Who is responsible for the Mica issue - the builders or the quarries?

[Peanuts20]

There's sometimes a tendency to focus on the likes of Ballymun and the Glen in Cork when we look at social housing but certainly in country towns, there is often a much better sense of community in old style council estates then elsewhere in the town. I was not advocating the state building houses, rather build communities. Put a community centre, bus stops, retail units, maybe a Garda station, health clinic etc in the area. Don't build ghettos which was the mistake of the past.

Some of the post thatcherite policies adopted by many countries, including Ireland are now coming home to roost. Right to buy is a case in point. I've no argument that people should be able to buy a house if they can afford but if you have a life long council lease why should you be able to buy that house or flat at a discount? Once the new owner then passes away, that house is lost to the council housing stock.

As for the state being inefficient, yes there is some truth to that but it is not the whole truth. Look at the motorways, the Luas, the Electrical infrastructure, gas piplelines, plenty of big infrastructural projects that are still standing and working today, unlike many houses built by the private sector over the last 20 years. And yes, I know the state has to take a share of responsibility for not enforcing regulations, but chancer Irish private sector builders still took the chance and got away with it.

We've been dependent on the private sector to solve the housing issue for the last 20 years and it's failed. So surely we'd be mad to continue?

 

[T McGibney]

As for the state being inefficient, yes there is some truth to that but it is not the whole truth. Look at the motorways, the Luas, the Electrical infrastructure, gas piplelines, plenty of big infrastructural projects that are still standing and working today, unlike many houses built by the private sector over the last 20 years. And yes, I know the state has to take a share of responsibility for not enforcing regulations, but chancer Irish private sector builders still took the chance and got away with it.

Your "chancer Irish private sector builders" slur is unwarranted.

How many houses built by the private sector in the past 20 years are no longer standing? I'd guess it's at most a few hundred. Take the Mica cases, where the blame lies with the quarry owners rather than with the builders, and the figure is even smaller.

For perspective, remember that before 2008, the private sector was building 75,000 units a year.

 

[Peanuts20]

Your "chancer Irish private sector builders" slur is unwarranted.

How many houses built by the private sector in the past 20 years are no longer standing? I'd guess it's at most a few hundred. Take the Mica cases, where the blame lies with the quarry owners rather than with the builders, and the figure is even smaller.

For perspective, remember that before 2008, the private sector was building 75,000 units a year.

Current figures for MICA are between 5000 and 7500 houses, not a few hundred and as as time passes, I expect that number to grow

Firstly, the builders are totally and utterly responsible for the suppliers they use. No one forced them to go these quarries, they made a decision and like any final manufacturer, they are responsible. As are the quarry owners. The builders should never have been able to abdicate their responsibility. If you buy a BMW and a component in the car made by a 3rd party supplier fails, you go to BMW to resolve it as BMW are responsible

Then lets look at all of the appartment complexes where owners are having to spend thousands on basic things like bringing the complex up to standard.

This article is scary. 80% of appartments built in Ireland between 1991 and 2003 have fire, structural or water ingress isssues.

Mick Clifford: Citizens will pick up the tab for building defects

Legally, builders including Flynn & O’Flaherty are only responsible for defective work if it is discovered within seven years of construction

www.irishexaminer.com

In fairness, the builders may not all have been chancers and may just have been incompetent, but lets be honest, would anyone in their right mind buy a 2nd hand Celtic Tiger apartment right now?

 

[T McGibney]

Current figures for MICA are between 5000 and 7500 houses, not a few hundred and as as time passes, I expect that number to grow

Ok, accepted.

Firstly, the builders are totally and utterly responsible for the suppliers they use. No one forced them to go these quarries, they made a decision and like any final manufacturer, they are responsible. As are the quarry owners. The builders should never have been able to abdicate their responsibility. If you buy a BMW and a component in the car made by a 3rd party supplier fails, you go to BMW to resolve it as BMW are responsible

All the coverage I've read on this issue appears to pin the blame on the quarries. That's evidenced by the inclusion of self-builders in the redress scheme. If you can find a source that credibly finds a builder ultimately responsible for Mica damage, do let me know.

Then lets look at all of the apartment complexes where owners are having to spend thousands on basic things like bringing the complex up to standard.

Different issue.

