Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009
Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
““complete” in relation to a development means complete to the agreed satisfaction of the developer and the owners’ management company and the planning authority;”.
I welcome the Minister to the House. We had a full debate on Committee Stage on many of these amendments. The Labour Party’s amendments have been updated to reflect the debate on Committee Stage. Amendment No. 1 was tabled on Committee Stage but amendment No. 26 was not. It arises out of the debate on Committee Stage.
I am grateful to the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, RIAI, and to the Apartment Owners Network, both of which have been helpful in conveying their views as to how the Bill could be improved. We are all seeking constructively to improve the Bill rather than oppose it. The Department has also been in contact with different parties with an interest in the Bill. There may well be further amendments. The Government has tabled a number of amendments on Report Stage today and others may be introduced in the Dáil.
Amendment No. 1 was tabled on Committee Stage. It arises out of a concern to ensure completion is properly dealt with in the Bill. It would place in section 1 a new definition of the word “complete” which would be “complete to the agreed satisfaction of the developer and the owners’ management company and the planning authority”.
This amendment is being debated with amendments Nos. 26 and 27. Amendment No. 26 elaborates on the need to ensure more specific detail about completion. It would insert a new section 11, requiring a developer who has completed a development in accordance with the definition in amendment No. 1 to serve a notice of completion on the owners’ management company, the planning authority, the building control authority and the other parties scheduled in section 20 stating that the development is complete. It goes on to give some very detailed provisions as to the sequence of events where, for example, a party listed in section 20 objects to completion of the transfer to the owners’ management company. The amendment provides a great deal more certainty as to the process of completion. The RIAI has been in contact with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and has raised concerns about the need to ensure this level of detail about the completion process. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this and if he is willing to accept in principle the need for an amendment of this nature.
Amendment No. 27 was tabled on Committee Stage. It refers to an aspect of completion which is the snag list. The amendment proposes that the relevant local authority or an independent party may be requested to carry out a snag list where the development is substantially completed. The amendment then provides that where the developer fails to carry out a snag list within three months of the determination, he or she should pay to the owners’ management company “a sum equal in value to the cost of completing the development to enable the snag list to be completed”. This amendment also seeks to ensure the completion process is watertight and that completion is carried out to the agreed satisfaction of the developer, the owners’ management company and the planning authority. It is in keeping with the spirit and stated aims of the Bill which are to ensure greater certainty and security for apartment owners and purchasers in the completion of apartments.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I should have referenced the Minister’s amendment No. 10 which seems a good first step in meeting some of the concerns about completion the RIAI and the Labour Party have. The amendment requires a written contract between the developer and the owner’s management company. While that would allay some of the concerns about the need to tighten up the completion provisions, the concern still remains that the other amendments proposed by the Minister do not build on this provision for a contract in writing. In particular, there is a lack of detail regarding how the contract will provide sufficiently for consumer protection.
Amendment No. 50 provides for alternative dispute resolution procedures and it is unfortunate that the Minister did not see fit to at least accept the principle involved. This might also allay concerns about disputes that arise following inadequate completion or a completion that was not carried out ultimately in a satisfactory manner. If there were an alternative dispute resolution procedure, this might provide for greater consumer protection.
It is correct that the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, speaking on behalf of the Government in the House on 19 May, expressed support for a system of adjudication similar to that operating in Britain, and we will come to that later when we debate amendment No. 50. The need for some form of a dispute resolution procedure is also linked to the issue of satisfactory completion
…
Senator Ivana Bacik: I thank the Minister for his reply and I am grateful to him for indicating he is willing to accept amendment No. 50 in principle.
…
Senator Ivana Bacik: I am also grateful that he wants to resolve the vexed question of completion in some way. I regret it cannot be addressed through amendment in this House but I echo what he said. We are trying to help him to resolve the vexed issue of completion through amendments Nos. 1 and 26, in particular, and also through amendments Nos. 15, 27 and 50, which deal with the retention principle. Members of both Houses are well aware of the serious difficulties people face because of inadequate competition not only of individual apartments but of entire complexes and communal areas. This is an ongoing problem for many people and we must be cognisant of that. We are trying to come up with a workable and practical solution to this. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments but I regret we cannot make the amendments in this House.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, to delete lines 41 to 45 and in page 5, to delete lines 1 and 2.
We debated this on Committee Stage. The amendment was suggested by the Apartment Owners Network to delete the definition of “relevant parts” in section 1 because their view, as consumers, is that the developer should have to indicate what are intended to be the common areas in the planning application and in all the literature and brochures in order that there can be no room for subsequent changes by him or her. Their concern is this definition qualifies the notion of “relevant parts” and allows developers to change areas. The example the organisation has given is where a park is viewed by the owners as part of the common area but the developer subsequently seeks to build on it. This comes back again to issues relating to completion which are constantly being raised with us by people living in apartments who thought some area was common ground, such as a communal garden or recreation space, but which was subsequently changed by the developer. The amendment is suggested in an attempt to ensure against such change.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I support the Minister’s amendment No. 10, which is an important safeguard for consumers. I note that he envisages the contract in writing would include a
commitment by the developer to complete the development satisfactorily. That is important and goes some way towards meeting the concerns we have about ensuring this provision for adequate and effective completion to the satisfaction of ultimate purchasers. I have a technical issue with amendment No. 8 in that I do not see why the Minister is deleting “and”. As a drafting point, it seems clearer in its current formulation. Perhaps I have missed something, but removing “and” seems to make the meaning somewhat less clear. That is amendment No. 8 and relates to section 3(1).
