Written answers
Tuesday, 10 June 2025
Department of Justice and Equality
Programme for Government
Conor Sheehan (Limerick City, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context
966. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality when responsibility for the Multi-Unit Developments Act 2011 will move from the Department of Justice to the Department of Housing, as set out in the Programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30462/25]
Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
1022. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality when the regulations which were drafted in February 2022 for dealing with apartment service charges and sinking funds will be put in place; and if will be before the end of 2025. [29669/25]
Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
1044. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality if he will provide an update on the transfer of policy responsibility for the regulation of Owners' Management Companies (OMCs) from the Department of Justice to his Department, as committed to in the Programme for Government; and if he will confirm that this transfer will be completed before the Oireachtas summer recess. [30309/25]
John Paul O'Shea (Cork North-West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
1075. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality when functions of responsibility for owners management companies (OMC’s) will transfer from the Department of Justice to Department of Housing; to provide an update on the status of the draft regulations dealing with service charges and sinking funds; when it is envisaged his Department will be in a position to commence regulating the OMC sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30590/25]
Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I propose to take Questions Nos. 966, 1022, 1044 and 1075 together.
I understand that the Deputy is referring to commitments in Housing for All related to regulations to be made by my Department, in collaboration with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, under subsection 17 of section 18 of the Multi-Unit Developments Act 2011. The aim of these regulations is to ensure that Owner Management Companies (OMCs) are financially sustainable and, under sub-section 9 of section 19 of the Act, to ensure that OMCs provide for expenditure of a non-recurring nature (i.e. sinking fund expenditure).
The Multi-Unit Developments Act 2011 was enacted with the primary objective of reforming the law relating to the ownership and management of common areas of multi-unit developments, and facilitating the fair, efficient and effective management of OMCs.
The Act includes provisions relating to inter alia:
- The setting of the annual service charge payable by apartment owners in a multi-unit development;
- the establishment of a sinking fund, to fund any non-recurring expenditure; and
- the development of house rules for the operation and maintenance of their multi-unit development.
The work of my Department in relation to multi-unit developments is necessarily guided by that of the Department for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, in view of that Department’s key policy role in this area. Any regulations that would be made by my Department under the Multi-Unit Developments Act 2011 would need to be informed by appropriate policy directions from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, and agreed with that Department, to enable officials to further progress the drafting of the regulations mentioned.
It is important to note that, under the Programme for Government, Securing Ireland’s Future, responsibility for the regulation of OMCs and the Multi-Unit Developments Act is to be transferred from my Department, to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I am advised that work in that regard is progressing, subject to a legislative amendment to avoid a conflict of Ministerial responsibility as arose in the Mulcreevy case.
No comments