Septic tank charges

Going Forward wrote: »

To help answer that question, you just have to ask should the residents of Priory Hall pay for the remedial work required on their apartments due to poor workmanship?

I'm not sure if we're talking at cross purposes.

If people buy anything, and it turns out to be faulty, their redress should come from the person they bought it from. Nothing to do with anyone else.

I appreciate this will give no comfort to anyone with a particularly soggy field behind their house. But it has nothing to do with anyone else.

Going Forward

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not sure if we're talking at cross purposes.

If people buy anything, and it turns out to be faulty, their redress should come from the person they bought it from. Nothing to do with anyone else.

I appreciate this will give no comfort to anyone with a particularly soggy field behind their house. But it has nothing to do with anyone else.

I'm sorry, I dont understand your reply.

In your opinion, who should make good a faulty/incompetent septic tank installation? The occupier or installer?

Going Forward wrote: »

In your opinion, who should make good a faulty/incompetent septic tank installation? The occupier or installer?

What I'm saying is the occupier should pursue the installer for any loss suffered, same as with any case of faulty goods.

The vast majority of septic tanks were constructed properly according to the Building Regulations of their time. But the regulations have moved on, and many would not comply with current regulations. This is no different to other aspects of houses, eg insulation. But also, it does not necessarily mean the systems are malfunctioning or polluting.

Priory Hall is a different kettle of fish; the apartments did not comply with the regulations of their time in terms of fire resistance. If all houses and apartments had to comply with current fire regulations, half the population of Ireland would be evacuated from their homes by order of the High Court and sent into temporary accommodation.

Another interesting comparison is the way SEAI give grants to people to upgrade their home's insulation, but only if it was constructed before the more recent regulations. The grants usually amount to between one third and a half of the cost.

Head The Wall

Going Forward wrote: »

The answer then must be that in a case where a (relatively recent, c. 10year old) septic tank system has not been altered by the homeowner, they will not be expected to pay for any remedial work required.

That should take the weight off some peoples' minds.

So just let them keep polluting? I can't see that happening. If something fails on the NCT who pays for it if it's not covered under the manufacturer warranty? The owner does and he can't just say I'm not fixing my brakes because I can't afford it.

The same applies to septic tanks, all too often in the last few years I came across people wanting the biggest square footage and most en-suites but then ended up skimping on heating systems, sewage systems, insulation and other necessities.

Going Forward

Head The Wall wrote: »

So just let them keep polluting? I can't see that happening. If something fails on the NCT who pays for it if it's not covered under the manufacturer warranty? The owner does and he can't just say I'm not fixing my brakes because I can't afford it.

The same applies to septic tanks, all too often in the last few years I came across people wanting the biggest square footage and most en-suites but then ended up skimping on heating systems, sewage systems, insulation and other necessities.

I said nothing about allowing anyone to continue to pollute.

The NCT analogy is flawed because we are talking about past and current standards.

To give an example: Yes, brakes must work to the standards laid down at time of manufacture, and airbags and ABS must work correctly if fitted.
But there is no requirement to retro-fit ABS, airbags etc. to vehicles that never originally had them fitted at time of construction.

recedite wrote: »

The vast majority of septic tanks were constructed properly according to the Building Regulations of their time.

How do we know this? How do we know that they’ve been adequately maintained since?

Plus, while I’m not seriously suggesting you and Going Forward need to present the same case, can I point out that his contention is that it is modern systems that could be the problem.

Head The Wall

Going Forward wrote: »

I said nothing about allowing anyone to continue to pollute.

The NCT analogy is flawed because we are talking about past and current standards.

To give an example: Yes, brakes must work to the standards laid down at time of manufacture, and airbags and ABS must work correctly if fitted.
But there is no requirement to retro-fit ABS, airbags etc. to vehicles that never originally had them fitted at time of construction.

Well you say they won't be expected to pay for it but you don't mention anyone else paying for it. You either expect someone else to magically pay for it or else it'll will be left as it is.

Why should other taxpayers pay for this problem?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

How do we know this? How do we know that they’ve been adequately maintained since?

