Management company demanding 13k

DubCount

Have you asked the management company if they have any plans to offer a financing option to spread the cost over a longer period? This may make it easier to cover the 13k in stead of paying it all up front.

Large bottle small glass

The lack of sympathy for OP is quite something.

Due to the absence of any proper building control, he was sold something that was certified to be in compliance with building regulations when it clearly wasn't. My brother works for a large firm of architects, and these remedial works have gone on (rather quietly) all over the country.

Priory Hall was the tip of the iceberg

thecomedian

Is there a chance that it was compliant at the time but is now out of date as there were new fire regs in 2009 & 2013.
These might be upgrade works to comply with IS 3218.

Caranica

I think the thread title is misleading. The management company are being entirely reasonable, they are asking owners to pay a legally contracted fee.

These works need doing for safety reasons, like in hundreds of other developments up and down the country. The management company are required to do these works, and must seek funds from all the members of the company to cover the costs.

Buying in a managed development brings rights and responsibilities. It doesn't bring guarantees that everything is alright. Be prepared for possible other levies going forward for major repairs as the development ages.

The Bishop Basher

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

The lack of sympathy for OP is quite something.

Probably because OP seems to want all the benefits of owning their own property without any of the drawbacks. It's a **** position to find yourself in for sure but I can't see any reason why the tax payer should be responsible for their bills.

Dav010

DubCount wrote: »

Have you asked the management company if they have any plans to offer a financing option to spread the cost over a longer period? This may make it easier to cover the 13k in stead of paying it all up front.

The MC is made up of property owners, not a lending institution.

As posted earlier, the building may have been compliant with the regs at the time of build but falls short on current regs.

Op, you need to get more info from your MC about this payment and what it relates to. Also, I can’t help but notice there has been no response to the question about payment of annual MC subscription, does this make up any of the €13k?

Wildly Boaring

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

The lack of sympathy for OP is quite something.

Due to the absence of any proper building control, he was sold something that was certified to be in compliance with building regulations when it clearly wasn't. My brother works for a large firm of architects, and these remedial works have gone on (rather quietly) all over the country.

Priory Hall was the tip of the iceberg

Completely agree

OP mentioned that it was affordable housing and BAM!!

OP you are going to be screwed here unfortunately. Lack of enforcement of building regs has led to this and you have little choice in the matter. Horrible. Also that 13k will very likely rise so get it tied down, in writing s full and final figure.

I hazard that many more will in 15 years time as any current developer is paying an architect or engineer to sign under new regs.

These large architect and engineer firms are not monitoring the builds extensively. They do not put the resources in place to do so. Architect might see 1 in 5 rooms if even. Lot still hanging on the site team doing their job well. We all know how that works

Addle

We all have to pay to maintain our homes.
They're money pits really, there's always something that needs repairing or replacing.
Considering how long you've been there, if this is the first big costs, then you're really not doing too bad.

SteM

Addle wrote: »

We all have to pay to maintain our homes.
They're money pits really, there's always something that needs repairing or replacing.
Considering how long you've been there, if this is the first big costs, then you're really not doing too bad.

This isn't maintenance of a home though. It's paying to have something fixed that passed certification before the OP bought the house. The OP never complained about maintenance costs.

The_Conductor

SteM wrote: »

This isn't maintenance of a home though. It's paying to have something fixed that passed certification before the OP bought the house. The OP never complained about maintenance costs.

Buying a leasehold apartment brings up these type bills from time to time- often depending on the status of the sink fund and whether, or not, the OMC is in a position to fund works (it could be a new roof- balcony buckets or any of a long and bewildering list of works)- from sink funds. This is one of the reasons why it is critical to do due diligence on a management company and its sink funds before you purchase in a development.

Rennaws

Rennaws wrote: »

Probably because OP seems to want all the benefits of owning their own property without any of the drawbacks. It's a **** position to find yourself in for sure but I can't see any reason why the tax payer should be responsible for their bills.

Buying a property, certified as adhering to regulations, and finding that works were not done prior to your purchase is not a "Drawback" of owning property.
It is compounded by the fact that the government nominated it as an affordable housing compliant building.

It's not like affordable housing was the purchaser rocks up to any house and get a big cheque from the government.
These properties were selected by government, for sale as such.

And YES there should be independent certification for all developments. It's how it is done in most countries.
There should be a remedial insurance fund maintained by developers to prevent exactly what happens in this country; namely developer builds several illegal developments, goes "out" of business, sets up again and can not be pursued for remedial funds. Guarantee that, if they are caught to pay for remedial works, they will not be so fast to break safety laws.

The_Conductor

The_Conductor wrote: »

Buying a leasehold apartment brings up these type bills from time to time- often depending on the status of the sink fund and whether, or not, the OMC is in a position to fund works (it could be a new roof- balcony buckets or any of a long and bewildering list of works)- from sink funds. This is one of the reasons why it is critical to do due diligence on a management company and its sink funds before you purchase in a development.

