Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 4 Apr 2006

Vol. 617 No. 4

Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill 2006: Second Stage.

Mr. O’Dowd

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

One of the major issues facing Irish society, particularly in urban areas, is how we deal with modern developments, especially multi-storey, high-rise apartment complexes. That is a significant problem around the country. The intention of this Bill is to address the significant issues involved and to put in place a regulator for the management and control of all apartment management companies. My colleagues will give many examples from their constituencies of houses and apartments being built but not maintained, and in appalling condition. The residents cannot deal with the issues because the management company may have gone bust, cannot be found, or is not accountable.

Accordingly, this Bill is important. I am sorry the Government did not see fit to support it. The Government has failed to recognise the need for action in this area for many years. In 2002, the programme for Government stated the Government would consider the introduction of legislation to regulate the establishment and operation of apartment complex management companies. In response to a parliamentary question in May 2003, the then Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government stated the regulation of apartment complex management companies was "still under consideration" and that he had "no immediate plans to set guidelines on fees". The Government motion tonight would set progress back for a further nine months, during which time we will continue to have these problems around the country.

Apartment living has become a way of life for people in recent years. As the Celtic tiger roared into life, and demographic changes put pressure on the existing housing stock, high-density apartment blocks allowed for cheaper, high quality housing that allows many young people on to the property ladder. The census of 2002 shows that more than 110,000 households, almost 9% of the total, live in apartments. This translates as more than 200,000 people, highlighting the fact that it is often single people and couples without children who reside in this type of housing. Since then, evidence suggests this trend is continuing. In the three years from 2002 to 2004, more than 42,500 flats and apartments were completed, a fifth of all new housing.

This is a live issue for thousands of people. There are serious problems regarding apartment complexes throughout the country which many residents feel powerless to address. These problems relate primarily to common areas and the failure of builders and managing agents to maintain them while simultaneously charging very high management fees that increase year on year, often with little or no provision for a sinking fund that is necessary to cover the very high costs that occur every few years when major refurbishment is needed.

These fees can often be higher than two months' entire mortgage payments, and very often, residents are a total loss as to what they are paying for. Non-payment is not an option as that would lead to a debt being placed on the property that would have to be cleared before a property is sold. Residents have no State agency to complain to and with an increasing number of non-resident investors in the apartment sector, it is often difficult to spur the necessary number of residents into action. Urban councillors and Deputies have no shortage of horror stories regarding apartment blocks. Gardens not landscaped, unpainted walls, broken lifts, crumbling brickwork, sporadic refuse collection and broken fixtures and fittings are becoming very common. It is for this reason we are highlighting the specific issue of apartment management companies and their agents.

However, I am very aware that those living in houses and housing estates, which are not apartment complexes, are also burdened with management companies and fees. I understand Fingal County Council, for example, has a significant number of planning conditions with regard to management companies managing traditional housing estates. There is great uncertainty among the community, which is being unsettled as a result, and people are very unhappy with the situation. Many of our traditional housing estates, when properly constructed by the developer, would normally be taken over and run by local authorities. However, under the current regime in some county councils, such estates will never be taken over, and those councils thus avoid their responsibilities. Clearly, there is an issue about funding those councils to ensure they can continue to maintain public open spaces, footpaths and lighting in these traditional-type housing estates when they have passed all stages and are ready to be taken over by the local authority.

I have had a great deal of correspondence from solicitors, companies and people who live in housing estates, particularly around the city of Dublin. I receive an increasing number of letters, representations and e-mails in this regard. One solicitor has brought it to my attention that the Law Society construction industry contract is defective. It is in the form which was originally established for the sale of houses and in that respect has stood the test of time, but it has not been altered to deal with the sale of apartments. Because an apartment owner only owns the apartment and not the building, the contract is deficient. An apartment owner has redress against a builder if there is a defect in the apartment itself, but if there is a defect in either the internal or external common areas, or if there is likely to be a defect in the structural parts which will not manifest itself for some time, the apartment owner has no redress at all.

For example, if the internal common areas of an apartment complex are painted with poor quality paint, there is nothing the apartment owner can do about it. If the roof is defective — a flat roof may last about 12 years, after which it must be replaced — the cause of the defect is poor workmanship, but the apartment owner cannot do anything about it. This issue can be dealt with by the Law Society and the Construction Industry Federation producing a building contract for apartment owners. Fine Gael believes this is essential.

