Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Management company demanding 13k

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Graham wrote: »
    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.

    There is a difference in Affordable. The council expects a claw back if you sell (time limited) they have skin in the game there. They also do not let you just put in on any old property, it has to be one on their approved list.
    The council should have been much more diligent on these scheme builds, than they were. They shoulder some of the blame IMHO.

    No matter this; the government has a massive responsibility, to the public here, in relation to allowing developers to raise firetraps, declare "bankrupt", no comeback. The government allowed laws to be broken yet still happily took Stamp duty, land registry, and Solicitor VAT from the purchaser.


  • Options
    #63
    SozBbz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭SozBbz


    Deleted User wrote: »
    There is a difference in Affordable. The council expects a claw back if you sell (time limited) they have skin in the game there. They also do not let you just put in on any old property, it has to be one on their approved list.
    The council should have been much more diligent on these scheme builds, than they were. They shoulder some of the blame IMHO.

    No matter this; the government has a massive responsibility, to the public here, in relation to allowing developers to raise firetraps, declare "bankrupt", no comeback. The government allowed laws to be broken yet still happily took Stamp duty, land registry, and Solicitor VAT from the purchaser.

    I don't personally think the affordable scheme is relevant here. Its the council, but not the building regs department. Qualifying a building for the affordable housing scheme shouldn't be some quality mark. All building should be built to the same high standards.

    The Government has a responsibility in my mind to ensure this, and to put in place a scheme (ideally industry funded) to cater for people where a failure in the regulations has happened.

    Also, its a crying shame that there is no provision in Irish law for class action law suits. The amount of home owners who have suffered because of this is untrue. Yes, as a tax payer the idea of people suing the state isnt ideal, but it would be one way to make the government pay attention and put in place proper regulation to ensure this doesn't happen again.

    I'd also be in favour of somehow preventing developers who go out of business completely disassociating themselves from their previous projects, when in many cases, their new companies are very much viable/profitable.


  • Options
    #64
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,356 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    A lot of people are saying how things should be or should have been the. All irrelevant as the government changed the system 20+ years. It is certified by a surveyor during construction and they have limited liability as the builder could do anything when the surveyor isn't there. No recourse if the developer goes bankrupt.
    That is the reality and you can't "should" the system now. When the civil servants in these departments were be done away with people didn't complain or listen to warnings of what would happen. Now people complain but it is too late and have to live with it.
    Council aided purchase is of no relevance in anyway.


  • Options
    #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    SozBbz wrote: »

    I'd also be in favour of somehow preventing developers who go out of business completely disassociating themselves from their previous projects, when in many cases, their new companies are very much viable/profitable.

    Easy, make it a criminal offence for whomever signs off on it (the CEO or some such).
    They are not going to sign off on dodgy work then


  • Options
    #66
    SozBbz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭SozBbz


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Easy, make it a criminal offence for whomever signs off on it (the CEO or some such).
    They are not going to sign off on dodgy work then

    No issue from me! People signing off on the roofs over peoples heads and all the risks that encompasses ought to have some skin in the game. Now all we need is a government strong enough to stand up to the Construction Industry Federation and legislate as such.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    SozBbz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭SozBbz


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    A lot of people are saying how things should be or should have been the. All irrelevant as the government changed the system 20+ years. It is certified by a surveyor during construction and they have limited liability as the builder could do anything when the surveyor isn't there. No recourse if the developer goes bankrupt.
    That is the reality and you can't "should" the system now. When the civil servants in these departments were be done away with people didn't complain or listen to warnings of what would happen. Now people complain but it is too late and have to live with it.
    Council aided purchase is of no relevance in anyway.

    I know (more than most, having paid myself) that theres no point fighting it, unless like the residents of priory hall etc, you've no choice as the costs involved there were so high that they'd likely have bankrupted most owners anyway, so you may as well go public and fight the good fight.