Repairs and maintenance to a property are to be expected (and grudgingly welcomed) but this is not an example of this.
This was a dev skirting planning laws and should have been caught before the government signed off on them being part of their scheme.
The council should be investigating each development for compliance with planning.

Why is it always the individual always getting caught for governments light (no) touch approach to regulation?

No bloody wonder Irish people are refusing to embrace high density living, when this **** show repeats itself every few months.

happyfriday74

Residents having to pay out levies to fix defects is going on all over the country. There has been quite a bit of coverage in the paper on it recently, especially the Times.

Residents unfortunately are picking up the tab and management companies often have to raise levies on top of the usual service charge to cover this work.

Levy will have to be raised at an Extraordinary General Meeting with the owners so make sure you go when this is called- its should explain why the money is needed and the grounds on which you are required to pay it.

Xterminator

Hi Op

the fact your acquired the property through affordable housing route probably doesn't make much difference to the situation you find yourself in legally. By all means contact the council and ask why this wasn't flagged, and if you have any recourse, but i wouldnt be holding your breath.

Similarly if you engaged a solicitor during the purchase or had a survey carried out, you can query if this situation should not have been foreseen and if there is any recourse there.

however you are the home owner and the responsibilities lie square with you. I assume money is tight or you would not have qualified for affordable housing, and possibly that is why you don't have insurance you can claim against. In that case you may have to get a loan to cover the costs.

If you have equity in the property you may be able to secure a loan against it, but in cases like this your local credit union is a good bet, if you are a member.

JJJackal

todolist wrote: »

so? It's okay to sell crap and you have no comeback because it was affordable?

I am not sure whether it was an affordable house or bought of a private seller you would have any comeback re fire regs 10 years later?

The Bishop Basher

Deleted User wrote: »

Buying a property, certified as adhering to regulations, and finding that works were not done prior to your purchase is not a "Drawback" of owning property.

Of course it is.

It's just one of many potentially expensive drawbacks as purchasers all over the country are now finding out.

If an unexpected bill for €13k isn't a drawback I don't know what is.

Deleted User wrote: »

And YES there should be independent certification for all developments. It's how it is done in most countries.
There should be a remedial insurance fund maintained by developers to prevent exactly what happens in this country; namely developer builds several illegal developments, goes "out" of business, sets up again and can not be pursued for remedial funds. Guarantee that, if they are caught to pay for remedial works, they will not be so fast to break safety laws.

I agree with all of these proposals but they don't reflect the current reality which is that homeowners are entirely responsible for their own properties which is why it's incumbent on the purchaser to make sure that everything is in order before parting with their hard earned cash.

steamsey

OP - as the owner, you are responsible. You are joining a growing group of people who are getting these bills in apartment complexes all over Ireland. I've see people try to fight this, go to the media, politicians etc. Complete waste of time. My advise, having been through this, is to resign yourself to paying up. You must have some equity built up so keep that in mind - and with this you're adding to the value of the apartment.

If you had a house, it'd be a driveway, new windows, new boiler, new roof etc. With apartments, it's going to be fire / building reg type stuff.

Worst case scenario - no one pays and the Fire regulations require everyone to vacate until the place is fixed.

From a purely selfish point of view its the sort of thing that will affect the value of the property when word gets out. It could render the property unsaleable or uninhabitable if it isn't remedied.

Marcusm

Wesser wrote: »

Did you have a structural survey done before you bought it.
What checks did you do before you bought it.
Are you seriously suggesting that every property bought in the state should be inspected by a governmen t agency to make sure it is up to scratch.
Or if it just affordable ones bought from the council.

That’s precisely the system in place in NI even for small domestic works. Building control is in the hands of the local authority which must be satisfied both with plans and physically inspect at different stages of the build. For England & Wales, it is possible to use an Authorised InSpector independent of the building contractor whose insurance is thus on the hook.

ted1

todolist wrote: »

so? It's okay to sell crap and you have no comeback because it was affordable?

You should have got your own surveyor

Addle

The council wasn't the purchaser, the OP was. Why is the purchasers responsibility diminished because they had the opportunity to avail of a beneficial scheme?

FishOnABike

ted1 wrote: »

You should have got your own surveyor

Unfortunately the nature of some defects means that they can only be inspected for during construction. Once the building is complete the defects are well hidden. Without opening up the structure the defects are only identified after a problem occurs.

Most survey reports contain so many boilerplate caveats as to render them next to worthless for identifying all but the obvious defects.

A pre purchase survey on a new build would not likely have helped the OP.

Large bottle small glass

ted1 wrote: »

You should have got your own surveyor

How would that show up missing fire protection in the cavity?

Given how widespread the issue is there must be 1000's of surveys carried out which didn't flag it.

AAAAAAAAA

ted1 wrote: »

You should have got your own surveyor

and what should the surveyor have done? lick his finger and wave it around in the air in the hopes of sensing that internal fixings were constructed improperly?