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 9:
In page 6, line 36, before “ownership” to insert “the unencumbered beneficial and legal”.
Amendment No. 9 arises out of Committee Stage proceedings. It was not tabled on Committee Stage but arose from the debate on an amendment to section 4(2). It provides for the insertion of, in line 36 in page 6, before “ownership”, the words, “the unencumbered beneficial and legal”, to qualify what is meant by ownership. The reason for this is that we believed the Minister might have created an ambiguity in terms of what is to be transferred to the management company. We had assumed that both legal and beneficial interest in the common areas and the reversions would have to be transferred to the management company, but the Minister, if I am right, is now providing in section 4(2) that the developer can retain the beneficial interest in any development established before the Act. This makes it more important to ensure the beneficial interest in developments after the Act is transferred, not just the legal interest.
We can deal with pre-Act developments when we get to section 4. This amendment would also ensure the developer is not entitled to transfer the reversion or common areas subject to a mortgage or charge — hence the word “unencumbered” — because we felt that would frustrate the purpose of the Bill.
Amendment No. 9 is to be discussed in conjunction with amendment No. 25, which attempts, again, to insert the word “unencumbered” into section 10(1). The Bill would thus state “the unencumbered beneficial interest” rather than “the beneficial interest”. This would clarify that the management company is to get clear title under section 10 as well as under section 3 as amended by amendment No. 9. Both of these amendments arose from debate on Committee Stage.
Senator Ivana Bacik: The Minister stated in his response that he feels the amendment would be superfluous. We felt it was important to clarify what is meant by “interest”, and that it should be unencumbered. I wished to raise this point with the Minister because it arose on Committee Stage debate. I ask him to consider it again, perhaps before it goes to the Dáil. I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 10:
In page 6, line 40, to delete “relating to that unit.” and substitute the following:
“relating to that unit, and (c) a contract in writing is entered into between the developer and the owners’ management company concerned prior to such transfer setting out the rights and obligations each of those persons has in relation to the other.”.
Amendment agreed to.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 12:
In page 6, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
“(2) An interest in a unit shall not be transferred subject to any conditions or covenant
unless in the formulation of such condition or covenant, due regard has been had to
environmental considerations.”.
The Minister may recall that this section was the subject of the most light-hearted discussion on the last occasion, with quite a lively debate, although the point is a serious one, that is, the right to dry laundry. Many apartment owners are concerned about clauses in their leases which prohibit them from air-drying laundry. Amendment No. 42 was moved on Committee Stage and the Minister had a good deal of sympathy with people who are faced with this real and practical issue when living in flats and apartments. They do not want to see house rules prohibiting the air-drying of laundry. Equally, there are those who feel it is unsightly to have laundry drying outside. As I said on Committee Stage, in countries in which a much higher proportion of people, particularly families, live in apartments, provisions are made in the building and construction of apartment complexes to ensure there are aesthetically pleasing ways of air-drying laundry so people do not have to resort to the most environmentally unfriendly method of the tumble dryer. For environmental reasons as well as practicality, we should be encouraging apartment complexes to be constructed, where possible, in such a way that people can air-dry their laundry.
We suggest in amendment No. 42 that house rules should not prohibit air-drying of laundry, but the Minister felt that was too specific although, as I said, he had some sympathy with the principle behind it, so we have tabled a separate amendment, No. 12, in answer to the points raised by the Minister. It is not exactly an alternative to No. 42 but it would certainly go some way towards meeting the concerns raised in the tabling of amendment No. 42, although in a more general sense. We have suggested in amendment No. 12 that “An interest in a unit shall not be transferred subject to any conditions or covenant unless in the formulation of such condition or covenant, due regard has been had to environmental considerations”. This is a general formulation which is designed to encourage the deletion of any clauses that prohibit air-drying of laundry in conditions or covenants.
I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say, particularly about amendment No. 12. We have already debated amendment No. 42 in some detail and his concern was that it was too specific. However, having regard to environmental considerations, such clauses really should be discouraged. That is what we are trying to do in amendment No. 12.
Senator Ivana Bacik: To sum up the Minister’s response to the two amendments, we have
been too specific in amendment No. 42 and too general in amendment No. 12. However, I hope he accepts the policy interest I am expressing, which is to ensure the quality of life in apartments is improved and that environmental considerations are taken into account in their construction. I am glad to hear what he has to say about the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; these are among the issues that developers must take into account in constructing new complexes.
It occurred to me after the debate on Committee Stage that whenever I have stayed in an apartment in the
I will not press the amendment as I take the Minister’s point that this might give rise to difficulties in interpretation. However, perhaps the Labour Party contributors in the Dáil will be able to tweak the amendment in some way to ensure it meets the Minister’s concerns.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 13:
In page 6, to delete line 42 and substitute the following:
“(a) a multi-unit development in which a residential unit has not previously been sold;
and”.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No.15:
In page 6, between lines 45 and 46, to insert the following:
“(3) On closing of a unit sale prior to completion of the development, the developer shall pay 5 per cent of the purchase prices to the owners’ management company which shall hold such sum in trust for the developer until the development is completed.”.
This amendment was tabled during Committee Stage proceedings when Members had a full debate. This amendment has been discussed and debated at length. It is supported strongly by both the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, RIAI, and by the Apartment Owners Network. It considers the problem of unsatisfactory completion of complexes or individual units and calls for the developer to pay a retention of 5% of the purchase price to the owners’ management company to hold such sum in trust for the developer until the development is completed. The idea is to include an additional protection for the consumer. I acknowledge there has been discussion following the Committee Stage debate and note the Minister stated during that debate that he had some sympathy for the point raised and would reconsider it before Report Stage. However, I cannot discern an amendment tabled by the Minister on this subject although I note amendment No. 21 tabled by Senator Regan is similar.
