Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Apartment owners may pay less property tax

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,524 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    The_Conductor wrote: »
    ted1 wrote: »
    They would need to remove all gates and potentially all private car park spaces.

    Its very much a minority of estates that are gated communities.
    And what about assigned car spaces in what will be a public road and public car park?


  • Options
    #33
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,069 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Bob24 wrote:
    I know someone’s who’s develoment includes a public square with bars and restaurants adjacent to a LUAS stop. They’re even getting sued by drunk people who have a fall on their way from the pub to the LUAS (50 meters) and seek compensation from the management company because the grounds are part of the complex and they claim it was slippery. If you go there you can’t tell it’s a private ground as it’s a completely open square with no gate or enclosing walls just by a LUAS stop.


    Their solicitor should never have let them sign. Sounds like a nightmare


  • Options
    #34
    Gumbo
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,343 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gumbo


    House owners should benefit also if paying management fees.

    All the headlines are fixated on apartments.


  • Options
    #35
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Their solicitor should never have let them sign. Sounds like a nightmare

    I don’t think there is anything strange about this development a solicitor would spot as a red flag, it’s pretty common for a urban development to have publicslly accessible areas, especially of it includes units for shops and restaurants.

    But it goes to show that it is not that stupid to consider LTP discounts for people who are paying management fees as management companies are supporting the cost to provide services and assume legal liabilities for publicslly accessible areas which would orherwise be catered by a local authority.


  • Options
    #36
    Ronaldinho
    Registered Users Posts: 829 ✭✭✭Ronaldinho


    Bob24 wrote: »
    Not if the development has public areas.

    I know someone’s who’s develoment includes a public square with bars and restaurants adjacent to a LUAS stop. They’re even getting sued by drunk people who have a fall on their way from the pub to the LUAS (50 meters) and seek compensation from the management company because the grounds are part of the complex and they claim it was slippery. If you go there you can’t tell it’s a private ground as it’s a completely open square with no gate or enclosing walls just by a LUAS stop.

    But if it's public then has it not been handed over to the relevant local authority and as such is it not the LA who is then liable?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Bob24
    Registered Users Posts: 10,905 ✭✭✭✭Bob24


    Ronaldinho wrote: »
    But if it's public then has it not been handed over to the relevant local authority and as such is it not the LA who is then liable?

    Good question. I guess the land belongs to the development and the way planning was done it had to deliver a public square. It’s the part of Mayor Square which is North of the LUAS track.


Advertisement