Need pitbull journalist: NAMA, McNamara, fire "death trap"


I had deleted from my split house anecdote but follwoing sentiments were also expressed in conversation with Architect contact.

They also felt that the whole fire safety issue of all these apartment blocks was much much bigger than was being reported/discovered. They felt it was being kept out of the media somehow.

So if that’s one brief chat with an architect… how many more anecdotally share such sentiments?


Of course it’s important to remind ourselves that most of us live in houses that have poorer fire standards than that since they were built to older standards. That’s how it was explained to me on the Pin. It doesn’t make it ok or in any way excusable but it doesn’t make Longboat a “death trap” or whatever.


The private sector is fundamentally incapable of solving this problem due to limited liability of directors and the ability to wind up companies and effectively dissolve their obligations.

State inspections are the only solution. Just fucking do it already.

And this in a week where the govt is announcing tens of billions of “infrastructure investment”, in a period where local authorities are voting to cut their property tax revenues. And yet there is still apparently no money, capacity or will to regulate.



Although I do wonder if you could solve it via the insurance route; e.g. by requiring a 20-year insurance policy or bond to be posted by the developer (in practice, they would pay an insurer). Presumably the insurers would then police it by setting premiums depending on the level of confidence in the builder’s processes etc. It that workable?


Why can’t the councils review building work - like the UK and in the US (“up to code” is an often heard statement).

They should not be held liable for errors but it would be better to have them check certain specific critical aspects of a build than some architect or QS who is being paid by the developer and might have a relationship with them.


Insurance? A bit like like Homebond?

edit: the other problem with insurance liabilities is that they tend to get picked up by the citizenry anyway, cf. Quinn.


Anyone got the RTE News interview MacNamara gave when he went bankrupt.

#38 -> Listen: Drivetime: Drivetime 13/01/10 ->40min to 60m


A bit like Homebond if

  1. it was run by the insurance industry rather than the construction industry
  2. it provided coverage for a full range of construction defects and errors, rather than just “my house spontaneously fell over”
  3. it was actually possible to make a claim

Take your point re solvency but that’s a bigger issue for the whole insurance industry.


I’m interested in this point of it (and maybe it should be another thread), as since purchasing and living in an older house there’s no inspections, no guidelines for what you should have, no information provided on the standards, etc. Will it ever be inspected? Should it be looked at? What should you have?


Perhaps it would be more accurate to 95% of all apartments.

All the apartments build before the boom have fire stopping issues if not rectified.


On prime time now.


Whoa, and I was going to end my previous post suggesting that most probably 80% would most likely be dubious, but that looks generous now. I’m sure I’m on record here to that affect in the past.


You don’t need a fire cert if yours is the only dwelling in a building and it would be unfair if fire regs were applied retrospectively on all buildings. They don’t even inspect houses in multiple occupation unless there’s a complaint. There are a lot of older houses in flats that are properly dangerous (e.g. nothing to stop fires travelling up through ceilings into floors above, no protection of escape routes). However, no one will arrive to shut them down. I’ve seen loads of places without central fire alarms for example. Only if the owner applied for planning permission would the council insist they bring their fire safety up to modern regulations.


It’s worth looking at the Fire Services Statistics (particularly the cause of fatalities towards the bottom of the page) to put the fire risk into perspective. Of course buildings should be built to meet the fire regulations, but very few people die in apartment fires, and I would be surprised if anyone ever died in a fire that spread from a neighbouring apartment. I’ve no doubt it could happen (or even that it will happen), but you’re probably 20 times more likely to die in a car crash and and if you really want to reduce that risk further fit working fire alarms, don’t smoke in bed, don’t use a chip pan and ensure that your electrical appliances are safe.


Residents have turned down a 9k contribution according to Prime Time. DDDA and liquidator footing the rest of the bill.

This is somewhere between 3% and 5% of the value of these apartments. Many of the residents are in negative equity but quite a few are not.

Something similar could happen to the owner of a semi-D, like needing total re-wiring or a new roof.


Civil service pensions are too high!


Why too high? I presume he got a lump sum, he could have bought an annuity but instead he became a landlord.


If they weren’t in NE they probably are now, who’s going to buy one of those units?
A proportion of residents are shared ownership and are standing firm on not making any contribution as ddda (or whoever is taking responsibility for same) are part owners. Many private residents will pay as they just want the problem to be fixed and their fight is not being helped by all the brouhaha in the media. There’s a lot of other build quality problems that are surfacing with residents who are just not happy with their lot and that’s confusing the issue.


Did they ever resolve these issues. Allegedly paid 250 … 54932.html now up for sale for 365 … in-1504273