Are Management Company obliged to pay? Ingress of water.

[minkey70]

My husband and I own a rental property, an apartment in a block which we purchased approx. 6 years ago. I should let you know some background info., my husband works in architecture and this development was a job he was working on, he thought they were a sound investment (at the time) and as he was involved in the design he was of the opinion that the construction was good.

Shortly after our first tenants moved in the rang us and told us there was a leak in one of the bedrooms. Water was coming in through the light fitting and dripping on to the bed below.

At the time the builders were still on site finishing other blocks so we got them in to look at the leak. The first time it was determined that it was water ingress as the result of a storm, they patched it up and all was well. However it happened another few times over a period of about 4 months. Eventually my husband got the site foreman and one of the builders to do a proper investigation up on the roof and they found a tear in a sheet of lead. As the builders were still on site they carried out remedial works (they said) and they patched the ceiling in our apartment, replastered and painted the whole room for us.

Fast forward to December of 2011, our tenant was moving out, and when we went to inspect the apartment, I noticed water staining on the ceiling of the bedroom, the tenant never used the 2nd bedrooms and therefore couldn't say when it had occurred. I rang the management company and reported it and they said they would get someone out to have a look at the roof again. Over the following 2 weeks I was out there doing a lot of viewings and the roofing company did arrive and used our apartment to gain access to the roof. The guy said the first repair was only some mastic sealant and it had separated, which is when the water must have got in, he said it wouldn't take much to repair but it would have to be done properly this time.

A few weeks later I rang the management company to ask when they were going to make good the staining on the ceiling in the apartment and was told that they weren't that it was up to us. I stated that the roof constituted part of their remit and that it had caused the damage to the ceiling. The man told me that he wasn't going to make a claim for a bit of paint as "insurance is very expensive and the premium would go through the roof", and that unfortunately through no fault of our own we would have to deal with it.

Since that happened, it's been on the back burner, as I've been ill but I'm going to start chasing them again as I can't see how we should have to pay for the painting. I've had a look at The Multi Unit Developments Act 2011 to see if anything leaps out at me but a legal mind I do not have! I pay a yearly management charge some of which goes into a sinking fund, am I right in thinking that this could be used to pay for the painting. What I'm really looking for is a few concise facts of what to do next.

 

[ontour]

Get a quote for the work on the ceiling and submit it to the management company. Check the approach of the management company regarding insurance claims, Are you liable for the excess regardless of where the problem originated? I know of cases where the excess is €5k so the most expedient and least painful solution may be to paint it yourself.

 

[mercman]

+1 with ontour. Damage caused within your own property is for you to deal with. Normally allowable in a claim against the Insurance Co. If the leak incurs in poor workmanship, it's up to the Managing Co to make a claim or use funds in the sinking fund to repair.

 

[shesells]

OP, the thing that stands out to me is that your husband went direct to the builder over a management company structure (the roof). If you had gone through the MC at that stage they would have had records and if there was a further problem they could have sought redress from the builder.

I can see no way that the management company would be liable for any charge at this stage seeing as they weren't involved in the initial "repair".

On the plus side, you'll be able to reduce your rental tax liability by the cost of the remedial works in your apartment.

 

[Luternau]

This is such a regular occurance in post boom Ireland. Basically, developments were not built or finished to a high enough standard. Corners were cut etc. It could be debated that developers took advantage of a poor system of inspection and passed responsibility onto other parties, including the purchaser.
In this case, you have a few options;
-Homebond/Premier or other guarantee company. There is a timeline for making a claim under Homebond and even if successful, you are unlikely to get much done. Homebond also state they do not cover consequental loss, so internal repairs arrising out of the leak are your responsibility. Its effectively useless as a guarantee.
-Insurance; You could make a claim for this but as it is a building defect and not storm damage, they wont want to know.
-Management Company. They have overall responsibility for the common areas, including the roof. Eventually, they will have to address this. But again they may not be willing to make good intnernally, as its not a common area.

As you want to rent the property again as soon as possible it may be best to deal with this yourself. Othewise, it will drag on and on and you may inconveniece tenants , who will leave, causing you greater losses.
If the damage is just staining and not damaged plaster painting with stain block paint and then recoating maybe the best option. This would be deductable expense for tax purposes.

I dont see the MUD Act as offering any real or timely solution here.

 

[minkey70]

Thanks for all the replies, as I thought it is probably easier to deal with this ourselves and just repaint

 

[purpeller]

In this case, you have a few options;
-Homebond/Premier or other guarantee company. There is a timeline for making a claim under Homebond and even if successful, you are unlikely to get much done. Homebond also state they do not cover consequental loss, so internal repairs arrising out of the leak are your responsibility. Its effectively useless as a guarantee.
-Insurance; You could make a claim for this but as it is a building defect and not storm damage, they wont want to know.
-Management Company. They have overall responsibility for the common areas, including the roof. Eventually, they will have to address this. But again they may not be willing to make good intnernally, as its not a common area.

Homebond only covers structural defects and are notoriously difficult to deal with.
You cannot contact the insurance company directly - it has to be done through the Management Company, and if there was a refund, it would initially issued in the name of the MC. As someone else stated, the excess could be as high as €5000, so unfortunately, the best way is to deal with this yourself, at this stage. I'm surprised they won't meet you half way though.

 

[Luternau]

the best way is to deal with this yourself, at this stage..

Thats what I said and is what the OP says they will do.

Homebond only covers structural defects and are notoriously difficult to deal with.

Homebond offer cover for structure (10yrs) and for water ingress (3yrs). I also said it was effectively useless and even if successful, you are unlikely to get much done.

 

[shesells]

I'm surprised they won't meet you half way though.

Why? The OP dealt directly with the builder to "resolve" an issue on management company property (the roof). The Management Company should not bear any responsibility if they were not involved in the repair.

 

[ontour]

At the time that the builder resolved the issue the builder was still completing other blocks so it is unlikely that the common areas had been handed over. It is likely at that stage that the builders/ developers were running the management company while the development was work in progress.

I don't see how the management company is not responsible for the roof. If the management company feels that the actions of a member has caused damage to a common area, they should pursue that member for the cost of correcting it.

 

[djh]

In some developments the management company may make good small repairs out of the building repair budget rather than claim on the insurance (even though it might be covered), either because the excess on the policy is so huge that it's not worth it, and also because any claims will push up the yearly premiums.

In one development I know when the management company does this it will redo cosmetic repairs inside apartments at the same time as doing structural repairs to common areas. Other management companies do not do this.

Your lease is the rule book between what is the management companies responisbility and what is the apartment owner's. Actually, I have seen some leases where the owner of a top floor apartment actually had responibility for the roof over their apartment! If there's something in there you could challenge them on it, or take the management company to court to forse them to tend to their responsibilities. This would be a significant cost.

I suppose if I were in your situation I would ask myself if I was happy that the roof repairs were done right. Then if I would be repainting the apartment anyway between tenents anyway and if it is worth the hassle trying to get the management company to pay someone to come in to repaint that ceiling.