Sir, – As one of the many non-homeowning [and unlikely to be any time soon] taxpayers, I have to take issue with James Beard’s sense of entitlement with regard to the Government mica redress scheme and related Ministers’ public announcements (Letters, June 16th).
While I sympathise with the plight of the affected homeowners I can’t help but feel that the huge transfer of public funds from less well-off citizens to wealthier cohorts stinks of cynicism.
The affected homeowners could have purchased latent/structural defects buildings insurance which would have responded to the mica/pyrite issues but they chose not to. If I choose not to buy renters’ insurance and my rented home is burgled, can I hold the Government responsible for my losses because it didn’t do enough to stamp out crime. – Yours, etc,
CIAN CARLIN,
From Blair and Clinton to civil servants in the shadows, archive papers reveal scale of peace push
JFK’s four days in Ireland among happiest of his life, his father told De Valera
‘Buying the bank seemed daring’: how one couple transformed a rural bank branch into a home and business
Megan Nolan: A conversation with a man in his late 30s made clear the realities of this new era in my dating life
Carlingford,
Co Louth.