asked the Minister for Local Government the number of times and the dates on which an inspector of his Department called on an applicant for reconstruction grant (name supplied); why this work was inspected each time by a different inspector, each finding a minor fault and not passing the work; whether the work will now be passed and the grants paid to the applicant without further delay; and if in this case the circumstances were unusual or what was the cause of so many inspections.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - House Reconstruction Grant.
42.
Four inspections were made in this case on the following dates: 26th March, 1962, 29th May, 1964, 29th January, 1965, and 2nd April, 1965. At the first inspection a certificate of approval and estimate of the necessary works were prepared. The three subsequent inspections followed receipt of notifications from the applicant who reported on each occasion that all works had been completed. On each inspection, however, it was found that individual items which were included in the original estimate of necessary works had not been done. No minor faults were found at any time, and the grant will be paid when all the approved works are completed by the applicant.
Three inspectors in all were involved in the various inspections. This is not unusual in circumstances where the work extends, as in the present case, over a protracted period.
Apart from the fact that the applicant asked for an inspection on three different occasions when work remained to be done, there were no unusual circumstances in this case.