In larger developments there can be a substantial time lag between the time the first purchaser completes a sale and the last apartment is completed. In some of the substantial developments this time lag can be between three and five years. Who provides the services in the interim and on what basis are fees calculated? Sometimes the builder will provide a service without charge, or may appoint a managing agent to provide the services. Either way the builder should be obliged to provide a set of audited accounts to each apartment owner at the end of the financial year. If these accounts are audited, this will give reassurance to an apartment owner. Auditing of accounts with regard to apartment schemes is low in terms of intellectual application and carries a nominal fee. Indeed the standard is depressingly low. The only way to correct this is to impose severe penalties on auditors who fail to provide a fully audited set of accounts.

Managing agents also cause a great deal of anxiety and we need to be much more pro-consumer in the code of practice for managing agents. There is no organisation of managing agents — anybody can become one. We have very good ones and some very bad ones. There is no accountability or control over how they handle moneys. They can maintain service charges in the same account in which their own moneys are held. That is not good enough, which is why this Bill wants all these people and companies regulated. The general standard of services provided by managing agents is substantially below that of services provided by agents in similar disciplines.

There are problems relating to the kind of people in apartments. In some cases, apartments are being rented to drug dealers, for supply and for prostitution. Apartments are also being used as private restaurants. Rubbish can be left decaying for weeks outside complexes, attracting vermin. There are many problems relating to who deals with drug dealers in an apartment complex, and how one gets them out. These are serious social problems. Regrettably and unfortunately, many of our apartment complexes are fast becoming modern slums. It is an appalling fact but it is true. Unless and until they are regulated and managed properly, these problems will continue.

The Bill is quite short because what we want is a regulator for apartment complexes. We would be happy if this regulator were also to regulate management companies of traditional-type housing. The Private Residential Tenancies Board already has the know-how in dealing with problems of residents, particularly in rented dwellings. The board should set out the guidelines that are necessary to ensure these regulations work for everybody. This is regulation with a light touch that leaves important decisions to those who know what they are doing. All we seek to establish are the parameters of regulation, not the detailed regulation and for this reason we see no reason for anyone to oppose it.

The key part of the Bill is section 3, paragraph (l), which provides that the Private Residential Tenancies Board would be instructed to develop a code of practice for management companies and their agents. This code of practice is sadly missing. The code of practice should include the key essential element of transparent management fees. Fees should be set for the first three years of a new complex at a level that ensures managing agents can meet the established minimum standards for that period. If there is no service there should be no payment. The management fee should not be fully payable until management agents are in place and the various services can be provided. Many builders demand payment of the first year’s management fee before the keys are handed over to the new owners. We get letters from people throughout the country who complain that when they go to buy a property the management fee is thrown in at the last minute. The sum of €500 may not appear to be a huge amount on a deal of €250,000 until one has to pay it every year. Not enough care and attention is devoted to their needs.

An important issue is the sinking fund provision. A sinking fund is money for payments that will arise when redecorating and other large scale refurbishment have to be done. It is emerging that many managing agents set the annual fee without any provision for large scale refurbishments that must be carried out every few years. This leaves residents with a shortfall and a choice of paying several thousand euro at once or else living with a decaying physical environment. Neither scenario is tolerable. Under the terms of the Bill only those managing agents who strictly adhere to this code of practice will be allowed to trade.

The Bill also refers to the need for proper information. The nature of this business is to make it difficult for residents to get the full picture even though in many cases the balance of power rests with them. It is vital that individual apartment owners who rely on collective action to get things done are given all the information they need. It is vital also that they have someone to turn to if confused or unsure about how to proceed. At present there is nobody whom they can consult. If our Bill is passed there certainly will be somebody whom they can consult. The key issue is the regulation of this whole area by an existing body.

Given the complex legal nature of management company arrangements it is vital that consumers get the necessary protection they deserve. We have received reports that those residents seeking to change management agents have been put at a disadvantage because new agents insist that a binding contract be signed without a probation period during which the level of service can be assessed. Residents should have the right to insist on a one-year probationary period before deciding to commit to any managing agent for a longer period.

