Construction & Fire Defects?

[Cashmere Solo]

Construction & Fire defects?

I own an apartment which is subject to a significant remediation project to remedy fire and construction defects which were not done correctly by the developer. At an AGM meeting a couple of years back, people were hit with an increase in their sinking fund charge from €200 to anywhere up to €5,000 in that year excluding their annual management fees. This figure was manufactured as there were no quotes submitted to substantiate the cost as requested by owners. There is also no 75% in writing from owners authorising this action as per the MUD Act.
The following year the same levy was applied much to the dis-satisfaction of Owners as there is little or no transparency in what is happening regarding the spending of monies on these projects. People who haven’t paid the new charge for whatever reason but are still paying the normal service charge have lost their vote. The OMC are now in a position of control as they have probably 20% of the votes mostly proxy by a couple of large investors. They now use these votes to control the meetings although we are unsure that they have paid up and are entitled to vote.
Any comments most welcome!

 

[Cashmere Solo]

Can anyone recommend a seasoned Solicitor/Barrister to challenge the OMC on their actions of non compliance of the Mud Act?

 

[L_earner]

If the development genuinely needs to fix fire and construction defects, and the only course is for it to be paid for jointly by the owners, then presumably you don't object to paying more in principle, because the long term gain will compensate you all for the short term pain. However there should be no need for them to keep you and the other owners in the dark. What you want is transparency, and what the other side wants (hopefully) is the necessary work done professionally at a fair price.
I suggest that you approach all the other owners in the development, explain your concerns to them, and seek their support to unlock this situation. When you have the majority of owners behind you, look for a meeting with the investors, who I am guessing are the directors of the OMC. If they fail or refuse to meet, you can use the companies acts to remove them. An organised group of owners who each have equal voting rights will overcome a 20% block of votes if you act with purpose. It is simple and straightforward, and you don't even need to pay a solicitor to get it done. Mind you, if you plan to remove them, be prepared to fill the roles on the board of directors because without a functioning board you are in a lot more trouble than having to pay high contributions to the sinking fund.

 

[wayoutwhest]

I have seen examples of this, and many OMCs are not best placed to deal with this kind of project, despite some claiming they can. I seem to see a bit of a "gold rush" since the announcement of the construction defects scheme of MUDs, who now decide they have such extensive issues and want to levy all unit owners to get a head start on works before they get a big application in. I am stuck in one that has seen its value drop 20% since they decided to take this path despite the area seeing 9% growth. I looked at getting out and saw some other apartments that looked reasonable in price, but when I enquired, I found the price had to do with the issues with the block (never an issue a couple of years before), and they are going to go to the redress scheme. Some OMCs might see this as an "opportunity" to get government money to improve their neglected asset and feel they have nothing to lose - the "levies" for some of the landlords or self-employed or pension funds are just another accountancy trick. The only losers are really those who live in the blocks, especially the PAYE owner occupier. The best approach would be for the government to insist on independent assessments before proceeding and keep the OMCs as far away from the process as possible. At the moment, they are saying all sorts will be able to be claimed, including various "consultant fees", which you know when any funds finally come in, will only cover a fraction of the reality. The wealthier landlords will shrug shoulders and say, "We thought we could claim that", and the poor owner occupier, financially destroyed, who got dragged on this journey, is just seen as collateral damage.

Like the opening post, a few seem to want to dictate the whole narrative of the OMC while repeating, "We are just volunteers", but at the same time, keep a tight grip on who is and can be directors.

Living in MUDs is a disaster, and these construction defects scheme levies highlight that the current MUDs Act needs massive reform. There is something about apartment property management and overly keen owners to become OMC directors that just seems to attract the most questionable of folk.