    There is nothing wrong with suggesting how things ought to be done in the future. Why should we always have to live with such inadequacy? I know i'm guilty of it myself, but by dealing wtih things quietly, we're really letting an awful lot of cowboys off scott free. At minimum they should have the adverse publicity, but no one wants their development associated with this shambles.


  • Options
    #68
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,356 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    SozBbz wrote: »

    There is nothing wrong with suggesting how things ought to be done in the future.
    It is simply utterly pointless. Like asking some body for directions and them saying " I wouldn't start from here" You are where you are and when these properties were built we had legislation the way it was and can't change that.


  • Options
    #69
    SozBbz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭SozBbz


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    It is simply utterly pointless. Like asking some body for directions and them saying " I wouldn't start from here" You are where you are and when these properties were built we had legislation the way it was and can't change that.

    Nope, absolutely not. If you read what I said correctly, you'll see that I paid and have accepted my lot. I'm arguing that just because we've been all taken for fools once, that we should not let it happen again.

    Apathy like what you're displaying, is going to lead to repetition of past mistakes. Why do we as Irish people accept things that are so substandard, and that other countries seem perfectly able to deal with? Sure maybe we should just shrug our shoulders and accept it and keep paying like suckers.

    There are plenty of steps that could be taken to protect consumers in future and its all of our responsibility to lobby our local representatives to ensure this is seen as a significant issue.


  • Options
    #70
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,412 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    SozBbz wrote: »
    .

    There are plenty of steps that could be taken to protect consumers in future and its all of our responsibility to lobby our local representatives to ensure this is seen as a significant issue.
    Have you gone back and asked your solicitor and your survey why they failed to protect your interests?


  • Options
    #71
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,197 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Have you gone back and asked your solicitor and your survey why they failed to protect your interests?

    Have you ever bought a new build? Especially an apartment? Practically no one gets a survey as they got a structural guarantee on completion from Homebond or similar. Even if the purchaser instructed a surveyor, they could not establish that there was insufficient fire protection when it was complete - they’d have to open up the envelope of the common areas. Likewise the solicitor will have exercised a reasonable duty of care in ensuring that completion certificates and structural guarantees were in place.

    The construction company were at fault, likely complicit and fully aware but it sounds as if they have disappeared. Priory Hall was the start and the local authorityvtenants were rehoused whilevthe private owners were excluded from their properties, required to rehouse themselves and pay the original mortgage. This was the cause of the suicide(s). Longboat Quay had a state agency as the freeholder and co-developer which is why additional funds were found to keep it open.

    Make no mistake this is s scandal similar to pyrite except it involves decanting rather than just defects. State agencies failed to provide an appropriate regulatory framework but are likely technically not on the hook. The OP cannot be blamed for this. Buyers in the boom are responsible for overpaying but they could not have identified or avoided these defects. A proper system of building control would have.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,412 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Marcusm wrote: »
    Have you ever bought a new build? Especially an apartment? Practically no one gets a survey as they got a structural guarantee on completion from Homebond or similar. Even if the purchaser instructed a surveyor, they could not establish that there was insufficient fire protection when it was complete - they’d have to open up the envelope of the common areas. Likewise the solicitor will have exercised a reasonable duty of care in ensuring that completion certificates and structural guarantees were in place.
    My question to the OP is - was he aware what level of protection he had from his solicitor and surveyor?


  • Options
    #73
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    What varying levels of protection do you think solicitors offer during conveyancing?


  • Options
    #74
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Graham wrote: »
    What varying levels of protection do you think solicitors offer during conveyancing?

    Other than against professional malfeasance- I imagine the answer is none, precisely none. It is hardly in the remit even of a professional surveyor- to check the fire retardant in a structure- it would involve a far deeper survey (into the very fabric of the building)- to get any sort of grasp on its integrity (or even its presence).

