I imagine the connection back to the block providers is likely to be tangled.
Homeowner contracts with the builder. Or maybe even a project manager who contracts with the builder. Builder buys blocks from provider. Builder is a limited company which is now doesnât exist maybe? Builder says blocks were approved how was I to know Iâm not liable. Or engineer signed off that the building was up to scratch it was his job.
And as art says, the people affected canât join together and claim, so itâs financially hard for them to go after the block provider.
Also, it turns out it was the local authorityâs job to inspect blocks, but they never had resources or expertise to do it so it just wasnât done, so really should it be the local authority people go after in the courts? In which case itâs the stateâs fault again and it ultimately pays (plus legal fees, cc @tallback).
Youâre trying to deflect here. I doubt many have if any. Building supplies generally a good bit cheaper in the black 6 and thereâs a lot of biggest industry around Fermanagh, Derry, Tyrone would be construction/engineering firms. Huge amount of paving/concrete/quarry businesses there like Quinn/Finlays/Tombermore etc.
You asked how are they still trading? They are still trading due to the (lack of) regulations that allows cowboys like Cassidy Bros to run away from their mess.
Youâre genuinely thick so naturally are trying to obfuscate.
Youâve had your pea brain have a little meltdown since this has been explained to you by multiple posters. Your question was answered by more than one poster on here. You didnât like the answer though.
Your point about the tangled responsibilities is true Iâd say.
Perhaps a legal expert could provide more insight but Iâd imagine that a civil case against the local authority/state would struggle to get traction. If there was a legal case to answer then these cases would already be turning up in the courts
I havenât said that anywhere. I think itâs a shit situation all round with massive implications for both the homeowners and the state.
I also think if the state is going to provide 100% uncapped redress (as demanded and which seems unprecedented) then the implications of that need to be spelt out and budgeted for accordingly. Perhaps a 1% solidarity tax for all?
Perhaps youâre right, but against that you have people whose homes are crumbling around them, you think many have the capacity to be taking on a high court case against a local authority, or anyone?
