Mica Redress

fash · 29-06-2021 8:26pm

whatnow! wrote: »

Absolutely. Restored by the vendor or in some cases the manufacturer of the product or service.

I'm not sure why that burden automatically falls on the taxpayer.

We have been over this and you mentioned things about pyrite repair and bankers getting baled out but didn't make a case of why taxpayers should compensate mica victims 100% for their misfortune so having the same chat again is pointless.

I do believe that the taxpayer needs to help the mica victims but where we differ is that I believe it should be capped and you don't and talking about the bank bailout doesn't bridge that gap.

All of this creates further moral hazard: "so what if we are a bank/insurance company and f**k up- the tax payers will bail us out" "why should I get a reputable builder with lots of warranties, and a full design team - the tax payers will bail me out"; "why should I pay this mortgage- the tax payer will bail me out" etc

29-06-2021 8:27pm

Nats9314 wrote: »

This is banded about in every forum or discussion on mica...that the majority of effected homes are one off donegal mcmansions...and the 100% redress scheme is unpalatable to pay for the same again. This could not be further from the truth...the majority of homes are modest size and in estates....drive about letterkenny or buncrana and you'd be shocked at the extent of the issue and thats not even looking at the community halls..Public buildings...doctors surgeries...apartment blocks etc. I will admit .. even though the recent media coverage is great, skewing the coverage to the one off large self builds doesn't help getting public backing.

Public backing would be much easier to obtain with a cap which is large enough to rebuild a house of modest size in an estate so that covers the majority of those affected.

It sounds like the majority need to negotiate for themselves and not have their lives held up because a small minority are demanding a mansion to be built with taxpayer funds.

29-06-2021 8:31pm

Swindled wrote: »

The same as it always is, what it takes to replace what the person had, not less than what they had, not more than what they had.

Like I said, that is the root of our difference of opinion. I'm not willing to contribute to the rebuilding of a mansion but am willing to contribute to a modest size estate house.

You can keep shouting for the taxpayer to rebuild your house, maybe it will work, maybe it won't but make no mistake that you are looking to all of us to contribute our hard earned money so demanding like a stubborn mule and be unwilling to discuss the possible of compromise is turning people off helping you at all.

martingriff · 29-06-2021 8:32pm

L1011 wrote: »

If they expect the State to sort out their housing, yes.

One-off housing is not sustainable and Donegal is destroyed with it.

Should they not get back the house they have

29-06-2021 8:36pm

martingriff wrote: »

Should they not get back the house they have

They should, the problem is the company responsible doesn't have the money to do it.

fash · 29-06-2021 8:43pm

whatnow! wrote: »

They should, the problem is the company responsible doesn't have the money to do it.

That's unfortunate and all, but that was the legal context in which they bought their houses. Now they wish to change the legal context setting a precedent for moral hazard and the state having to cover all such problems in future - as well as the state having to massively increase the cumbersomeness of testing, verifying, documenting & auditing everything - all at the tax payers expense.
What if the tax payer thinks (s)he is paying enough tax and already isn't getting services commensurate with those taxes? Tough?

Swindled · 29-06-2021 8:44pm

whatnow! wrote: »

Like I said, that is the root of our difference of opinion. I'm not willing to contribute to the rebuilding of a mansion but am willing to contribute to a modest size estate house.

You can keep shouting for the taxpayer to rebuild your house, maybe it will work, maybe it won't but make no mistake that you are looking to all of us to contribute our hard earned money so demanding like a stubborn mule and be unwilling to discuss the possible of compromise is turning people off helping you at all.

You can leave out the false personal mischaracterisations, name calling, and personal attacks if you want to discuss the actual topic. The taxpayers effected have worked just as hard as you. I certainly have no mansion and very very few people do. No different to the rest of regional Ireland, many of the houses are semidetached in estates, many of them are detached similar to any other similar region, and were granted full planning permission by the state, and a lot of taxes paid by the owners in the process. I want justice and law and order, and the state to enforce existing structural material laws and regulations, and prevent this from happening to others. None of which is currently happening.