    The OP's bill- at 13k- is probably one of the lowest bills I've seen to bring units up to cert- I'd suggest whatever the remedy entails, its minor given the construction costs- hell, you wouldn't even do a rewiring for 13k.

    I think the OP is annoyed- understandably- but whatever the defect is- is relatively minor, it could be a whole lot worse.


  • Options
    #75
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Questions for the OP; was the entire apartment block bought by people on the affordable housing scheme from Dublin City Council, or did the OP just qualify for the scheme?

    If the former, sure, you can claim that DCC may be liable, but if the latter, then DCC will probably ask why the OP didn't do checks.

    Also, as has been asked; have you paid the annual MC sub? Or did you expect DCC to foot the cost of that?


  • Options
    #76
    todolist
    Registered Users Posts: 811 ✭✭✭todolist


    STB. wrote: »
    So you've been there since 2008. Presume you are paying your annual management fees/service charges ?

    Yes.All paid.


  • Options
    #77
    todolist
    Registered Users Posts: 811 ✭✭✭todolist


    mad m wrote: »
    OP,

    How many are living in the apartment complex?
    Approx 90 apartments


  • Options
    #78
    todolist
    Registered Users Posts: 811 ✭✭✭todolist


    the_syco wrote: »
    Questions for the OP; was the entire apartment block bought by people on the affordable housing scheme from Dublin City Council, or did the OP just qualify for the scheme?

    If the former, sure, you can claim that DCC may be liable, but if the latter, then DCC will probably ask why the OP didn't do checks.

    Also, as has been asked; have you paid the annual MC sub? Or did you expect DCC to foot the cost of that?

    I paid all my managemt fees.Only three apartments were sold as affordable housing.My apartment was given to Dublin City Council who sold it on to me.


  • Options
    #79
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    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.

    Of course all appartments should be inspected and all new builds too.


  • Options
    #80
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    A lot of people are saying how things should be or should have been the. All irrelevant as the government changed the system 20+ years. It is certified by a surveyor during construction and they have limited liability as the builder could do anything when the surveyor isn't there. No recourse if the developer goes bankrupt.
    That is the reality and you can't "should" the system now. When the civil servants in these departments were be done away with people didn't complain or listen to warnings of what would happen. Now people complain but it is too late and have to live with it.
    Council aided purchase is of no relevance in anyway.

    Actually there is something that can be done. Make it a criminal offence to deliberately not meet fire standards.


  • Options
    #81
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,022 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Actually there is something that can be done. Make it a criminal offence to deliberately not meet fire standards.

    But if a building meets regulatory standards in place today when the property is built, are you advocating that builders could be prosecuted for not meeting higher standards brought in, in the future? How does that work?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »
    Actually there is something that can be done. Make it a criminal offence to deliberately not meet fire standards.

    But if a building meets regulatory standards in place today when the property is built, are you advocating that builders could be prosecuted for not meeting higher standards brought in, in the future? How does that work?

    He's clearly talking about someone deliberately choosing to flout the regulations at time of building.

    So someone building apartments in 2020 deliberately ignores the 2020 fire safety regulations.

    You can only ever prosecute based on the rules at time of alleged offence.

    A developer cannot and never will be prosecuted for failing to meet a newer standard then what was in place at time of construction.

    Deliberately flouting the regs means a developer knew (or should have known) what the rules were on the date he built a house or apartment but took a decision to not comply.


  • Options
    #83
    todolist
    Registered Users Posts: 811 ✭✭✭todolist


    I have seen a lot of stories in the newspapers recently similar to mine.The 13k I'm being asked to fork out seems the highest
    I've seen.


  • Options
    #84
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,734 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    todolist wrote: »
    I have seen a lot of stories in the newspapers recently similar to mine.The 13k I'm being asked to fork out seems the highest
    I've seen.