SozBbz

People are being very unfair on the OP here. The fact it was bought under affordable housing is irrelevant.

For context, I'm on the OMC of a development that uncovered fire stopping issues in the last few years, having being built in 1999. This happened when one of the owners was getting a Stira fitted, having previously had the property surveyed before purchasing. I also had mine surveyed also and nothing was detected, even though they definitely went up into my roof space.

You won't have heard of our development as we took the decision to deal with it ourselves and the members all paid towards the cost, with some also coming from the sinking fund. Nobody was pleased wtih the situation but collectivly we took the decision that the representational damage of becoming the next Priory Hall/Longboat Quay/Beacon etc wasnt worth it.

That said, we got off lightly, it was a very low sum compared to the OP and certainly compared to numbers at other developments who've gone public.

Classic story, developer had gone bust etc so we took the call that we needed to act fast so that we could get our fire cert back in place to renew our block insurance, as that was of paramount importance. The advise we got is that this is happening left and right, up and down the country and being dealt with quietly by owners.

While in my case it wasn't too bad (money wise) I do feel let down by the government for failure to effectively regulate. I'm sure they happily took the VAT on the new build, and my STAMP duty on my subsequent purchase, but totally let me down as a citizen and ordinary home owner.

JJJackal

SozBbz wrote: »

People are being very unfair on the OP here. The fact it was bought under affordable housing is irrelevant.

For context, I'm on the OMC of a development that uncovered fire stopping issues in the last few years, having being built in 1999. This happened when one of the owners was getting a Stira fitted, having previously had the property surveyed before purchasing. I also had mine surveyed also and nothing was detected, even though they definitely went up into my roof space.

You won't have heard of our development as we took the decision to deal with it ourselves and the members all paid towards the cost, with some also coming from the sinking fund. Nobody was pleased wtih the situation but collectivly we took the decision that the representational damage of becoming the next Priory Hall/Longboat Quay/Beacon etc wasnt worth it.

That said, we got off lightly, it was a very low sum compared to the OP and certainly compared to numbers at other developments who've gone public.

Classic story, developer had gone bust etc so we took the call that we needed to act fast so that we could get our fire cert back in place to renew our block insurance, as that was of paramount importance. The advise we got is that this is happening left and right, up and down the country and being dealt with quietly by owners.

While in my case it wasn't too bad (money wise) I do feel let down by the government for failure to effectively regulate. I'm sure they happily took the VAT on the new build, and my STAMP duty on my subsequent purchase, but totally let me down as a citizen and ordinary home owner.

Perhaps the issue that posters have with the OP is he asked if the council should pay something - whereas in your case you paid out of your pocket

Either way its very disappointing to have to pay for fire safety works years after purchase. You are right to have dealt with it quietly. It must be outrageously hard to sell apartments in some of the developments you mentioned. If the government gave the VAT back on these repair works it would help (as as you said you paid VAT and Stamp Duty at purchase)

Addle

Addle wrote: »

The council wasn't the purchaser, the OP was. Why is the purchasers responsibility diminished because they had the opportunity to avail of a beneficial scheme?

Because the council approved the property for said scheme.

Graham

In the same way a bank might approve a mortgage. I wouldn't take that as any kind of warranty.

The OP has exactly the same rights/protections (and limitations) as any other purchaser.

pinkypinky

Also agree people are hard on the OP. Regardless of circumstances, no one wants a bill for something that should have been done before they lived in a development and was signed off on.

OP is right to inform Council because this may prompt them to survey other developments where they also had affordable housing, which might lead to saving people's lives.

SozBbz

JJJackal wrote: »

Perhaps the issue that posters have with the OP is he asked if the council should pay something - whereas in your case you paid out of your pocket

Either way its very disappointing to have to pay for fire safety works years after purchase. You are right to have dealt with it quietly. It must be outrageously hard to sell apartments in some of the developments you mentioned. If the government gave the VAT back on these repair works it would help (as as you said you paid VAT and Stamp Duty at purchase)

Well I think the government/council whoever - basically the state under whatever guise has a lot to answer for in terms of failing to properly regulate the construction sector, despite massively profiting from it.

We took the decision that the sum of money in question in our specific case was such that it wasnt worth the notoriety of going public and all that that brings. We also had a small window to get our insurance renewed, and we needed the fire cert. We took the pragmatic approach that it would have cost us more to fight it with no guarantee of success.

I wouldn't criticize any other owner for seeking redress from central govt for their failings. Its morally not right that owners such as myself and the OP have been left on the hook. However, ultimately yes it will fall back on the tax payer. People ought to remember the politicians etc who stood over the boom and never reelect them. The state should be responsible for a robust system of building inspection and certification, and should force developers to contribute as standard to a pool of funds for scenarios where things go wrong, like now exists in the insurance sector.

The state did come to the rescue ultimately in Priory Hall but only after the situation got extremely bad, and we weren't prepared to go there. Myself and my fellow owners did what we felt we had to do, not what we felt was right.