Fianna Fail caused the problem.

As far as I can see it was caused by lack of monitoring by councils. I built a very small extension pre boom. I had to get an architect out , I think twice to certify that the foundations had been done properly and then when it was finished . As far as I can see there was very little building inspection. That is the responsibility of the planning authority.

Strongbow, what have the council got to do with it? Building control was eradicated in this country 20 odd years ago.

Strongbow, by extension then you mean the taxpayer? No accountability from the builders?

As is states in the article the stakeholders are expected to come up with a solution/funds or a Levy will be imposed. The funding is front funding which considering up to 70% of the purchase price of a home went in taxes both direct (stamp duty, council Levy) and indirect (vat on materials) surely if the product is not up to scratch the ‘taxpayer’ is entitled to these back? Why would you object to something that has absolutely no bearing on ur life but would make a positive impact on others? BTW homeowners affected are taxpayers too and considering the hell they have been dragged through the past few years they would also hate to see those responsible get away scott free.

Niamh, you pay VAT on everything. Should the purchaser of a dodgey car look for compensation from the taxpayer? I don’t pretend to understand the upset these owners are going through but between the banks, construction federation and the builders themselves there’s more than enough there to cover this cost. Why should I pay it?

@O’Reilly, please learn to read, the report clearly stated that the tax payer was not liable so why are you implying that the taxpayer is being saddled with the cost. The levy could be upon the stakeholders mentioned not on the taxpayer

Vocal, read the headline…the report was commisioned in light of calls for the government to compensate.

O’reilly, Why do you think your taxes alone fund the entire exchequer?

Niamh, now you’re being flippant. The converse of that argument is why should your bleeding heart agenda cost me and every other taxpayer? As I said in my first post, where does it stop?

As I have said we just want front funding, the govt can recoup the money. Homeowners have been continuously stonewalled and lied to for years by those responsible and from the looks of things the govt aren’t having an easier time dealing with them but the govt have far more resources available to them to force them to pay up. Homeowners in many cases cannot take legal action as all those responsible have conveniently gone out of business or the statute of limitations has run out or despite their best efforts they can’t get the information from an guarantee company, or they were missold the structural guarantee which was necessary to get their mortgage. And now nobody wants to together blame, the homeowner is left with an unsellable uninsurable worthless house that is falling down, a fire hazard and they.have to pay a mortgage. Pyrite isn’t a new phenemon, its in rock since the dawn of time. Canada has already had a massive well documented problem, which brought down a govt. It is through insufficient testing that aggregate that is unsuitable for residential use got into the system. This has been dragged out for years. I haven’t got €450000 approx to fix my house, why should I have to pay when I have already paid for my house. Its time for the stakeholders to come forward with a resolution and govt to.front fund.

Niamh

I invested in Bank of Ireland shares, can the government levy somebody so that I can get my money back ?

It has nothing to do with the council. When did a certifying architect ever ask which quarry did the sand came from? Hogan is right and the question I pose is this. For years the n.h.b.g.s later called homebond,took millions off developers to register houses under their so called guarantee scheme? Where are they now?theyre about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

John I’ll explain something, when you buy shares you are told the value of the shares can fall as well as rise, when you buy a house you do not expect your house to fall down as well as rise…which is exactly wot happens wit Pyrite. You buy shares wit a risk you do not expect to buy ur house with a risk. our homes are less than ten years old, we bought our house with all the necessary certs and assumed because there are regulations that it was up to scratch, and were reassured that if something did go wrong we had Homebond to fall back on, how wrong we were. You need to see one to believe it. But perhaps like O’reilly you prefer ur money is spent bailing out banks than helping people of the country.

Morning Niamh. When I bought my house it never occured to me that if it fell down the taxpayer would pay for it. Also I’ve been wondering. If the pyrite home owners can’t make a legal argument stick what makes you think the government can? If the tax payer ” fronts up” money would we ever get it back?

Its not that we can’t make the legal argument stick its that the stakeholders will not give over ANY information, this would then involve taking global multi nationals insurance companies to the supreme court such as Zurich and Aviva, as well as the usual suspects who all have massive legal teams at their disposal, we are homeowners, we don’t have hundreds of thousands to spend, I’d we did we would be using it to fix our homes, but why should money be spent on massive legal fees and more time wasted dragging this out through the courts when that money could be spent fixing our homes. The government can get the stakeholders together to come up with a resolution. We have been banging our heads off a brick wall for far too long. Btw the second largest guarantee Co., Premier have accepted liability and are in the process if fixing the houses affected.

o reilly,
Do u personally know anyone who is in this predicament,, or are u mouthin off.. as usual.

There’s potentially 10,000 homes affected. The potential cost to taxpayer is substantial. I’m glad to hear some steak holders are stepping up to the plate. I hope the gov are successful in cracking heads together…

These people suffering pyrite problems have been ignored long enough. I don’t see why the government shouldn’t arrange and pay to fix pyrite damaged homes. Then let the might of the government recoup the money from the builders and their suppliers. They’re quick enough to run to the aid of unsecured bondholders. How about putting the people who are really suffering from the boom first!

