Results 10,101-10,120 of 11,477 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I second the amendment which deals with an important principle. As Senator Mullen said, it relates to a very real issue of pressing concern to many apartment owners, the level — often the excessive level — of service charge payable. Generally, the provisions of section 15 are to be welcomed, as they will, I hope, guard against excessive service charges being levied on apartment owners....

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 47: In page 19, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following: "(m) annulling house rules or any provision thereof if such rules interfere unreasonably with the rights of an owner of a unit.". This amendment is self-explanatory. It would give the court an additional power under section 19 by inserting a new paragraph (m) enabling the court to make an order "annulling...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 50: In page 20, to delete lines 38 to 46, to delete page 21 and in page 22, to delete lines 1 to 9 and substitute the following: "22.—(1) (a) Upon the request of any party to an application under section 19, the court may at any stage during the course of the proceedings (including immediately after the issue of the proceedings), if it considers that an Alternative...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: Not in light of what the Minister has said.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 51: In page 24, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: "1. Sections 2 to 4 (obligation to have owners' management company).". This amendment proposes that developments of two, three or four units should have owners' management companies. If this change is not made, the existing paragraphs of the Schedule will make little sense. I suppose it is a clarifying or...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I am not pressing the amendment.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I think that is called damning with faint praise.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I thank the Minister and his officials, who have been very helpful. I would like to express my personal gratitude to them for the accommodating way in which they have dealt with Members on this Bill. We had a good debate on Committee and Report Stages. I thank the Apartment Owners Network and the RIAI for their help and submissions. As the Minister said, it is to be hoped this Bill will...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I should have referenced the Minister's amendment No. 10 which seems a good first step in meeting some of the concerns about completion the RIAI and the Labour Party have. The amendment requires a written contract between the developer and the owner's management company. While that would allay some of the concerns about the need to tighten up the completion provisions, the concern still...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I thank the Minister for his reply and I am grateful to him for indicating he is willing to accept amendment No. 50 in principle.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I am also grateful that he wants to resolve the vexed question of completion in some way. I regret it cannot be addressed through amendment in this House but I echo what he said. We are trying to help him to resolve the vexed issue of completion through amendments Nos. 1 and 26, in particular, and also through amendments Nos. 15, 27 and 50, which deal with the retention principle. Members...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 4: In page 4, to delete lines 41 to 45 and in page 5, to delete lines 1 and 2. We debated this on Committee Stage. The amendment was suggested by the Apartment Owners Network to delete the definition of "relevant parts" in section 1 because their view, as consumers, is that the developer should have to indicate what are intended to be the common areas in the planning...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I second the amendment.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I support the Minister's amendment No. 10, which is an important safeguard for consumers. I note that he envisages the contract in writing would include a commitment by the developer to complete the development satisfactorily. That is important and goes some way towards meeting the concerns we have about ensuring this provision for adequate and effective completion to the satisfaction of...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I believe amendment No. 8 is about a different issue, which is section 3(1)(a).

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I see the point and thank the Minister for that clarification. Amendment No. 11 refers to an amendment we tabled on Committee Stage. It was suggested by the Apartment Owners Network to facilitate the enforcement of charges, but I take the Minister's point about the difficulty in requiring a residential address to be supplied, and so I am not going to press that amendment.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 9: In page 6, line 36, before "ownership" to insert "the unencumbered beneficial and legal". Amendment No. 9 arises out of Committee Stage proceedings. It was not tabled on Committee Stage but arose from the debate on an amendment to section 4(2). It provides for the insertion of, in line 36 in page 6, before "ownership", the words, "the unencumbered beneficial and...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: The Minister stated in his response that he feels the amendment would be superfluous. We felt it was important to clarify what is meant by "interest", and that it should be unencumbered. I wished to raise this point with the Minister because it arose on Committee Stage debate. I ask him to consider it again, perhaps before it goes to the Dáil. I will not press the amendment.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: It was already discussed.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages (1 Jun 2010)

Ivana Bacik: All right. I was going to withdraw it in any case.