Public Liability Block Insurance

Yearning4Stormy

Good evening, folks,

I am intentionally keeping this as vague as possible for reasons which should be obvious!

I moved into a rental apartment in August 2013. Soon after - through a combination of receiving various letters from the management company, chatting with the neighbours and noticing some odd external “repair works” – it became apparent that the original builder was somewhat less than circumspect when it came to building regulations.

Fast forward to this week when my landlord, on the advice of the management company, dropped a written letter to me to the effect that the (public liability) block insurance will expire at noon today (24th July) and will not be renewed due to the ongoing building issues.

“Your lease is due to expire on 31st July which means you can vacate the apartment if you wish. I, as landlord, cannot ask you to leave for a further 3 years under current legislation.

I do not wish to lose you as a tenant, but I’m not sure how we can proceed if you wish to remain.”

Now, the thing is, I love living here and I do not want to move. However, I can’t help thinking about Priory Hall and sooner or later there will be an enforced eviction.

So, my question is, should I just bite the bullet now or stick it out and hope for the best?

Many thanks.

Lantus

as a tenant its not too serious for you immediately as far as I can see but I would potentially make an exit strategy for the future.

No block insurance means there is a serious problem somewhere if no company is willing to insure the block. This is game over for the unit owners who purchased such a unit. Unless someone is willing to hand over hard cash for an apartment which they can never insure and could be forcibly evacuated by the local authority at any time (quite the risk taker then) no one will ever be able to sell their unit. The insurance cert is a critical condition of the sale and is demanded by every bank today before they part with the money.

In the event of fire or any other serious damage owners will have all the benefits of a mortgage for the full term but will never see their property re-built.

What are the building issues if you can say? systemic or repairable elements?

Block insurance is a high risk and small market. Being refused insurance is a nail in the coffin of every unit owner.

Edit: if you think its a fire safety issue make plans to leave. Why put your life at risk for morally bankrupt builders.

Yearning4Stormy

Thank you for your reply, Lantus.

Well, you've hit the nail on the head.

Without going into too much detail, the issues (as I understand them) are both systemic and repairable. The main issue is the lack of fire-breaks between apartments. The owners have been given reparation estimates of between (afair) ~€40k for the ground floor and ~€70k for the first/second floor units (two and three bed respectively).

As far as I can make out, this issue has been going on for a few years; indeed, a letter from the management company (perhaps six months ago?) recommended (to the owners) that the apartments should not be let. Being a pragmatist, I appreciate that my landlord needs to pay the mortgage on this property, and I am in no way disparaging him at all.

Exit strategy, so.

Bepolite

While I agree with Lantus to a point, the fact that the building doesn't meet the fire regs doesn't automatically make it a death trap, although it's not ideal by any stretch of the imagination.

Are you on a floor/in an area that is easily escapable? If you're say ground floor with a couple of exits, I'd ask the landlord for my deposit back, put it aside in case you're told to move in short order and stay put. That's just me though and I'm not overly risk averse to be frank. Obviously be regularly checking the smoke alarms.

If you're with a young family the situation is different of course, leave as soon as possible.

EDIT: ofc, if the landlord needs you out go also.

Marcusm

It's not worth staying there except for a very substantial reduction - say 40-50% - in rent. There is a significantly increased risk of damage but the reality is that there is also a significant risk of being rendered homeless without notice and with little likelihood of recovering your deposit (other than with a benevolent landlord). I suspect that, post Priory Hall, DCC has not been entirely fastidious is demanding the evacuation of such buildings having seen the impact its occupants. However, that is not a sustainable position for them to take and it will have to ramp up enforcement at some stage. Then you will be homeless within a couple of days with a large number of other people all chasing a further reduced stock of rental properties.

Lantus

scanning my last post for the words 'death trap' but can't see it mentioned anywhere. Without a detailed report outlining the issues none of us can say what the risks are exactly. Lack of fire compartments is serious though as it allows fire and therefore smoke to spread much faster giving people greatly reduced time to escape. at 3am when your asleep, groggy and not thinking straight this could be the difference between people escaping or being overcome by the effects of smoke and heat. Risk of fire is very low but then if its so low why bother with fire prevention at all?