That is the core of our case. Other speakers on our side will elaborate and bring their personal experiences to bear. It is time for the Government to act. I accept and acknowledge that the Government set up a judicial committee whose report is one year over due. It is time for us to act. Our proposals are sensible and realistic. We would be happy to accept any amendment the Government or other parties may put forward. We in Fine Gael think it is time to take action on all these apartment complexes, some of which are in an appalling state. The Minister needs to intervene in the way planning permissions are granted by local authorities for traditional type housing. That is a critical issue. We need action and we need it now.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call Deputy Olivia Mitchell. I understand the Deputy is sharing time with Deputies McEntee, Connaughton and Perry.

Ms O. Mitchell

That is correct. I am delighted to support the Bill brought forward by my colleague, Deputy O'Dowd, whom I congratulate on his prescience in spotting this as a growing issue, long before it came to everybody else's attention. It is impossible for those of us who represent urban constituencies to avoid realising the extent of the problems caused partly by the explosion of apartment buildings but also by the management companies who proclaim to represent the owners of new apartments. As Deputy O'Dowd said, one fifth of all building nationwide is apartments. In Dublin the rate is between 40% and 50%. In my constituency the number of houses being built is only a handful while the number of apartments represents 80% to 90% of all building in the constituency.

Apartment living is becoming the norm, particularly for this generation of young home buyers. They consider themselves lucky to be able to get on the property ladder by getting an apartment. They do so without any Government attempt to regulate the management of the common areas or to provide rights or protection for people living in group developments or to control the activities of property management companies and to regulate what management companies do.

There is a panoply of protections for traditional home owners but the unfortunate new generation of apartment owners have been left completely without protection. The difficulties that have arisen are a revelation to all of us. None of us anticipated the problems that would arise when virtual strangers come together and share not only a common space but a common legal obligation to each other and to the group. There is an old saying that good fences make good neighbours. Unfortunately, in the case of apartments, there are no good fences, physical or legal, to protect home owners. I say that in the full knowledge that apartment living can be extremely successful but only if we work to ensure the owners and those who live in proximity to them are protected. One thing that will destroy an area is apartment blocks falling into disrepair and that is a real danger unless we move quickly.

The typical scenario for many young home owners seeking to buy an apartment is that they pay their booking deposit and many months pass before they sign the contract. It is only when they come to sign the contract that they discover there is a management company clause. Many have no idea what is a management company. At that stage it is too late to pull out. They have to sign up and often have to pay two years of management company fees without having the implications of signing up explained. When closing sales, there is an onus on solicitors to make it absolutely clear to the membership of the management company what it means, including the responsibilities and the liabilities. In many cases the responsibilities are that one pays up for a number of years to a management company long before one receives any benefits and before any of the rights become apparent. If one happens to be the first tenant into a large development one pays for several years for the prettification of the area, the fountains, wooden features and so on, which sell the apartments for the developer. Meanwhile the tenant is living on a building site and paying for his profit.

The director of corporate enforcement has reported a significant increase in the number of complaints about management companies. They fail to hold annual general meetings and to report to the members on the company's finances and operating performance by failing to provide them with copies of the financial statements and a director's report and to adequately disclose to members potential conflicts of interests in circumstances where the directors also provide services to the management company. There is a huge blurring of the role of the developer in terms of developer as the management company and developer as a property management company. There is a huge conflict of interest that is indefensible and will have to be sorted out.

If the directors of the management company, as opposed to the property management company, do not fulfil their duties, if they lose interest or if they stop paying, they could be struck off the company's register. When home owners try to sell their apartments they discover they must have an operating management company. Without a management company they cannot sell their property. That can be set up again but it involves additional legal costs.

During the previous discussion of this matter, I indicated that responsibility for advising buyers of their rights and responsibilities at an early stage falls to their solicitor. I pointed out that in many cases solicitors' fees are paid for by developers. While this may reduce costs for young couples who regard it as a bonus, there are other ways of reducing the costs of a solicitor who is dealing with many similar apartments. When I raised this with the Law Society it neatly avoided the issue by indicating it would be illegal for solicitors to act for both parties to a purchase, which is not the case. Solicitors act for the unfortunate buyers but their fees are paid by the seller. This practice creates a clear conflict of interest which does not serve homebuyers. In addition, it reflects badly on solicitors who should move to change it before it is changed for them.

