Would you accept a scheme as a loan only repayable from proceeds of a sale in future after mortgage paid
As for Dublin issue lots of apartment owners in Dublin were left swivel over fire safety issues and no provision for sinking funds.
Was that billions of euros?
150m.
Bit of a difference. Lads in Donegal who donāt pay tax with 3000 square feet houses shafted by their own kind want a blank cheque from lads in Dublin they hate and donāt respect.
Be cheaper to house them in social housing.
I see a house down the road from me having a sample taken from it during the week, I assume for testing for mica. A lot of cracks have appeared in it in recent years (built about 25 years)
Not sure the pyrite guys were fully bailed out. Think the numbers were also far more definite. Plenty of issues with reselling them houses too in terms of certification. (There was one up for auction recently in drynam at about 100g below market value) Nevertheless a deal was certainly done. Think Brendan Ryan was on the committee for it because so many cases were in Fingal.
Sadly, it may take a huge buildup of public pressure because the numbers are so large. Remember the Priory Hall debacle. They are re done now and owners were offered walkaways but only because that poor fella committed suicide.
Also, some of the pyrite stuff was done with gagging orders to ensure minimum publicity about it.
This here is exactly the shite that the media reporting is causing. The clearest example of us versus them. What difference does the size of a house make? And again, it highlights the reporting as if to say that people with big houses should pay for the rebuild themselves. Why?
The full and final cost of pyrite I donāt believe has ever been issued. The only thing theyāve ever said was that a house repair was average of ā¬70k to repair and over 2,000 houses applied. This 70k figure was first produced in 2011 and its still using that same figure in 2021 to calculate approximate figures. The 70k figure is also a pile of bollix, I remember pricing 3 or 4 houses in North Dublin around 2014 and they were all over 100k.
This mica issue is a lot more complex than the majority of the pyrite cases too.
2 Likes
Priory Hall highlighted a major issue that I donāt think has been properly rectified. When making applications for planning, fire certification drawings and details get issued and approved. However there is little enforcement of the actual design and detail being actually implemented during construction.
I agree with you but any money needs to have a charge attached. People should not be made homeless but any profit in future should be clawed back.
That would be fair.
I also think itās interesting this gets traction.
On a separate issue but itās related as to how we treat tragedy and shit that happens people
The State should also compensate kids critically injured at birth and step in. They donāt. The leading med Neg lawyer in country said to me once it would do him out of most of his income but itās right thing to do
Presumably these problems if intrinsic to the bricks, can only be rectified by knocking the entire building and rebuilding from scratch?
The Iām alright jack fuck you crew were out in force today alright.
- Before a penny of redress is paid by the state, the Cassidys should be stripped of every asset using both the CAB and the Inland revenue in tandem to ensure this is thoroughly done. This should include their family homes.
- I struggle with the idea that a swathe of folk who canāt afford anywhere of their own are suddenly paying more tax to subsidize 4000 square foot vanity houses.
State rebuilds should be to a maximum size of 2000 square feet. - Where TF the builders and materials are supposed to come from is beyond me.
- Itās not fair to blame the builders or the engineers for poor quality blocks. I know of no builder or engineer with an analysis facility. The Cassidys are to blame here. Plain and simple.
8 Likes
They should but is that legal?
Make it legal. The CAB wasnāt legal until it was. If specific legislation needs to be enacted, so be it, but it needs to be lightning quick or a shopping centre in the Ukraine will go missing again.
1 Like
This is a huge issue.
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.
Ripped off by one of their own.
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.
4 Likes
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.
1 Like
Iād agree with that.
The house size thing is a non issue really as thatās what people build in those places.
Agreed. I called this months back
1 Like
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?