Results 10,301-10,320 of 11,444 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: Like Senator O'Toole, I will not press my amendment at this point given that the Minister indicated he will review this. However, the Law Reform Commission's analysis of the 5% concept is persuasive. I re-examined the detail of its recommendation. It points out that the 5% gives a significant inducement to a developer to complete a development in a timely manner to a standard which fulfils...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: Not at this stage in light of what the Minister has said although I very much hope he will come back to us on the matter before Report Stage in the Seanad. I accept what he said about wanting to take time but if we could have a decent interval between Committee and Report Stages in the Seanad we might have an opportunity to hear if the Minister has a proposal equivalent to the 5% retention...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 24: In page 6, subsection (6), line 1, to delete "The", where it firstly occurs, and substitute the following: "Except where the multi-unit development has been completed, the". This amendment is designed to make section 2(6) compatible with section 9(1). It mirrors the introductory wording of section 3(2), which states: "Except where the multi-unit development has been...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I am not pressing the amendment at this stage. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Section 2, as amended, agreed to. NEW SECTIONS.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 25: In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section: 3.-A developer may not retain any units on completion of the development. Each unit shall be subject, on such completion, to a common legal framework including liability for charges. The amendment proposes the insertion of a new section 3 to the effect that a developer may not retain any units on...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: In light of what the Minister has said I will not be pressing the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 26: In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section: 3.—No person may sell a unit unless the purchaser has supplied his or her residential address to the owners' management company and has undertaken to notify the company of any future changes in address.". This amendment also proposes to insert a new section and again arises from a suggestion by the...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I certainly take on board the Minister's comments. He may be correct that there may be a better way to deal with this. I take it he can perceive the mischief the amendment seeks to address.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: There may be a better or less intrusive way to deal with it. Certainly, his suggestion that the converse should be the case might be the better way to deal with this issue. In other words, a purchaser would be given information about his or her obligations within the owners' management company. Consequently, I will withdraw the amendment at this stage, while reserving the right to table a...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: As amendment No. 28 is the same as amendment No. 27, I am grateful to learn that the Minister intends to accept this principle. The purpose of amendment No. 28 was to address an omission the Labour Party had observed in the Bill, which was that the section did not require transfer of the reversion to the management company. Clearly, the Minister now has addressed this omission in amendment...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: The Labour Party considered that subsection (2) seemed to mean that while the developer was obliged to transfer title to common areas, he or she would retain the beneficial interest until the development was completed. Consequently, it seemed unnecessary. I have not examined how the Minister's amendment affects this point. I seek a response from the Minister as to whether it deals with the...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: It appears to address the issue I sought to address. While I will withdraw my amendment, I will review it again in the light of the Minister's amendment. I have not had the time to review the impact of the Minister's amendment on what I was trying to achieve but I will withdraw it at this point. Amendment agreed to. Amendment No. 30 not moved. Section 3, as amended, agreed to. SECTION 4....

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 34: In page 6, paragraph (a), line 38, to delete "2007" and substitute "2009". Amendment agreed to. Section 5, as amended, agreed to. Amendment No. 35 not moved. Section 6 agreed to. SECTION 7.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: As the proposer of amendment No. 37, I am delighted the Minister has accepted its principle, which was suggested by the Apartment Owners Network, AON. It is important the developer should pay or, as the Minister phrased it, "shall, at its expense, effect". Either way, the principle remains the same, but the legislation clearly places the obligation to pay for the insurance policy on the...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: In the circumstances, amendment No. 37 falls, as it would have the same effect as amendment No. 36. Amendment agreed to. Amendment No. 37 not moved.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: In principle, our amendment has been accepted, albeit in a different way. I am delighted that the roll seems to be continuing. The principle, suggested by AON, is important. Not only would the owner of the beneficial interest make the declaration, but he or she would deliver it to the OMC to ensure the company knows about it. The purpose is straightforward, but I see that amendment No. 74...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 48: In page 10, lines 1 to 3, to delete subsection (4). This amendment is aimed at deleting section 12(4). This subsection restricts the application of section 12 because it states it applies to multi-unit developments, in respect of which development works will commence after the enactment of the Bill. It seems the one unit-one vote rule, of which we all approve, does...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I accept the Minister's point. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 52: In page 11, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following subsection: "(2) The developer shall be liable to pay any charge under this section or section 15, within 30 days of invoice, for any unsold unit as if there were a unit owner for that unit.". The wording of the amendment has been suggested by the Apartment Owners Network, the members of which point out that...

Seanad: Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (10 Mar 2010)

Ivana Bacik: I am grateful to the Minister for indicating his agreement that there is a mischief which we are trying to resolve. I will withdraw the amendment. I would be delighted to see the issue addressed in some way on Report Stage, although not necessarily through our proposed wording. The issue of the timing of the liability for service charges should be resolved in the legislation. Amendment, by...