We are paying for electing political leaders who failed to regulate the Building industry,Why can’t people claim on their house insurance? Probably a stupid question but I don’t know the answer.
It is not the government who are paying for this, it is us the taxpayers. Plus they still own the land and the foundations are still good, no blocks there. So it is replace the walls floors and roof. I assume a lot of the items, doors, windows, slates etc can be re-used?
The state is Liable it failed to regulate ,Can't understand why the state is liable when they weren't involved in the transaction. Do builders have any responsibility for the product they build?
They are giving the McMansions 25000 of taxpayers money as it is,Builders probably don't existing anymore, or didn't have adequate PL insurance to cover something like this, and same for the quarries. Very hard to prove what stone came from what quarry to what house build 10 or 20 years later.
But the 100% does grate a little - should the State really be footing the bill to rectify McMansions?
the electrical end of house building is well regulated, it is not just the house the taxpayer is on the hoof for mental illness and a host of other issues connected to their failure to regulate,If compensation/redress is to be paid should it not be in line with the rebuild cost as outlined in their house insurance policies (assuming they have one)
Could the insurance providers not stump up some of the cost? Eventually if the houses crumble to pieces and the entire building collapses surely it’s an insurance claim just as if it were destroyed by fire due to defective wiring?
Yes that’s true. But don’t the regulations/standards change and increase often. There’s also little comeback I guess. Do the insurance companies chase the electrician? I dint think they look for certs of compliance do they if there was a fire.the electrical end of house building is well regulated,
You are missing the point the state failed to regulate,Yes that’s true. But don’t the regulations/standards change and increase often. There’s also little comeback I guess. Do the insurance companies chase the electrician? I dint think they look for certs of compliance do they if there was a fire.
The point I guess is if it’s defective (no matter what the defect- blocks, electrics etc) isn’t it an insurance payout if the house is badly damaged? Perhaps not
1) What exactly did the state fail to regulate?You are missing the point the state failed to regulate,
Does that mean everything we eat, drink, build, create, invent, read, teach, etc, etc, has to be state regulated? Very easy for you to say someone's missing the point and only the state is responsible. Think about it, someone manufactured the blocks, a builder did the build, an engineer gave a cert, an insurance co insured the place. Then the whole thing turns to dust and Joe the plumber has to pay for the lot. Don't get me wrong, I feel for the homeowners too, but someone's getting off scot free in all of this. I've no idea who in Goverment took responsibility for this in the first place, but whoever it was that went public was wrong to do so. Oh, just my opinion.You are missing the point the state failed to regulate,
Market value Vs cost of (re) building can be two very different numbers.A listener to Today with Claire Byrne suggested that the valuation used for the local property tax be used. That would be an interesting study to compare that valuation and what’s now being claimed.
Because insurance won't retrospectively cover building defects.As others have said, why not claim off insurance.
Builders should be legally liable for building defects found within ten years of construction. Sure, this will be expensive to insure against and will be passed on to consumers. But it's probably better than ad hoc state schemes like this.Builders probably don't existing anymore, or didn't have adequate PL insurance to cover something like this, and same for the quarries. Very hard to prove what stone came from what quarry to what house build 10 or 20 years later.
Builders should be legally liable for building defects found within ten years of construction. Sure, this will be expensive to insure against and will be passed on to consumers. But it's probably better than ad hoc state schemes like this.