they shouldnt, but those unfortunate enough to be in these horrible situations need to be helped in the meantime, why should the victims have to bear the brunt of crooked politics and unenforced regulation?

The goverment should do something to help these people, whats the alternative? Give them all social housing? That would cost more! After the goverment has sorted out this mess they need to enforce proper building regulations so this can never happen again.
And then go after the developer for the cost of the repairs, if he cant/wont pay lock him up for a very very long time

@revolting: what you’ve said there is “they shouldn’t”, but actually they should.

There will always be builders who go bust and who literally have no means or assets to contribute towards their mess. If the taxpayer is liable to cover this mess and the costs cannot be passed onto the builder then it’ll be the taxpayer left with the final bill.

David I am a taxpayer and my house has pyrite, our builder want bust (say no more) and I won’t go into the dirty tricks the quarry has done and we have had to fight this tooth and nail for the past six years and watched while everyone passes the buck, this would not have happened if the building regulations were enforced instead of the ridiculous self certification system and inspections were carried out as a matter of course by the councils, which btw is the how it happens in the UK (buildings are inspected 6 times during construction). Certification has to start with the quarries and has to be the responsibility of the govt otherwise building regs are pontless, no enforcement -no regulations. So now, as a taxpayer…who helps us?

And BTW I should mention that Pyrite Action are acutely aware that those in the construction industry who are responsible for this mess should absolutely not be let off the hook which is why we are proposing a levy on the construction sector, based on turnover but the govt frontload the remediation and the state can then recoup the costs from those responsible, we absolutley agree that the taxpayer should not be left to foot this bill but the govt have a responsibility to get involved as the building regs failed utterly.

abusrd? i hope its your own personal tax money that pays for it, along with my dole, free housing, education and the newly launched free broadband scheme for the long term unemployed, i think you will be paying that too, better oil the wheel on me barrow so it doesnt break down when i collect my loot from the dole office next week

@Gavin McDonald

Have to agree with you. I said it before, looks like it’s leaning at the moment, not only were the staircases, balcony railings etc. put in half arsed, I am sure there was sub-standard cement put in between blocks also. God knows what’s in the foundations. There is probably also pyrite in the foundations as well as the sub standard building.

Knock it down, rebuild it, with a slightly different design on the front. Fierce ugly building and it would be nice that everything about it was different before all those families, morg. holders go back home. I will never understand the stress that they all must be going through.

spot on norman, they will go against any suggestion by the opposition regardless of how much sense it makes, such a backwards way of thinking, couldnt be sharing any kudos with the commies

How is forcing the taxpayer to pay for this somehow “moral”?

the tax payer already pays for it and the government supports the continued bailing out of the banks, which is all part of the same bill for the people, isnt that what we have been saying from the start? but now someone from the opposition suggests the state helping victims of fraud and its immoral?

Cillian sorry i forgot we only help banks ordinary citizens don’t count.Any chance these people paid stamp duty and vat on these apartments?

You do know that the government has accepted private members motions before including a recent one on turf cutting by Luke Ming Flanagan?

Yes most are rejected but the reasons vary from complete disagreement, to agreement with the proposal in principle but disagreeing with the wording.

Cillian is there a point to any of your hateful comments or do you make them just to stir things up?

It doesn’t matter if it is voted down. The reason the ULA are doing it to force the government to do something about the situation. By voting it down they would be forced to explain why they did it in the media wand at the ballot box the next time around.

Agree totally. If “professionals” are paid to do a job they ought to be sued if wrong. No doubt. Leave it to the Courts to decide. The residents would appear to have been treated terribly. This is not tolerable. Why not let the residents issue proceedings ? Why visit this on the already hard-pressed taxpayer. If the residents are right , they are right.

Because:
A- We’re broke.
B- Reasoning like that is the reason we’re broke.
C- We’re broke.

We’re far from broke, actually. Quite a substantial amount (read, trillions) still lies in the banks the government is still pumping cash into, with the corrupt property developers and the richest few.

All while thousands of people are struggling to make ends meet, and living in disgraceful conditions. Sure, let’s not help them, because that would be immoral. Let’s have a complete free market economy while we’re at it and privatise the whole lot. That’ll solve it…

Perhaps because nobody else will..?

I fail to see any argument in your post there.

why should the taxpayer have to pay for this? thats such a funny question, dont they pay for everything? isnt the worlds economy based on tax payers paying for things?

Why not? Don’t we already pay taxes to help the less fortunate? Granted, not half as enough, as most of it is squandered into helping the more fortunate (banks and property developers), but what’s your point? I may be pulling a strawman, but would I be correct in assuming you don’t support social welfare, free education, public healthcare or child support either? After all, why should the taxpayer be forced to pay for that?

The “we’re broke” argument does not hold any water given we can somehow find billions for bondholders on a regular basis. These people were let down by the apparatus of the state who failed to regulate properly, despite their pretences to the contrary, but were happy to take their cut in the form of stamp duty and other taxes. It is the very least these poor people deserve. If you feel agrieved by it, and I understand your reasons because govt should be doing their job properly, then make it an issue with your TD.

@Cillian perhaps you didn’t read the article, the ULA ect are suggesting that the govt frontload the payment then recoup the costs.

Niamh, it says they should try recoup the cost from the property developer where possible. That would be all well and find if it weren’t for the fact that almost every single property developer in the country is insolvent, so there’s no hope of that. Therefore, the bill would remain with the already overburdened taxpayer to pay.

Cillian I see that but that is the bare bones of the proposal, if you go onto our website http://www.facebook.com/pyriteaction it will give you a better idea of our proposal (not associated with ULA or any political party).

This is our proposal.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwONKZi4Qmf9M3BNZF9ybzkzdE0/edit?pli=1

It was the average joe who got shafted by this in the first place. Using our assets to help those genuinely in need is the best thing we as a society can do. Where would the couple of million the repairs would cost go to if not Priory Hall? I’ll give you a clue, not to the healthcare or education systems.

Personally I would like to see this paid for by a 30% wage cut of all TD’s, senators and ministers but I think that’s me living outside of Ireland messing with my expectations.

To put your question in context, there are more building inspectors in Belfast than there are in the entire Republic.