29-06-2021 8:46pm

fash wrote: »

That's unfortunate and all, but that was the legal context in which they bought their houses. Now they wish to change the legal context setting a precedent for moral hazard and the state having to cover all such problems in future - as well as the state having to massively increase the cumbersomeness of testing, verifying, documenting & auditing everything - all at the tax payers expense.
What if the tax payer thinks (s)he is paying enough tax and already isn't getting services commensurate with those taxes? Tough?

They don't care about the cost to the taxpayer or the precedent it sets. They only care about getting their house rebuilt and paid for by someone else. I understand that. We would all want the same if we were the ones affected so their unwillingness to compromise at this point in time is understandable. It is just a sh1tty situation with no good outcome.

29-06-2021 8:50pm

Swindled, you and me have reached the end of our journey together. We don't agree so we will just have to agree to disagree. Ultimately those in government will weight up the situation and make the final decision. I want you to end up with a roof over your head and to feel safe in your home but I want to achieve that in a way that doesn't place an undue burden on the taxpayers of the country. Best of luck with life. xx.

Swindled · 29-06-2021 8:53pm

whatnow! wrote: »

They don't care about the cost to the taxpayer or the precedent it sets.

This is again false, time and time again we wanted and want those responsible and negligent to pay, yet the state allows them to operate with zero insurance, and zero responsibility, and zero enforcement. No one is asking for any more than the cost they are out. No taxpayer, including the taxpayers effected, want this bill landing at the taxpayers door. We have also asked time and time again, for the state to do something to ensure this can never happen again, but nothing is being done, and the supplier, and similar suppliers, continues to supply state housing and developers with no enforcement.

NIMAN · 29-06-2021 8:55pm

The J Stands for Jay wrote: »

You're forgetting that the LPT revaluation is coming up, and lots of Donegal homes are worth less than the value of the land.

This LPT discussion is interesting.
At present homeowners could pay nothing, rightly claiming their home has no value to sell.

A poster hinted I think that once They are rebuilt they are going to have to declare the new house as having the rebuild value. But the rebuild value of a house in Donegal is going to be well above it's resale value. Property prices have always been among the lowest in the country, and just because it might take 350k to rebuild your house, doesn't mean someone will buy it off you for 350k. It might still only sell on the open market for 200k.

Swindled · 29-06-2021 8:57pm

whatnow! wrote: »

I want to achieve that in a way that doesn't place an undue burden on the taxpayers of the country. Best of luck with life. xx.

That's exactly what we always wanted as well, and we want to ensure the state does something to ensure this can never happen homeowners again, and somehow recover some costs for the taxpayers like all of us. Yet the suppliers and industry so far is allowed to carry on regardless.

29-06-2021 8:59pm

NIMAN wrote: »

This LPT discussion is interesting.
At present homeowners could pay nothing, rightly claiming their home has no value to sell.

A poster hinted I think that once They are rebuilt they are going to have to declare the new house as having the rebuild value. But the rebuild value of a house in Donegal is going to be well above it's resale value. Property prices have always been among the lowest in the country, and just because it might take 350k to rebuild your house, doesn't mean someone will buy it off you for 350k. It might still only sell on the open market for 200k.

Fully expect that to be the case. Cost to rebuild these houses using taxpayers funds in a short period of time will be ridiculous if there is no cap and anyone that disputes that is just not using common sense.

Swindled · 29-06-2021 9:01pm

whatnow! wrote: »

Fully expect that to be the case. Cost to rebuild these houses using taxpayers funds in a short period of time will be ridiculous if there is no cap and anyone that disputes that is just not using common sense.

There is cap, there has always been a cap, and there will always be a cap.
No one effected is asking for no cap.

Penfailed · 29-06-2021 9:07pm

martingriff wrote: »

Should they not get back the house they have

Yes. That is the only proper answer.

29-06-2021 9:12pm

Penfailed wrote: »

Yes. That is the only proper answer.

You are one of the people affected so I understand your point of view.

I agree with you, you deserve to have the house you paid for and expected to get.

I wish the company that made the blocks had sufficient insurance to make you whole or in an ideal world had the net assets to cover the cost.

However the situation requires more than a yes as the money will have to come from someone other than the manufacturer or their insurance company.

