Private estates

irishguy

Can anyone explain to me why certain fully finished estates were never handed over to the local authority and how would I find out why one specific estate wasnt?

This was build about 12 years ago in Dublin city

L1011

Developers not having sold every unit, developers gone bankrupt, developer planning to build more houses.

If the developer has gone bust you can usually get the estate taken in to charge but if they're still around and holding on for some reason you'll have problems. The council should be able to tell you why for a specific estate, its not something there are public lists of though.

irishguy

MYOB wrote: »

Developers not having sold every unit, developers gone bankrupt, developer planning to build more houses.

If the developer has gone bust you can usually get the estate taken in to charge but if they're still around and holding on for some reason you'll have problems. The council should be able to tell you why for a specific estate, its not something there are public lists of though.

This was 12 years ago, so all the houses have been long sold and the estate is managed by a management company. What I was wondering is why would this happen and why would estates like this not be handed over to the local authority rather than managed by the owners?

L1011

irishguy wrote: »

This was 12 years ago, so all the houses have been long sold and the estate is managed by a management company. What I was wondering is why would this happen and why would estates like this not be handed over to the local authority rather than managed by the owners?

management company = there's the answer (probably).

Developer likely intended the development to be "exclusive" by having a management company, or there are covenants on the properties, or they are leasehold not freehold (delete as appropriate).

Estates which are taken in to charge are ones where the developer was in control until they are handed over, not those with a management company. I assume the house-owners are paying management fees?

Setups with m/c's and the council taking in to charge do exist, I'm living in one as it happens, but the m/c only applies to the structures of the apartment blocks and not the common areas or the houses.

irishguy

MYOB wrote: »

management company = there's the answer (probably).

Developer likely intended the development to be "exclusive" by having a management company, or there are covenants on the properties, or they are leasehold not freehold (delete as appropriate).

Estates which are taken in to charge are ones where the developer was in control until they are handed over, not those with a management company. I assume the house-owners are paying management fees?

Setups with m/c's and the council taking in to charge do exist, I'm living in one as it happens, but the m/c only applies to the structures of the apartment blocks and not the common areas or the houses.

So I assume its done by choice to make the estate more exclusive and kept in better condition, allowing it to be gated etc?

All the fees are being paid and its being looked after very well. Was just curious why people would opt to pay C 1k per year when they could hand it over to the local authority to manage for free.

L1011

irishguy wrote: »

So I assume its done by choice to make the estate more exclusive and kept in better condition, allowing it to be gated etc?

Basically. The "kept in a better condition" is subjective and depends on the development, looking at the external condition of many apartment blocks!

jd

Are there apartments/duplexes in the development?

irishguy

MYOB wrote: »

Basically. The "kept in a better condition" is subjective and depends on the development, looking at the external condition of many apartment blocks!

They are kept in very good condition. They are all houses.

athtrasna

MYOB wrote: »

management company = there's the answer (probably).

Developer likely intended the development to be "exclusive" by having a management company, or there are covenants on the properties, or they are leasehold not freehold (delete as appropriate).

Estates which are taken in to charge are ones where the developer was in control until they are handed over, not those with a management company. I assume the house-owners are paying management fees?

Setups with m/c's and the council taking in to charge do exist, I'm living in one as it happens, but the m/c only applies to the structures of the apartment blocks and not the common areas or the houses.

irishguy wrote: »

So I assume its done by choice to make the estate more exclusive and kept in better condition, allowing it to be gated etc?

All the fees are being paid and its being looked after very well. Was just curious why people would opt to pay C 1k per year when they could hand it over to the local authority to manage for free.

Sorry to contradict you but it was a condition of planning permission for most developments built in the past 15 years (even if all houses) that a management company was set up to maintain common property. When a council takes these estates in charge they only take sewers and lighting over. Grounds maintenance and other costs remain the responsibility of the Management Company. Nothing to do with choice - the company has to stay in place to maintain the development.

L1011

athtrasna wrote: »

Sorry to contradict you but it was a condition of planning permission for most developments built in the past 15 years (even if all houses) that a management company was set up to maintain common property. When a council takes these estates in charge they only take sewers and lighting over. Grounds maintenance and other costs remain the responsibility of the Management Company. Nothing to do with choice - the company has to stay in place to maintain the development.

???

Where are you getting this from? The vast majority of housing estates built in the last 15 years have no management company.

athtrasna

MYOB wrote: »

???

Where are you getting this from? The vast majority of housing estates built in the last 15 years have no management company.

It was the policy of many planning authorities and raised in the Dail as early as 2005/2006 by then minister Dick Roche. It's something I have come across through friends and colleagues who bought in the Celtic Tiger days, and also something I have noticed as a director of our management company, in meetings with other directors of other management companies, and with agents.

L1011

athtrasna wrote: »

It was the policy of many planning authorities and raised in the Dail as early as 2005/2006 by then minister Dick Roche. It's something I have come across through friends and colleagues who bought in the Celtic Tiger days, and also something I have noticed as a director of our management company, in meetings with other directors of other management companies, and with agents.

Which planing authorities?

Quick check on daft/myhome turns up only a tiny number of housing estates that have management fees, all gated.

Lantus

There are a lot of incorrect facts being posted so I thought I'd help out the OP.

Firstly a bit about the (broken and silly, IMHO) taking in charge process: -

It is the builder that has to initiate the process by filling in a form not the council. Most coco's will happily sit on the bums by saying we cannot do anything because the builder hasn't sent us the form. They wont ever ask them for this form either. The main drive for the builder would seem to be getting some or all of his bond back but as this at the time was chump change it seems many are not as keen, today with many unfinished estates they know they wont get it back and so are not bothered. Also, there i the growing issue of 'paper bonds' which many cocos took instead of real money. These were insurance policys and many have now expired leaving the coco and residents with no bond and no come back. The CIF will NOT honour expired paper bonds.

The local coco is in no hurry to enter this minefield and in our case is trying to bury the truth. There is no time limit on when a coco can take an estate in charge either. What a great system.

An estate with a managment company doesn't mean that an estate will not be taken in charge. coco's take in charge typically the roads, sewers and street lighting which generally a managment company will not be repsonsible for (I dont know of any case where they are.) The exception would possibly be a very small state (a small street) of rich private individuals that can afford to manage this themselves.

The realtionship is between the coco and the builder. The OMC doesn't generally have any input or involvement.

So, as to why an estate hasn't been taken in charge? Try the planning dept of the coco and try talking to them or going down. Talk to the builder and if there is an OMC or local RA try talking to them as they may know the situation even if they are not directly involved. Be prepared for getting fobbed of, told lies and given the run around. You can request to see the planning documents at the local coco. Here it will identify the bond value and whether it was meant to be cash or paper (note that just because it says cash someone may of acceped paper via the back door as in our case which is against all procedures but thats another story...)

If it is a paper bond then thats a good indication that theres no money and no one wants to touch it.

Bizzarly there is no responsibility for a coco to take an estate in charge where there is no money or bond. So if the council accepted a paper bond which later turned out to be worthless they dont legally have to pay for the work themselves, instead they are supposed to try to recover the money from the builder through the courts (good luck to them!)

It's another planning disaster and broken system which no one is in a hurry to change.