The idea of such a retention of 5% originally was proposed by the Law Reform Commission but the interdepartmental group did not accept its recommendation as it was feared the builder simply would raise the price of apartments by 5%. As a result, this ultimately would not give any security or safeguard to the consumer and would actually contribute to rising prices. As the Minister has acknowledged, given the change in the property market and falling property prices, this fear has been diminished. The RIAI took some expert advice on the issue of the effect a 5% retention would have. The advice the institute received was that it would not necessarily raise prices and that were the price to increase, it would only be because what was being acquired was a qualitatively better property than one sold without the 5% retention. Therefore, a rather complex issue arises in that by including a clause such as this, a dwelling then comes with a greater assurance because many of the problems pertaining to completion that now are being experienced by purchasers would have been resolved by the vendor before the sale of the apartment was finally completed. I also have been informed that the straightforward view that additional costs incurred by the producers of new residential property are passed directly onto purchasers is not supported by the literature. Consequently, there is some contradiction of the generally held and intuitive view that the 5% retention would contribute to an increase of 5% in the purchase price. In any event, the Minister himself accepts the market now is very different from the property market that was in place when the interdepartmental group ruled out such a clause.
On balance, the Labour Party certainly considered the safeguards this clause would offer to the purchaser would outweigh any other negative effect and given the current market, I doubt whether there would be such a negative effect. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, given that on Committee Stage he indicated he would revert to Members on Report Stage in this regard. I believe he then stated it would be helpful to go back to the interdepartmental group and the National Consumer Agency for their opinions on the matter at this changed time. I believe I am correct in stating the interdepartmental group reported two years ago and of course in the intervening two-year period, there has been an enormous economic downturn and the property market has changed out of all recognition. Therefore, the concerns raised by the interdepartmental group are no longer in any way as strong. While I will be interested to hear the Minister’s views, I am disappointed he has not accepted this amendment at this point.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I am glad to hear the Minister say he will still look at this issue. I understood him to say there was an ongoing process of consultation with stakeholders, including the architects’ body and the Law Society. On that basis, I will not press the amendment at this point. It is a pity we could not have had the consultation before the Bill was returned to this House for Report Stage. Perhaps it was brought back a little too quickly. I accept, however, that the Minister will look at the matter again between now and when the Bill is debated in the Dáil. On that basis, I will not press the amendment, although this is an important principle for us.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 16:
In page 7, line 24, to delete “The” and substitute the following:
“Except where the multi-unit development has been completed, the”.
This amendment has been designed to make section 3(6) compatible with section 10(1). It is to try to ensure we have the words from section 4(2) transposed into section 3(6) to make it compatible with section 10(1) which deals with the determination of certain beneficial interests on completion of a development. The amendment is aimed solely at trying to ensure compatibility between the two sections.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 17:
In page 7, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
4.—Where a developer retains any unit or units on completion of the development, each unit so retained shall be subject, on such completion, to a common liability for charges as if it had been disposed of by the developer.”.
As I said, I am not pressing this amendment.
Senator Ivana Bacik: Amendment No. 31 is to section 14 and would insert a new subsection (2) providing that the “developer shall be liable to pay any charge under this section or section 15, within 30 days of invoice, for any unsold unit as if there were a unit owner for that unit.”. It is an amendment that was suggested initially to us by the Apartment Owners Network to ensure the obligation to pay service charges would begin on the date the first unit was sold in order that the developer would pay service charges on all unsold units from that date. It is to ensure service charges would not be left unpaid on unsold units.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 20:
In page 7, to delete lines 41 to 46 and substitute the following:
“(2) Subject to section 10(1), the transfer, in compliance with subsection (1), of the ownership of the relevant parts of the common areas of a multi-unit development and in the reversion relating to the units concerned may reserve the beneficial interest to the transferor if the reservation of such interest is necessary to enable the transferor to complete the development, and upon completion the developer shall transfer the unencumbered legal and beneficial interest free of any right in favour of a mortgagee or owner of a charge affecting such interest in accordance with section 10(1).”.
This amendment would provide for a new subsection (2) in section 4. It is to replace the existing wording because we considered it seemed to mean that while the developer would have to transfer the legal title to common areas in reversion, he or she would retain the beneficial interest. As I said on an earlier amendment, it is to try to clarify what is to be transferred because, presumably, the intention is that the developer will only retain the beneficial interest until completion, but it seems somewhat less clear following an amendment made to the Bill on Committee Stage. It is simply to clarify the meaning of section 4(2) by altering somewhat the wording and providing that it would be subject to section 10(1).
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 29:
In page 12, to delete lines 1 and 3 and substitute the following:
“(4) Where development works commenced prior to the enactment of this Act, this section applies subject to the modification that any existing rules contrary to this section shall be modified within the 24 months following the commencement of this section.”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that “Where development works commenced prior to the enactment of this Act, this section applies subject to the modification that any existing rules contrary to this section shall be modified within the 24 months following the commencement of this section”.
It is trying to deal with this issue that the Minister raised already, where development works on a multi-unit development have commenced prior to the enactment of the Bill. There has been a great deal of concern — I think the Minister has heard from various concerned parties already — where apartment complexes are in the process of being constructed already prior to the commencement of the Act about how the Bill will affect those. Our concern was that subsection (4) apparently appears to mean the one-unit-one-vote rule would not apply to existing management companies, which seems undesirable.
