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,
Clairo at 3Olympia: Whispery vocals and piano licks make a seamless transition from bedroom to jazz club
‘I am at a loss as to how €5,200 goes missing’: PTSB customers say refunds disappeared without a trace
Explainer: What military aid was the US giving Ukraine?
Girls and sport: ‘You don’t really aspire to be something that you don’t see. There’s a lot more to be done’
Carlingford,
Co Louth.