Swindled · 29-06-2021 10:47pm

For anyone who would like to know more technical detail of what is going on and the problems :

Brilliant article based on the findings and experience of Dr Ambrose McCloskey a specialist in concrete.

https://www.donegallive.ie/news/news/645079/questionable-fixes-left-behind-from-current-defective-concrete-blocks-grant-scheme.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR08_vcc5S8-pzC0SylIfz4VTa-6vVwSiaPMouHUIvQB2CPOqmH-xDNGJPU

NiceFella · 29-06-2021 11:57pm

When you think of the pirite issues that happened just a few years before you have to ask what is the government about? Not much if we are honest. Who is maintaining standards?

Another question is why isn't there more discussion into criminality on this issue? At the end of the day malpractice in construction be it in materials used or design can lead to fatalities.

If the government had any common sense they would pursue criminal charges and you would bet every quarry up and down the country will have the correct proportions of raw materials in there products.

As for who should pay? Well ask yourself what you would say if your gaf just fell apart one night.

muffler · 30-06-2021 12:18am

whatnow! wrote: »

I'm not willing to contribute to the rebuilding of a mansion

First of all you wont have a say on the matter so I cant figure out why you would make a foolish statement like that.

Secondly, as you are one of the leading "no to 100% redress" advocates, surely your time would be better spend lobbying your local TD or government minister.

coylemj · 30-06-2021 12:32am

Swindled wrote: »

There is cap, there has always been a cap, and there will always be a cap.
No one effected is asking for no cap.

What ‘cap’ are you talking about?

Because ‘100% redress’ means that the taxpayer will pay to demolish and rebuild the affected houses. At today’s rates for materials and labour and, potentially, to a higher standard of insulation. Setting that as the benchmark means there cannot be a cap. Because the sky will be the limit.

Were you referring to a monetary cap and, if so, who is going to set it?

Swindled · 30-06-2021 12:37am

coylemj wrote: »

What ‘cap’ are you talking about?

Because ‘100% redress’ means that the taxpayer will pay to demolish and rebuild the affected houses. At today’s rates for materials and labour and, potentially, to a higher standard of insulation. Setting that as the benchmark means there cannot be a cap. Because the sky will be the limit.

Who is going to set this mythical ‘cap’ that you mentioned four times in that post?

There are already limits specified in the scheme and there should be, the market rate per sq meter is well known for all the various regions in Ireland and the state should ensure those limits are adhered to. The houseowners affected are also taxpayers. Housing should be build to current legal building standards, not sub standard.

coylemj · 30-06-2021 12:59am

Swindled wrote: »

The houseowners affected are also taxpayers.

Throwing that into the mix is a risky proposition.

Is that a cheap throwaway line? Or are you suggesting that people who are not tax compliant should be denied redress?

Swindled · 30-06-2021 1:03am

coylemj wrote: »

Throwing that into the mix is a risky proposition.

Is that a cheap throwaway line? Or are you suggesting that people who are not tax compliant should be denied redress?

One of the right and proper conditions of the scheme is that applicants must prove they have paid the correct property taxes to date, and provide PPS no's and a tax clearance cert if they are self employed. The engineers submitting reports must do the same, as must the contractors employed.

We'd also like to see the suppliers of critical structural materials being put through some checks, but they are not, that's why we are where we are, and why it can and will happen again.

coylemj · 30-06-2021 1:19am

Swindled wrote: »

One of the right and proper conditions of the scheme is that applicants must prove they have paid the correct property taxes to date, and provide PPS no's and a tax clearance cert if they are self employed. The engineers submitting reports must do the same, as must the contractors employed.

I'm glad to hear that. In case I might have given the opposite impression, I fully support the notion of a redress, I just think it needs lots of safeguards to ensure the taxpayer doesn't get taken for a ride.

Swindled wrote: »

We'd also like to see the suppliers of critical structural materials being put through some checks, but they are not, that's why we are where we are, and why it can and will happen again.

The cost of such a scheme would have to be borne by manufacturers and importers who would pass the cost on to the builders so it would simply increase the cost of building a house. And in the current climate, no government is going to take it on.

Swindled · 30-06-2021 1:25am

coylemj wrote: »

I'm glad to hear that. In case I might have given the opposite impression, I fully support the notion of a redress, I just think it needs lots of safeguards to ensure the taxpayer doesn't get taken for a ride.

The house owners effected, who are also full taxpayers, fully agree.

