Vendor without certificates of compliance

Francisa

Hi, just a quick question to see if anyone has come across this. I've googled at length without coming across the exact situation as described below. Any info/thoughts greatly appreciated.

I agreed a sale price to buy an apartment in a fairly large (completed) block in Dublin. My solicitor received contract from vendor's solicitor. The vendor is a receiver . The block was built circa 2005 and there is a management company and so block insurance is in place.

Now for the weird part. There is paragraph in the contract saying that the vendor will not be supplying certificates of compliance with building regulations or planning. It basically says that this is a matter for the buyer. Now I am no legal expert and will rely on my solicitor for advice but the following questions arise, even to my uneducated mind -

Has anyone heard of this happening ie is it legal or is it just a case of caveat emptor?

How realistic is it to expect the buyer (me) to satisfy myself regarding planning and regulations for what is just one apartment in a large block? It doesn't sound realistic to me.

Is it possible to get block insurance for a large apartment block without such certificates of compliance? I guess it must be, but it surprises me.

Any thoughts greatfully received. I presume I'm not the first person that this has happened to.

Thanks for reading and I hope I made the situation clear.

DOCARCH

Francisa wrote: »

How realistic is it to expect the buyer (me) to satisfy myself regarding planning and regulations for what is just one apartment in a large block?

It's not realistic! Sounds very fishy to me to be honest!!!

Your solicitor should first ask for a reasonable explanation as to why there is no certification? Your solicitor should advise as it is usually up to the vendor to provide the certification.

Strolling Bones

Walk away now before you are bound to that place. Think Priory Hall.

Francisa

DOCARCH wrote: »

It's not realistic! Sounds very fishy to me to be honest!!!

Your solicitor should first ask for a reasonable explanation as to why there is no certification? Your solicitor should advise as it is usually up to the vendor to provide the certification.

Thanks Docarch. My thoughts too initially. But then I thought it's so so fishy that there must be something else going in the background. I figured that nobody would ever agree to the terms so why go to the bother of employing auctioneers etc and go through all that expense when an "elephant in the room" like this would be bound to surface for any competent solicitor. Even an uninitiated such as me went "whoa that's odd" when I perused the document.

Obviously I won't be signing any contract against the advice of my solicitor.

Thanks again for your post.

Francisa

Strolling Bones wrote: »

Walk away now before you are bound to that place. Think Priory Hall.

Thanks Strolling Bones. I must admit that Priory Hall occurred to me. But there are people (many) in the block. It just seems so bizarre that there must be some sort of reasonable justification why vendor believes the apartment can be sold. I am intrigued - but not as intrigued as I am fed up and disappointed.

Gumbo

Someone must have certified it when built?

Francisa

kceire wrote: »

Someone must have certified it when built?

Yes kceire, I would have assumed so. People are living in the block and some must have mortgages and from reading other threads here earlier, it appears that banks require these certificates. Your question seems very apt and that's why I think this is so weird that there must be some reasonable explanation. Otherwise why would the vendor go through the motions of engaging solicitor and auctioneer?

Strolling Bones

Francisa wrote: »

Yes kceire, I would have assumed so. People are living in the block and some must have mortgages and from reading other threads here earlier, it appears that banks require these certificates. Your question seems very apt and that's why I think this is so weird that there must be some reasonable explanation.

There are a number of dreadful reasons why building standards in Ireland are bad. One of them is lack of vigilance on the part of purchasers. Banks and solicitors do not protect them adequetely when undertaking what is a financial albatros around their neck.

See the final paragraph here

In the final end your on YOUR OWN.

Francisa wrote: »

Otherwise why would the vendor go through the motions of engaging solicitor and auctioneer?

The vedor is a receiver and you are the (potential) mug.

Priory Hall was full too once.

These six houses were all occupied bought / sold

No safety in "numbers"

sydthebeat

this the the receiver basically covering their own ass if anything (fire issues?) should pop up in the future.
and it would actually worry me that perhaps they know of some imminent issue.

the fact that theres people living there and already possibly certification doesnt mean anything (google Riverwalk Court in Ratoath)

run away very quickly, would you buy a car with no NCT, service history or even a proof that it was built to vehicular engineering standards? id guess not, so why would you treat an expensive investment like an apartment any different.

DOCARCH

sydthebeat wrote: »

...it would actually worry me that perhaps they know of some imminent issue....

+1. That's what I thought.

Strolling Bones

/\ agree with syd + doc

Francisa

sydthebeat wrote: »

this the the receiver basically covering their own ass if anything (fire issues?) should pop up in the future.
and it would actually worry me that perhaps they know of some imminent issue.

the fact that theres people living there and already possibly certification doesnt mean anything (google Riverwalk Court in Ratoath)

run away very quickly, would you buy a car with no NCT, service history or even a proof that it was built to vehicular engineering standards? id guess not, so why would you treat an expensive investment like an apartment any different.

Thanks sydthebeat, I do get your point. I suppose that I'm still hopeful that there will be a happy (for me) outcome. Yet I'm still bemused that anyone would even try to sell under these circumstances. As you allude, who in their right mind would buy? What solicitor would advise signing such a contract? Do people buy without solicitor advice? Even to the very gullible (me) this part of the contract jumped out like a sore thumb, amidst pages of other legalese.

sydthebeat

'caveat emptor' and all that that entails.

literally ANYTHING can be bought and sold

Francisa

sydthebeat wrote: »

'caveat emptor' and all that that entails.

literally ANYTHING can be bought and sold

Thanks, I get it and I really do appreciate your advice. Just browsed through the contract again and noticed that the original developer is still involved in the loop. Having read other threads here today I saw that self-certification had been an issue historically. I'm wondering if that might be the source of the issue here.