This article is scary. 80% of apartments built in Ireland between 1991 and 2003 have fire, structural or water ingress isssues.

Even if true, neither here or there. Nobody is credibly claiming that 80% of apartments built between 1991 and 2003 are uninhabitable or anything like it.

Mick Clifford: Citizens will pick up the tab for building defects

Legally, builders including Flynn & O’Flaherty are only responsible for defective work if it is discovered within seven years of construction

www.irishexaminer.com

In fairness, the builders may not all have been chancers and may just have been incompetent, but lets be honest, would anyone in their right mind buy a 2nd hand Celtic Tiger apartment right now?

Mick Clifford LOL.

If you put one up for sale today, you'll get a handsome price for it.

 

[Purple]

If you buy a BMW and a component in the car made by a 3rd party supplier fails, you go to BMW to resolve it as BMW are responsible

Yes, and BMW would recover the cost from their supplier at the same time. That's why their supplier have insurance. When they sign a supply agreement with their supplier issues such as liability and insurance are covered. If a supplier is not ISO/TS 16949 certifies they would not use them. If they don't have sufficient insurance they won't use them.
The idea that a government would be responsible for such faults would never be countenanced.

 

[Simpli]

I can probably speak to the builder / quarry comment.

You assume there are a plethora of quarries available - for a large majority of the houses built, there was one quarry - who a number of other quarries further away used to suppliment supply. SO in essence, there was only one quarry.

I myself was invovled in the building of multiple houses for family during that period, which are now coming down with Mica. There was absolutely no suggestion or hint of any issues with the materials at the time. You couldn't tell anything was wrong with them - as was in the case of the buildings in Dublin. The true issue isn't Mica, it's Pyrrohite - Mica is a contributing factor, but the deleterious material found in the houses which were quietly rebuilt and for which there was 100% redress, is the same deleterious material affecting the many thousands of houses up in the north of the country.

The suggestion of 'builders' being in any way liable is as unrealistic as it is ignorant of reality.

 

[NoRegretsCoyote]

In fairness, the builders may not all have been chancers and may just have been incompetent, but lets be honest, would anyone in their right mind buy a 2nd hand Celtic Tiger apartment right now?

I would happily buy one if if fit my circumstances. There were perhaps 150k apartments built 1995-2010 and Priory Hall is the only development that required a full demolition. So that's 200 units out of 150,000 or 0.13%.

For the rest of course there are fire safety issues here and there that need remediation but no one has linked a fatality to any of the issues.

My house is of a similar vintage and I had to spend €1,000 getting a leaky roof fixed a few years ago - where's my bailout?

 

[Purple]

Construction is the biggest industry in the world. It is highly fragmented and grossly inefficient.
It's not much more productive than it was 70 years ago, (Agriculture labour productivity in developed countries is 20 times more productive over that period).

That said we aren't anything special when it comes to issues with building standards. I'd guess that we are better than average, even for developed countries.

 

[Simpli]

I'm very ignorant to immigration laws, but I see every day how quickly development can happen in the middle east.

Assuming you could entice the same teams of lads (there is a never ending supply of construction labour in India) and applied a bit of improved labour laws, I don't see how you couldn't meet 25k+ houses per year. There are solutions available, at minimum wage. There is also 24x7 construction possible, given the appetite from the poor Indian lads. There's a line to be struck between efficient time and financially prudent solving of the problem and not taking advantage of them like the arabs do, there's just a few administrative hurdles in the way

 

[1eyeonthefuture]

Regardless of who's fault it has been to date, the cause for on going and future issues now thst the problems have been raised is purely the government's.
At present there is no specification with respect of what makes up a concrete block. Unbelievably these blocks continue to be produced and the producers are technically doing nothing wrong due to the lack of a required specification.
Some sites in Donegal are testing blocks when they arrive on site and there is a high failure rate.
Some sites are not testing.
Another ticking time bomb.

 

[mathepac]

The suggestion of 'builders' being in any way liable is as unrealistic as it is ignorant of reality.

If I want to build a house, I sign a contract with a builder, rendering the builder liable for supply errors, sub-contractor mistakes, materials supply problems or delays and/or deviations from the materials specs., plans, and/or delivery dates. e.g. €1,000 / day for missed completion dates, full rectification costs for workmanship or materials problems.