    It's definitely not high compared to others. In the news yesterday is that Verdemont in Blanchardstown is going to be 50k a unit


  • Options
    #85
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,356 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    todolist wrote: »
    I have seen a lot of stories in the newspapers recently similar to mine.The 13k I'm being asked to fork out seems the highest
    I've seen.
    You better keep an eye on the sinking fund afterwards too. I got a much larger bill when there wasn't enough in the fund for vital maintenance that should have been covered by sinking fund


  • Options
    #86
    Jaster Rogue
    Registered Users Posts: 175 ✭✭Jaster Rogue


    From hearing these stories, you would want your head checked for even considering to buy an apartment these days. I don't believe the apartments being completed today are immune from this either, when you see the speed they are flying up at due to demand. It takes about a decade to uncover problems, at which point builder has long since cashed out and declared insolvency/bankruptcy/etc.
    Cowboys Ted.


  • Options
    #87
    Wildly Boaring
    Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭Wildly Boaring


    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    From hearing these stories, you would want your head checked for even considering to buy an apartment these days. I don't believe the apartments being completed today are immune from this either, when you see the speed they are flying up at due to demand. It takes about a decade to uncover problems, at which point builder has long since cashed out and declared insolvency/bankruptcy/etc.
    Cowboys Ted.

    Completely agree.
    Posted similarly in this thread few weeks ago.

    Lot of design and build projects.
    Builder is paying the arch and engineer and they are supposed to hold him to account. (And need work from him again)

    They do not have the resources to watch all and generally inspect a sample of the build. They also are very quick to just send graduates out to site.

    I've had to get work fixed by subbies AFTER some of these guys are supposed to have inspected.


  • Options
    #88
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    Jaster Rogue wrote: »
    From hearing these stories, you would want your head checked for even considering to buy an apartment these days. I don't believe the apartments being completed today are immune from this either, when you see the speed they are flying up at due to demand. It takes about a decade to uncover problems, at which point builder has long since cashed out and declared insolvency/bankruptcy/etc.
    Cowboys Ted.


    There is a little difference these days under the new planning regime, and that is an actual Building Control mechanism, whereby the build is inspected by an independent party during the various construction stages, ie a Council Engineer.

    The sad thing is that Architects were allowed to sign off on Fire Safety and compliance with a visual inspection during the Celtic Tiger era, having not actually been there during construction. Developers took short cuts, didn't install fire barriers etc and it was never picked up by the Architects who signed the compliance papers to get paid. The Council then signed off on the fire safety certificate based on plans submitted at planning stage and the architects piece of paper.

    Then the Homebonds/Premier insurance crowds walked away when they discovered what was going on, as quick as you could say structural defect.

    Many of the developers went bust.

    Owners where left with the bills. Its still going on. Some of this legacy stuff is coming to light now through recent increase in Fire Inspections by the relevant authrorities who didnt see themselves as having a role previously. Many management companies (ie collection of owners) have had to fork out the money and done so on the sly so as not to devalue the price of their property further (oh and the fear of the whole place burning down).

    We do light touch regulation in this country well. Politicians, self serving so called professionals and their organisations (where were they when the original planning legislation and regs were being drafted ) and greedy developers and inefficient, under resourced and incompetent planning authorities.


  • Options
    #89
    todolist
    Registered Users Posts: 811 ✭✭✭todolist


    L1011 wrote: »
    It's definitely not high compared to others. In the news yesterday is that Verdemont in Blanchardstown is going to be 50k a unit
    50k per unit? Ireland really is a third rate bananna republic.


  • Options
    #90
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    todolist wrote: »
    50k per unit? Ireland really is a third rate bananna republic.

    It depends entirely on the nature of the remedial works necessary to bring units up to regulation. 50k- is the expensive side- 13k is remarkably cheap- aka the 50k ones need major work- the 13k ones- very very little.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    todolist
    Registered Users Posts: 811 ✭✭✭todolist


    They could be asking for 13k now to get everyone to pay up.Then later they come back for more saying they underestimated the amou t of remedial work needed.


Advertisement