Wicklow Co Co going after homeowners over unpaid development feees

antoobrien

Wicklow County council have issued letters demanding payments of development fees from residents of 4 estates where the developers have not paid up. In one case the estate was finished over a decade ago.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/council-wants-residents-to-foot-bill-for-unpaid-development-levies-29060290.html


I think this is disgraceful as the development fee will have been part of the price paid for the house when sold by the developer.

The official line of the County Council is that charge stay with the property, and a few of the houses have been sold on since the development was completed so why haven't they tried to enforce it as part of sales?

Scortho

antoobrien wrote: »

Wicklow County council have issued letters demanding payments of development fees from residents of 4 estates where the developers have not paid up. In one case the estate was finished over a decade ago.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/council-wants-residents-to-foot-bill-for-unpaid-development-levies-29060290.html


I think this is disgraceful as the development fee will have been part of the price paid for the house when sold by the developer.

The official line of the County Council is that charge stay with the property, and a few of the houses have been sold on since the development was completed so why haven't they tried to enforce it as part of sales?

You are right that the councils issue should be with the developer than with the purchaser as they've paid for this charge. If the developer is insolvent then it should be written off by the council/they should get their fair cut off any assets sold when liquidated.

If i buy a pair of jeans in a shop, and the shop owner doesnt pay the wholesaler, the wholesaler doesnt come after me for his cut. it goes down as a bad debt.

If it is found that the charge stays with the property, and one used a solicitor, would the solicitor not be liable?

Good loser

Another political 'gold mine' for Joe Higgins. His whinge list can be expanded.

touts

This is the developers debt. What is next? Can an electrician who was not paid by the developer come demanding payment from the homeowner?

An interesting question would be is the council providing full services to the residents? As it is a new estate I suspect not. Many councils are refusing to take over the maintenance of new housing estates and are leaving residents at the mercy of so called "management companies" often run by the developer. Council were happy to take the development levy and will be happy to take their new property tax BUT are not providing the same services they do in most other estates. It would be interesting to see this case go to court and have the council justify taking money from this estate but not providing the same level of services.

AlexisM

But it's not that new an estate - it was built in 2001! The developer didn't go bust until last year - which gace WCC 11 years to chase up the debt from a solvent builder - I don't know how on earth they think they can have a case against the homeowners when they haven't even tried to bill them for 12 years.

antoobrien

AlexisM wrote: »

But it's not that new an estate - it was built in 2001! The developer didn't go bust until last year - which gace WCC 11 years to chase up the debt from a solvent builder - I don't know how on earth they think they can have a case against the homeowners when they haven't even tried to bill them for 12 years.

It seems from the article that it's about half of the homeowners that are due to pay this, which makes the case even stranger.

carpejugulum

What happened to the council reform?

Scortho

antoobrien wrote: »

It seems from the article that it's about half of the homeowners that are due to pay this, which makes the case even stranger.

From the article: One resident, Today FM DJ Phil Cawley, said last night that he wasn't being pursued but about half his neighbours were.

When he purchased his house, his solicitor had checked to see if there was any outstanding charge on the property.

"It's something their solicitors didn't spot when they bought the house," he said.

This suggest to me that some solicitors screwed up. If it was found my courts that the charge stays with the property then I'd be going after the solicitor.

Farmer Pudsey

Scortho wrote: »

From the article: One resident, Today FM DJ Phil Cawley, said last night that he wasn't being pursued but about half his neighbours were.

When he purchased his house, his solicitor had checked to see if there was any outstanding charge on the property.

"It's something their solicitors didn't spot when they bought the house," he said.

This suggest to me that some solicitors screwed up. If it was found my courts that the charge stays with the property then I'd be going after the solicitor.

Head The Wall wrote: »

Typical scummy attitude from the council. Instead of going after the developer that actually owed the bill they are using this as a means to bring in revenue.

