Management company demanding 13k

todolist · 19-03-2019 10:13pm #1

Our management company are looking for 13 thousand euro to fix defects in our complex.
We bought our apartment under the affordable housing scheme from Dublin City Council.
Are we liable to pay this or should the council pay something.?

shenanagans · 19-03-2019 10:16pm

When did you buy? How old is the complex?

johnnyskeleton · 19-03-2019 10:18pm

Generally, you are liable to pay any management fees due under the contracts. Affordable housing means the council has organised a discounted purchase price for you to buy the property, with a condition that if you sell within 10 years at a price above what you pay youre liable to a clawback. Beyond that, its hard to see how they could be responsible to pay it.

Maybe speak to a solicitor to see if there is any recourse for you

todolist · 19-03-2019 10:22pm

shenanagans wrote: »

When did you buy? How old is the complex?

bought it in 2008.It's 12 years old.

shenanagans · 19-03-2019 10:28pm

If it's upgrades due to health & safety policy changes (laws) then it depends on when the changes came in and when you bought. Many complexes are now having to do major work to meet standards and this means large costs on owners. If it impacts on the complex fire cert then it must be done or building cause be closed up.

Is the work something that should have been done in 2008? Are the council liable.....failure to inspect?

What work has to be done?

Seve OB · 19-03-2019 10:29pm

Insurance?

shenanagans · 19-03-2019 10:31pm

Depends on your policy. What does it cover?

todolist · 19-03-2019 10:44pm

shenanagans wrote: »

If it's upgrades due to health & safety policy changes (laws) then it depends on when the changes came in and when you bought. Many complexes are now having to do major work to meet standards and this means large costs on owners. If it impacts on the complex fire cert then it must be done or building cause be closed up.

Is the work something that should have been done in 2008? Are the council liable.....failure to inspect?

What work has to be done?

Fire safety work.It should have been done in 2007.The company that built it went bust so apartment owners are expected to pick up the tab.

todolist · 19-03-2019 10:45pm

Seve OB wrote: »

Insurance?

I have no insurance.

shenanagans · 19-03-2019 10:52pm

Should the council have caught this during inspections? As in they should have made the developer do the work. If they didn't.....are they liable. I would think they may be. Is the developer still active? This is becoming a common issue.

There was a similar case in Dublin a couple of years ago. The whole complex was closed down while works were done. Can't remember the name of the complex.

If you paid you're management fees annually, that includes building insurance but it wouldn't cover this issue as it's a failure on the part of the developer/council.

Pkiernan · 19-03-2019 10:54pm

todolist wrote: »

I have no insurance.

If you have no insurance, how can you have a mortgage?

If there is no mortgage, then surely you can pay the bill?
I don't see why the taxpayer or the Council should be on the hook for this.

shenanagans · 19-03-2019 10:57pm

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/four-celtic-tiger-developments-that-had-fire-and-safety-issues-1.3366155

It was Priory Hall.

STB. · 19-03-2019 10:57pm

todolist wrote: »

Our management company are looking for 13 thousand euro to fix defects in our complex.
We bought our apartment under the affordable housing scheme from Dublin City Council.
Are we liable to pay this or should the council pay something.?

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

shenanagans · 19-03-2019 11:01pm

Pkiernan wrote: »

If you have no insurance, how can you have a mortgage?

If there is no mortgage, then surely you can pay the bill?
I don't see why the taxpayer or the Council should be on the hook for this.

The Council have to inspect building sites. They should have done periodic inspections and highlighted the failure in regards to fire safety. They often didn't do this....so they possibly have a duty to residents. IMO

It was their job. If they didn't do it??? The taxpayer as usual will foot the bill. Not one inspector or engineer will be held to account to be sure.

todolist · 19-03-2019 11:01pm

Pkiernan wrote: »

If you have no insurance, how can you have a mortgage?

If there is no mortgage, then surely you can pay the bill?
I don't see why the taxpayer or the Council should be on the hook for this.

The Goverment should have an agency that inspects buildings before they are sold on to suckers like myself.Do you see why they should be liable now?

Wheeliebin30 · 19-03-2019 11:06pm

todolist wrote: »

The Goverment should have an agency that inspects buildings before they are sold on to suckers like myself.Do you see why they should be liable now?

Sucker?

You got a house at a discount.

todolist · 19-03-2019 11:09pm

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Sucker?

You got a house at a discount.

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

shenanagans · 19-03-2019 11:16pm

What are the management company telling you? Is the developer still trading? Have the mgt company been in contact with council?

Get onto the affordable housing area that sold you the place and get their view of the situation.

Once you know their perspective then maybe seek legal advice on where you stand. I'd say the fact that you bought from the council will help you. Maybe they'll foot some or all the bill.

STB. · 19-03-2019 11:18pm

My question again.

Are you paying annual management fees to the management company since 2008 ?

Because if you haven't been I could understand the demand for 13k and how you are mixing up the two.

shenanagans · 19-03-2019 11:21pm

STB. wrote: »

My question again.

Are you paying annual management fees to the management company since 2008 ?

Because if you haven't been I could understand the demand for 13k and how you are mixing up the two.

Poster has already said it fire safety work that should have been done prior to his/her purchase.

