Is this apartment block the next Priory Hall? Longboat Quay … 11205.html

Expect more of this following the new regs.

The state has washed its hands of building regulation, passing all responsibility onto assigned certifiers who must be hired by the builder.

Getting around the paperwork in the cheapest manner possible is not something Irish builders have every engaged in thankfully …

Sounds serious but fixable. Not everything is priory hall but great for selling papers/headlines

Sensational rubbish by the Examiner.

I know a lot about this through a mate who lives there.

As the middle of the article states, there are 2 blocks in Longboat Quay, the problem is solved in the North Block, fire alarms installed literally everywhere. The problem is more than half solved in the South Block and will be finished shortly.

The journalist claims that he saw no fire wardens when he went to Longboat Quay. He is is either blind or went to the North Block where there are no fire wardens any more because the problem is fixed.

The DDDA, Bernie’s receiver and the management company (residents) picked up the tab. The costs were split. Some aspects were paid for entirely by the receiver.

The DDDA and receiver owned apartments, car parking spaces and commercial units (almost certain that the commercial units did not transfer from the DDDA to NAMA despite media reports to the contrary). They had little choice but to pay for this in order to ensure that the Longboat Quay Management Company cooperated with their asset disposals and to ensure that their assets still held value. … 19679.html

Public money main source of funds to repair fire system

Reading through the article, it is clearly implied that the DDDA is the freeholder and suggests that MAcNamara constructed it under DDDA’s control. Under the ordinary course, upgrades would be recoverable from the lessees but I guess that issue her eis that these are inherent defects from the build and thus the responsibility of the freeholder/developer. Another case of a public body running before it has even learned to stand on its feet not to mind walk.

Exactly. The DDDA own the common areas and are therefore the liable party to fix the issue.

It just shows a lack of care surrounding the due diligence for the sale. DDDA will have owned the land; when McNamara wanted to develop it, he will have arranged a sub-sale/building contract structure to minimise stamp duty. DDDA probably had no financial interest in the ultimate development profit but as the sale of the underlying land was never completed, it has taken up the liability for construction faults. Hilariously demonstrating yet again that they were incapable of managing their exposures.

You forget DDA Continues to collect a ground rent from every unit in the area (a ground rent it is not possible to buy out). If I recall correctly it is about €150 per unit p.a.

Does anyone know what would happen if the developers company actually owned the communal areas? Say the developer had sold most of the apartments blocks in a building, but never sold all of them (due to market collapsing). Developer therefore hadn’t transferred ownership of communal areas to the management company. Developer subsequently gets into financial difficulty, receiver (acting on behalf of lending institution) takes over the remaining apartments. Receiver places remaining apartments on the market for sale. Who is responsible for sorting out the mess with the communal areas (in breach of fire / building regulations)??

Do they just own the freehold though? :confused: If the developer/residents own a 999 year leasehold then I can’t see DDDA being legally responsible

It is a bit more complicated as a residential freehold can be brought out.

Nope. The DDDA are legally responsible. The DDDA have not passed the ownership of the common areas on to anyone. Residents do not own nor lease the common areas.

Update from today’s Irish Times. … -1.2155066

Fire spread between units seems to be an issue here - although maybe to early to be sure!

I’ve been wondering when this would happen, apartments bad and all as they are usually are built with fire containment in mind, semi-ds and terraces I’m not so sure.

The saving grace is that fires are much less common in general (better electrics, materials etc.), however when they occur potentially more dangerous for adjoined houses. Fire and smoke spreading through undivided cavities is one that worried me, or through holes in the party wall where the supporting beams are resting.

It wouldn’t surprise me if tens of thousands of bubble era houses may need major work to prevent fires from spreading.

The developer of the Phoenix Park Racecourse, Flynn & O’Flaherty, is still on site overseeing further phases of the development but has told the affected owners that they could see no basis to get involved in the cost of fixing the defects as “the apartment blocks were completed approximately 18 years ago”.

Legally, the developer is liable for defective work for only seven years after completion.

However, the defects were only discovered in 2021 following the purchase of 146 homes by the build-to-rent investor fundIres Reit. The fund conducted an audit following the purchase which uncovered the defects in both its newly acquired units and the common areas.

I understand the idea behind 7 years of liablity for a builder after a new build in completed. But surely that should be for wear and tear issues. The fire safety problem you’d imagine dates back to the construction and that surely should not have a 7 year time limit.

But they probably used a separate legal enity for that phase, which has since been dissolved, so legally there is indeed no recourse