Mr. David Rouse:

On the matter of regulation and who pays for it, we note the Canadian model of the Ontario condo authority, which we follow on social media in keeping with modern practice to see what they are doing. Under that model, $1 per unit per month is levied on an owners' management company or corporation as it is called there. Something similar here would certainly sustain the regulation of the sector.

As to future management costs, we have absolutely made some progress on the apartment planning guidelines and want to see a professional, robust estimate of the reinstatement or maintenance value of an estate from the very outset. Owners should enter the purchase of an apartment or home in a multi-unit development with their eyes wide open and with an understanding of what it will cost them. I am not sure that is always the case. I am sure there is a spectrum of involvement and advice that people get. We would like to see a clear understanding among people who buy into the sector. These are recommendations that were in the Law Reform Commission consultation of 2006 to 2008 as well as in publications of the former National Consumer Agency, the DKM report and that whole thread of studies on the sector. It is there in the authorities on the establishment of the MUD Act but a lot of these things were not taken up.

On the number of defects, we agree that it is not right that we should identify particular estates in a public forum. We had a fire safety session last year with fire safety experts and representatives of Dublin Fire Brigade. The sense from the fire defects expert was that he is a very busy man with a lot of engagements to identify estates around Dublin and elsewhere with defects. He is spending a great deal of time on that.

We were asked about our engagement with local authorities. We have had an initial engagement with the housing directors of the Dublin local authorities, at least, and plan to engage with others.