When people become disillusioned, encounter problems or their management fees increase they stop paying and the sinking fund becomes used up. The danger then is that apartments will fall into disrepair, people will become totally disillusioned with the concept of apartment living and a property problem will emerge in all urban areas.

I support the Bill and ask the Minister to consider doing likewise. The way in which management companies currently operate serves developers, county councils because their costs are reduced and the companies themselves which have been given a new lease of life and wonderful business opportunity. Those who are supposed to benefit — the homebuyers — are not served.

Mr. McEntee

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill 2006, which I support. Ten years ago there were few, if any, apartment developments in County Meath, a position which has changed dramatically in the past five years. Major developments in Ashbourne, Bettystown and other towns in the county are a sight to behold and apartment developments now sit alongside traditional housing estates. County Meath has experienced extraordinarily rapid development with 3,886 new houses built in the county last year. Last year, the number of new housing units in the county was the fourth highest in the country after Dublin where 18,000 new houses were built.

The population of County Meath is projected to reach 180,000 or more by 2012. Every week, new families move into the county and other commuter counties around Dublin, with many moving into large apartment developments. These new communities face many challenges. Residents generally work a long distance from their new homes, child care and commuting are a nightmare and every day is a balancing act. It is unfair that, having committed themselves to large mortgage repayments, couples face the prospect of faceless management companies extracting from them sums that would have paid for a mortgage in the past for the privilege of managing the estate on which they live. These families, which are generally young, are caught in a pincer movement with little or no wriggle room if their family or employment circumstances change.

Apartment owners and dwellers are already feeling vulnerable. Those moving into large apartment developments reflect the new Ireland in that many of them are from new European Union member states in eastern Europe or other countries. They deserve proper protection from the State and the full protection of the law, as the Bill proposes to introduce. The code of practice proposed in the legislation is the appropriate way to proceed as it gives management companies and their agents an opportunity to get their houses in order. The Bill also proposes to widen the remit of the Private Residential Tenancies Board to include the regulation of apartment complex management companies and their agents and, in a further welcome development, the board would be given power to mediate in disputes.

In the past, the taking in charge of estates by county councils was a hot political potato. This approach has been partially replaced with proper management of apartment developments across the country. For this reason, this Bill sponsored by the Fine Gael Party is overdue and should be welcomed.

Mr. Connaughton

I, too, welcome this Bill introduced by my colleague, Deputy O'Dowd. Contrary to the belief that apartment management companies are based only in Dublin, these companies are being established throughout the country. Even in east Galway, from where I come, there is no shortage of such companies. The Bill affords Deputies an opportunity to ascertain what estate management companies do, how they do it and for what reason they were set up in the first instance. Who benefits from the management of apartment complexes by private companies? Is it the builder, local authority or homeowner because it is certainly not the new owner of the property?

While the fees I will cite are low in comparison with those mentioned by my colleagues from Dublin, they are a problem. Recently, a young couple from a small town in County Galway approached me having received an annual bill for management fees of €500. They were unaware that these fees were payable. Two days after receiving that bill they received another one for €360 from the county council for waste management fees. Together, these bills amount to almost €1,000. With two children in a crèche and having borrowed heavily, the couple cannot afford to pay €1,000. Is this financially good for them either now or in the future?

As the Minister is aware, builders were traditionally required to bring estates to a certain standard before the local council would assume responsibility for them. I have seen this approach in action time and again over the years, albeit not so often in recent years. The residents of such estates then dealt with the council. Ten or 15 years ago, before greed came into play, another concept emerged based on the meitheal tradition with which some of us were brought up. This was the formation of residents' associations and loose co-operatives of well-meaning people for the purpose of keeping their estates in good order. The schemes involved levying voluntary contributions on each house in an estate. Suddenly, however, new legal entities have been established to make a business from this sector.

Young people are so delighted that their hour has come and they will take ownership of a new house that they do not read the small print of the contract they sign. Worse still, the professionals with whom they deal do not tell them about the small print. If the Bill does nothing else, it will at least alert young people to the importance of finding out to what precisely they are agreeing. Management fees will be akin to a ball and chain hung around their necks, although some residents may well be delighted to participate in estate management schemes.