There's a very old Danish saying I keep repeating to suppliers who err or don't meet their commitments or promises (most recently with TESCOS in Cashel, Co Tipp). "I have kicked my dog, now you go kick yours."

 

[Simpli]

Why do you assume that every builder is globalmegacorp, where you have 'contracts' and professional indemnity insurance etc. - Rightly or wrongly, the majority of houses in Donegal are self-build. I appreciate that's hard to understand in urban areas. Trying to go after hundreds of builders as opposed to one supplier also is unnecessarily legally complicating it.

 

[Purple]

Why do you assume that every builder is globalmegacorp, where you have 'contracts' and professional indemnity insurance etc. - Rightly or wrongly, the majority of houses in Donegal are self-build. I appreciate that's hard to understand in urban areas. Trying to go after hundreds of builders as opposed to one supplier also is unnecessarily legally complicating it.

The home owner should make a claim against the main contractor. The main contractor then claims against whomever built the brick/block work. They in turn claim against the supplier of the bricks/blocks and so on. If the home owner is the main contractor then the first step is skipped. That's the way liability works.
What shouldn't happen is "This is complicated so the State should pay for it". We have an abundance of lawyers in this country. Let's use them.

 

[T McGibney]

The home owner should make a claim against the main contractor. The main contractor then claims against whomever built the brick/block work. They in turn claim against the supplier of the bricks/blocks and so on. If the home owner is the main contractor then the first step is skipped. That's the way liability works.
What shouldn't happen is "This is complicated so the State should pay for it". We have an abundance of lawyers in this country. Let's use them.

No matter how many lawyers we have in this country, there won't be enough to process all the cases against each individual builder and in turn by them against the supplying quarry if we proceed along these lines.

Besides, many homeowners in likely negative equity can ill-afford the substantial upfront outlay inherent in mounting legal action, especially when everyone knows that the ultimately culpable party cannot compensate even a small fraction of claimants.

 

[Purple]

No matter how many lawyers we have in this country, there won't be enough to process all the cases against each individual builder and in turn by them against the supplying quarry if we proceed along these lines.


Besides, many homeowners in likely negative equity can ill-afford the substantial upfront outlay inherent in mounting legal action, especially when everyone knows that the ultimately culpable party cannot compensate even a small fraction of claimants.

Take test cases and make the insurance companies pay out to the limit of their liability. There should be a discussion about whatever shortfall there is after that but all these quarries and construction companies had insurance so why is should the State take on liabilities that massive international insurance companies have been paid vast amounts of money to underwrite?
If the quarries and construction companies didn't have insurance then they were trading recklessly and their directors should be held personally liable.

 

[T McGibney]

Take test cases and make the insurance companies pay out to the limit of their liability. There should be a discussion about whatever shortfall there is after that but all these quarries and construction companies had insurance so why is should the State take on liabilities that massive international insurance companies have been paid vast amounts of money to underwrite?
If the quarries and construction companies didn't have insurance then they were trading recklessly and their directors should be held personally liable.

Again, if your house is literally falling asunder, you won't be able to afford a test case.

Remember the dictum: if you've a cast-iron case, then you've at most a 50% chance of winning.

 

[joe sod]

for the state being inefficient, yes there is some truth to that but it is not the whole truth. Look at the motorways, the Luas, the Electrical infrastructure, gas piplelines, plenty of big infrastructural projects that are still standing and working today, unlike many houses built by the private sector over the last 20 years.

But the private sector built all of this on contract for the state, no state employees got their hands dirty doing this work. Now since Covid many of them are still working from home hardly conducive to building 10s of thousands of social houses.
If they were really serious surely they would be employing apprentices from school, training them etc, buying construction equipment, yards etc. I see no appetite in the state for that level of engagement in house building, its all talk at the end of the day

 

[Simpli]

Why is this such an issue for Donegal property, but wasn't in the case of Pyrrhite in Dublin property? Sectarianism isn't just along the grounds of religion.

 

[Purple]

Why is this such an issue for Donegal property, but wasn't in the case of Pyrrhite in Dublin property? Sectarianism isn't just along the grounds of religion.

Maybe we're all sick of hearing the Nordies moaning?

Ah, no, we love hearing them moan. It's just what they do.

Seriously though, you have a point. The same rules should have applied to all building faults. The State should pursue those responsible for the defects and seek to recover any and all money that it can.