Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

304. To ask the Minister for Finance if he will advise the home owners at a location (details supplied) which was previously owned by the National Asset Management Agency, given that the development has fire defects and none of the homeowners can get insurance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37443/22]

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to advise the Deputy that NAMA does not own properties, rather NAMA owns loans for which the properties act as security. The properties are owned and controlled by their registered owners, or appointed receivers in the event of enforcement. The Receiver is an agent of the debtor, not NAMA.

The referenced property is a private residential development consisting of a number of apartment blocks and houses. Each apartment owner owns their own individual unit and the various residential units are owner occupied or rented. NAMA owns certain loans which are secured by 15 individual residential units in the development. These units are under the control of a NAMA appointed receiver, John McStay of McStay Luby.

NAMA understands from the appointed receiver, Mr. McStay, that it is not the case that the apartments cannot be insured until fire works are completed. The receiver has advised NAMA of his understanding of the current position regarding block insurance. The current insurer (QBE) is exiting this aspect of the Irish market, thereby necessitating a change of insurer. Subject to a fully completed proposal, which must include the claims history and a plan to remedy any known defects to the common areas, it is understood that cover can be made available. The insurance broker for the receiver has offered to assist the OMC (Owners Management Company) with the matter.

NAMA has been advised by the receiver that he has been engaging extensively with the OMC, and its appointed legal and insurance advisors, in relation to the insurance and any queries raised. In addition, the receiver, in his capacity as agent of the developer and without any legal obligation or requirement to do so (as recently determined by the Court of Appeal in separate proceedings, entitled Grehan & Ors v Maynooth Business Campus Owners’ Management CLG [High Court record number 2018/5042P]) has carried out very substantial remediation works to the development which were funded by NAMA. It is therefore simply incorrect to suggest that NAMA or the appointed receiver has, in some way, dealt improperly or unfairly with the private owners or residents of this development. In fact, the contrary is true.

In addition, I am advised that there is extant litigation between the receiver and the OMC in relation to the referenced development. Given the on-going litigation (which is hopefully reaching a final conclusion) you will appreciate that NAMA is not in a position to substantively engage in certain issues, which it is understood are the subject of disputed claims in the ongoing pending litigation.