The Minister on Committee Stage stated he could not retrospectively amend memoranda and articles of association. My party felt that as an alternative approach such memoranda could be changed within two years from the commencement of the Act. This would be an alternative way of dealing with the application of the Bill to the complexes where development work had already commenced.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I see the Minister’s issue with it but there is this more general problem of how the Bill applies to developments that are still in the process of being constructed when the Bill comes into force.
Another person raised with me a similar issue in respect of section 5, that it does not appear to apply to a development which has been completed where the common areas have still not been transferred. Section 5 applies to developments which have been substantially completed before the commencement of the Act requiring the developer to transfer the common areas to the owners’ management company within six months of the coming into operation of section 4, but there is still this anomaly. Where the development has been completed and the common areas have still not been transferred, the section does not seem to apply.
Similarly, with this amendment we are trying to resolve the issue of apartment owners in a complex where the development has been commenced prior to the passing of the Bill. It seems to us that this is a loophole or an anomaly where the provisions of the Act will not apply to a company that is already in existence. There is a difficulty for individual consumers.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I second the amendment which deals with an important principle. As Senator Mullen said, it relates to a very real issue of pressing concern to many apartment owners, the level — often the excessive level — of service charge payable. Generally, the provisions of section 15 are to be welcomed, as they will, I hope, guard against excessive service charges being levied on apartment owners. The point is that the equitable apportionment of the service charge should take account of the type and size of unit owned. I suspect the Minister may say in response, if he is not willing to accept the amendment, that it is superfluous because the principle is already encompassed by the phrase “equitably apportioned”. I hope this is the case, that it is unnecessary to include this provision and that it is superfluous. However, the wording proposed would give greater protection and security to apartment owners in that it might make them feel a little more secure about what is meant by “equitable apportionment” of the service charge. Therefore, this is an important principle.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 47:
In page 19, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
“(m) annulling house rules or any provision thereof if such rules interfere unreasonably
with the rights of an owner of a unit.”.
This amendment is self-explanatory. It would give the court an additional power under section 19 by inserting a new paragraph (m) enabling the court to make an order “annulling house rules or any provision thereof if such rules interfere unreasonably with the rights of an owner of a unit”. It is to be read in conjunction with the regulations on house rules in section 18. It anticipates that some rules might be adopted in a complex that would be over-zealous, for example, prohibiting the air-drying of laundry in an unreasonable way. This would offer some recourse or mechanism for redress where an apartment owner considered his or her rights were being interfered with unreasonably. It would simply give him or her the power to go to court to seek an order of this kind. It would clearly be up to the court to decide whether it would be appropriate to annul the house rules or any provision thereof.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 50:
In page 20, to delete lines 38 to 46, to delete page 21 and in page 22, to delete lines 1 to 9 and substitute the following:
“22.—(1) (a) Upon the request of any party to an application under section 19, the court may at any stage during the course of the proceedings (including immediately after the issue of the proceedings), if it considers that an Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure pursuant to a direction under this subsection would assist in reaching a resolution of the matter, direct that the parties to the application meet to discuss and attempt to settle the matter by an Alternative Dispute Procedure.
(b) A procedure held pursuant to a direction under this subsection is in this Act referred to as an “Alternative Dispute Procedure”.
(2) Where the court gives a direction under subsection (1), each party to the application concerned shall comply with that direction.
(3) An Alternative Dispute Procedure shall take place—
(a) at a time and place agreed by the parties to the application concerned, or
(b) where the parties do not agree a time and place, at a time and place specified by
the court.
(4) There shall be a chairperson of the Alternative Dispute Procedure who shall—
(a) be a person appointed by agreement of all the parties to the application concerned,
or
(b) where no such agreement is reached—
(i) be a person appointed by the court, or
(ii) a person nominated by a body prescribed, for the purpose of this section, by order of the Minister.
(5) The notes of the chairperson of an Alternative Dispute Procedure and all communications during a mediation conference or any records or other evidence thereof shall be confidential and shall not be used in evidence in any proceedings whether civil or criminal.
(6) The costs incurred in the holding and conducting of a mediation conference shall be paid by the party to the application in such proportion as the Chairperson shall decide, or as the court hearing the action shall direct.
23.—(1) The chairperson of the Alternative Dispute Procedure shall prepare and submit to the court hearing the application under section 19 a report, which shall set out—
(a) where the procedure did not take place, a statement of the reasons as to why it did not take place, or
(b) where the procedure did take place—
(i) a statement as to whether or not a resolution has been reached in respect of the application, and
(ii) where a settlement or determination has been entered into, a statement of the terms of the settlement signed by the parties thereto or terms of the determination, signed by the Chairperson, as applicable.
(2) A copy of a report prepared under subsection (1) shall be given to each party to the application at the same time as it is submitted to the court under that subsection.
(3) At the conclusion of the hearing of an application under section 19, the court may—
(a) after hearing submissions by or on behalf of the parties to the application, and
(b) if satisfied that a party to the application failed to comply with a direction under section 22(1), make an order directing that party to pay the costs of the application, or such part of the costs of the application as the court directs, incurred after the giving of the direction under section 22(1).
24.—(1) The Minister may make regulations providing for any matter of procedures, including Alternative Dispute Procedures in relation to applications under sections 22 and 23 and making such incidental, consequential or supplementary provision as may appear to him or her to be necessary or proper to give full effect to any of the provisions of section 22.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section
may—
(a) specify the time at which applications under section 22 may be made, the manner in which those applications shall be made and the particulars they shall contain,
(b) require applicants to furnish to the court any specified information with respect to their applications (including any information regarding any estate or interest in or right over land),
(c) require applicants to submit to a court any further information relevant to their applications (including any information as to any such estate, interest or right),
(d) require the production of any evidence to verify any particulars or information given by any applicant, and
(e) require the notification (in a prescribed manner) by planning authorities of decisions on applications,
(f) set out Alternative Dispute Procedures, and mechanisms for procedure selection in default of agreement between the parties, including a schedule of nominating authorities of Chairperson of the Alternative Dispute Procedure in default of agreement. Such Alternative Dispute Procedures may include; mediation, conciliation, arbitration, expert determination and stepped procedures (limited to two steps).”.