I guess the fact it can be repaired is good but a cost of €120k is obviously a serious financial challenge to all but the most financially flush companies.

If they had a few years to start the process of raising money then hopefully its in hand.

murphaph

Does a lack of fire break mean the apartments (say on ground floor) are about as safe as a Victorian terrace with common attic space? I'm not downplaying the risk but building standards are a thing of their time...no point leaving a modern apartment only to move into an equally unsafe (but insured and legal) two up two down that is only legal because it was built 100 years before the apartment block.

Poor owners anyway, what a disaster. Scumbag builders and useless inspection regimes have a lot to answer for :-(

Bepolite

Lantus wrote: »

scanning my last post for the words 'death trap' but can't see it mentioned anywhere.

I didn't say you did. There is an errant While and lack of however in my post that might be confusing you. It was late

Lantus

fire compartments between housing even old stock will be solid brick, typically two leaves so fairly good. that separates one property from another in the street. Here you may have 10-20+ apartments in a row that have no such separation and across 3 floors (ground, first, second.) wouldn't like to be on the second floor with a 'common entrance' that could be some distance away if fire can easily break out from an apartment and compromise my escape. Alarms would certainly help but a few minutes can be the difference between getting out and succumbing to smoke and heat that was not contained at source for long enough.

The compartments 1hour, 2hour rated etc. also give fire teams time to respond and stop adjacent units being destroyed. zero hour rated compartments or 30minutes if its just plasterboard or stud walls or a light block would be quite ineffective at preventing heat and smoke for long providing more fuel and oxygen.

Yearning4Stormy

Thanks, folks, for all the replies.

Multiquote virgin, so bear with me...

Bepolite wrote: »

Are you on a floor/in an area that is easily escapable? If you're say ground floor with a couple of exits, I'd ask the landlord for my deposit back, put it aside in case you're told to move in short order and stay put. That's just me though and I'm not overly risk averse to be frank. Obviously be regularly checking the smoke alarms.

If you're with a young family the situation is different of course, leave as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, I'm in a three-bed on the first and second floors with a common entrance with next door (up a flight of external stairs). The majority of the three-beds are above a two-bed on the ground floor, whereas I and seven others are above shop units on the ground floor.

And yes, I have my young children at the weekends.

Marcusm wrote: »

It's not worth staying there except for a very substantial reduction - say 40-50% - in rent. There is a significantly increased risk of damage but the reality is that there is also a significant risk of being rendered homeless without notice and with little likelihood of recovering your deposit (other than with a benevolent landlord).

A reduction in rent was something I was mulling over. I get on quite well with my landlord and this may be something they might be open to.

Lantus wrote: »

I guess the fact it can be repaired is good but a cost of €120k is obviously a serious financial challenge to all but the most financially flush companies.

If they had a few years to start the process of raising money then hopefully its in hand.

Just to clarify, the reparation estimates are per apartment. I believe the onus is on the owner to cover this; the builder, I believe, is in the wind.

Lantus wrote: »

wouldn't like to be on the second floor with a 'common entrance' that could be some distance away if fire can easily break out from an apartment and compromise my escape. Alarms would certainly help but a few minutes can be the difference between getting out and succumbing to smoke and heat that was not contained at source for long enough.

Again with the nail on the head. With regard to the alarms, the centralised fire alarm which covers the common areas (hallways) and multiple fire alarms throughout the apartments are tested every three months.

Lantus

per apartment costs! That's a serious amount of dough. How many units are there? even if there was a nominal amount of say 25-30 with for arguments sake 15 ground and 15 1/2 (yours is across two floors) then that's the better part of 1.6 MILLION! in repairs needed. (and those are estimates, you can bet they will rise once work commences.)

