Sir, – I learn from your front page (“Officials flagged concerns over apartment repayment scheme”, News, January 19th) that officials in the Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure opposed the inclusion in the defective apartment repayment scheme of premises where the defects have already been discovered and remedied.
This exclusion would, presumably, save money, which these officials see as their job, but I am curious as to how they would justify it, morally. Should a householder be at the loss of many thousand euros just because the defects in her apartment were discovered in 2018 rather than in 2022? As Minister for Housing Darragh O’Brien has said, it is only fair that all substandard buildings should be included in the scheme.
In fact, the rollout of the scheme should begin with the reimbursement of expenses incurred by those who have already paid to have the work done. A timescale of years is being mentioned in relation to the implementation of the whole scheme: surveys must be conducted and there is a shortage of specialist personnel to remedy the defects discovered. These considerations don’t apply to those who have had the remedial work done and paid for it – often with borrowed money. If there is to be “full redress” those who are out of pocket should be compensated immediately: the work is paid for and certified and receipts are available. There would be no justification in making “legacy” victims of this scandal wait, paying interest on loans they should never have had to take out. – Yours, etc,
ANDREW DEACON,
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
Lucan,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – The excesses of the Celtic Tiger are coming home to roost with redress schemes for pyrite in stone infill well established and in operation. Now two more redress schemes are proposed. A redress scheme for the defective concrete blocks contaminated with pyrite and mica and a redress scheme for apartments with inadequate fireproofing and other defects.
The European Union has put in place a comprehensive legislative and regulatory framework for the construction sector.
Health and safety in construction and the free movement of engineering and construction services and products are important policy priorities.
European legislation defines the essential requirements that goods must meet when they are placed on the market and the European standardisation bodies have the task of drawing up the corresponding technical specifications. The free movement of products and services is now facilitated by the EU-wide implementation of common European technical standards for structural design: the Eurocodes.
During the boom of the Celtic Tiger, I inspected many new homes before purchase by the new owners. In one particular development, I continually found serious defects and breaches of the building regulations. When I rang building control for the local council whose area of responsibility to advise them of my findings, I was rudely told by the officer: “You must think I have nothing better to do than to go down there to check those houses.”
As local councils seem unable or unwilling to enforce the building regulations, it is time an independent building control authority is established in Ireland, overseen and staffed perhaps by the professional bodies currently representing all construction professionals. A proper independent authority with legal teeth, similar to the Health & Safety Authority, with powers to enforce and prosecute when appropriate. In Northern Ireland and the UK, such an organisation exists. This organisation goes a long way towards ensuring that buildings are constructed to both planning permission and building regulations.
You cannot complete a building until it has been inspected both during the construction stages and had final approval by the building control officer in the locality. Successive governments have fully resisted the implementation of such an organisation!
An additional initiative would be the requirement for any contractor offering building services to be fully registered with the Construction Industry Federation. Householders would be encouraged to only use a registered contractor. This will go some way towards eliminating cowboy builders.
If these steps are not taken, then the issues of defective buildings and further redress schemes will continue to be a common occurrence. – Yours, etc,
RORY O CONNOR, C Eng
Lucan,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – It is surely no exaggeration to say that the building and construction industry in general and its suppliers have failed this country, aided and abetted by the Government.
Currently, the industry engages in attempts to find a solution to the housing crisis, only when it is certain that their hefty profit margins are protected.
In terms of the ever increasing burden on the hard pressed tax payer, we have seen the establishment of the pyrite mediation scheme which will cost well over €150 million. Next we witnessed the mica debacle which will add another €2.7 billion to the bill. Finally, there is the latest Government subsidy of €2.5 billion to be distributed to apartment owners to pay for remedial work needed only because of shoddy building practices.
In all of this, there has not been one word of remorse from the Construction Industry Federation (CIF) or its members, nor has there been any serious attempt by the State to pursue the builders involved for breach of their statutory responsibilities.
The regulatory authorities such as the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI) and local authorities have remained virtually silent, as has the Irish Concrete Federation (ICF). We have also yet to hear from the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland (RIAI) whose members presumably worked on many of these projects.
We now learn that officials in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, in the context of their duty to protect the public purse, were firmly opposed to the retrospective provisions of this latest scheme.
It is clear that following the U-turn on the concrete block levy, the obvious solution of imposing a realistic charge on the construction sector has been abandoned and one can only conclude that successive governments prefer the easy option of throwing money at this problem for short-term political gain rather than acting responsibly in the public interest. – Yours, etc,
MARTIN McDONALD,
Terenure,
Dublin 12.
Sir, – As the taxpayer is now on the hook for billions in redress and reparations for defective buildings, there is surprisingly little focus, by media and Government, on explaining how new construction sector regulation will prevent similar catastrophic failures in future.
We simply cannot hand out billions to “plug the dyke” without ensuring that shoddy, dangerous constructions are prevented through proper regulation of the construction sector. – Yours, etc,
AILBHE MURRAY,
Cabinteely,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Is there no end to the ability of the tooth fairy to find money to fund remedies for all these disasters? – Yours, etc,
ANTAINE O’DUIBHIR,
Ranelagh,
Dublin 6.