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,
Dancing with the Stars: ‘I’ve had the best time of my life. I feel super fit,’ chef Kevin Dundon says as he is voted off show
Is the answer to Ireland’s housing crisis more apartments?
‘Zelenskiy had to stand up for himself, for Ukraine and the truth’: Ukrainians now look to Europe after White House chaos
Jim McGuinness: ‘We will not be thinking about the league final. We will be thinking about what’s best for us'
Carlingford,
Co Louth.