Oh and leave Niamh alone.

Reada, if Hogan had come out in the first instance and said we’ll cover the cost of these 10,000 homes you’d be jumping up and down! Screaming about front line services being put at risk to cover dodgey builders costs. But because he’s saying No, in true SF fashion your taking the populist view… Typical.

Reada, stop talking sense, the FFG trolls don’t like it!

Just a thought, but if the Gov front funded this couldn’t they take some credit on a job creation front? It’s all about the optics after all!

Remarkably enough there is not one mention of Homebond in this account of Hogan’s comments. Given that the majority of houses are developer built scheme houses it is reasonable to expect that Homebond was the main insurer upon which lenders & borrowers mutually relied for assurance regarding structure.
As the account above goes the ‘robust’ proposals by Hogan amount to the setting up of another panel/resolution board to chase down ‘stakeholders’ who by this stage are either kicking sods around some building site in Eastern Europe or building shoddy sandcastles on the Cote de Azure while the taxpayer so beloved by Mr O’Reilly above is carrying the can for much more in terms of the mess they left behind than people like Niamh’s pyrite problems.

So what you’re saying John, albeit in a l

Fianna Fail acted against the advice of 2 independent expert groups and still went ahead with their blanket guarantee. Fianna Fail voters are idiots.

At Creamy etc. no I don’t think the state is entirely responsible but we have institutions in all parts of society entrusted with safe guarding the public interest. The boom seemed to have dispensed with any sort of governance , from the financial regulator down. I think if your home was cracking around you , you might feel that you had been abandoned by the state and told to chase up wreckless builders/

That ‘panel’ as he calls it, was set up by him, ‘Minister for Environment’ supposedly!!!! That is a lie! There are not only 10/12,000 households with pyrite. There are up to 100,000 homes with some form of pyrite that is not going away! It is expanding the foundations of these homes every day! These homes will have to be vacated in the next 10/15 years because of safety issues! These quarries were closed down by this Government because all three were showing pyrite in its soil! Homeowners are not to blame here, politicians, builders, surveyors, safety committees, engineers etc. etc. are to blame.

Fix these damn houses for these families now, the longer Hogan leaves it the more danger these families are in. Why are they been bullied into paying morgs. for homes that should be vacated immediately, without delay.

What is pyrite ??

The Pyrite problem IS bad, and is compounded by inadequate building regs, lack of enforcement and little inspection. The same problems are at the root of all shoddily built homes over the past fifteen years. Ur right fire safety is a major concern, and an additional worry for homes with Pyrite.

The reason DCC are investigating it is because of health and safety issues they might have in future if they use these properties for social housing etc. No further investigation required. Plus if there is they can affect repairs early. And make a budget submission for the funds. Seems prudent to me with no hidden agenda.

@ Jason & Eric

Technically the problem is not a structural one in so far as the fill material under the foundation is not part of the structure covered by Homebond.

Because this damages the structure that is covered by Homebond does not make the problem a structural one. It’s an insurance technicality and if I can find it i’ll link the document I read outlining the reason for the stance taken by Homebond (written independently of Homebond)

Tom. What is the pyrite is in the concrete for the foundation.

thanks Tom, personally i dont agree with technicalities like that,
sure the structure would not be possible without the infill,
while it may be underfloor ,its still above foundation level and contained within them by the footings.
i know theres more to it than that but its a pure cop-out ..imo

Tom
In many cases the problems ARE structural. In construction design account is taken for the variable performance of underfloor fill. No matter how well laid & compacted some settlement will occur & minor cracks will appear. It’s in the very nature of the material used – concrete.
However, the structural faults that have appeared in many pyrite affected houses go beyond those that would be expected if proper building practice was adhered to. For example, if an internal ground floor load bearing internal wall is built on top of the conc. floor slab excessive movement in that floor slab will result in cracks. If, as it should be, the same wall is built from an independent sub-floor foundation movement of the floor slab won’t affect it.
Many of the problems that have arisen in pyrite affected houses are indicative of short cuts taken in relation to proper building practice by unscrupulous, unsupervised builders.

Totally agree with you John. And yes Eric it is a deplorable act to dodge paying out over a technicality. That’s why the government need to force the hand of Homebond in relation to this. Phil has his buddy Conor who can help out.

Jason
I have argued on many occasions that the people affected by pyrite in their homes have been mislead. Homebond have argued successfully (so far) that the matter of the quality of the infill material is not covered by their policy – maybe so, but the non compliance with Building Regulations by their registered builders is.
As I have pointed out above many of the problems brought to light arising out of the use of unsuitable underfloor fill bring to light situations where builders have taken shortcuts and ignored the regulations – Homebond IS liable where that happens.