OMC and Freehold

Op, you need to read up on the MUD Act, specifically what constitutes a multi unit development, and the legal requirement for unit owners to pay fees (Section 18(10)).

The OMC is as the name suggests, made up of the owners of units in the development, if you own a unit, you are a member irrespective of whether your property is freehold. You still share use of amenities, facilities, services etc with other units in the development. Legal advice would be money well spent, the OMC will have the option to attach a lien to the property mortgage if you have one, which would mean you cannot sell it without paying what you owe.

The 2011 Act applies to both new developments built after its enactment, and pre existing developments built before it.

The link you provided does provide the answer though to one of the op’s contentions, that as he/she owns the freehold, he/she is not a member of the OMC. The Act defines “unit owner” as follows:

“unit owner” means a person other than the owners’ management company who holds the highest freehold or leasehold estate or interest in respect of a unit in a multi-unit development.

Section 2(5).

“(5) Except where otherwise provided, this Act applies to every multi-unit development.”

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/2/section/2/enacted/en/html

Using the MUD Act presumably.

Why would the contract of sale influence whether a unit is part of a multi unit development for the purposes of the MUD Act?

The terms of the purchase contract may have bound the unit owner contractually to the OMC prior to the MUD Act being enacted, but once enacted, the MUD Act gave legislative clarity to the obligations of unit owners in relation to OMC charges.

Freehold properties in the same development still use same amenities, services and facilities as all other units in the development, so whether the unit is freehold or leasehold matters not a jot, the unit is still part of a multi unit development and the MUD Act clearly reflects this. The Act also applies to all MUDs in relation to fees, there is no exemption for pre-2011 builds in relation to those fees listed in the Act that I can see, it just states the Act applies to all except those exempted. There is some leeway in the Act that allows the sale of a property built pre 2011 in which common areas have not transferred to the OMC, but the obligation to transfer those areas remains and must be done so as quickly as possible.

Exactly. The MUD Act outlines what a mud is, and that it applies to all muds, irrespective of whether it existed before the Act was enacted. If the op’s unit is not in a mud, then the Act does not apply, but an OMC would have a list of the units, it would be easily be checked by looking up the planning and seeing if the op’s house was included in the development. In reality, it’s pretty obvious if your property is part of a development.

I have also provided you with direct quotes from the MUD Act which contradicts your viewpoint. I edited my recent reply to you to include another quote from the Act which outlines that single buildings/units are also part of muds.

On the issue of freeholds, the “presumably” does not apply, the Act clearly states both leasehold and freehold units are included, there is no vagueness in that.

A house may standalone, but if it is in a mud, it shares amenities, services and facilities with the other units, you can’t separate those out from your property just because you own the plot on which the house stands.

I’m not sure that I can make it any clearer than it is made in the MUD Act 2011. In it, it is clearly stated what constitutes a multi-unit development and that it applies to both leaseholds and freeholds as well as single buildings/units buildings with multiple units.

Maybe before you post again, you might read the Act, or at least look back on the direct quotes from it that I have posted in relation to your question.

This is incorrect.

Firstly the MUD legislation trumps any contractual agreement the buyer has with the developer/OMC in relation to service charges.

Secondly, Section 18 (10) clearly outlines the obligation on unit owners to pay service charges levied by the OMC.

Unfortunately, as always happens on boards, the op latches onto the posts that support what he wants to hear, irrespective of whether they are correct.

Op, I’m going to make this as simple as possible for you. If your property is in a multi-unit development, (you can check for free by going to the planning office) you are legally a member of the OMC whether you, or your solicitor thinks otherwise, and legally obligated to pay service charges. In all probability the OMC wasn’t well organised when the developer was in charge, but if there is now a Board of Directors, they are organised. Prior to the 2011, paying SCs was a contractual obligation, so the purchase contract had an important bearing on payment, since 2011 it is a legal obligation as per 18(10) of the MUD Act. What Claw Hammer posted earlier about the MUD not bringing previously contracted owners into the OMC is incorrect, the MUD Act gave a legal definition of what both a multiunit development is, and what a unit owner is, it outlines the legislative basis for the unit to be included in a mud, and the obligation of members to pay SCs. The legislation trumps any contractual agreement and a unit cannot be "outside" a development just because the covenants in the contract of sale says it is, the house is either in a planned development or it isn't.

You can bury your head in the sand, but let me be clear, if you sell, a buyers solicitor will look for a letter of standing from the OMC, without that letter the sale will not proceed if there is a mortgage involved or unless the new buyer is willing to take responsibility for all charges owed (never happen). So when people offer you advice on the internet, they do so without knowing all the facts, you are going to have to confirm whether legally you are in a mud, or not. And unless you are thick, you will know that by standing at your front door and looking around where your house is. Freehold ownership, as I pointed out to another poster a number of times, is referred to in the Act and does NOT exclude you from the OMC.

Honestly op, you need to see a solicitor, having served on the Board of Directors of an OMC, I can assure you that there are always those who think the charges don’t apply to them, those who refuse to pay etc. I can also assure you that sellers are frustrated when they cannot get that letter from the OMC until every cent of the SC is paid. It is not coming out of your pocket to sort their situation out, they no doubt have a copy of the planning, you are paying to sort YOUR situation out, they will keep totting up your SCs owed. I should add, it wasn’t unusual for us to get letters from solicitors representing errant members in relation to SCs, surprisingly their interpretation of the MUD Act wasn’t always correct, our solicitor had to point out where they erred, and that was always the end of it, they had to pay up their SCs.

So rather than asking on boards, go to the planning office, you refer in your own posts to “development” and “developer”, if your house is part of planning for a mud of more than 5 units, then you are part of the mud/OMC whether you like it or not.