Planet reality.
Its about getting families there homes back.
It's their way or the highway it would seem.
I'm sorry, but it's clear that it isn't and never was. The campaigners seem to have a big problem with the exclusion of investment and holiday home properties so is that really about family homes?
This is and always was about making people financially whole.
Totally agree again. Do these homes not belong to the children as much as the parents. The children will be homeless as well as the parents when the house falls down. Sorry but I don't agree that the children were used as pawns.
No just %100 redress the same as the last scheme of this sort in other counties.
Unless the children could choose entirely of their own free will to attend and participate in a protest movement (and children, by definition can't) they are being used by the parents.
Used in order to bulk out protests and used to make a political point.
Children present or not, the outcome would be the same regardless - it's as if people believe that government officials cannot see through such stunts.
These people also paid their taxes and vat when building in the state.
Also take a semi detached house sharing same roof and joined. One a private home one a holiday home. How is this overcome.
So it's not about family homes then is it?
Who did the building surveys for the folks who bought these houses?
Sorry if someone else already asked this.
We had no need to bulk up the protests. Even state ran RTE were very economic with the numbers and their reporting. And what do you do with your children when most of your family is heading down to support the cause.
Where are you getting this conclusion from. Do you watch any of the programmes about the families affected.
Maybe you don't want it to about family homes.
It's not just about family homes, it's also about investment property and holiday homes. The protesters shout about the former, whisper about the latter but when they were excluded from the scheme - oh no, completely unfit for purpose they claim.
Programmes about the issue, where the protesters take you around the very worst examples and paint it as typical? Those programmes? Yet when you look at the mica map and the houses then on Google Street view (yes the photos are recent) you'd be hard pressed to determine that a large proportion of them had any issue at all.
There are homes at different stages of deterioration but it's only a matter of time before they will all crumble. Once mica is present it's only heading one way. And it's definitely not a case of showing the worst few houses on every broadcast. Some people spent every few months filling cracks and painting trying to prolong the outcome and you definitely won't see the true devastation on Google maps.
What ever about children, I have seen the pensioners and disabled wheeled about for the cause. It's like look at these people they could never fund reconstruction for their small house so now you have to fully fund my 3000sqft built( I could pay something but don't want too) and my buy to Let too(rent into the back pocket with zero contribution), an absolute joke.
Malinheader havent you got a forum where nobody is allowed disagree with the "100% redress we dont care how, why or how much"?
This thread is imo gone over the top in criticising those looking for redress but that is only natural when the other main thread is run like a pravda operation
Sounds like there's something wrong with your insurance then - if my house burned down, my insurance would cover it (and it's a basic Allianz package, nothing extravagant). Crucially though, it would cover housing my family until the building is restored and liveable again.
They paid for their house too, getting into the specifics of size is pointless. If life were as simple as a game like the sims, where the walls could be replaced without moving anything inside or being able to live inside while it happened, none of this would be an issue.
They aren't looking for a blank cheque though. What we want is;
Unsafe building demolished.
Walls rebuilt and inside restored to pre-demolition.
Accommodation for inhabitants.
Storage for personal belongings.
This should be considered reasonable.
Other countries also have 100% privatised medicine, should we copy that? Pointing at what other governments do is nonsense.
My survey was carried out correctly, no one should expect they need to test the blocks the house is built from to make sure they meet the standard.
What are you even talking about? The builders set their day rate + materials, and were paid as such.
Your other issues (rent, equity, childcare) are all separate issues. Dealing with one issue does not mean every other issue has to be ignored.
We are also not being provided close to 90%.
The people affected by mica aren't covered by insurance for it though. Your house insurance will often cover rebuild cost up to X, you specify X when taking out the policy. The state doesn't have a legal obligation to provide compensation, otherwise those affected would have brought a case. We can't have a situation where the state is ultimately financially responsible for all products meeting regulations.
I think the redress in its current form is extremely generous, too generous even. It certainly shouldn't cover holiday homes or investments. It shouldn't cover self certified builds either. There should be a lower cap on rebuild cost as well, they could build smaller houses.
That's why we're fighting for redress, our insurance specifically doesn't cover it. My rebuild cost in my insurance matches the estimation by SCSI.
Technically the state does not currently have a legal standing one way or the other, as it has not been taken to court. However, previous examples like the Pyrite scheme (and yes, it cost less, but it still would have been covered if more houses were affected, you can bet on that) set the precedent for it.
It should be the supplier of the faulty product who is responsible. If you thought you would win, you would take the state to court IMO. Could it maybe be part funded by increasing local property tax in affected areas?
Legal action was taken against Cassidys (the supplier.
Ann and Vincent Gorman told Prime Time they sued Cassidy Brothers after three visits from its managing director David Cassidy about their block problems in 2010 and one in January 2011 did not resolve the problem.
A short letter from the firm’s solicitor confirmed that Cassidy Brothers did not have insurance that would cover the potential claims.
Right, so you aren't covered by insurance and the supplier wouldn't be able to cover the cost either. What about builders, engineers etc? I would imagine a lot of builds were done as self certified, would that be the case? The costs are lower, it shifts the risk onto the owner, or in this case the state.
Maybe one off build should have to have better certification which they would pay for themselves. Probably also an insurance policy that would cover build issues.
If you bought your house for less than the build cost, someone had to swallow that loss. Did you go chasing that person to make them good? Did they get their 100% redress? Or were you happy to pick up a bargain and just tough for those that lost out on the collapse? I don't mean to pick on you but it's hard to stomach complaints from people who were participating in the burning of others a few years ago.
While indeed other issues are unrelated, it is my opinion that they are far more worthy of government support over rebuilding homes for the following categories of people/building owners:
*Second home and holiday home owners *Investment property owners
*homes of the wealthy that can afford to contribute
*Homes that will be under occupied
*homes that significantly exceed the national average in size.
The proposed government scheme goes beyond even what I consider fair to the rest of the taxpayers, particularly first time home buyers. It's them that will pay for this, through general taxation and the €800m forecast to be raised by the block levy.
that Diver lad is dangerous. highly strung, capable of anything.
Yet he's the unofficial High King of Donegal.
Any chance we can give Donegal to the UK?
So they'll spend money on painting and filling up cracks yet won't put a cent towards the actual rebuilding? Makes sense....
He seems to have a real chip on his shoulder about Dublin. It will be mostly Dublin taxes paying for the rebuilds though.
Some of those involved have clearly developed a taste for campaigning. I suspect when this is resolved (if it ever is), it won't be the last we hear of them
Maybe this was asked before but has any actual builder/contractors ended up with Mica houses? what I mean did any local builders in the area end up building their own house during this period and use these blocks?
Builders/engineers are off the hook as they bought from a certified producer, under the assumption that the certified blocks were up to code.
The house was built in the mid 2000s, price deprecation/negative equity is unfortunately a normal thing. This isn't a good example in my specific case, as the owner died of cancer and her children sold the house.
No one is saying we should support redress and to hell with everyone else. That's not how budgeting works at a country level.
Is this honestly where the discourse is now? Give Donegal to the UK? FFS.
There's a pretty significant difference in price between paint + filler, and upwards of 50k on a house that a bank will not give a loan towards. I'm sure you can manage the math on that one.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0b9a43cca122fb9538e56a7ad3e3fae2.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