Most systems comply with a spec called SR6 which was in force up to about 2002, I think, and then was updated to something slightly stricter.

In Ireland we generally allow contractors or architects to self-certify their work. If you don't like the work you can sue them, and they pass the buck on to their PI insurance.The assumption is that the certification is accurate unless you can prove otherwise in court.
Its a bit different in the UK, where planning authorities and other independents inspect the work.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Plus, while I’m not seriously suggesting you and Going Forward need to present the same case, can I point out that his contention is that it is modern systems that could be the problem.

Yes I noticed that, he has the exact opposite view on it

That seems to be based on his own system being relatively new, but possibly faulty. IMO its a civil law case; he should sue the builder.
My view is based on the way SEAI only give grants to upgrade older houses, because the newer ones should be at a reasonable standard already. If they are not, its because they flouted the regulations that were in force at the time they were built, which goes back to suing the builder again.
The big problem with our system is that if the problem is big enough the builder (as in Priory Hall) or the insurer (as in Homebond and the pyrites houses) can declare insolvency. In those cases you would think there would still be PI insurers, or international re-insurers to draw on, but there ya go, the little guy seems to have got shafted anyway.

recedite wrote: »

In Ireland we generally allow contractors or architects to self-certify their work.

And isn't this an issue - we've no idea what's out there, and anecdotes of plentiful problems.

Head The Wall wrote: »

So just let them keep polluting? I can't see that happening. If something fails on the NCT who pays for it if it's not covered under the manufacturer warranty? The owner does and he can't just say I'm not fixing my brakes because I can't afford it.

The same applies to septic tanks, all too often in the last few years I came across people wanting the biggest square footage and most en-suites but then ended up skimping on heating systems, sewage systems, insulation and other necessities.

Nobody is saying to let them keep polluting, in my own case When my house was built it was inspected and so was the tank, this was in 2008 so if I had someone come along now and tell me it wasn't up to scratch then I would be kind of annoyed.

Also a person who builds their own house has a lot of expense as well, getting connected to the water etc isn't cheap.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Also a person who builds their own house has a lot of expense as well, getting connected to the water etc isn't cheap.

Then don't build away from services.

Going Forward

Head The Wall wrote: »

Well you say they won't be expected to pay for it but you don't mention anyone else paying for it. You either expect someone else to magically pay for it or else it'll will be left as it is.

Why should other taxpayers pay for this problem?

I havent said that they should.

If you read the posts you will find that there is some consensus that if an inspection reveals that pollution is being caused as a result of a system having been inadequately or wrongly installed, the occupier should not be liable for those issues and should be able to seek redress from the installer/builder.

I think we're also all grown up enough to actually know that this will be next to impossible as a blame game will ensue between builder, architect, engineer etc. etc. etc.

I can only leave it to better (paid) minds than mine to come up with an equitable solution in anticipation of this scenario occurring in a widespread fashion.

Possibly the EU will allocate funds for a grant scheme for remedial work as a thank you to the public for the high numbers of registrations.:rolleyes:

Going Forward wrote: »

...there is some consensus that if an inspection reveals that pollution is being caused as a result of a system having been inadequately or wrongly installed, the occupier should not be liable for those issues and should be able to seek redress from the installer/builder.

I think we're also all grown up enough to actually know that this will be next to impossible as a blame game will ensue between builder, architect, engineer etc. etc. etc. ....

Just in case there's some misunderstanding as to the level of consensus, as far as I'm concerned the NCT example is valid.

MadsL wrote: »

Then don't build away from services.

Very simplistic answer, we can't all afford to live in urban areas, especially people on lower salaries.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Very simplistic answer, we can't all afford to live in urban areas, especially people on lower salaries.

People on lower salaries find it cheaper to live by building their own house, is that seriously what you are trying to tell me???

I'm speechless.

MadsL wrote: »

People on lower salaries find it cheaper to live by building their own house, is that seriously what you are trying to tell me???

I'm speechless.

If someone has their own site it's cheaper to built their own house, so there is no need to be speechless.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

If someone has their own site it's cheaper to built their own house, so there is no need to be speechless.