I've no issues with anyone who's opinion differs, I do take issue with any false claims being made about the house owners, the facts of the scheme, the facts about Mica, the causes and who caused it.

coylemj wrote: »

The cost of such a scheme would have to be borne by manufacturers and importers who would pass the cost on to the builders so it would simply increase the cost of building a house. And in the current climate, no government is going to take it on.

This is why it's critical we make sure enforcement of legislation that is supposed to be enforced actually occurs, or the bill is going to get even bigger.

Furze99 · 30-06-2021 3:56pm

martingriff wrote: »

Should they not get back the house they have

No, in short - well not if they expect the taxpayer to fund the full bill. There has to be a trade off, a cap - some way of managing this cost for the state.

30-06-2021 5:50pm

They want 100% redress, no less as their protest signs say.

I'm not sure what controls they would accept to ensure costs don't spiral out of control as these controls might reduce what they get or extend the period of time over which they get redressed as the houses are in a dangerous condition now. It is a messy situation and their priority is not all all cost control, they want their houses rebuilt fast, end of.

Swindled · 30-06-2021 6:00pm

whatnow! wrote: »

They want 100% redress, no less as their protest signs say.

I'm not sure what controls they would accept to ensure costs don't spiral out of control as these controls might reduce what they get or extend the period of time over which they get redressed as the houses are in a dangerous condition now. It is a messy situation and their priority is not all all cost control, they want their houses rebuilt fast, end of.

Yet again this allegation is untrue, you should only get like for like, and there is already caps, and it should be capped at the current market rate per sq m which is well known for each region, with Donegal being one of the lower per m sq costs in Ireland. Government absolutely should cap costs to ensure people only get what they had, nothing more, nothing less.

30-06-2021 9:56pm

Swindled wrote: »

current market rate per sq m which is well known for each region

What is it in Donegal or a smaller region within Donegal if that is known to you?

water-man · 01-07-2021 8:51am

I support redress however the poll question is too simple and without knowing the timeline and costs it is not enough to answer.

Right now, it is too difficult for the government to put a spec together and put it all out for tender. Every house is too different

built to different standards
different floor area
different plumbing
different heating
different electrics
different roof
different finishes outside & inside (floor types, kitchen, bathrooms)
different time required to stay in hotel during re-build.
etc etc

I've asked this in another thread however I'll put it here too - should the (I'm not sure who the right people are) put a selection of 3/5/7 different types of houses all spec'd to today's standards, with planning more or less guaranteed for their area, which the effected families can choose from. This can then be much easier tendered out to get these families a safe roof over their heads and in a known time frame.

It has been pointed out to me before that some families can not accept a smaller house for various reasons however what they have today is vey much not viable either.

I agree it is not the fault of the families who own the house however going for a full like for like is too difficult to ensure that this is what exactly is happening and we could in every likely hood end up with costs ala children hospital.

ec18 · 01-07-2021 9:17am

Swindled wrote: »

The scheme rightly does not operate like that. Effected homeowners must first prove they have the contaminated blocks by spending € 6-8,000 having large concrete cores drilled and taken from throughout their house after being recommended to do so by a Chartered Engineer approved by the state. The cores then have to transported to to a lab in England for petrographic analysis by an accredited lab and chartered Geologist. (no labs in Ireland able to do it apparently). IF the accredited lab report confirms high levels of contamination and structurally deficient blocks, then the Charter Engineer makes further recommendations which are then submitted to the local authority for further scrutinisation and approval. If only the block manufactures in the first place were placed under the same level of scrutiny we would not be in this mess now or in the future.

There needs to be some control on it though? Prove you're affected.

water-man wrote: »

I support redress however the poll question is too simple and without knowing the timeline and costs it is not enough to answer.

Right now, it is too difficult for the government to put a spec together and put it all out for tender. Every house is too different
built to different standards

different floor area

different plumbing

different heating

different electrics

different roof

different finishes outside & inside (floor types, kitchen, bathrooms)

different time required to stay in hotel during re-build.

etc etc

I've asked this in another thread however I'll put it here too - should the (I'm not sure who the right people are) put a selection of 3/5/7 different types of houses all spec'd to today's standards, with planning more or less guaranteed for their area, which the effected families can choose from. This can then be much easier tendered out to get these families a safe roof over their heads and in a known time frame.

