Actually y'know what? If Donegal had been in the UK, the regulators would have actually done their job and made sure the blocks were up to scratch. Maybe this isn't the dumbest thing in the thread so far.
Just like the UK regulated cladding on high rise buildings?
🤣
Might be the case, they did try to ban one off rural houses in Northern Ireland at one point due to the increased costs in providing services, so maybe it would be better run.
He is an example of he who shouts the loudest gets heard.
I doubt he can get anything more beyond the latest scheme as I'd say it's a pretty good deal for most people and the people who it won't suit are the ones with massive mansions that the public won't have much sympathy with. You only have to look at average house prices in Donegal to see that the cap is more than generous.
Are you having a laugh?
Fair point, although they are at least still investigating and compiling evidence. It seems sweet FA is happening regarding Cassidys.
The reason I stated that is the supplier was allegedly sending different blocks to the north, with seemingly less incidents of unsafe housing.
House market value =/= cost to rebuild.
No, funnily enough. None of this is funny to me.
I don't care if they do privatised health care or not - what I object to is the "privatise the gains, socialise the losses" approach that is being advocated and bought in to.
The mica issue has been ongoing since 1980 - I certainly like to see if your surveyor's insurance company thinks it had no risk in that. In any case, that is besides the point, the tax payer should not be gifting gains to you and socialising the losses. People who made a loss on purchasing properties are no more deserving of state assistance than those in social housing.
"Socialize the losses" - this wouldn't be happening had the state properly governed the building sector.
Regarding my surveyors insurance, I have no idea. All I can state is what they said when I wanted to buy my house.
"Both externally and internally, there are hairline cracks evident generally located at door-heads, and above and below window openings. While there are a number of such hairline cracks evident in this house both internally and externally, they are classified as minor, superficial and not of a structural concern. The front wall has
such a hairline crack, most evident between ground and first floor windows, however the visual impact can be greatly reduced by cleaning out the crack and applying a non-shrinkable grout and touch-up paint finish."
There is indeed. If some of the homeowners had been more proactive with maintenance, filler, paint and protections then we might be looking at outer leaf rebuilds only for them.
It's reasonable if you recover the cost of those culpable. It's not reasonable if you are looking for a handout from the taxpayer. You benefited from the low up front cost of lax standards when your house was built - you now want to socialise your losses and have the tax payer backstop your losses.
Heads you win, tails the tax payer loses.
There has actually been buildings that have had only the outer leaf replaced. Turns out, the problem isn't as simple as that to fix.
Attempts have been made to recover from the supplier. These have failed. I want my house to be safe, because of a failure in state governance, it is not.
Also stop implying "the taxpayer" as if I am not also a tax payer. I will be paying for this too.
You benefit from it a lot more than we do. Also, the average income tax take per head of population in Donegal is by far the lowest in the state.
Those in Dublin will be paying twice as much towards it per person.
Have they? The protesters are very unclear on that tbh.
You won't. After this is paid for, you will almost certainly be a net beneficiary in relation to government support for the rest of your life, and anyone who inherits the property too.
There was no "failure" by the state. If there was you would have had a legal case. You don't. The government is choosing to give a brown envelope of tax payers money to someone who has no entitlement to it. At least the banks never demanded tax payer money - and to guarantee their profits in full- before the government bailed them out - unlike you.
Lets play the stats game then!
Of course you spend more in tax, you have a bigger population with more money. You have more large multinational companies, a bigger tech sector, literally everything that can make you more prosperous. All Irish tax is lumped together, so we're paying towards your buses, your rail, your luas. That's just how taxes work.
We are paying for your smaller schools and class size, the cost of providing broadband and other services to areas that it would be completely uneconomic otherwise. We have 20% of our LPT distributed to other counties as part of an equalisation fund. It is a lot more efficient to provide services to a denser population.
Whatever you say chief.
If there was zero chance of the state being liable, do you think they'd be giving us a single cent?
"A brown envelope" Nice, make it sound nefarious, that'll show everyone. It'll be expensed, costed, timelined, we'll have to jump through every possible hoop they can come up with, and we'll still be out of pocket at the end.
The government has no duty to "govern" the building sector. If it did, you would have a legal case. You don't.
Why precisely is your loss any more meritorious than those who lost on bitcoin? Or eircom shares? Or Irish Bank shares?
Why are you deserving of any better treatment than anyone on the social housing list?
A house covered in cracks and a mica issue which extends back to 1980? Sounds like you have (or had) a case against your surveyor - so why does the tax payer have to pay for a private matter between you, your surveyor & your surveyor's insurance?
If you are asking if the government would be happy to spend tax payers money even when they have no legal obligation to do so, then yes they most certainly would - and have done in the past. (As a basic step, try to even formulate the obligation or duty upon which you think you could set up a claim against the state).
As regards the money, what you want is cold hard cash from the tax payer to make good good losses you made on your investment.
No other government or state would be silly enough to do that - look at the UK where in relation to fire claddng the government is offering to pay a max of 1 third of losses and then only for buildings over 11m.
Still interested to know did any builders/supplier etc end up with a house with Mica in it? someone must know if this is the case or not
I bought my house 6 years ago, not 1980. It was built mid 2000s. I don't know where you're getting this from.
Governance is literally one of the main points of a bloody government.
I am not more deserving than a person on the social housing list, but I am not saying we should take from them. These are two seperate issues.
My house become lower value does not matter to me. I intend to live here until I die, or give the house to my kids. I do care about it being safe to live in however, and not having to hand back the keys and still be on the hook for 10s of thousands.
Bitcoin / shares is gambling, buying a house to live in should not be.
I want a safe house to live in, ie the one that I'm already paying for.
The UK should also be paying in full, what other states focus not the question here.
The minister has gone on record stating the advice he's received and is that the State is not liable.
The state is never liable for the actions of third parties, even those it regulates.
The only reason the state is assisting here is because there is a genuine need to and because it is politically expedient
Yeah some do. Some people feel ashamed of the state of their houses and although it's pointless it takes a wee bit of the bad look off it for a while.
And a big difference in the cost of a bit of filler and paint compared to rebuilding.
But you already knew that, posting just for the sake of posting.
The cap is generous, maybe too generous, but only if your house is big enough to reach that cap.
If the house is below the cap, it is based on a rate per square foot and does not cover current rebuild costs.
I've seen this story floating about for a while now but i was never interested enough to look into the rights and wrongs of it. But one thing is for sure, Donegal will be going nowhere.
I may be wrong but the small bit i did pick up was this all boils down to a failure of regulation in this country.. again. Or was the company acting illegally.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0b9a43cca122fb9538e56a7ad3e3fae2.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7a1d0f49d56f52d3cfb2145c5b8cbe5a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5c014a6ccfbcc766be7a1899ed0f9420.svg)