Fire Safety Levy - same cost for 1-bed, 2-bed, 3-bed apartments

H

helvetica

Registered User
Messages
19
I own a 1-bed in an apartment complex in Dublin. There is a fire safety issue that needs to be resolved in order to keep the complex insured. The purchase lease states that the management fee is equal per unit, so the management company divided the levy equally based on the lease. I feel this is unfair to all owners of smaller units, and that the levy should be calculated based on area, with an allowance for the maintenance cost of shared areas. What is your experience of this - are you also in a complex where the fee is divided by the number of apartments, with no allowance to value / area?
 
In my apartment block management fees are lower for smaller units so I agree it is unfair. Get other smaller apartment owners to support you and contend the next AGM for election as director of the management company and then bring a motion to the AGM to change the distribution of costs. Also note that the government has a redress scheme for MUD developments for building reg issues so these costs may fall under that scheme. The management company should apply.
 
It seems reasonable to me if the problem is at the level of the whole complex.

The alternative is some kind of formula based on square footage or bedrooms. This information may not be easily available and, even if it is, it will just lead to more dispute about how you weight the formula.

I’ve no experience with MUDs, but the purchase lease approach is a pretty good precedent in the absence of anything else as well.
 
You knew how the costs were allocated when you purchased the apartment

If it was that big an issue, surely you would not have purchased?

That said, I would imagine an arguement amongst the owners over changing the basis of allocation could quickly get out of hand and create a fractious atmosphere amongst those who are living in the property
 
I guess it also depends on the type of fire work thats required. Deviating from the agreed rules there should probably be a very good justification. Is the costs driven to a large degree by the size of the apartment or is it something that in reality doesn't vary much in costs from unit to unit?
 
Similar to above, my complex charges extra % for larger units on the annual charge. I would go the AGM and argue this but based on fairness of all amenities, not just the fire regs. It's common sense to assume an apartment that has 4 occupants will use more wear and tear in common areas as well as have more rubbish being put into the bins.
 
My fear is for the future. This fire levy is under €3k, which is just about manageable for me, but there could be a future bill multiples of that which would be problematic. There is a sinking fund, but it's not being used for the fire levy so who's to say they would use it for some future problem?
 
I've been down that road of unfair service charge apportionment and got legal advice on it, basically whatever is specified in the lease must be adhered to. The only way to change whats specified in the lease is to get agreement of 100% of all owners to agree or take a circuit court action as specified in MUD Act 2011.... I think its section 24.

Thats the long and short of it, there are only two ways to change how service charge's are apportioned.


Why is the sinking fund not being used to fund some or all of the works?
 
I would say that the sinking fund is probably very short of 3k per unit.
 
I had this issue 10 years ago where the cost was nearer 6k. The sinking fund was needed as back up for those who just didn't pay. Unfortunately these things need doing and if not done sooner rather than later you risk being told to evacuate.
 
elcato said:
I had this issue 10 years ago where the cost was nearer 6k. The sinking fund was needed as back up for those who just didn't pay. Unfortunately these things need doing and if not done sooner rather than later you risk being told to evacuate.
Click to expand...
It's unfair when owners refuse to pay however the management Co will be waiting in the long grass when it comes time to sell....the costs they dodged are recouped at this point otherwise the sale cannot close.
 
Last edited:
Knuttell said:
It's unfair when owners refuse to pay however the management Co will be waiting in the long grass when it comes time to sell....the costs they dodged are recouped at this point otherwise the sake cannot close.
Click to expand...
Fully agree but the cost of the money at that stage is a lot less (in real terms). Hopefully they can charge interest.
 
elcato said:
Fully agree but the cost of the money at that stage is a lot less (in real terms). Hopefully they can charge interest.
Click to expand...
At least one that I'm aware of add interest monthly.

There was one serial dodger recently that went to sell ( completely unaware of this recouping mechanism) and I imagine he got quite a surprise when 15 years of dodging caught up with him.

I had gotten a vote passed a few years ago that forbid any forgiveness of debt. Every last penny is to be paid.These people tax the rest of us with their inability or refusal to pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register