This amendment proposes to delete sections 22 and 23 which deal with mediation conferences and replace them with new provisions in respect of dispute resolution. In essence, it is to try to provide for a speedier and more cost-effective method of dispute resolution, rather than having to go to court. It is something the architects’ body has been strongly advocating. Earlier in the debate the Minister said he agreed in principle on the need to provide for a specific alternative means of dispute resolution other than going to court. The Bill is over-reliant on the court as a means of resolving disputes, for example, in the application of house rules and so on. The form of dispute resolution procedure proposed in the new sections 22 and 23 would be much more consumer-friendly. It would offer a much easier means of seeking redress to consumers — apartment owners and dwellers — where they considered their rights were being infringed upon. I ask the Minister to take on board the principle of the amendments we are suggesting. I am sorry he has not accepted them, but he may have something more to say on whether he will be able to table something similar in the Dáil.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 51:
In page 24, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
“1. Sections
This amendment proposes that developments of two, three or four units should have owners’ management companies. If this change is not made, the existing paragraphs of the Schedule will make little sense. I suppose it is a clarifying or drafting amendment to Schedule 1. It seeks to ensure sections 2 to 4, inclusive, which set out the circumstances in which owners’ management companies are required, are listed in Schedule 1. I note that Schedule 1 is titled, “Provisions of this Act which apply to multi-unit developments comprising 2 or more units but less than 5 units”. It is a very helpful explanatory heading, but no similar headings are given to Schedules 2 and 3. It might be useful to include such headings for ease of reference. They would make the Bill easier to access when one is looking for particular issues. I ask the Minister to include the provision I have proposed in Schedule 1.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I thank the Minister and his officials, who have been very helpful. I would like to express my personal gratitude to them for the accommodating way in which they have dealt with Members on this Bill. We had a good debate on Committee and Report Stages. I thank the Apartment Owners Network and the RIAI for their help and submissions. As the Minister said, it is to be hoped this Bill will meet the concerns of many people. We hear all the time about issues such as completion of apartments and service charges. I am glad the Minister accepted some of my amendments on Committee Stage. I regret he did not do so on Report Stage, particularly with regard to the 5% retention clause. I hope that issue will be resolved on Committee Stage in the Dáil. That is an important point because difficulties with adequate completion need to be dealt with.
Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Committee Stage
Senator Ivana Bacik: I apologise for not being here to move the amendment and I am very grateful to my colleague, Senator Prendergast, who did so. I was attending a committee meeting. I am grateful to the Minister for indicating he has a certain sympathy for this amendment, particularly in light of the changing economic position. With the housing market more or less collapsing, the fear that this would lead to an increase in the purchase price of the property has much less foundation. I am also grateful that the Minister has indicated he will review the issue between now and Report Stage.
The Royal Institute of Architects in
The Minister may refer to amendment No. 63, which would give some come-back where there had not been completion to the satisfaction of the purchasers. We are suggesting that this amendment would be a more effective way of ensuring that completion is carried out satisfactorily as it would pre-empt the need to take court action. There would be a financial incentive to complete the development as well.
The amendment as printed has a typographical error and the first reference to “developer” should read “purchaser”. I sent an amended version to the Bills Office but the other version has been printed. I ask the Minister to take this proposed amendment very seriously and take on board the arguments made by the architects’ institute and the Law Reform Commission in arguing that this should be done.
This provision would protect the interests of purchasers to secure proper completion and hand-over of common areas in apartment developments, both outdoors and inside. It would protect the legitimate interests of all those involved in the sale and purchase of such developments. I thank the Minister for his contribution and I hope to see some progress between now and Report Stage.
Senator 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 the expectations of the certifying architect. In paragraph 4.41 of its report, the Law Reform Commission recommends that once the snagging and certified completion of the development has been achieved satisfactorily, the owners’ management company should then be obliged to transfer the 5% balance to the developer. It also recommends that of course where developments have been fully completed prior to sale of the final units, the purchaser would pay the 100% directly to the developer at the closing of the sale.
Apart from the obvious point about the inducement provided by the 5% and the delay in receiving the full price pending the satisfactory completion of the development, the Law Reform Commission identified three key benefits of the provision. As Senators Coffey and O’Toole pointed out, the practical implementation of the recommendation would be straight forward because the operation of the proposal is broadly analogous to the system used by local authorities and developers with development bonds. It is already in operation in the public sector and therefore developers have experience of operating this type of scheme.
The proposal would be of particular benefit to unit owners because it would counter their “knowledge deficit”, in the language of the Law Reform Commission. It pointed out that the hand-over of the 5% balance by the unit owners, in other words the consumers, on satisfactory completion would mark an important milestone in the life cycle of the development. It would emphasise to apartment owners that they would have control over the owner’s management company and over ownership interests in common areas in the structure of the development. This is significant given the complaints we all hear from apartment owners. The third key benefit of its recommended system pointed out by the Law Reform Commission is that where a developer has not properly snagged a development on completion, there would be a fund available for the purpose of completion. To answer Senator O’Donovan’s point, the Law Reform Commission also went into great detail on the tax implications of the proposal and expressed concern that the recommendation would be tax neutral. The key benefit this recommendation has over the measure proposed by the Minister in amendment No. 63 is that it is pre-emptive, that it does not require the consumer to have to take any further action. It envisages this being a part of the process of completing a sale where the development is not yet completed and the units are being sold. It seems an eminently practical solution but if the Minister has a better one then we are happy to hear to it because we are all working in the interests of the consumer in this regard. The amendment has a good deal of support from the Law Reform Commission, architects and engineers. I urge the Minister to consider it again on Report Stage.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is amendment No. 22 being pressed?
