Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 14, line 43, to delete "apportioned between unit owners" and substitute the following:

"and proportionately allotted between unit owners, with due consideration given to type and size of unit owned.".

This amendment seeks to amend section 15(11), which currently provides that "The annual service charge shall be calculated on a transparent basis and shall be equitably apportioned between unit owners". For reasons I shall explain, I am proposing that the subsection, in light of the amendment, should it be accepted, would require that the annual service charge be calculated on a transparent basis and shall be equitably and proportionately allotted between unit owners, with due consideration given to the type and size of the unit covered.

When Senator Quinn spoke to this on Committee Stage, the Minister generously acknowledged that he was sympathetic to the concerns raised, but raised a concern that were we to be prescriptive in this regard, we might see officials going in to measure units to determine their size and type.

However, he also pointed out that he intended to err on the side of over-regulating and undertook to consider whether he could come up with an appropriate wording before Report Stage.

This amendment is grounded in the real life experience of people. I note what the Minister said about our inability to make some provisions retrospective. It would be nice if we could because I have come across situations where people who own properties in multi-unit developments find themselves being hit for the service charge at the same level as those who own superior properties. They may have the same number of bedrooms, there may well be a sub-division of units which have one, two or three bedrooms and there may be scaling in terms of the service charge to be paid. However, that in itself does not deal with the difficulty. It can be the case that somebody has a three-bedroom apartment in a multi-unit development that is effectively a penthouse and is using all of the facilities within the building, while another person has a much smaller property, also with three bedrooms but perhaps facing in the wrong direction or not nearly as advantageously situated. Therefore, while it is welcome that the law will require the calculation to be transparent and equitable, there is a need to go further and be more specific as to what is required. The concept of proportionality should be introduced, as well as the need for consideration to be given to the type and size of unit owned. If I was rewording the amendment, I might add the words, "type, size and location". As it is, my amendment presents a significantly better formulation. Whereas I agree with the Minister that one would not want to see an excess of bureaucracy in this regard, it is important to note that the law operates as a teacher, that what the law requires is already very important and will be to the benefit of future property owners in multi-unit developments. Therefore, I am hoping for a favourable response from the Minister.