Mica Redress

That's the thing, if the inner leaf is safe, I have no problem getting only the outer changed. But it's the same blocks, built at the same time.

There has been instances already of outer leaf replacement, and they've turned out to need the inner leaf replaced too. Double the work, as the outer needed replaced again.

"“We are facing building this house for a third time,”- those are the words of Buncrana artist Josephine Kelly, who unsuccessfully replaced the outer leaf of her mica-affected home four years ago.

Not surprisingly, she would not recommend the outer leaf repair option to anyone, as four years on, cracks are appearing inside and outside her home."

So long as the inner leaf is safe, this is true. But bare in mind, these are the same blocks built at the same time, the chances of them being safe is very slim.

Given the choice, I'd want to rebuild with timber, it'd probably be cheaper (and 0 chance of more bollocks blocks).

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. If your house has been determined to have a safe inner leaf, then replacing the outer leaf should be enough, and will fix the problem forever. If it turns out to not be the case, then reapply and start the whole process again.

One of the aspects of the revised scheme is inclusion of certification to say the property is now safe, which (logically) should alleviate any possible value difference.

I've actually spent the last hour thinking about this. In my specific scenario, this could be interesting, though I'd end up with another mortgage, at least twice as large for a fresh rebuild. I'm fairly sure (online mortgage estimation tools) that on my income, they wouldn't be able to go high enough to do a new, micaless build, and downsizing is not a possibility (unless I sell one of my kids, there's laws about that though).

When you get a mortgage to build a house the bank at the start have only a green field to look at, they rely on engineers reports. Surely if you have being included in the scheme the banks knows what the property will be worth when finished.

Here's some further information from an engineer on the technical aspects regarding the scheme. It seems everyone (directly affected and tax affected) is being taken for a ride, and we'll be dancing this same dance again in a few years. Typical can-kicking

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/EQLU6CL4QPZR/ambrose-issues-with-defective-block-schem1.pdf

I think that guy owns this company, so any attempts to run his thoughts down would be silly. He is a lot more qualified than 99.9% of the posters on here.

And he lives in NI, and doesn't own a Mica affected home afaik.

Just for full picture, he does seem to be working for 50 clients applying under the current scheme.

What's missing in all of that kind of commentary is a capacity to see the woods for the trees. If the works needed are as extensive as advertised, it just doesn't make sense to attempt individual case-by-case remediation on a grand scale.

He also isn't a taxpayer funding the scheme and basically suggests that unless everyone including holiday homes gets rebuilt then the scheme isn't up to scratch. He's also coming from a bias that engineers are unwilling to sign off on anything less than a rebuild because of indemnity reasons (references government in-house engineers who don't need to be concerned about this).

If I was an engineer, I would do the same. Why take the risk of your calculations being wrong when you can simply say the state has a money tree to go the whole hog.