It has been pointed out to me before that some families can not accept a smaller house for various reasons however what they have today is vey much not viable either.

I agree it is not the fault of the families who own the house however going for a full like for like is too difficult to ensure that this is what exactly is happening and we could in every likely hood end up with costs ala children hospital.

If they want redress and the state provides it should be pick one of 3/4 types, state will cover 90% of the construction cost the remaining along with the interior fit and finish should be covered by the homeowner

01-07-2021 11:00am

That would add up to a lot of money for the home owner which many don't have especially after the last 18 months we have all had.

I'd be in favour of 100% redress but not a like for like across the board as the costs would absolutely balloon.

There is tremendous pressure on the government to cave to 100% redress. If they do they will be landed on by the rest of us as soon as the first €500,000+ house in Donegal which is way above market value hits the newspapers and double so if the housing crisis is not being simultaneously addressed throughout the country.

Who would want to be a politician?

Good loser · 04-07-2021 2:00am

So Pearse is in favour of 100% redress.

And 100% abolition of the LPT.

And absolutely no water charges.

What would his attitude be to a trade-off, I wonder?

ec18 · 05-07-2021 8:29am

whatnow! wrote: »

That would add up to a lot of money for the home owner which many don't have especially after the last 18 months we have all had.

I'd be in favour of 100% redress but not a like for like across the board as the costs would absolutely balloon.

There is tremendous pressure on the government to cave to 100% redress. If they do they will be landed on by the rest of us as soon as the first €500,000+ house in Donegal which is way above market value hits the newspapers and double so if the housing crisis is not being simultaneously addressed throughout the country.

Who would want to be a politician?

100% of what though? construction cost? everything? I can get around to the state part funding the re construction cost. But to guarantee 100% of the costs for whatever people want is ludicrous. In the end of the day these are all private homeowners who bought and built privately, very unfortunate for them but the state offering at the moment is fair.

ec18 · 05-07-2021 8:29am

Good loser wrote: »

So Pearse is in favour of 100% redress.

And 100% abolition of the LPT.

And absolutely no water charges.

What would his attitude be to a trade-off, I wonder?

It's easy to take those positions when you missed addition and subtraction in school

FileNotFound · 05-07-2021 8:34am

Honestly as someone who has nobody affected and not from the area.

I think the central government should take full control of this, work out the most cost effective way to provide these poor people with a safe home equivalent or close to what they had.

I know this is an awful lot of money but these are our people who have been impacted through absolutely no fault of their own and sadly the only way to help them is for our Gov to step in.

I could not imagine being in their shoes. Now I would hope that the scheme if run right and laid out in strict way would keep the cost as low as possible and I imagine these poor people will still be somewhat out of pocket but they should at least get a habitable home back.

I should add that I mean construction cost here. Being as land is owned it would be house build price we are looking at. Now a case may be there for other costs to be covered but at least getting a home to live in is the right start.

Good loser · 05-07-2021 11:05pm

The whole thing is a nightmare.
If house is demolished where would occupiers live while rebuild is on.
Would the State give the money to the owners, or pay the builders/architects etc?
Surely the owners would want changes - how would that be sorted?
Would the State agree to build only the original design?
How would builders be sourced.
Would the State pay €1000 per sq m to some and €1500 psm to others.
On a difficult site would there be room for the new build?
Site works?

NIMAN · 05-07-2021 11:38pm

The last few posts have raised some interesting points.

I appreciate the idea of maybe 6 or 7 house designs which affected owners could pick from would make it a lot easier for tendering the rebuild process. Maybe a terraced one, a 3 bed, a 4 bed etc. Would cover all family options. Well most of them.

Of course it might be difficult to get a lot of those affected to accept such a plan, I know many have said they want the house they have now rebuilt as it is. This would mean teams of builders coming and building hundreds of different houses, from plans that may be 25 yrs old. It would surely slow the process down compared to building off a collection of 7 house types.

It was mentioned that should a 500k Donegal house newly rebuilt appear for sale it wouldn't go down well. I have said before on this thread that very few houses in Donegal, irrespective of their size, sell for huge money. It's not an area of the country that commands high house prices. So I couldn't see a mad rush of people around the country outbidding each other to buy a rebuilt house in Donegal for 450k or 500k.

