I would like to correct the record first. The mislabelling of this consistently as a mica problem is part of the problem. I think my group will probably rename itself the "Sulphate Attack Group" because that involves consistent defective blocks. Mica is not the issue.
In preparing my statement for today’s meeting, I had to reflect upon what progress has been made with the roll-out of the defective concrete block, DCB, scheme in County Clare since my last submission to this forum in July 2023. Sadly, very little progress has been made. In the almost two years since County Clare was admitted into the scheme, little to nothing has been done to relieve the plight of those affected in our county. This includes the fact that not a single grant has been granted in County Clare. Many of the points of concern raised at our last meeting remain entirely unaddressed. I am, therefore, resubmitting these points as issues remaining unaddressed with the addition of information about what is now emerging since the official opening of the DCB grant for application in Clare in July 2023.
The Housing Agency has deliberately delayed decisions for affected homeowners through the implementation of its own non-transparent metrics of processing, prioritisation and ranking. This includes the introduction of what it terms "quantums" to be reached before applications can progress through the scheme and the process of assessment, evaluation and decision-making, which is already highly complex and glacially slow. This, in effect, deliberately delays all applicants regardless of the individual circumstances or stage of an application. This batch processing methodology means those who have provided the necessary information are being placed on hold until certain numbers are reached within that particular stage of the procedure. In effect, individual homeowners are being left waiting for months before a decision will be given because a certain number of other applications are not yet at that stage. This delaying exacerbates the damage in all aspects, material and human.
Concerns persist among County Clare homeowners about shortfalls in the grant, which is not 100% redress. There is no doubt that it will not cover the full cost of rebuilding, remediation, site clearance and the reports required at all stages of the process. The longer the delays in awarding grants, the greater this shortfall will also be as building prices are only increasing.
Within the demographic of those affected in County Clare to date, advancing age is also presenting its own unique set of concerns. Access to loans to bridge shortfalls in the grant is a significant concern. Access to finance and remortgageability of these properties, which was raised via the recent subgroup of the implementation steering group, need to be actioned with urgency. This includes the Department moving quickly to ensure timely access to any grant given as well as legally underpinning the restoration of these properties to their full value. For those who hope to avail of the fair deal scheme, the full restoration of the monetary value of their property is essential. Penalty-free downsizing or rightsizing would have also assisted many in this bracket. Many in County Clare are applying to the scheme fearing they will not live to see their home restored and can only pass on the possibility of remediation to their family.
The Banking and Payments Federation Ireland's recent suggestion of access to a percentage of any sum awarded via an up-front State-guaranteed advance through the local authorities would need to be fast-tracked. This percentage must also be relevant and viable as not all homes will receive the figure of €420,000, which the Banking and Payments Federation Ireland seems to be using as a metric. It will need to be enough to begin the remediation and rebuild.
The appeals process does not seem to be fully operational or transparent. This will need to be fully functional with cases processed not as quantums but individually. Overall project management is needed for this scheme, including a database of professionals, builders and trades that are available, knowledgeable and able to take on the rebuilding and remediation of these homes in a timely manner.
Access to additional physical and mental health supports for affected homeowners in this crisis is urgently needed. The scheme entirely ignores the human impacts of living through this trauma, and it is trauma. All focus has been on the material, technical and financial costs of rebuilding and remediating these homes with no mention of the devastation it has caused to people, families and communities. The delays, difficulties and blockages, deliberate or negligent, are exacerbating the physical and mental health impacts.
The current IS 465 standard, which determines the assessment, evaluation and remediation recommendations for the scheme, is under review by the NSAI committee. The composition of this committee must be examined as there is a clear conflict of interest where certain individuals or parties acting on behalf of suppliers of defective concrete blocks or other potentially defective concrete products are participating in their own self-regulation post facto.
Regarding issues that remain unaddressed, fast-tracking access to all aspects of SEAI grants is essential. The issue of rebuilding on potentially faulty foundations is already presenting a problem as builders in County Clare will not rebuild without removing these foundations for fear of what might be in them and are quoting between €20,000 and €30,000 to homeowners. Of course, this cost is not covered by the scheme.
The fact that there is no letter of assurance for option 1 demolitions is a worrying indicator that the Government might not be so confident about option 1, which involves leaving foundations in place. There is no provision or consideration of the substantial economic cost of disposing of defective materials.
Unfortunately, the only mention of litigation involves litigation against homeowners. There has to be a full public inquiry into what happened here. We know testing is now being conducted in Tipperary, Wexford, Sligo and beyond, with mention in a previous committee meeting of at least 13 of the 26 counties having this problem. It is, therefore, a significant problem, one which just has not emerged completely, and there needs to be a full public inquiry into what happened here.