Wesser · 19-03-2019 11:22pm

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.

touts · 19-03-2019 11:24pm

todolist wrote: »

Our management company are looking for 13 thousand euro to fix defects in our complex.
We bought our apartment under the affordable housing scheme from Dublin City Council.
Are we liable to pay this or should the council pay something.?

Tell you what. Why dont we all have a quick whip around here on boards and all chip in to pay the 13k for you. At the end of the day getting the council to pay it for you is effectively the same thing we'll just be cutting out the middleman.

The taxpayer helped you buy the house. I think that's where our goodwill gesture ends. Time to grow up and stand on your own two feet.

FishOnABike · 19-03-2019 11:30pm

shenanagans wrote: »

The Council have to inspect building sites. They should have done periodic inspections and highlighted the failure in regards to fire safety. They often didn't do this....so they possibly have a duty to residents. IMO

It was their job. If they didn't do it??? The taxpayer as usual will foot the bill. Not one inspector or engineer will be held to account to be sure.

The problem is that building control regulations allowed developers to self certify projects. We did not have the rigorous independent building control inspectorate that exists in other countries.

In other countries a developer could not proceed to the next stage of construction until the current stage had been independently inspected and certified.

Here the developer could self certify that the project was built according to the plans and we've seen how that has turned out, time and time again.

STB. · 19-03-2019 11:36pm

shenanagans wrote: »

Poster has already said it fire safety work that should have been done prior to his/her purchase.

Yes I understand what they have said but they may have misinterpreted the demand if they haven't been paying the annual service charges.

Fire safety checks may be just the annual ones done by those contracted as a service provider (extinguishers/sensors/alarms etc). The same way some of the contribution goes to lighting, refuse collection etc

My question stands. This also has a heading of [RENTING]. ?????

FishOnABike · 19-03-2019 11:41pm

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.

This is how it is done elsewhere. We've seen the multiple failings of self regulation here. Self regulation is no regulation.

mad m · 19-03-2019 11:57pm

From experience if it’s fire stopping that 13k will increase once opening works are started. Get everything in writing, if you are forking out that kinda money you are entitled to get name of firestopping company, the survey, schedule of works. Copy of certs etc.

shenanagans · 20-03-2019 12:17am

STB. wrote: »

Yes I understand what they have said but they may have misinterpreted the demand if they haven't been paying the annual service charges.

Fire safety checks may be just the annual ones done by those contracted as a service provider (extinguishers/sensors/alarms etc). The same way some of the contribution goes to lighting, refuse collection etc

My question stands. This also has a heading of [RENTING]. ?????

I don't mean to be smart but read what the poster wrote;

"Fire safety work.It should have been done in 2007."

How could they be talking about accumulated management fees from 2007 when they bought in 2008?

It's work that should have been done at the development stage but wasn't. Roll on 12 years, the fire cert is probably being renewed and the fire officer won't pass it until work has been carried out so the current owners have to pay the costs of work that now needs to be done.

mad m · 20-03-2019 12:22am

OP,

How many are living in the apartment complex?

holliehobbie · 20-03-2019 12:24am

You're getting off lightly op. There is a small apartment complex beside me that was built in 1995/6 and they have to pay €18,000 each for the same kinda issues.

shenanagans · 20-03-2019 12:29am

holliehobbie wrote: »

You're getting off lightly op. There is a small apartment complex beside me that was built in 1995/6 and they have to pay €18,000 each for the same kinda issues.

This is a fair point. Whatever the estimated cost is today it will probably be 20% higher next year based on my recent experience of a similar situation. If there's a EGM the best scenario is for agreement for residents and get the work done asap before costs go up!

The_Conductor · 20-03-2019 8:07am

The fact that it was an affordable property- has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any reasonable fees the Management Company may demand.
The OP needs to get a copy of his leasehold documents and read them slowly and methodically.
The fact that the OP doesn't have insurance- only affects his own personal possessions- the building itself and its integrity- will be insured under a block policy. The fact that the building has now been found to be in non-compliance with fire regulations- means- this aspect of its insurance policy will be void.

Yes- the 13k fee is fair and reasonable (and remarkably low- its far and away the lowest bill for fire remedial works I've heard of). The OP needs to ensure that it includes everything to bring the building up to full compliance- and that the building will be insurable after the works.

By all means have a solicitor look at the documentation- however, they're unlikely to tell you any different- and will give you another bill for your trouble.

The bill of works- along with the certificate of non-compliance detailing the actual defects- should by rights be automatically circulated to all Management Company Members in good standing- for their own information and perusal.

DubCount · 20-03-2019 8:54am

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 · 20-03-2019 9:06am

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 · 20-03-2019 9:18am

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 · 20-03-2019 9:32am

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 · 20-03-2019 9:38am

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.

20-03-2019 9:39am

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 · 20-03-2019 9:42am

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 · 20-03-2019 9:54am

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 · 20-03-2019 9:58am

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 · 20-03-2019 10:02am

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.

20-03-2019 10:03am

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.

20-03-2019 10:08am

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 · 20-03-2019 10:08am

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 · 20-03-2019 10:27am

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 · 20-03-2019 10:48am

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 · 20-03-2019 10:48am

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 · 20-03-2019 10:52am

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.

20-03-2019 11:00am

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 · 20-03-2019 12:36pm

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 · 20-03-2019 12:38pm

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

Management company demanding 13k

Comments