Senator 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 proposal we have put on the agenda. I would be grateful if the Minister might consider doing that before Report Stage in the Seanad. I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In page 5, subsection (4), line 32, to delete “the developer shall” and substitute “the person to whom subsection (2)(b) refers shall”.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: Amendment No. 23 is a technical amendment clarifying a cross-reference in subsection (4).
Senator 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 completed, the transfer…shall reserve the beneficial interest therein”. The reference in section 2(6) simply refers to the transfer. We are transposing the words from section 3(2) into section 2(6). That would make the section properly compatible with section 9(1), which deals with the determination of certain beneficial interests on completion of a development. Section 9(1) provides that: “Where a multi-unit development has been completed the owner of any beneficial interest in the common areas and reversion in the units shall as soon as practicable thereafter make a declaration for the benefit of the owners’ management company that as respects the development such beneficial interest stands extinguished”. The intention is to ensure compatibility between the sections.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: I cannot accept the amendment because the section is designed to cover new developments only. Provision has been made in sections 3 and 4, respectively, for completed and semi-completed developments. The way we have structured the Bill takes care of new developments and semi-completed developments.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I am not pressing the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Senator 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 completion of the development and that each unit on completion shall be subject to a common legal framework including liability for charges. The provision arises from a suggestion by the Apartment Owners Network based on a case where a developer had retained units thus avoiding liability for service charges at any time into the future.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: Preventing a developer from retaining a unit for his own legitimate purposes may very well infringe his property rights under the Constitution. What the Senator is trying to do is to combat the practice whereby a developer would retain a unit thereby preventing the management company from taking over the common areas. That will no longer be possible following the enactment of the legislation so therefore it is not necessary to prevent a developer from retaining a unit in a completed development. Sections 3 and 4 make quite clear what has to happen in terms of the transfer of common areas. The amendment is unnecessary and would potentially infringe a private individual’s property rights.
Senator Ivana Bacik: In light of what the Minister has said I will not be pressing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Senator 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 Apartment Owners Network. This new section would deal with second-hand units and states “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.” The amendment is concerned with addressing the situation whereby at present, the Bill appears to leave second-hand sales unregulated, with the result that purchasers of second-hand units may be unaware of the obligations of membership of the owners’ management companies. The amendment attempts to address this issue and I await the Minister’s response regarding that mischief it tries to address.
Deputy Dermot Ahern: I am not altogether certain that the Senator’s proposal would achieve what she desires. I stated previously that I would consider the possibility of mandating in the legislation some form of basic information that would have to be given to purchasers on purchasing in order that they knew of their rights, entitlements and duties vis-à-vis the management company. I am not altogether sure. The amendment proposes that no person shall 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. While this may be unworkable, it also is pretty draconian. It would be fairly invasive for those who wished to purchase property to then discover they would be obliged, forever and a day, to give their details to a management company. Even though such individuals may have had three or four changes in their dwelling ownership over a ten-year period, they still would be obliged to continue providing their change of address details to a management company with which they had dealings ten years previously.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I certainly take on board the Minister’s comments. He may be correct that there may be a better way to deal with this. I take it he can perceive the mischief the amendment seeks to address.
Senator Ivana Bacik: There may be a better or less intrusive way to deal with it. Certainly, his suggestion that the converse should be the case might be the better way to deal with this issue. In other words, a purchaser would be given information about his or her obligations within the owners’ management company. Consequently, I will withdraw the amendment at this stage, while reserving the right to table a slightly differently-worded amendment on Report Stage if the Minister has not done something at that Stage to address this mischief.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Senator Ivana Bacik: As amendment No. 28 is the same as amendment No. 27, I am grateful to learn that the Minister intends to accept this principle. The purpose of amendment No. 28 was to address an omission the Labour Party had observed in the Bill, which was that the section did not require transfer of the reversion to the management company. Clearly, the Minister now has addressed this omission in amendment No. 27. I am grateful he has accepted the principle and am delighted that, essentially, he has taken on board amendment No. 28.
Senator Ivana Bacik: The Labour Party considered that subsection (2) seemed to mean that while the developer was obliged to transfer title to common areas, he or she would retain the beneficial interest until the development was completed. Consequently, it seemed unnecessary. I have not examined how the Minister’s amendment affects this point. I seek a response from the Minister as to whether it deals with the issue. I note it is also dealt with in section 9. However, subsection (2) appeared anomalous to me and the Minister should outline how his amendment affects this provision.
Senator Ivana Bacik: It appears to address the issue I sought to address. While I will withdraw my amendment, I will review it again in the light of the Minister’s amendment. I have not had the time to review the impact of the Minister’s amendment on what I was trying to achieve but I will withdraw it at this point.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 34:
In page 6, paragraph (a), line 38, to delete “2007” and substitute “2009”.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Senator Ivana Bacik: As the proposer of amendment No. 37, I am delighted the Minister has accepted its principle, which was suggested by the Apartment Owners Network, AON. It is important the developer should pay or, as the Minister phrased it, “shall, at its expense, effect”. Either way, the principle remains the same, but the legislation clearly places the obligation to pay for the insurance policy on the developer. I am delighted the Minister has accepted our amendment. He seems to be on a bit of a roll and I hope it continues in respect of the rest of our amendments on Committee and Report Stages.
