What exactly is in the Government’s mica working group report?

At the outset of the mica report compiled by the Government’s working group, officials make a point of saying that the current scheme for affected homeowners is not a redress scheme.

The rallying call of campaigners has been that homeowners want “100 per cent redress, no less” but the department clearly sees the situation differently.

The defective concrete blocks grant scheme is “not a compensation or redress scheme”.

It says: “It is a grant scheme of last resort put in place by Government in order to voluntarily assist homeowners in a very difficult position with no other apparent options open to them to remediate actual damage to their homes or principal private residences.”

Local property tax: Revenue will not contest lower self-assessed values

---

Wide chasm in Coalition over climate pledges needs to be bridged

---

Ranelagh residents oppose ‘horrendous’ build-to-rent plan

---

Serving Garda member suspended after investigation into drugs trade

---

The report has enraged homeowners after it landed in their inboxes around 11pm on Thursday night. They say it does not reflect their views despite the fact they are members of the same working group.

What it does try to grapple with are the following: the demand on the current scheme which opened last year, issues emerging with the current scheme, the scale of the problem at hand, the financial implications and latterly “potential improvements” to the existing system.

Despite the fact the defective concrete blocks scheme has been open since the summer of 2020, only 39 applications have reached stage two where the grant is approved. Some 414 applications are still at the first stage of the process where eligibility is confirmed. There is a considerable time lag.

A key point made in the working group report is that any remediation works on Mica homes are supposed to represent “the minimum feasible remedial works” and that this is the basis grants should be given out on.

The homeowner can carry out further works, officials say, but the grant should be based on the minimal amount of work needed.

An assessment of the applications made to the local authorities so far found that 56 per cent of dwellings are in fact being approved for full demolition. When the scheme was drafted the expectation was that full demolition would not be primary option and instead less intensive work like the rebuilding of external walls would be the norm.

“This obviously has significant financial implications,” the report says.

This is part of the reason, it is indicated, for the fact that the cost of remediation has increased.

After the scheme was open for six months it was estimated that the average cost per home was €150,000.

This rose to €174,000 after nine months and then to €204,000 after 12 months and is now at €209,000.

Remediation

Alongside this, the department has estimated that there are approximately 6,600 homes that may require remediation because of defective blocks. Officials said that based on submissions made by the homeowners where they outlined what they need, the estimated costs of changing the scheme could rise by €1.8 billion to €3.2 billion.

What is interesting, too, is the context in which the report places these figures.

They are contained in a section in which the department compares the pyrite remediation scheme in Dublin, Meath, Offaly and other counties with the defective blocks scheme in Donegal and Mayo.

Officials say there is only one remediation option for the homes in Dublin and beyond whereas there are five in Donegal and Mayo ranging from removal of the “outer leaf” of the building to a demolition of the home.

While homeowners in Dublin had the cost of their alternative accommodation covered, those in Donegal did not.

The average size of the property under the pyrite scheme was is 1,270 sq ft, compared with between 2,400 sq ft and 4,000 sq ft in Donegal and Mayo.

The average cost of a remediation under the pyrite scheme is €67,000, the report says, compared with €214,000 under the defective block scheme.

And they say that if the changes are made that the homeowners have requested, this would require grants to increase from an average of €380,000 up to €524,000 which could rise further. They say the cost to the exchequer is unlikely to exceed €400 million for the pyrite scheme, but could top €3.2 billion for the mica scheme.

It is clear that the message from civil servants is they believe comparing the two schemes is like comparing apples and oranges.

Finally, the campaigners have said that the report does not adequately state what the recommendations are and it is true to say that layout could be considered confusing given the matters for consideration are shoehorned in under a list of appendices.

There are eight “matters for consideration” made in relation to improving the scheme. The key points include that the application process would be revised so that there are fewer financial barriers to entering the scheme. This would involve a revised application processes so the homeowner is only required to submit a building condition assessment, with a likely cost of €500-€750. Calculating the grant would be done on a cost per square foot basis. Alternative accommodation would be paid for but no figure was given for how much. In relation to a State guarantee on the rebuild which campaigners have sought, the group instead proposed that a second grant application for remediation options other than demolition be allowed, if needed.

The final point is crucial. Campaigners have said they cannot afford anything that does not cover 100 per cent of the costs. The working group report says that a 100 per cent grant could be given for options other than complete demolition. It is not said explicitly, but the message is that they believe allowing for everything up to a complete rebuild is simply too expensive.