OMC company what areas are they responsible for repairs

beaufoy

I own an apartment and have a basic agreement where the OMC are responsible for repairs on the outside and I am responsible for the inside. Sounds easy but the ceiling needs repairing and of course the upper/outer layer of the ceiling is outside the apartment, and the lower/inner layer side of the ceiling is on the inside of my apartment....so who pays for the repair. I suspect normally it would be 50/50, but as the OMC have admitted that the ceiling got damaged by a leak in the roof (their responsibilty to stop leaks) then they are responsible for the full cost of repairing my ceiling.....am I correct or have I missed something?

The_Conductor

Ok- let me get this straight- the roof is damaged (somehow) and the damage is such that it has damaged your internal ceiling (and possibly other parts of the roof/ceiling).

Honestly- this sounds like it was caused as a result of negligance on the part of the OMC- and thus I'd argue strongly that they were wholly responsible to make good any damage the roof leak caused- and *not* a 50/50 split.

I'd also strongly suggest you get the roof and the internals inspected- to ensure there isn't more insidious damage to roof timbers/plasterboard etc that are not detectable with a cursory visual inspection.

Paulw

The_Conductor wrote: »

Honestly- this sounds like it was caused as a result of negligance on the part of the OMC- and thus I'd argue strongly that they were wholly responsible to make good any damage the roof leak caused- and *not* a 50/50 split.

I'd also strongly suggest you get the roof and the internals inspected- to ensure there isn't more insidious damage to roof timbers/plasterboard etc that are not detectable with a cursory visual inspection.

It could have been caused by storm damage, moving tiles. So, that wouldn't be due to negligence. We've had that before. It may move a tile or two, and that can result in some small leakage coming in.

I've had it in my apt. The management company came and refixed the tiles in place. The damage to my ceiling was totally minimal, just some staining. I haven't had it replaced yet. A new coat of paint should just do it really.

Talk to the management agent. In most case, they are responsive. It will also depend on how strictly it is run, and how well funded the company is.

SuperS54

beaufoy wrote: »

I own an apartment and have a basic agreement where the OMC are responsible for repairs on the outside and I am responsible for the inside. Sounds easy but the ceiling needs repairing and of course the upper/outer layer of the ceiling is outside the apartment, and the lower/inner layer side of the ceiling is on the inside of my apartment....so who pays for the repair. I suspect normally it would be 50/50, but as the OMC have admitted that the ceiling got damaged by a leak in the roof (their responsibilty to stop leaks) then they are responsible for the full cost of repairing my ceiling.....am I correct or have I missed something?

Have you tried talking to them? If it's a leak they are 100% responsible to fix the roof and put your ceiling back in the same condition as before. I would imagine that there is insurance to cover this so shouldn't really be a big issue for the OMC.

Paulw

SuperS54 wrote: »

I would imagine that there is insurance to cover this so shouldn't really be a big issue for the OMC.

Most block insurance policies have a large enough excess value (€1k, €5k, or even €10k). So, having an insurance policy and being able to make a claim against it can be very different.

To fix a few tiles and then a ceiling would normally be well under the excess cost.

Also, more small claims can impact insurance more than a single large claim. That will increase the premium, and hence people have to pay larger management fees.

whippet

Prepare yourself for a bit of a battle ... this will be a claim off the block insurance and you as the claimant will need to pay the excess.

Sounds stupid .. it is stupid.

A mate had an accessor value damage to his apartment of 11k due to a leak from another apartment.

Claim went to block insurance policy and the nett result is he got about 4.2k cash to settle ... in effect he had to pay the 5k excess on the policy !!

The_Conductor

Paulw wrote: »

Most block insurance policies have a large enough excess value (€1k, €5k, or even €10k). So, having an insurance policy and being able to make a claim against it can be very different.

To fix a few tiles and then a ceiling would normally be well under the excess cost.

Also, more small claims can impact insurance more than a single large claim. That will increase the premium, and hence people have to pay larger management fees.

I'm on the board of 2 Management Companies- we've insurance policies with 2k excesses with both.

I suspect this is going to have to come out of OMC contingency funds.

The_Conductor

whippet wrote: »

Claim went to block insurance policy and the nett result is he got about 4.2k cash to settle ... in effect he had to pay the 5k excess on the policy !!

He should pursue the Management Company for the difference- who in turn should pursue the other owner, if its inferred the issue which caused the damage was the responsibility of the other owner.

It would not be up to your friend to pay the 5k excess on the claim- that is a matter for the OMC.

whippet

The_Conductor wrote: »

He should pursue the Management Company for the difference- who in turn should pursue the other owner, if its inferred the issue which caused the damage was the responsibility of the other owner.

It would not be up to your friend to pay the 5k excess on the claim- that is a matter for the OMC.

He went though a solicitor and unfortunately you are wrong ... it turns out that you can get an insurance product now that will cover your block insurance excess if you have to make a claim.

Paulw

The_Conductor wrote: »

He should pursue the Management Company for the difference- who in turn should pursue the other owner, if its inferred the issue which caused the damage was the responsibility of the other owner.

I disagree with that, and have had it looked at. It would not be the responsibility of the management company.

If unit A causes a flood, and it damaged unit B, then it would be up to owner B to go after owner A (through court if necessary), but the management company would not be liable and would not be involved.

We have had that scenario, and that was the legal advice we were given.

Individuals can make a claim against the block insurance policy, once they are members of it, but that doesn't make the management company responsible for the excess.

The_Conductor

whippet wrote: »

He went though a solicitor and unfortunately you are wrong ... it turns out that you can get an insurance product now that will cover your block insurance excess if you have to make a claim.

I.e. a separate insurance policy- just to cover the excess portion of any potential claim?

The_Conductor

Paulw wrote: »

Individuals can make a claim against the block insurance policy, once they are members of it, but that doesn't make the management company responsible for the excess.

That sounds harsh- so in other words- the Management Company steps in- pays any amount over the excess from their insurance policy and then tells owner B to chase owner A for the balance?

We're had a few cases (for example fire in Apartment A causing water damage to Apartment - where the Management Company made good the deficit in insurance to the owner of Apartment B (but left the owner of Apartment A to fend for themselves- on the hook for the excess).

Different way of looking at things I suppose.

Paulw

The_Conductor wrote: »

That sounds harsh- so in other words- the Management Company steps in- pays any amount over the excess from their insurance policy and then tells owner B to chase owner A for the balance?

Not quite. The management company has no direct involvement.

Person B makes a claim against the policy directly, and the insurance company (once confirmed that B is a member of the policy) pays out. The excess is then lacking, so person B chases person A for that amount.

The management company didn't cause the damage and has no liability. In theory, person B would go after person A for the whole amount, but since person B and A are both parties of the block insurance policy then either one could make the claim for damages, where the insurance policy would pay out.

Lantus

Generally the omc makes all claims on the policy where common areas are damaged and a valid claim can be made. They make claims on behalf of owners if a unit is damaged.

Where a unit suffers damage it's termed consequential loss. Flooding etc. Anything that was part of the original build can be claimed for such as plasterboard, kitchen etc. But not personal possessions.

The excess prevents silly small claims and can be very high in the thousands. The insurer doesn't pay the first X amount of the excess. So if the excess is 4k and the damage is 5k then they will write a cheque for 1k. Same as car insurance.

Plasterboard is cheap and easily repaired. Unless its extensive owner should pursue privately.

Any claim on a block policy can affect premium astronomically. So the idea that the owner dips into the bank of the omc without consequence is wrong. The entire development would likely see huge increases in service fees year on year to accommodate such a claim.