Mr. Michael Doherty:

I clearly do. The idea of the action being taken by some homeowners at the moment, which is a type of class action, is that it is geared to recover from the State, through the courts, the difference between the grant that is allocated and the true cost of replacing one's home. For example, if the grant is at €160,000 but the true cost of replacement is €200,000, the class action we are looking at is to recover the €40,000, not the entire amount of money because we are not looking to get the grant paid out twice. That is what it is for.

We believe this is a cynical move designed to distract people from believing it is possible to follow one of two avenues. These are in respect of the grant process and the possibility of the shortfall being made up through the class action. This seems to be designed to scare people away from taking both paths and to protect the State by having any recovered costs given to the State as opposed to the homeowner who was lost out on the money in the first place. In the example I gave, it looks like rather than the €40,000 shortfall going to the homeowner to make up the difference, which is the reason it was designed, it would be recovered by the State against the €160,000 it paid out in a grant. It is terrible to think anyone would set up a system like that. That is our big problem with it.

I will pass the question on costs over to Mr. Houton, our quantity surveyor in our local area in Donegal.t