So to be clear, you are saying that people on lower salaries are forced to live away from urban areas and that building your own house/bungalow is cheaper than buying from existing new-build housing stock.

Care to give an example?

MadsL wrote: »

So to be clear, you are saying that people on lower salaries are forced to live away from urban areas and that building your own house/bungalow is cheaper than buying from existing new-build housing stock.

Care to give an example?

I sure can, myself.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I sure can, myself.

What was your sq ft build cost?

unimpressed

Yes the goverment have handled this very badly (surprise surprise) but the fact is there are still people out there using septic tanks they built themselves out of blocks and mortor. These leak very badly and contaminate the water supply for us and poison the rivers THAT IS FACT. If your tank is ok it will cost nothing but the 50 euro. if your newer tank was installed wrong then yes it will be up to the installer to fix it. Problem is most people saved money by doing it themselves or paying cash to a relative and they know if its bad they are on the hook.
If thats the case its time to become a grown up and take the consequencis of your actions not force the rest of us to drink your S###E.

MadsL wrote: »

What was your sq ft build cost?

OK, difficult question clearly.

What was your build cost?

MadsL wrote: »

What was your sq ft build cost?

I have a 1600 sq ft house and was living in it for 180 k back in 2008, the same size house was sold for 315 k 8 months earlier half a mile away from me.

I got the house plan from the builder that put it up so it was the exact same house.

It was a hassle organising all the labour myself but when buying a finished house you are paying for the builders cut as well.

Obviously finished house prices are more reasonable now but for me personally at the tail end of the housing boom I saved about 100 k.

MadsL wrote: »

OK, difficult question clearly.

What was your build cost?

I'm a slow typer, I've answered your question so no need for the sarcasm.

So your build cost was about €112 a sq ft.

That puts the cost of a 720 sq ft 2 bed terrace in Oranmore at €80000.

Your house was built for the same market value as the current value living in a Galway commuter town.

You left out the value of your site (and probably the cost of planning) which is probably 20k-40k.

Please don't try and tell me that people are forced to build houses in the middle of nowhere because they are poor.

MadsL wrote: »

So your build cost was about €112 a sq ft.

That puts the cost of a 720 sq ft 2 bed terrace in Oranmore at €80000.

Your house was built for the same market value as the current value living in a Galway commuter town.

You left out the value of your site (and probably the cost of planning) which is probably 20k-40k.

Please don't try and tell me that people are forced to build houses in the middle of nowhere because they are poor.

Site cost me nothing and the planning was 5 k, so you're a bit out there.

Like I said house prices are down now but it was different back then, anyway this is going off topic and I don't want to derail the thread.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Site cost me nothing and the planning was 5 k, so you're a bit out there.

Like I said house prices are down now but it was different back then, anyway this is going off topic and I don't want to derail the thread.

I'm talking about the value of the site not what it cost you. Not everyone has free sites.

As for derailing, you were the one claiming it is cheaper to buy away from services and then bemoaning the cost to get connected!!

MadsL wrote: »

Your house was built for the same market value as the current value living in a Galway commuter town.

Come off it, you may as well be comparing his build costs to the price his parents paid for their house, back in the day.
Lets compare like with like. Build prices have come down as well.
At the moment with all the vacant Nama houses around, it may well be more economical to buy an existing house than to build one, but the further out from town you go, the cheaper it gets, for a given sized house.

recedite wrote: »

Come off it, you may as well be comparing his build costs to the price his parents paid for their house, back in the day.
Lets compare like with like. Build prices have come down as well.
At the moment with all the vacant Nama houses around, it may well be more economical to buy an existing house than to build one, but the further out from town you go, the cheaper it gets, for a given sized house.

Except he is claiming that people were forced to build in remote areas as they could not afford to get connected to services. I don't accept that.

In his own example he claims to have saved 100k, however he spent 180k. I put his boomtime site value at 40k plus 5k planning. So 225k. The average 3 bed house price in Co.Galway in was €260, so whilst he could not have bought the average condition house, there would certainly have been houses in the bottom end of that price range.