I know plenty of people that built their own family home over the years. They added to it as time went bye and focused on it as the main investment of their lives, not me I like wine and holidays and we bought in anestate in 2016.
One family I know were told to rebuild the gaffe that theyāve invested every penny in would cost over 500k. They paid about a 3rd of that as the guy did 80% of the work himself and supplies were much cheaper back then.
Along with this you have the issue, even with vanity homes built by the rich, that they paid for something that, due to I adequate Govt regulations, is not fit for purpose.
The only way I can see out of this is to means test to see if owners have the ability to contribute towards rebuilding. However, anyone with that much money has good enough legal representation and accountancy services to win that battle.
The only point I disagree with there is the house size issue. If Iām fortunate enough to be employed and earn enough to get a mortgage to build a house larger than 2,000 ft2 for my family, and it turns out to be entirely defective and needs to be rebuilt, then why should I have to rebuild a smaller house when I paid initially for the house of a size I wanted for my family or have to pay for it all again.
I also agree with point 4, however that was of the time. There is no excuse for it now. It costs about ā¬30 per test for a block or concrete cube test per unit. Its up to the assigned certifier firstly to request sample testing and the builder to carry it out. Its a standard enough procedure now on reasonably large jobs. Same with pyrite testing for stone.
No, due to crooks itās not fit for purpose. By this line of reasoning, every crime committed in the state could result in legal action against the state as insufficient oversight by the state allowed it to happen.
This is a unique case, and unfair on the homeowners, and there should be state involvement, but to blame it on the state legally, stating insufficient oversight doesnāt hold water for me. It may be a moral issue, but not a legal one.
Ok ta. Whatās the craic with the homebond scheme? Apparently that was set up to compensate people for builders mistakes. Why isnt that being utilised here?
The fact that itās being reported about the size of the houses tells us the narrative being spun on thus whole thing. Did we ever get any report on how big the houses on the pyrite redress were? Why does it need to be reported at all how big any of the houses are?
Of course itās an issue. The money will have to be paid by people who canāt afford a house of their own, not even a 500 square foot semi west of the ring road.
They should get redress yes. The value of a house in Dalkey might be more, but construction of it is a different cost issue. If its wrong, its wrong, location or size shouldnāt be an issue
Again, the first issue here is it should be covered through cassidys, whether directly or insurance.
Maybe so but there is no one but the State to be held accountable, from a legal point of view.
Iād be happy to have Cassidyās pay all of the rebuild coat but that will never happen.
The State will have to bail out the homeowners, like they did the banks but at fraction of the cost. If theyāve any sense, and they likely havenāt, they negotiating with the EU for humanitarian aid for this as its the same as an earthquake hitting Donegal.