Why weren't they so diligent when the developer was in business, useless shower of lowlife ba$tards.

If you read the article it raises question of both the Council and the solicitor that acted for these people. The council lodged a charge against the properties which for ten odd years they have not followed up on.

However the solicitor was also at fault as they failed to spot the lein/charge put on by the Local authority

Bullseye1

WCC have no chance with this. Pure nonsense.

Private Joker

Bullseye1 wrote: »

WCC have no chance with this. Pure nonsense.

I think you are right, what the council are doing is playing the house owners against the government. The government are telling the councils " no more money , collect whats owed"

Mr.Micro

Private Joker wrote: »

I think you are right, what the council are doing is playing the house owners against the government. The government are telling the councils " no more money , collect whats owed"

Yes indeed. The incompetent CC failed to collect the levies from the developer. in effect negligent in its duties and now are pursuing the ordinary homeowner, an easier target. Voters should remember the names of the Councillors in the next election and act accordingly. So much for Hogan's reform of the CC s, and often their daft and ridiculous policies and programmes. I hope that the matter goes to the high court to show what absolute incompetents exist in the CC, to pursue such an action against the homeowners. Then again, as your post suggests that is what the CC wants to try and get more money from the Government.

Sleepy

Honestly, I doubt the council would be moving on this without legal advice. Do those of you castigating them really believe it's impossible that the Irish legal system could, in fact, place the onus on paying these charges to the homeowner?

I'm not in any way saying it's right but if the Department are telling the councils to collect their outstanding debts and this debt is legally the responsibility of homeowners, can you blame them for doing their jobs?

Yes, common sense should prevail but making the call to write off a debt that should have been collected a decade ago is the sort of move that could destroy a person's career in the Public Sector. I'd be very surprised if this is anything other than a classic exercise in arse covering tbh.

Mr.Micro

Sleepy wrote: »

Honestly, I doubt the council would be moving on this without legal advice. Do those of you castigating them really believe it's impossible that the Irish legal system could, in fact, place the onus on paying these charges to the homeowner?

I'm not in any way saying it's right but if the Department are telling the councils to collect their outstanding debts and this debt is legally the responsibility of homeowners, can you blame them for doing their jobs?

Yes, common sense should prevail but making the call to write off a debt that should have been collected a decade ago is the sort of move that could destroy a person's career in the Public Sector. I'd be very surprised if this is anything other than a classic exercise in arse covering tbh.

You may well be right, but in view of the fact that the CC appears to have failed in its duty to collect the levies from the developer. Why was this developer allowed to proceed not having paid the levies? The CC appears to be applying rules now, to the ordinary person who does not have vast amounts of money resources to contest this charge, when it failed to do so with the developer. No matter what happens it will be the public who pays for incompetence and any costs if there is a legal challenge.

Cookie_Monster

Sleepy wrote: »

Yes, common sense should prevail but making the call to write off a debt that should have been collected a decade ago is the sort of move that could destroy a person's career in the Public Sector. I'd be very surprised if this is anything other than a classic exercise in arse covering tbh.

Not collecting that debt should have destroyed their career tbh, too leave it this long and then look for others to cover it is irresponsible and wreckless on the part of whoever should be managing that area for WCC

Farmer Pudsey

Mr.Micro wrote: »

You may well be right, but in view of the fact that the CC appears to have failed in its duty to collect the levies from the developer. Why was this developer allowed to proceed not having paid the levies? The CC appears to be applying rules now, to the ordinary person who does not have vast amounts of money resources to contest this charge, when it failed to do so with the developer. No matter what happens it will be the public who pays for incompetence and any costs if there is a legal challenge.

First of most posters seem not to have read the article. In reality these homeowners solicitors have a lot to answer for as there appears to be alein/charge on the deeds. One homeowners solicitors spotted it and made the developer pay the charges. It was not just council staff that were lazy during the boom solicitors/engineers it seems her did not check deeds for adherence to planning premission.

