That's so vague as to be almost useless. An architect? An engineer? Who are they supposed to ask? Who would even grant them site access?Hire someone competent who knows what to look for and what questions to ask
I agree, a prospective buyer of a new apartment would be unlikely to be in a position to engage any of these professionals for the entire development. Building regulations at the time should have protected them.That's so vague as to be almost useless. An architect? An engineer? Who are they supposed to ask? Who would even grant them site access?
Why would you hire an architect to assess structural or regulatory compliance issues? A suitably qualified engineer will recognise some of the warning signs that not all is in order. If they don't know what to ask and who to ask, get someone else. The vendor via the agent always facilitate access.That's so vague as to be almost useless. An architect? An engineer? Who are they supposed to ask? Who would even grant them site access?
It's a poor analogy. There is significant consumer protections in law governing fitness for purpose, accuracy of description, and outlining the responsibilities of a vendor in the event of a fault. Anyone purchasing a property really should understand that there are no such protections in place, and it is your responsibility to do your homework to the best of your ability, and that you alone bear the risk of issues that such homework fails to uncoverTo provide an analogy. I'm thinking of buying a new car at the moment. I'm not going to get a mechanic to give it a once-over like I would with a used car before purchase. Even if I did, all the mechanic would say is: "it's a new car. Any defects will only emerge in time".
It's really similar in that neither can inspect what isn't visible to the naked eye. Apartment developments follow a pattern, so there would be limited value in seeing inside multiple units.But it must be different for a development of 100 apartments in 10 blocks of 10.
It should also be noted that some of the fire safety issues that are being raised at the moment are not defects that could have been identified at the time
Untrue. In our estate there were many shortcomings identified by the Surveyors recently that should have been identified before the initial build was signed off. Just one example would be that the flat roofs on all 10 blocks should have been coated with solar reflective paint which would have extended their lifespan but this was never done. This is just one example from a very long list.....So the apartments were built in compliance with all then current standards.
So the developer or the architect or the engineer is not to blame.
that some of the fire safety issues
Apologies for the misunderstanding, I was referring to all the issues, not just fire safety. It is true of course that fire safety legislation is regularly updated and it isn't within the remit of this scheme to ensure that all OMCs are up to date with current legislation. This is an emotive topic for me because I have recently been presented with the evidence of all the shortcomings in the initial build here. Luckily there has been no loss of life as a result of the negligence but we have been lucky in that regard and will work now to resolve as many of the issues as we can.Leo made it quite clear that he was referring to some of the issues and not all of the issues.
Correct, and they would have been passing inspections for a number of years since construction.So the apartments were built in compliance with all then current standards.
So the developer or the architect or the engineer is not to blame.
I believe the view is that it is tough on anyone, regardless of property type. That's the very essence of caveat emptor!Have to say, I think the view that this is tough luck on apartment owners or that they are negligent/responsible in some way is very harsh.
In fairness, the governement make a tidy sum from everyone involved in the process which is why I would side on the apartment owners on this.Not that a bailout should be the end of it.....the government can/should recoup the cost from the building industry by way of a of profit levy.
How does yet another levy work in a market where the building industry is already failing abysmally to build enough houses and apartments, and cost inflation is already out of control?Not that a bailout should be the end of it.....the government can/should recoup the cost from the building industry by way of a of profit levy.
One of the issues has been where only a subset of apartments actually materially fails fire safety standards but an entire block's insurance is voided by the fact.It's really similar in that neither can inspect what isn't visible to the naked eye. Apartment developments follow a pattern, so there would be limited value in seeing inside multiple units.
It should also be noted that some of the fire safety issues that are being raised at the moment are not defects that could have been identified at the time, but are down to apartment car parks failing to meet current, more onerous standards. I know of one development where the underground car park has been closed for months now as Dublin Fire Brigade have refused to sign-off on the basis of failing to meet the requirements of the Fire Services Act even though they had previously done so in the lifetime of the current legislation.
Insurance sector is already levied, and it's been done with the banks as well.That's fair - one of the issues around state funding of remediation schemes is that it is paid for by taxpayers, who increasingly are made up of a large body of tenants who don't own properties, pay high rents and are now effectively being asked to bail out the property owning class who they don't belong to. Levying a tax on the construction, banking and insurance sector however would go a long way towards covering this.
I understand what you are trying to say, but there is considerable fury at the very idea that buyers should have to pay for these loans. (Even though it would seem that many impacted by fire issues on smaller scales are paying out of their own pockets for remediation).Insurance sector is already levied, and it's been done with the banks as well.
All of these issues can be dealt with via low-interest loans from the state redeemable on disposal of the asset. It's very hard to hide a dwelling, and impossible to transfer ownership without the state consenting.
This is really obvious policy and I have no idea why the cash handout model is preferred.
That is true in our case. We hired a good engineer who surveyed everything he could about our apartment and fifteen years later it is as good as the day we bought it, as he predicted.Realistically there was no way someone buying an apartment could know or find out about building defects or fire safety issues.
I am no expert in this area but it was my understanding that the Government sets building regulations and enforces them. The builder of our apartment block got away with negligent building practices that made substantial water ingress inevitable. If the Government had sufficient oversight of the industry, there would have been less chance of this happening. I feel let down by the Government. Because of their bad past decisions, my biggest investment is at risk. I think the tax payer, whose Government messed up, have a moral duty to pay something in cases like ours, to reduce the amount we have to pay back.I know it's not the government's fault, but in my view there is a responsibility on the government to protect citizens from this sort of thing.
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?