Deputy Dermot Ahern:
Senator Ivana Bacik: In the circumstances, amendment No. 37 falls, as it would have the same effect as amendment No. 36.
Senator Ivana Bacik: In principle, our amendment has been accepted, albeit in a different way. I am delighted that the roll seems to be continuing. The principle, suggested by AON, is important. Not only would the owner of the beneficial interest make the declaration, but he or she would deliver it to the
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 48:
In page 10, lines 1 to 3, to delete subsection (4).
This amendment is aimed at deleting section 12(4). This subsection restricts the application of section 12 because it states it applies to multi-unit developments, in respect of which development works will commence after the enactment of the Bill. It seems the one unit-one vote rule, of which we all approve, does not apply to existing managements. That seems to be undesirable. In the Government’s amendment No. 17 which inserts a new section 2, there is a recognition that the one unit-one vote rule could be modified in a mixed use development. Did the Minister envisage a similar time limit in the case of the new section 2? As I am not sure why this is time-limited, I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s view on the matter.
SECTION 14.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 52:
In page 11, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following subsection:
“(2) The developer shall be liable to pay any charge under this section or section 15, within 30 days of invoice, for any unsold unit as if there were a unit owner for that unit.”.
The wording of the amendment has been suggested by the Apartment Owners Network, the members of which point out that the obligation to pay service charges should begin on the date the first unit is sold and that the developer should pay service charges on all unsold units, on the same basis as unit owners, from that date.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I am grateful to the Minister for indicating his agreement that there is a mischief which we are trying to resolve. I will withdraw the amendment. I would be delighted to see the issue addressed in some way on Report Stage, although not necessarily through our proposed wording. The issue of the timing of the liability for service charges should be resolved in the legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In page 11, subsection (2), line 22, to delete “agreed by” and substitute “agreed in writing by”.
Question proposed: “That section 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill”.
Senator Ivana Bacik: There is no obligation on the developer to pay a contribution to the sinking fund. Will the Minister comment on this? I did not draft an amendment in this regard but other Members and I received an e-mail from property management personnel on the matter. The owner of each unit, including the developer or building contractor, is obliged to pay service charges but there is no obligation on the developer to pay a contribution to the sinking fund. If I am correct about this, why is that so?
Senator Ivana Bacik: I put this badly. The three-year timeframe is the difficulty. Section 15(6) states, “The obligation to establish a sinking fund and to make contributions shall apply on the happening of the later” of three years or “18 months since the coming into operation of this section”. Clearly by then the developer should have exited. Should good estate management practice not be that the sinking fund should commence from the first year of occupation of the development? There is potential for significant refurbishment, improvements, etc., in the first three years. If the developer does not pay a contribution because he or she is out of the picture by the time the fund is established, should the fund come into operation sooner? Perhaps it is not necessary for the developer to pay if he or she has exited but three years is a long time to wait for refurbishments and so on.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 59:
In page 15, subsection (1), line 6, after “make” to insert “, amend or revoke”.
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the principle underpinning this simple, technical amendment to enable the owner’s management company not only to make house rules but also to amend or revoke them. The Minister’s amendment No. 60 addresses this issue by providing that house rules may be amended from time to time in the same way as they may be made. I am happy with this. I withdraw my amendment and thank the Minister for accepting the principle.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In page 15, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsection:
“(8) House rules made pursuant to this section may be amended from time to time in the same manner as house rules may be made.”.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I move amendment No. 61:
In page 16, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following subsection:
“(11) House rules shall have due regard to environmental considerations and in particular may not prohibit air drying of laundry.”.
The amendment addresses a bugbear for any of us who has lived in an apartment. There is a right to dry campaign that points out the environmental and personal hygiene advantages of allowing air drying which is prohibited in many apartment leases and covenants. We are seeking to ensure house rules do not prohibit air drying of laundry. It is an issue that excites a good deal of controversy on both sides. Having lived in flats around
Senator Paudie Coffey: Was the Senator hanging her stockings on the balcony?
Senator Ivana Bacik: —–who consider the hanging of one’s smalls on balconies or from windows to be unsightly. This is perhaps a rather contentious point but it should be considered, given the imperative to try to reduce carbon emissions. Tumble drying is one of the most energy intensive household tasks but it can be the only alternative in drying one’s clothes if one is living in a confined space. One cannot have one’s clothes drying all over the very small rooms one finds in modern apartments, in particular. Therefore, people use tumble driers, but it is extremely undesirable to encourage the practice. It would send an important signal in terms of environmental considerations, as well as personal hygiene, if people were allowed to air dry their laundry in their apartments.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I am grateful to Senators Quinn and Coffey for their support for the amendment. I was being somewhat flippant earlier but I want to make one further important point. Inserting a provision such as this in the Bill would not only send an important signal in terms of environmental considerations but it would also force a change in apartment design. Senator Coffey asked if there were ways to overcome aesthetic considerations about unsightly displays of underwear and so on. Families living on the Continent are culturally used to living and being brought up in apartment blocks and people routinely dry laundry on balconies. A provision for air drying clothes is built into the design of apartments. That is what we would see happening if a provision such as this was inserted in the Bill. It would change the way in which apartments were designed; they would be more conducive to family living and could contribute to a change in culture. On the Continent one sees retractable clotheslines on balconies as a matter of course and in apartments which do not have balconies such clotheslines are fitted to window frames. They are not unsightly and people get used to them. It makes apartment complexes look more lived in.
