From my previous post about my house;
"100k purchase, 90k mortgage, 180k rebuild on insurance (173k according to scsi) My home is about 1200sqft, 4 bedroom semi detached. Based on the sliding scale, I can get a grant of (max) 167k. This doesn't include demolition or removal of demolition, nor foundation if it requires replacement."
As much of the kitchen will likely be salvaged as possible, in accordance with the scheme description.
It's also not just 13k, as demolition is not included.
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."
That's an important point. The quibbling about the rebuild amount is somewhat moot when it's clear from the size of the overall package and the number of homes impacted is that the vast majority are going to get outer leaf only repair.
And outer leaf only is fine for making homes safe.
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).
Under the Department of housing plans, the majority won't be a complete rebuild. But I wouldn't be happy if my house had mica and was given outer leaf and a neighbour(perhaps a buy to let) was given full rebuild solving their problem forever.
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.
True colours being shown here. Would have their own home demolished even if found it didn't have to just incase the neighbour's were getting more than you.
To be fair, there was a mica protester complaining on rte news about the exclusion of holiday homes in her estate as it would negatively impact her own property value - so this hasn't come from nowhere.
I would agree though, what others get should have no bearing on what you get - this is about safe homes, not property values. I suppose the unspoken issue for homeowners is that if there are still blocks in the structure that will degrade if exposed to moisture, then their properties are much less saleable than those completely rebuilt.
It points more to the issue about being made financially whole, than safe homes.
The problem I see in alot of cases is if they get the outer leaf done in time before to much exposure it can save having to demolish.
I stand to be corrected on this but I think in most cases families would be over the moon to be told outer leaf replacement will solve their predicament instead of a total demolition.
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 definitely would be, however the cracking on my house is just as bad inside as outside :/ I can't imagine it's savable.
I have a couple of good friends who both replaced outside blocks in the summer hoping this will be enough as inside seemed ok,but my cousin's house is also as bad inside as out and has been told total demolition is needed. His house would be very exposed compared to the other houses so maybe this was a factor.
Forgive my ignorance here but in your situation surely the best thing to do for the government to pay off the 90K mortgage and then you're free of all the hassle and the taxpayer saves around 90k.
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).
It's an interesting one and there are positives and negatives to an approach like that. If you haven't that much equity in the house, as it seems from the numbers you provided then it kind of boils down to two things (in a simplistic way).
One, you get out of your current mess in the fairest possible manner to the tax payer (which we all are, yourself included). Really, getting the guts of a 200k house rebuilt with very little equity already put in and a mortgage of 90k is a hard sell.
Two, why should you have to go looking for a new mortgage with increased payments, even if you can afford it. Through no real fault of your own you've landed in this situation.
I'll be honest, I'm struggling to see why option 1 shouldn't be the solution for cases like yours but I'm not the one living with it.
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.
I would say you have a strong case against that surveyor, if indeed he issued that report in the last 8 yrs. Mica was known about in 2010 and that external cracks was a classic sign. Any surveyor worth their salt would have advised to have it checked.
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
Probably not, though I wouldn't be able to get a solicitor for it anyway!
Who wrote that article? It starts with "my thoughts"
Also is their house in any way affected by this issue?
Per the doc.
Dr. Ambrose McCloskey PhD BEng (Hons) CEng MICE MIEI EurIng
Chartered Engineer
"I do not live
in the jurisdiction and have no interest in the politics of the situation."
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.
Ok thanks was just curious. I have no dog in this fight.
I was not trying to run anyone down. I just asked the source of a random pdf posted that's all.
I would say you have and you don't need a solicitor do it yourself. Got a quote here for probate from a solicitor. Into the multiples of thousands done it myself for less than 500 euro. A lot in info out there if you look
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.
As noted above, he does have a number of clients with the mica issue.
While McCluskey is an expert in mica and don't question his credentials there he spends half his time not talking about the technical aspects but the scheme itself, which he is really no more qualified than anyone else tbh. In fact he blames the Government for the mica mess and recommends taking a case to Europe - on what grounds remains unsaid however. I also don't agree with his contention that those who consider the scheme too generous should keep quiet, in case they need a scheme like this in future themselves. Every government scheme should be considered in its own merits tbh.
I could go on, but what's the point.
According to you a chartered engineer is no more qualified than anyone else to spend "half his time" talking about the non-technical aspects of a defective block scheme. So is he qualified to spend the other half of his time talking about the technical aspects of the scheme?
Im not even sure what you are trying to say. What is evident is you dont like the fact that the scheme you keep telling people to stop whining about and to gratefully accept is being severely discredited. But sure Dr McCloskey is no more qualified than anyone else to do so.*
*Half the time.
I'd say according to the information here you can't really trust the word of someone who is being paid to give their thoughts based on the clients grievances.
Its a 'paid for' opinion. Qualified or otherwise. And not the independent person that was being portrayed in previous posts. Sure he doesn't live there he's in another jurisdiction. Oh... Eh he has clients involved. Ehhh...
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0b9a43cca122fb9538e56a7ad3e3fae2.svg)
