Dáil debates

Thursday, 31 March 2022

Saincheisteanna Tráthúla - Topical Issue Debate

Management of Estates

5:05 pm

Photo of Dessie EllisDessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

There has been a significant growth in recent years of managed estates. The Multi-Unit Developments Act 2011, known as the MUD Act, specifies all new developments must have an owners' management company, OMC, in place. The Act provides the legal framework for their operation in managed estates. The OMC is established for three main reasons, namely, to manage and maintain common areas in MUDs, to be the legal owner of the common areas on behalf of the owners of the units and to be the legal owner of the beneficial or reversionary interest of each unit. The first two reasons concern the maintenance and management of the common areas. The third reason is the OMC is the legal owner of the beneficial or reversionary interest of each unit. Basically, the owners’ management company owns the freehold reversion of the entire development. The owners’ management company owns the common areas of the development on behalf of the owners of the units. It also means the owners’ management company owns a share of each individual property in the development. The members of the OMC are obliged to pay management fees, which would include service charges on a contribution to a sinking fund. Residents are also paying the property tax on top of these charges. Members are also bound by house rules.

An example is Cedarview, which is in Northwood in Santry, where we are seeing a number of concerns relating to the way the estate is managed, particularly in relation to private houses in the estate. For example, if someone wanted to put on a barbecue, put a house name on the property or put up a gazebo, he or she must ask permission to do so. There are similar examples that should not really be contentious but are being refused because of existing rules. The rules seem to be too rigidly interpreted. While an OMC has the right to alter, amend or add to the house rules of a development, I have found the rules do not always conform to being fair or reasonable for someone who has invested so much in a property and has paid sums of up to €500,000 for it. Some residents feel that they do not have full or proper ownership of their own homes. There is also a concern new estates being built adjacent to the existing estate, which is currently being managed by an OMC, would be grouped in with the same OMC. Residents have a concern they will lose their voice in managing their estate if the OMC is expanded to a point that they are overwhelmed by greater numbers. When it comes to an AGM their voice and concerns are diminished, especially if their concerns do not reflect those of the majority, thereby lessening their influence on their own area. There should be a constraint on how far an OMC can expand from the original established OMC.

The MUD Act was put in place to facilitate the fair, efficient and effective management of OMCs but it needs to be reviewed as the way OMCs currently operate needs to be better regulated and members should receive support and training to operate more efficiently.

A dispute resolution process for members should also be established.

Separately, management agencies, the private companies paid by OMCs to run the developments, need to be better regulated. Clúid Housing and the Housing Agency have put forward a number of recommendations which would give more structure to OMCs and the legislation should reflect that. This will benefit the OMCs and their members, and will give people a greater sense of ownership of their properties.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.