That could be a show stopper. Depends on the annual turnover of the company and current service fee levels and % paying on average. If owners cant rent out units in the interim then finding the cash could be unsustainable for most. Even the banks wont be able to sell these even if repossessed. They can't be too happy about a lot of potentially unsecured loans being created. Write offs could be down the road unless the director team can take the bull by the horns and set out a realistic plan to correct these building errors.

Its so unfair on the unit owners who bought their units in good faith. No builder, no real building control and no real come back unless the bank shows mercy.

murphaph

Lantus wrote: »

fire compartments between housing even old stock will be solid brick, typically two leaves so fairly good.

But often the break doesnt extend up into the attic space, right? Pretty sure that's the case for typical Victorian terraces anyway. Not saying the op should stay put and if he's on an upper floor then he should definitely move out asap.

Yearning4Stormy

Lantus, I've been out on the (apparently defective) balcony counting: 10 two-beds and 16 three-beds. Of the 16 three-beds, 6 are above retail units (not 8 as I said before). €1.52 million.

I've dug out the most recent letter from the association. Out of the litany of defects - water ingress, weather-envelope damage, acoustics, etc - the majority of the issues are fire-related, in particular not adhering to the Technical Guidance Documents (A and laid out by the DOE.

"... all owners have been made aware of the risks, and again advise that apartments should not be rented out in their present condition."

My brain hurts; this is the last fecking thing I need right now.

Again, thanks for the replies, folks.

Yearning4Stormy

murphaph wrote: »

But often the break doesnt extend up into the attic space, right? Pretty sure that's the case for typical Victorian terraces anyway. Not saying the op should stay put and if he's on an upper floor then he should definitely move out asap.

In addition to no vertical cavity barriers between apartments (as described in Lantus's post), there are joists crossing party-walls at first- and second-floor floor-level and rafters (including valley rafters) crossing party-walls at second-floor ceiling level.

Sorry for all the hypens!

Given this, I guess it's easier to see just why the reparation works are proving so prohibitive.

Edit: Mostly irrelevant, but the ceiling is vaulted on the second floor so there is no attic per se. (The apartment is upside down: bedrooms on the first floor, kitchen and living area on the second floor.)

Bepolite

Yearning4Stormy wrote: »

Unfortunately, I'm in a three-bed on the first and second floors with a common entrance with next door (up a flight of external stairs). The majority of the three-beds are above a two-bed on the ground floor, whereas I and seven others are above shop units on the ground floor.

And yes, I have my young children at the weekends.

I'm assuming the bedrooms are on the second floor? Yeah to be fair I'd be gone.

Yearning4Stormy

Bepolite wrote: »

I'm assuming the bedrooms are on the second floor? Yeah to be fair I'd be gone.

Other way around, Bepolite, but still playing on my mind irrespective.

My LL is going to contact the IPOA and I the PRTB, early next week, see where we (both) stand legally (and ethically perhaps?) going forward. Thereafter, we're going to have a sit-down, see where we go from here.

Thanks everybody.

quietsailor

The landlord or yourself can't give you notice with a period less than the Residential Tenancies Act. What can be done is to give correct notice and then by mutual agreement shorten the notice period.

You'd need to talk to your landlord, who I'm sure doesn't want to loose you as a tenant, but you could get out sooner that way.

quietsailor

The landlord or yourself can't give you notice with a period less than the Residential Tenancies Act. What can be done is to give correct notice and then by mutual agreement shorten the notice period.

You'd need to talk to your landlord, who I'm sure doesn't want to loose you as a tenant, but you could get out sooner that way.

athtrasna

OP if it was just yourself I could totally understand your dilemma but the fact that you have your kids in the apartment at weekends and you're even having to ask if it's a good idea to stay.

This is about safety, you know the apartment is not safe. If I was the mother of your children I would be looking to get a court order that they can't stay there.

You may love the apartment and it might suit your budget but surely your children come first?

deandean

@OP personally it wouldn't bother me. If you look hard enough you will find similar problems in many of the apt blocks built in recent years. and in semi-D and terraced houses. If you like the apt, stay!