Before people go advising to go the legal route they should read the article and read it again. Personally if it was me I be questioning the solicitors who I paid to transfer the deeds.

And yes Council staff should have pursued this earlier as the developer would have been forced to straighten it earlier but more than likly they are legally correct.

Sleepy

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Not collecting that debt should have destroyed their career tbh, too leave it this long and then look for others to cover it is irresponsible and wreckless on the part of whoever should be managing that area for WCC

I'd be inclined to agree but that's applying private sector thinking to public sector workers. It's living in a fantasy world I'm afraid.

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

First of most posters seem not to have read the article. In reality these homeowners solicitors have a lot to answer for as there appears to be alein/charge on the deeds. One homeowners solicitors spotted it and made the developer pay the charges. It was not just council staff that were lazy during the boom solicitors/engineers it seems her did not check deeds for adherence to planning premission.

Before people go advising to go the legal route they should read the article and read it again. Personally if it was me I be questioning the solicitors who I paid to transfer the deeds.

And yes Council staff should have pursued this earlier as the developer would have been forced to straighten it earlier but more than likly they are legally correct.

I'd certainly be suing the solicitor or their insurance company if it was me.

Mr.Micro

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd certainly be suing the solicitor or their insurance company if it was me.

THe worrying part for me is that, a lot of solicitors must have missed it? How transparent was this charge in the documents. Also, if one homeowner made the the developer pay, then there is probably grounds for the others to make the developers pay, even at this late stage. Rotten and sly is all it is, and what we have come to expect from the developers and CC s.

Bullseye1

Levies were to be paid "prior to commencement". The local authority won't have a leg to stand on if they chase the homeowner. They also have bonds which were to have been paid prior to commencement.

This is 100% down to the LA and the developer.

Cookie_Monster

It's interesting that it's Wicklow CC given the absolute hash they've made with dealing with the likes of Greystones harbour also. There's a 10m bond for that sitting there that they refuse to use to complete it despite the developer missing multiple deadlines and being partially in NAMA now also.

Mr.Micro

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It's interesting that it's Wicklow CC given the absolute hash they've made with dealing with the likes of Greystones harbour also. There's a 10m bond for that sitting there that they refuse to use to complete it despite the developer missing multiple deadlines and being partially in NAMA now also.

That is probably the situation with the 4 housing estates in question as well, that the developers may be in that club, NAMA and getting 200K per year and untouchable. It is so easy to go after the ordinary solid, debt paying and honourable householder as opposed to the NAMA members.

antoobrien

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

It's interesting that it's Wicklow CC given the absolute hash they've made with dealing with the likes of Greystones harbour also. There's a 10m bond for that sitting there that they refuse to use to complete it despite the developer missing multiple deadlines and being partially in NAMA now also.

It's not just Wicklow looking at this, Galway City Council are also looking at this. They're owed €1.25m by various developers. The interesting bit, whcih I don't think anybody else has spotted is that Wicklow have set the precident and if successful the rest of the LAs could do likewise.

_Kaiser_

"Dear Wicklow County Council,

Developer not resident at this address. Please redirect to them or NAMA as appropriate"

I think that'd be my response. Sounds like some of these councils are just throwing random stuff out there now and hoping some of it will stick to homeowners afraid of threatening legal-looking letters.

It'd be the equivalent of me going in to pay for my diesel and being told I had to pay for the last guy as well as he drove off! Chancers!

RATM

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If I were a home owner I'd be asking where Wicklow CC's contract is with me where I agreed to pay the development charge if the developer did a runner. Because as far as the homeowner was concerned the contract was between the developer and the council who gave him planning permission to develop the site. But obviously the CCs legal advice has told them that there is a contract between the home owner and them.

But as others have said this looks like a solicitors cock up- some noticed the charge on the property and dealt with it and others missed it. Seems like one to claim from their professional indemnity insurance tbh.