Results 10,321-10,340 of 11,477 for speaker:Ivana Bacik

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

Ivana Bacik: I see that. I am grateful to the Minister for incorporating amendment No. 64 into amendment No. 63. The Minister said he would not accept amendment No. 65 which was a technical amendment to include requirements under the Building Control Acts as well as the Planning and Development Acts in section 18. I already mentioned the Minister's amendment No. 63 and he also referred to it when we...

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

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 66: In page 17, subsection (4), between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following: "(j) annulling house rules or any provision thereof if such rules interfere unreasonably with the rights of an owner of a unit.". This amendment would provide for some appeal mechanism if rules are adopted which are over-zealous. The amendment proposes to insert a new subsection () under...

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

Ivana Bacik: In light of what the Minister said, I will not press the amendment. However, I am glad he said he will look at this. He can see the mischief with which I am trying to deal. I accept his point that it could give rise to friction but it could also be seen as a way to try to deal with friction where a group of unit owners ganged up on another owner and introduced a rule which interfered...

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

Ivana Bacik: I support the amendment, as its insertion would simplify arrears recovery, speed up the process and save management companies considerable costs associated with pursuing arrears. It is a sensible suggestion which I hope the Minister will accept.

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

Ivana Bacik: It is sensible that the court should be able to refer a case for mediation on its own motion. What model is being used for the dispute resolution mechanism in section 21? Is it modelled on personal injuries legislation? Is it sufficiently tailored to disputes about completion which may require the resolution of technical issues by an engineer or architect mediator or conciliator? Does the...

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

Ivana Bacik: I need to look at this issue in greater detail. It is a concern that was raised with me by the architects institute. I agree with the Minister that the objective should be to move to some type of alternative dispute mechanism rather than going to court. That objective is entirely positive and I agree that mediation conferences are infinitely preferable. The chair of the mediation...

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

Ivana Bacik: I will reserve my right to introduce an amendment, if necessary, on Report Stage. I support the principle behind the section to move to alternative dispute resolution. Question put and agreed to. Sections 23 and 24 agreed to. SECTION 25.

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

Ivana Bacik: I support Government amendment No. 74. However, I have one query for the Minister on it. Item No. 3 of Schedule 3 requires that the safety file be transferred. Is that sufficiently specific? A fire safety file requires the production of all relevant documents that might be required to facilitate the owners and management company in meeting their statutory obligations under fire safety...

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

Ivana Bacik: I thank the Minister.

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

Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 72: In page 21, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: "1. Sections 2 to 4 (obligation to have owners' management company).". This amendment seeks to ensure that a two, three or four unit development would still have a management company, otherwise it was thought the existing paragraphs of the Schedule would have made little sense. I am not sure if that is...

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

Ivana Bacik: I will not press the amendment at this stage. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule 1 agreed to. NEW SCHEDULE. Government amendment No. 73: In page 21, after line 14, to insert the following: 1. Section 4 - (Obligation of developer to transfer ownership of common areas of completed developments to owners' management company). 2. Section 5 - (Obligations to complete development to remain...

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

Ivana Bacik: The Minister has kindly indicated he will consider quite a number of provisions in the Bill between now and Report Stage. Given that Senator Quinn and I have said we would like to see changes made on Report Stage rather than in the Dáil, on the basis of the full debate we have had today, does the proposed date give sufficient time for consideration? I am not opposing Senator O'Donovan's...

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

Ivana Bacik: I thank the Acting Chairman.

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...