Many apartment owners have been left with the legacy of poor regulation and building standards. I am Director of a management company of an apartment complex in West Dublin. Significant issues highlighted in recent surveyors report regarding roofs, ventilation and fire safety . Most of these issues have significant health and safety implications. Owners may not be able to afford to remedy these issues in addition to paying high management fees. Are we going to wait for a Grenfell towers scenario when likely costs for government would be far higher than preventative work now?The Apartment Owners' Network has made the attached submission to the Independent Working Group on Defective Homes.
I have remedied any defects in my own house at my own expense. I didn't ask the taxpayer to pay for them.
Brendan
How foolish of you Brendan! This is the People's Democratic Republic of Ireland. The State is responsible for every bad thing that happens everyone and must immediately establish a no-fault, no-questions-asked, gold-plated, top of the range redress scheme to fully compensate them, and pay their lawyers too, even if it's not the state's fault at all. In recent weeks, we've actually extended this principle to cover cases where there was no actual harm but people were "at risk of harm" as exemplified by the South Kerry CAMHS fiasco....
I have remedied any defects in my own house at my own expense. I didn't ask the taxpayer to pay for them.
Brendan
Is the time honoured caveat emptor too harsh a principle?Many apartment owners have been left with the legacy of poor regulation and building standards.
I'm not entirely without sympathy. But if the state (aka Brendan and I and every other taxpayer) is expected to pick up the tab, surely we're entitled to more than surly pyrite/mica style demands for our cash. How about an equity share in the property, proportional to the rectification cost, redeemable when it's sold? Or an interest free loan on similar terms? Or an insurance based scheme where ALL developments would pay into a fund which could then be drawn upon in the event of long-term problems emerging? Or a combination of some of the above? Surely that's a more moral solution than expecting a buckshee handout from your neighbours.Owners may not be able to afford to remedy these issues in addition to paying high management fees. Are we going to wait for a Grenfell towers scenario when likely costs for government would be far higher than preventative work now?
Apartment owners would have had the resources to have a surveyor produce a report for their own apartment but would have trusted the "professionals" who signed off on the common areas in the block.Is the time honoured caveat emptor too harsh a principle?
The very simple solution is that the builders should pay and fix. But we all know that won't happen.
Apartment owners are taxpayers too. Many bought an apartment because they did not have the resources to afford a house at the time. It is a dreadful situation to find themselves faced with large bills because of the incompetence of those who should have done their jobs properly.But if the state (aka Brendan and I and every other taxpayer) is expected to pick up the tab,
It is. But it's not my fault. Why should I pick up the tab? And if I did pick up the tab, should I not acquire an equity interest of some sort in the property? It's completely unreasonable to expect me to pay to enhance someone else's asset and see the benefit go entirely to that person.Apartment owners are taxpayers too. Many bought an apartment because they did not have the resources to afford a house at the time. It is a dreadful situation to find themselves faced with large bills because of the incompetence of those who should have done their jobs properly.
I don't understand why this approach isn't standard, including for the Mica schemes. Owner gets a portable, interest-free loan for life subject to a cap of maybe 50%. State recoups some of its outlay (eventually). Owner still has an incentive to maintain the property as there will be residual value for family members to inherit.But the Multi Unit Developments are practically very difficult to fix. The state should maybe lend each apartment owner the €30k or whatever it is to fix the house but secure it on the property. And when the property is sold, repay the loan.
The state should maybe lend each apartment owner the €30k or whatever it is to fix the house but secure it on the property. And when the property is sold, repay the loan.
It should also be the same for the mica houses.
Agree 100%. In general, every bailout should require some quid-pro-quo from its beneficiaries.I don't understand why this approach isn't standard, including for the Mica schemes. Owner gets a portable, interest-free loan for life subject to a cap of maybe 50%. State recoups some of its outlay (eventually). Owner still has an incentive to maintain the property as there will be residual value for family members to inherit.
Is there some legal impediment to the state doing so? Or just bureaucratic inertia? It's a much better idea than free money.
The Mica redress scheme is extraordinary in that you will have landlords with zero mortgage getting a better product than they already own for which they'll be able to charge a higher rent. For free, from the state!Agree 100%. In general, every bailout should require some quid-pro-quo from its beneficiaries.
The remediation work will hopefully make these properties safe and liveable. Yes this is a "benefit" but it should also be a reasonable expectation for a buyer of any new property that has been built in the last 20 years.It's completely unreasonable to expect me to pay to enhance someone else's asset and see the benefit go entirely to that person.
I think the big issue here is the fact that there have been no consequences for those who are responsible for supplying faulty materials and carrying out shoddy workmanship.
I agree the building regulations and liability regime in place at the time were a disgrace. I understand they have been tightened up since for new builds.I am in receipt of a recent surveyors report on one of them and it is an absolute scandal.
That's the nature of property and caveat emptor, you have more consumer protection buying a toaster. However, it's still astonishing how little homework many prospective purchasers prior to committing massive amounts of money on property while signing contracts confirming they understand the risks.Meanwhile those who fell victim to these practises are, through no fault of their own, being presented with large bills for remediation.
How exactly would the median home-buyer assess, ex ante, the build quality of a new-build apartment?However, it's still astonishing how little homework many prospective purchasers prior to committing massive amounts of money on property while signing contracts confirming they understand the risks.
Buyers of an apartment would not be in a position themselves to conduct a hire a surveyor to conduct a buildings survey for the whole block. They would (foolishly in hindsight) have trusted the professionals whose job it was to ensure proper ventilation, fire safety and adequate roof structures to comply with government building regulations. They were badly let down by those who were paid handsomely for their "professional advice".However, it's still astonishing how little homework many prospective purchasers prior to committing massive amounts of money on property while signing contracts confirming they understand the risks.
Hire someone competent who knows what to look for and what questions to ask, and make sure appropriate indemnities were in place. There was plenty of chat at the time that corners were being cut in some developments, but in the scramble to get on the property ladder lots of people just didn't want to know.How exactly would the median home-buyer assess, ex ante, the build quality of a new-build apartment?
I would have absolutely zero clue and even a surveyor hired would rely on a visual inspect of a near-finished product.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?