assets sold etc, it wont come close.

It is a totally pointless endeavour and its no surprise no homeowner would waste their money on it when their house is crumbling around them

highgiant1985 wrote: »

Why aren't we hearing about charges being brought against the company/people behind the company then?

Probably because the locals rocked down to a TD who said they would sort it all out.

highgiant1985 wrote: »

Why aren't we hearing about charges being brought against the company/people behind the company then?

Bizarrely, one of the company's is supporting the campaign for 100% redress.

timmyntc wrote: »

One of the companies in question had no insurance to cover their product - so there will be no recourse from that avenue.

They should not have been allowed trade in the first place - again, a failure of regulation from our govt.

Why aren't we hearing about charges being brought against the company/people behind the company then?

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No but you teach company director's to be responsible. There is a tendancy in this country to limited liability as an excuse to do as you please. If there was conquences to these actions when company director's saw a possible issue they would have it minuted if they taught there should be action taken. This would force other directors to act.

It would force independent directors who were drawing fees only to actually be independent

Nobody is saying that they shouldnt be held responsible - just that there is no logic in the homeowners as a collective trying to sue as it wont fix their houses. The company will fold as they dont have insurance and the payout will not come close to the damages incurred.

The state should pursue them and punish them - but the homeowners should look to the state for redress as nobody else can afford it (since theres no insurance here)

[Deleted User]

ineedeuro wrote: »

No the company didn't adhere to regulations.
So the company is at fault.
The government should never have got involved.

The thing about companies is that their liability is limited and they can be folded in the morning along with their liability!

Bass Reeves

timmyntc wrote: »

And get what a few million at most? Thats barely a dent in the overall cost to fix this.

No but you teach company director's to be responsible. There is a tendancy in this country to limited liability as an excuse to do as you please. If there was conquences to these actions when company director's saw a possible issue they would have it minuted if they taught there should be action taken. This would force other directors to act.

It would force independent directors who were drawing fees only to actually be independent

ineedeuro wrote: »

A few million at most? how many houses will a few million fix?
I would prefer a few million been used in the HSE than sitting in some builders pocket who didn't do his job. That really is a baffling statement to make.
A few million is coming from people who pay tax, ask them how they feel about "a few million"

Then have the state pursue the supplier (not builder) who was at fault, and they can put that few million into the HSE as you so badly want.

But the state will still have to pay the redress because noone else can - and this situation would not have arised if not for the states poor regulation.

ineedeuro wrote: »

You really do seem to want a nanny state don't you?
It is not illegal for a company not to have insurance, it is very stupid but not illegal.

So the regulator overlooked that the law (1942) on mica percentages was being broken and that the company was uninsured against claims against product that was criminally defective?

And you want ordinary people to bear the brunt of that?

Your argument is not with the ordinary people, it is with the government which has accepted liability for the very obvious failure. You are beating a dead drum here. The world has moved on.

timmyntc wrote: »

And get what a few million at most? Thats barely a dent in the overall cost to fix this.

A few million at most? how many houses will a few million fix?
I would prefer a few million been used in the HSE than sitting in some builders pocket who didn't do his job. That really is a baffling statement to make.
A few million is coming from people who pay tax, ask them how they feel about "a few million"

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I read that in an American newspaper of all places. If true that is abject failure of regulation and more reason why the government admitted liability.

They are on a hiding to nothing here and I can see nothing but 100% redress. Baffling why they are adding further misery by delaying and can kicking.

You really do seem to want a nanny state don't you?
It is not illegal for a company not to have insurance, it is very stupid but not illegal.

ineedeuro wrote: »

So the company has no insurance you take everything from the company and then everything from the directors

Insurance is just in place to cover the company so they dont go bust if this happens. As they had no insurance the company goes bust.

And get what a few million at most? Thats barely a dent in the overall cost to fix this.

timmyntc wrote: »

One of the companies in question had no insurance to cover their product - so there will be no recourse from that avenue.

They should not have been allowed trade in the first place - again, a failure of regulation from our govt.

So the company has no insurance you take everything from the company and then everything from the directors

Insurance is just in place to cover the company so they dont go bust if this happens. As they had no insurance the company goes bust.