Well today has been an education, but not a good one. Genuine thanks to yourself and the other contributors.

I will await contact from my solicitor but am going to bed tonight resigned that I won't be getting the place I needed. Follow this thread, as I will update with whatever story my solicitor comes back with,which will be within a few days hopefully. It looks like it will just be a cautionary tale for others.

DOCARCH

Francisa wrote: »

Well today has been an education, but not a good one. Genuine thanks to yourself and the other contributors.

Glass half empty...glass half full???

Could have been the best education you have ever received?

I'll PM you details of where to send the cheque.... :P

Francisa

DOCARCH wrote: »

Glass half empty...glass half full???

Could have been the best education you have ever received?

PM me for details of where to send the cheque.... :P

Well Docarch, after this looming fiasco I am going to be more out of pocket than I was expecting what with solicitors fees etc. And, I don't have it to spare. All I can hope for is a very sudden , very short-lived downturn in prices coinciding with the availability of the perfect apartment for me. But I do sincerely thank you and the others for your time and advice. I will now know what to raise with my solicitor if he comes back to me with a semi-hopeful message.

Hopefully you'll get your reward in heaven and I'll be joining you. Or if the (some of the) Buddhists are right, I'll be able to repay you in a future life. And if some of the Buddhists and Hindus are right, none of this matters or it isn't really happening at all. And if the atheists are right it'll be a pity because the receivers and solicitors will have gotten away with it all.

I promise to update when there is any news.

Drift

As everyone else has said OP there is something highly suspect going on.

I'd wager that at least one previous sale has fallen through due to lack of appropriate certification - after that happened rather than seeking a certificate of compliance (probably because some flaw/fault means no-one will supply one) the receiver just threw in the clause hoping some mug would buy it.

The real killer is that some mug WILL buy it - just don't let that mug be you.

If I was a betting man I would bet that this apartment "sans certificate" will show up in a distressed property auction in the near future. Plenty of chancers investors will be interested.

Francisa

Drift wrote: »

As everyone else has said OP there is something highly suspect going on.

I'd wager that at least one previous sale has fallen through due to lack of appropriate certification - after that happened rather than seeking a certificate of compliance (probably because some flaw/fault means no-one will supply one) the receiver just threw in the clause hoping some mug would buy it.

The real killer is that some mug WILL buy it - just don't let that mug be you.

If I was a betting man I would bet that this apartment "sans certificate" will show up in a distressed property auction in the near future. Plenty of chancers investors will be interested.

You may well be right. Although I've been looking for a while and this property has not been advertised in the last couple of years - I know that doesn't prove anything.

I fully accept that you and the other posters have a good nose for this stuff, yet I still have difficulty with the notion that someone would buy under those terms. Although, as has been pointed out to me in this thread before, anything can be bought and sold.

I am now more curious and less naive than I was yesterday.

Thanks again.

db

Reading between the lines here I get the impression that this apartment looks like great value. If something looks too good to be true then it usually isn't true.

galwaytt

kceire wrote: »

Someone must have certified it when built?

Indeed. But someone certified Priory Hall too...........

........this is one to let go Francisa.........

Francisa

db wrote: »

Reading between the lines here I get the impression that this apartment looks like great value. If something looks too good to be true then it usually isn't true.

Actually no, that isn't the case, although I understand why you think it might be.

Francisa

Hi all,

I promised to come back with an update. I have done a lot of digging.

The first thing is that it is generally accepted that the developer had a very good reputation for both build and paperwork. I have heard this from people with no "skin in the game". I also heard from similar sources that this particular development is very well built. Yes, that's all and good, but how does it help?

Tracked down an auctioneer who sold an apartment in an adjoining block last year. He told me there were no such issues and there was a mortgage taken out on the property. He also told me that the price was about right for a "clean" transaction. Again, encouraging but no solution.

Came across the firm of Architects/Engineers who PM'd the development. They have it listed in their extensive portfolio. Again, a very reputable firm. Worked up the courage to call and glad I did. It transpires that there is another apartment in the same block (sale agreed, like me) in the same situation and the solicitors for the buyer have engaged him to do a survey. When I asked if this was a satisfactory solution to the offending clause in the contract, he replied that he hadn't seen the clause so I've emailed it to him. I copied my solicitor and will now leave it between them. But the solicitor for the other buyer must think it is.

He was very informative about the receivership process and said this particular receivership process (don't want to say which, probably against forum rules anyway) always throws up this issue and that it was a disgrace etc. He gave me loads of background information about the development etc. I asked about the cost of the survey, expecting Multi K, putting it outside my reach but was pleasantly surprised that it is do-able.

As an aside, after all my enquiries, it was a pleasure to talk to an actual Engineer/Architect - he was informative and talked common sense. He wasn't trying to sell me his services and I had a much clearer picture of the whole scene having spoken to him.

So that's it - I said I would update, given the posters here have been so helpful and genuine.

The above is either a clean solution or it's not. If not, then it will be time to walk away.

Francisa

Hi, another update. Just got word that the solicitor for vendor has now agreed to supply all relevant certification. Obviously a lot has gone on behind the scenes involving receiver, solicitors and the firm of Engineers/Architects over the last few weeks. I'm still engaging the same firm for a survey of the apartment.

Reading about the Longboat Quay situation had me very pessimistic. However, seems like things are about to work out.