Dangerous balcony. Who is responsible?

b.e.s.s.

1st of all apologies to the moderator in case I have selected an incorrect category.

My issue is that I have an apartment with a balcony that is very loose.

Despite contacting the management company and receiving their confirmation that the balcony is indeed dangerously loose, nothing has been done to fix it for the past two years.

I am unsure of where to address this issue to get a result.

Could somebody offer some advice? Thank you very much.

Markcheese

Is it rented or owned ?

And how old is the building ?

The Continental Op

OK this wasn't Ireland but this sprung immediately to mind

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_balcony_collapse

In your case who owns the apartment and who is responsible for the balcony?

RidleyJones

Have the management company confirmed they are responsible? have you read the terms and conditions of the contract?

You might find in a lot of cases the responsibility is with the owner and not the management company.

Del2005

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120492246#Comment_120492246

In the vast majority of OMCs in Ireland all the "owner" owns is the air inside the walls. The balcony, and attic if a top floor apartment, always belong to the OMC with access granted for the owner for the balcony.

The OMC are responsible. The question is the OP an owner, where they have to chase up the OMC, or a renter, where its their landlords problem.

scwazrh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058292861/dangerous-balcony-who-is-responsible

If the management company has confirmed that it is “dangerously loose” the next step is to ask them when are they going to fix it .Their response will let you know if it’s their issue or not .If not your issue then it’s you or your landlord who will have to fix it.

RidleyJones

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120492458#Comment_120492458

I know in our town the roofs and other items have gone in local apartments. The management company had nothing to do with it, they offered to arrange to get a company to fix but the owners had to pay for it.

That's why I asked if the person had read the contract. Until that is done it is all guesswork on who is responsible.

Markcheese

I know in my sister's flat the roof went , and they paid a share of the roof repairs , even though they were in a basement flat , that was a simple case , only 3 units / owners , and no management contract .

There's a chance that the management company has zero cash , depending on how many tenants pay - and if they've little chance of getting the cash from everyone to fix " your " balcony,

Do you know is this just your balcony that has a problem or are there other loose balconies as well .. ?

Might be more chance of getting everyone to pay up , if everyone's balcony needs checking / maintaining ..

Get hold of the contract with the management company , find out what you're responsible for - they may be obligated to get the work done .. and you may be obligated to pay .. or not ..

b.e.s.s.

Thanks to all replies and suggestions. I represent Landlord who has purchased this apartment via pension fund and the lease is between tenants and the pension fund. Management company is another well known company. They have organised an engineer when we had a leak from the roof, wich is a common area, but we weren't sure about the balcony.

Peregrinus

The landlord has a responsibility to provide a safe property to the tenant — if it's not safe, the property shouldn't be let out. So (assuming the balcony is controlled and maintained by the management company) landlord needs to follow this up vigorously and enforce the management company's obligation to make the balcony safe, if necessary by court action.

If, God forbid, anybody is injured because the balcony is defective they will sue the landlord. It will not be a defence for the landlord to say that the management company failed in its responsibility to him.

In the meantime the landlord should consider getting the door to the balcony locked — for obvious reasons, he doesn't want tenants using the balcony while it's unsafe. He may have to agree some reduction in rent for the tenants while the balcony is off-limits.

If the property falls vacant and the landlord is letting again while the balcony is still unsafe, he should let it on the basis that the tenancy does not include the use of the balcony and the tenant will not have access to it.

This is potentially a very serious issue and the landlord should not have allowed it to fester for two years. When you say you "represent" the landlord, I am unsure in what capacity you are acting. Are you providing professional services for reward, or are you the landlord's brother-in-law doing him a favour? If the former, I would be thinking about my own potential liability here. Does your representative role include advising the landlord about this issue and acting as his agent in getting it sorted out?

cml387

This is really quite an alarming scenario. Does this mean that other balconies in the complex are equally prone to defects?

b.e.s.s.

Thanks for your message.

I have been assisting the old man in finding tenants as I used to handle lettings for him in the past. This arrangement is informal as I do not sign anything.

The property has been vacant since I discovered the issue and I refuse to rent it out until the issue is resolved.

Do you have any suggestions on the best course of action or approach to ensure that the management company fulfills their obligations before resorting to legal action?

magicbastarder

i wonder if any media outlets would be interested in a story about a property with dangerous balconies. might light a fire somewhere...

Jazz Hands

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120494327#Comment_120494327

Go to the media and send them all communication you have had with the OMC.

RichardAnd

I almost bought an apartment in this development:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/fundamental-balcony-design-flaws-at-dublin-housing-development-1.3772443

Celtic tiger quality at its best, lads!

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120494327#Comment_120494327

You ( as in your father) will have to issue legal proceedings against the Management Company. The MC are completely responsible for the common areas and structures of the building.

Trying submitting an insurance claim regarding the balcony. This will highlight the issue to the insurance company who will force the MC to repair it. You should also bring proceedings over loss of income etc to the MC. Is there any general meetings of the Owners. The board of the management company is appointed at such meetings, and issues can be raised at such meetings. There should be a general meeting every year. Your father could appoint you as his agent at such a meetings.

