Ath Leathan Dundalk. Fire safety risk

Peter File

Big trouble for the residents of the apartments there as expensive remedial action is going to have to be carried out there
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dundalk-residents-face-eviction-on-fire-safety-grounds-1.2629953

Mrs W

It's not the only one either, first of many around the town I'd say!

Peter File

Mrs W wrote: »

It's not the only one either, first of many around the town I'd say!

Yes, I agree with you. It is crazy that it has taken this long for the issue to become known. Surely the surveyors who people paid to do checks for them before purchasing would have found this problem years ago.

10green bottles

There was an issue with apartments at College Manor end of January.

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/argus/news/safety-issue-at-college-manor-34397943.html

Meanwhile, John Temple from College Manor's management company said they had 'received nothing official from the council' about this matter. He said: 'The council granted permission for these apartments, signed off on them and people from the council's housing list are tenants in them.

Nesta99

If a banK released a mortgage based on reports carried out by their surveyor and it turns out that these reports omitted for whatever reason such serious contravention of fire safety regulations then shouldn't it be possible for these people to claim that their mortgage should be invalidated, at least until such time that remedial work is complete. Let the banks seek losses through the developer if still in existence. If there was a risk of the banks not receiving repayments well they would then make sure that a complete and accurate survey was done in future. (even before questioning how planning authorities did not check developments for compliance with planning applications).

whippet

Nesta99 wrote: »

If a banK released a mortgage based on reports carried out by their surveyor and it turns out that these reports omitted for whatever reason such serious contravention of fire safety regulations then shouldn't it be possible for these people to claim that their mortgage should be invalidated, at least until such time that remedial work is complete. Let the banks seek losses through the developer if still in existence. If there was a risk of the banks not receiving repayments well they would then make sure that a complete and accurate survey was done in future. (even before questioning how planning authorities did not check developments for compliance with planning applications).

have you any legal precedence for this opinion?

Could these fire safety issues be identified by a simple surveyor? My understanding is that an engineer would need to have broken through the interior walls to identify the problem .. something that wouldn't be possible in a routine survey.

Also, the bank's only use someone to value the property .. they don't do a survey; this is something that is up to the buyer to take care of.

Spreading misleading information regarding the validity of a mortgage isn't useful and can be a source of more distress for owners who are already facing a massive bill for remedial work

Nesta99

whippet wrote: »

have you any legal precedence for this opinion?

Could these fire safety issues be identified by a simple surveyor? My understanding is that an engineer would need to have broken through the interior walls to identify the problem .. something that wouldn't be possible in a routine survey.

Also, the bank's only use someone to value the property .. they don't do a survey; this is something that is up to the buyer to take care of.

Spreading misleading information regarding the validity of a mortgage isn't useful and can be a source of more distress for owners who are already facing a massive bill for remedial work

Spreading misleading information:eek:? Easy up on the hysterics!! I doubt there is need for legal precedence on an opinion.

My post, while admittedly omitting a question mark was a question in tone. 'if', 'shouldn't it be', 'if a bank' etc. Very little,if any, statement of fact or 'information'. I don't see how wondering if a mortgage provided for a substandard building can be voided for the mortgage holder hence reducing debt for them would be particularly distressing especially if facing unfair pending costs for remedial work needed.

With cynical opinion I pondered the extent of which a surveyors report would or could be broadened if the banks were at risk of having the mortgage holder released from their mortgage if the survey conducted was in some way misleading or lacking for any reason.

To obtain a mortgage the banks in my experience require a survey done of a property, more than a simple valuation. The survey, paid for by the loanee yes, done by a building surveyor/structural engineer etc. that must be recognised by the bank as qualified to do the survey, is required as simply a bank doesn't want to provide a mortgage for any building that wont hold value to the amount of or secure the loan (market forces excluded). So if foundations were insufficient or a roof is about to cave in - discovered in a building survey the mortgage on that particular property wont proceed. The survey also checks for compliance with planning permission granted.

In this case the issue is with fire regulations and if these essential aspects of the building are not checked in a survey then I believe theey should be included. After Priory Hall, Longboat Quay, Ard Dealgan and now Ard Lethan, just off the top of the head, this breach of planning and fire safety certification is not new and I would hope that regulation has been put in place by now if it didnt already exist. I believe that mortgage providers could be an essential part of this process via the required survey that could be expanded to include fire safety compliance. They are likely to be pretty incentivised if their investment in the mortgage could be threatened if breach of regulation comes to light after a survey report passes the building as 'safe'.

I agree though that if people need to start boring holes in walls and floors to check for fire proofing it is possibly beyond the remit of a basic survey or building surveyor especially in older buildings. It was also reported that there was a lack of equipment that also contravened the fire safety cert (so fire hose reels on each floor as a possible example) which is probably the least problematic issue to remedy, but should also be basic enough to be flagged up quickly and easily enough.

No matter what, the people living in these places have been failed miserably. By whom or why is open to discussion, as are considering ways to prevent such things happening again. I fear that these well publicised cases are the tip of the iceberg. While the money involved to do the remedial work is soul destroying for those involved i'd still rather the problems discovered as they have rather than part of a retrospective investigation in to a serious tragedy that ends up being a very real source of distress for everyone!!