10% levy on concrete to fund defective homes redress

Status
Not open for further replies.
That levy will be factored into builders' costs.
That will increase rebuilding costs for a damaged house.
That will probably contribute something to increased household insurance costs.
Great.
 
In relation to the original defective material I see absolutely no good reason why government cannot pursue the suppliers under the principle of subrogation.

Government [taxpayer really] are indemnifying the victims of the defective products. Thus, government will be entitled to subrogate against the suppliers. If the suppliers have no liability insurance they should be bankrupted for their performance.
 
In relation to the original defective material I see absolutely no good reason why government cannot pursue the suppliers under the principle of subrogation.

Government [taxpayer really] are indemnifying the victims of the defective products. Thus, government will be entitled to subrogate against the suppliers. If the suppliers have no liability insurance they should be bankrupted for their performance.
At least one of the companies involved is already gone now, from a legal standpoint. https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...-ordered-to-shut-concrete-plant-40998384.html
 
In relation to the original defective material I see absolutely no good reason why government cannot pursue the suppliers under the principle of subrogation.

Government [taxpayer really] are indemnifying the victims of the defective products. Thus, government will be entitled to subrogate against the suppliers. If the suppliers have no liability insurance they should be bankrupted for their performance.
If that's a realistic option then it should be pursued.
 
If that's a realistic option then it should be pursued.
The cost of this is expected to be 4B - and I'd guess that's an underestimate as there will inevitably be a lot of Donegal holiday homes squeezed into the scheme under our next government.

I think it's safe to say Cassidy Brothers does not have 4B, or even insurance to cover this type of problem, article below alleges they didn't have permission to build blocks on their site, what insurer would cover that?

 
I think it's safe to say Cassidy Brothers does not have 4B, or even insurance to cover this type of problem, article below alleges they didn't have permission to build blocks on their site, what insurer would cover that?
Or not even clear that the quarry should bear all responsibility.

Many of these houses were self builds. I suspect most buyers did zero quality control of any substance used in construction at all. Should they have? I don't know.

The other houses were built by developers. Should developers have done more quality control? I would think so yes, certainly more than self-builders given that they were building and selling at scale.

At what level should the quality control have taken place? Contractor level? Subcontractor level?

There are not easy, obvious answers to these questions. What we know is that there no pot of gold at the responsible quarry. And any levy on industry will not improve things in future. So what's the point?
 
There seems to have been a failure of regulation at the State level and a quality control failure at the construction level. Did the construction companies have an approved supplier list? Did they conduct audits on their suppliers? Did they require a level of certification from their suppliers? Did they have a quality system and if so what did their quality manual specify in relation to control of purchased product? I would think that blocks would be considered a critical to function product when it comes to building houses.

For one-off builds it's a different matter but it's not unreasonable for a person building their own home that the State is ensuring that businesses are meeting the minimum legal requirements when they put a product on the market.
 
Unfortunately, in the Republic we do set out standards and rules in lots of areas of the economy but they are rarely, if ever, enforced.

Lots of moans and weeping of (crocodile) tears after the event and promises to do better next time - until the next time
 
@jpd I agree 100%. Get the legislators and the supposed enforcers out of their offices and onto building sites to check products against standards as apparently the current testing is inadequate or non-existent.

Why was the levy not placed on the net profits of the building / production companies, that'd get their attention, that and real testing not conducted by the wife's first cousin once removed.
 
Last edited:
The government has admitted that the cost of new houses will rise by more than they had previously estimated


However, the department has now said that when “soft costs” are included, such as the cost of finance, fees, risk and contingency, the impact on range for a typical dwelling is between €1,400 to €2,200 and for a typical apartment is between €1,300 to €2,100.
 
The government has admitted that the cost of new houses will rise by more than they had previously estimated


However, the department has now said that when “soft costs” are included, such as the cost of finance, fees, risk and contingency, the impact on range for a typical dwelling is between €1,400 to €2,200 and for a typical apartment is between €1,300 to €2,100.
The market sets the price though so it won't really increase the selling price. Labour cost inflation is a far bigger issue than a few grand on the price of bricks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top