The analogy with the smoking ban is useful in this context. It was claimed it it would lead to difficulties and practical problems. However, pub and bar owners have become creative about the design of smoking areas which are often attractive in appearance. They have generally changed the nature of our pavement culture in a very nice way. Similarly, we have to get over seeing laundry hanging outside apartments as unsightly; we have to develop a different way of looking at this. This is important from an environmental point of view but it is also important if we are trying to generate a culture in which people believe they can live and bring up children in apartments. Up until now our apartment design has been poor and shoddy. For the most part, apartments have been designed for couples or single people. We have to get overcome this problem. Dublin City Council, among other councils, has recognised this and is trying to ensure better planning and the building of bigger apartments that are more family friendly. I would consider this as part of the context for the amendment.
I would like to receive some indication from the Minister that he might be prepared to consider doing something along the lines of what is proposed in the amendment. I hope he can at least appreciate what we are trying to achieve.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I am trying to think of another dreadful pun to wrap up the debate on the amendment.
I note what the Minister and Senator McDonald said about restrictive covenants. The amendment could be seen as having a less broad effect and aims to ensure that where a lease is silent on this issue and there is no restrictive covenant contained in it, the house rules could not then prohibiting air drying.
The Minister cited the example of the keeping of pets. Sometimes, even where a lease is silent on the issue, house rules are brought forward by the residents or the management company prohibiting the keeping of pets or air drying in apartments. I am not suggesting this provision would necessarily override restrictive covenants but, rather where covenants and leases are silent on this issue, the house rules could not prohibit this practice.
Another point which the Minister made under section 12 is that this provision would only be prospective; therefore, it would not apply to existing complexes where house rules have already been drawn up, as I understand it. Perhaps it is of more limited scope than the Minister believes. However, I would be grateful if, as he suggested, he put something in a more positive framework stating that house rules should have regard to environmental considerations and to the desirability of air drying of laundry. That might be a way to deal with it.
I will withdraw the amendment but reserve the right to table a new one with perhaps a more positive wording on Report Stage because it is an important point in terms of lifestyle and the nature of living in apartments. It is such a burning issue, although “burning” is the wrong word when talking about clothes. It is an issue which, as I said, excites much opinion and controversy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Senator 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 debated my amendment No. 22. This is the way in which he said he would deal with issues around unsatisfactory completion of developments. I have no difficulty with the amendment but it is not enough to address the problems we sought to address with amendment No. 22 and with the equivalent Independent and Fine Gael amendments. While I support amendment No. 63, it is not an answer to the problems which have arisen where developments have not been satisfactorily completed.
In page 17, subsection (4), lines 1 to 4, to delete paragraph (h) and substitute
“(h) determining whether the management structure of an owners’ management company in a mixed use multi-unit development complies with the provisions of this Act, and if not the order may direct that such steps as the court considers necessary to ensure that the arrangements concerned do so comply, be taken;
(i) determining whether a proposal to materially alter the physical character of a development which is a mixed use multi-unit development would disproportionately or inequitably affect any class of unit owners;
(j) directing the developer of a multi-unit development to complete the multiunit development in accordance with—
(i) the terms of any contract,
(ii) the conditions of a relevant planning permission under the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2009, or
(iii) the Building Control Acts 1990 and 2007;”.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 not moved.
Senator 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 which somebody may apply to the court to annul a house rule or any provision if the rules interfere unreasonably with the rights of an owner of a unit.
I suppose there is a point there in terms of air drying. This might be a way to resolve an issue if somebody was prohibited from air drying clothes and felt that was in some way unreasonable. It is to include a sort of appeals mechanism to ensure house rules do not interfere unreasonably with the rights of an owner. One can imagine in a small development that it might be possible for rules to be adopted to get at a particular unit owner. It is important there is a mechanism such as this within the section.
Senator 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 unreasonably with the right of the unit owner. The court would decide what was unreasonable which is its function under section 18. That is why we proposed to insert the paragraph.
Question proposed: “That section 21, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”
Senator 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 Minister have a view on whether the procedure provided for in the section is sufficiently tailored? Would it be preferable to make provision for the Minister to introduce regulations on methods of resolving a dispute where the dispute turned on a particularly technical point that may best be resolved by somebody with an engineering or technical qualification? In raising this issue I am not opposing the section, although I reserve the right to introduce an amendment on Report Stage. I would be grateful if the Minister indicated what model has been used for the dispute resolution procedure.
Senator 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 conference should not necessarily be a lawyer. I am glad to see it can be another person nominated by a body prescribed. There is a provision in subsection (4)() for a ministerial order to specify what sort of other person could be chair of a mediation conference. I will have a look at it again and see what precisely are the concerns of the architects institute. I wanted to flag at this stage that they had some concern that this might not be an appropriately tailored process to deal with disputes where there was some technical issue to be resolved. There may be enough flexibility in the current wording to provide for that but I will examine it and see whether there is some improvement that could be made.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Question proposed: “That section 22 stand part of the Bill.”
Senator 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.
Senator 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 regulations. I wonder whether that is covered sufficiently in that term.
Senator 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 already covered in Government amendment No. 17 which deals with smaller multi-unit developments. I would welcome clarification on that issue. Government amendment No. 17 sought to insert a new section 2. It relates to the application of the Act to multi-unit developments comprising two or more units but less than five units. I understand that a modified version of the Bill is to apply to them. Notwithstanding that, would our amendment still be required? It may be superseded.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I will not press the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