You also have the option of issuing proceedings against the boards of directors individually and again St the managing agent ( I suspect that by the way you are pising that there is a management agency managing the building for the MC.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120494123#Comment_120494123

At the end of your litany the MC is responsible for the balcony. If anything happens the solicitors would sue the LL and ''the MC'' not the LL only. The issue would be handed over to the MC insurance company. It unlikely that any solicitors would really bother with the individual owner.

Jazz Hands

Can you sue the MC?

wouldn’t you be suing yourself?

or is that OMC?

Lofidelity

Some confusion here on correct terms.

Management agent is the company hired to look after the apartment building on behalf of the owners. Management company is made up of all apartment owners, also called the OMC.

uberwolf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120495049#Comment_120495049

from my recollection, whilst the internals of the buidling are owned by way of long leasehold, the balcony is very often available to that leaseholder by way of a licence agreement - creating less ambiguity about who is responsible for the repair (or even whether the leaseholder is entitled to unilaterally repair the issue - likely no). In this case very very likely it is OMC rather than leaseholder. Of course there is the circular question of being able to take action against the OMC as an O in the OMC but in my direct experience it is possible as there is enough conceptual ambiguity that the directors of the OMC may be advised and agree to resolve the issue.

Del2005

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120492781#Comment_120492781

The owners always pay. It's either from the sinking fund if its a properly run and funded MUD, if it's a badly run MUD then they will be hit with a demand for the money.

spaceHopper

If you are in dublin here

https://www.dublincity.ie/residential/housing/professional-services/dangerous-buildings

otherwise the same in your local council. If one is like that there are more

Dial Hard

You could be in for a very long fight here. I moved out of Hunterswood in June of last year and this issue was ongoing and, indeed, had escalated. All the affected balconies had been removed and the apartment owners were being asked for 21k each for new balconies, despite them not actually owning their balconies - they were owned by the OMC. Sinking fund was gonzo - used up by the cost of appraising and then removing the balconies in the first place. Management agent went legal (they were always beyond shockingly useless anyway) and the last letter I had in the door from the group formed by the affected owners was that they and the OMC board were refusing to share the engineers' report with them and that they were going to try and call an EGM to hold the board to account and/or replace them. Complete and utter shít show and I'd advise anyone considering buying an apartment with a balcony to get a structural survey done on it, regardless of whether or not you'll technically own it.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/dont-step-on-them-apartment-owners-in-dublin-estate-told-balconies-unsafe-36989626.html

RidleyJones

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120495271#Comment_120495271

I have yet to hear about a well run MUD. All these management companies from what I have seen are creaming large profits and when anything comes up for repair they point back at the owners to pay up.

It's the biggest scam going, I have seen a few people manage to get the management companies replaced but it takes a hell of a lot of work

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120499216#Comment_120499216

The MUD are owned by the property owners, so if they are 'creaming large profits', that is a direct benefit to the property owners.

Caranica

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120499216#Comment_120499216

Please get the terminology right. These are management AGENTS. So much confusion on this subject is because people use the incorrect terms.

Peregrinus

Indeed. And the agents don't own the property or have any long-term interest in it, so it is wildly unrealistic to imagine that they would pay to maintain, repair or improve the property, or that their contract would require them to do so. The costs of doing this always, always, come back to the property owners, either through an annual management charge, or through one-off levies, or through a combination of both.

The job of the agent is to manage this process, not to fund it. They are retained by the OMC, and paid a fee (which is also borne by the owners). If they don't do it well, the OMC can dismiss them and retain a different agent or (if they want to, which is unlikely) do it themselves.

In principle, the agents don't have a financial interest in not maintaining or repairing the property. Their fee is basically a percentage of whatever is spent on maintenance/repair/improvement; the more that is spent, the more they earn. So, if the agents were given their druthers, everything would be fixed immediately, and maintenance would be to a very high standard But that would mean very high annual charges, or regular large levies, or both, and property owners don't like this. The OMC is (believe it or not) generally responsive to the concerns of property owners, and wants to keep costs down, so they tend to appoint the agent who promises that they can maintain the property adequately for the lowest cost. And that's where the incentive to cut costs and skimp on maintenance comes from; if the agent doesn't keep costs down, they may lose the gig.

mvt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120501315#Comment_120501315

Total nonsense,you have no idea what you are talking about.

mvt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120499216#Comment_120499216

oops, sorry, this is the post I meant to quote, apologises to Carnica.

paul71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120499216#Comment_120499216

Oh Dear. Fundamental misunderstanding on your part. MUD companies never make profit. Management companies do. I would suggest you need to begin by understanding which is which.

Caranica

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120546844#Comment_120546844

Management companies = MUD Companies

The other lot are Management AGENTS

paul71

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120546870#Comment_120546870

MUD = Owner management companies. Cannot make profits as it is the owners paying themselves to save money into a sinking fund or to pay shared expenses. Also provides the legal umbrella to the owners for title to their properties.

Management companies = Agents appointed by Owner management companies to manage the shared services, like gardening, waste, maintenance, lighting and common areas, do make profits , can be dismissed by the MUD/OMC.