I also worry about where all these builders are going to come from? Would we even have enough in the country to do nothing but build houses in Donegal for the next decade. Probably why it needs to be tendered out to a massive construction company who could employ the numbers needed. At any one time there could be a couple of hundred houses being rebuilt all over. Or maybe I'm being optimistic thinking that?

Someone also mentioned not wanting to have another children's hospital on our hands. I think this will easily cost more than whatever that finishes at.

Sleepy · 19-08-2021 5:14pm

Outside of self-builders, should it not the builder, rather than the brick manufacturer who would be legally responsible for this: they're the ones who sold the homeowner a defective product i.e. a house made from sub-standard material? And even in the case of self-builders, surely most would have purchased those bricks from a wholesaler of some sort?

Penfailed · 19-08-2021 5:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117777001#Comment_117777001

They were unaware that the blocks were defective. I know in our case, the builder built his own house from defective blocks too. They're no longer in business anyway.

Sleepy · 20-08-2021 12:56pm

I'd have just assumed standard consumer law would be in effect here and that it would be the "retailer" of the defective goods (i.e. the builder selling a defective house or the wholesaler selling defective materials who the homeowners actions would have to be taken against while it would be on those companies to pursue the manufacturer (or whomever sold them the defective merchandise).

Either way, unless the sale of houses isn't covered by standard consumer protection legislation, I think the liability would be limited to the cost of the bricks themselves at the time of purchase rather than the cost of re-building an entire house made with those bricks...

Are there any government standards in place regarding the quality of building materials? If not, surely caveat emptor would apply and there'd be no legal basis for any redress claims? If so, the liability would obviously fall on whomever failed to meet and check that those standards were adhered to?

Penfailed · 20-08-2021 2:43pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117780181#Comment_117780181

The government decreed that the block manufacturers could self-regulate.

There's a precident already set with the pyrite issue in Dublin were the owners got 100% redress from the government.

Sleepy · 20-08-2021 3:14pm

If there are no standards to be met, then it sounds like there's no legal basis for any redress from the government tbh.

Good luck with it and I'm sure the political precedent set by the pyrite issues will help but I'd be very hesitant to shell out for legal action were I in your shoes.

Penfailed · 20-08-2021 3:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117781156#Comment_117781156

The government let the manufacturers supply a defective product that was also used in council houses. There are standards to be met but the government weren't checking that the block manufacturers were meeting the standards. Legal action has been tried and it failed. The government are the last resort because that's all we have left.

muffler · 20-08-2021 4:42pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117781156#Comment_117781156

Of course there are standards and have been for a long time. They are called the Building Regulations made pursuant to the Building control Act 1990. In simple terms the regulations state that blocks, just like all building materials, must be fit for purpose. The BC Act 1990 also provides the power to the government (through building control officers) to inspect building materials together with methodology but sadly they failed in this regard. No such inspections of blocks were carried out.

MrMusician18 · 16-09-2021 10:02pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117781618#Comment_117781618

It's important to note that building control officers can conduct but are not required to conduct inspections

Penfailed · 17-09-2021 8:32am

The working group are making their submission to the government today. I wonder how long the process will drag on after that. If nothing is forthcoming in the short term, there's another protest planned for Dublin in early October.

blanch152 · 23-09-2021 12:33am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117543403#Comment_117543403

There's an idea. Cap the payment to affected householders based on the LPT valuation they provided to Revenue.

Penfailed · 23-09-2021 5:45am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117927159#Comment_117927159

The houses are currently worthless so there's a flaw in your argument.

Sam Russell · 23-09-2021 11:50am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117927329#Comment_117927329

That is not relevant to the suggestion.

If the LPT value is currently €250 k which is increased by the inflation of current property prices, then, say, restrict the redress amount to 50% more than the LPT declared value - so the house owner cannot claim more than €375 k.

Probably a bit harsh.

Another limit could be put on the size of the property where overly large McMansions are only covered for a cost of a smaller, more modest, house. So a 300 sq metre home is only covered for, say 150 sm, and then 50% after that. [300 sm is huge and even 150 sm is large].

Another possibility is to offer low interest loans to cover costs not covered by the redress scheme - for example holiday homes.

Mica Redress

Comments