Who is involved in management companies? Are the developers or solicitors involved? Where is the transparency in this regard? How can residents of estates find out exactly how their money is being spent? This lack of transparency is causing considerable agitation among many young people. They accept they agreed to pay estate management fees but they were not aware they were doing so when they signed the contract. They now find themselves unable to pay the fees. If, in the next year or two, interest rates increase, as we are told to expect, this will become a major problem.

This Bill is important as it will introduce transparency. Let the signal go out to every young couple signing on the dotted line that the rules relating to management companies are legally binding. They have become all-powerful. It appears to be difficult to disengage from them. Against that background, the more the communities in these new estates know about this, the better they will be able to handle it on the day they should know, namely the day they sign their contracts.

Everybody speaks about trying to protect young people against the ever increasing cost of housing. The Government tried over the past nine or ten years but was unsuccessful. A house that cost €300,000 last year will cost €330,000 this year and will probably cost €360,000 next year. That is what is happening. The management fee is a crippling levy. Whoever should bear the cost, it certainly should not be the new homeowner. For that reason, I support this Bill. It is a sensible measure and I ask the Minister to accept it on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Perry

This is an important Bill. A great deal of money is given to people who buy houses either through 100% finance or through the section 23 provision. It is difficult to raise a family in a dwelling of 600 sq. ft. In fact, very few of these apartments are designed and built for families. They are totally inadequate. There are no facilities for children to park their bicycles and no amenities in any sense.

While management companies are welcome, they fail in their obligation to look after children. There is heavy occupancy of apartments at present but it will be hard for young couples to rear children there. There is an obligation on management companies to provide services that facilitate families. The developments in Dublin are not geared towards families but towards people who can get 100% finance.

Deputy Connaughton is correct that when people sign for the mortgage, the insurance policy and the stacked up costs, they are so delighted to get the money they feel they are getting it for nothing. Interest rates are low at present. However, although the interest rate has reduced, it has been replaced by the principle, in that an apartment that was previously €200,000 is now priced at €250,000. The auctioneering company could probably change that too. Auctioneers are part of the cycle. There is no control on auctioneers or how one buys an apartment. Management companies can charge €1,200 to €1,500 a year and the person has no option but to sign up for this. All they might do is shampoo the carpets. They seem to do nothing else.

Section 23 was proposed to encourage development and, in the context of the seaside resort scheme, the section was extremely relevant in Sligo. Developers built houses and it was a cash rich enterprise. The State also got a ball of money. Development is a cash cow. A total of 80,000 homes are being built per year so billions of euro are coming to the State from the development sector. The economy is being driven by the housing sector. It is regrettable that a sector that is so beneficial to the economy is so unregulated in every sense.

Vulnerable people are locked into a mortgage agreement that must be paid. They point to an interest rate of 3% or 4% but the principle must also be repaid. They are also locked into an insurance premium to guarantee the mortgage and into a management contract to maintain the open spaces in the development. Consider what the developers get from this. It is a safeguard. If there are snags such as cracks in the walls, the management company does the work that initially should have been done by the contractor who built the apartment. In effect, the management contract is paying for the maintenance of the hallways, alleyways and open areas. That is regrettable.

The tax taken from this sector is unbelievable, particularly when one considers the scale of development. The apartments look fantastic in the short term but wait for five years. Every business needs a complete refit and redesign after seven years. Look at these apartments in seven years when section 23 runs out. What will happen? The developer will be gone, lost in a series of companies that will be untraceable. Nobody will take responsibility. Will the State or the local authority take responsibility? I doubt it.

Somebody must pay. The State must get involved. There must be protection for tenancy agreements. People are renting apartments from landlords who might have a total of 20 apartments. The landlord is in it for speculative reasons. He is getting the tax write-off. In effect, the State is financing these apartments, even though the regeneration has been very welcome. The Minister, however, has a responsibility to ensure there is a contract so people can know exactly what they are getting involved in. The management companies must be regulated and work by a constitution. There should be uniformity of discipline throughout the State.

I wish to refer briefly to the draft plan for the Cranmore regeneration project in Sligo. This estate consists of 511 houses. The houses were built in five phases between the early 1970s and 1985. Approximately 50% of these homes remain in public ownership and the area has a population of 2,500. Two thirds of the residents of Cranmore are aged under 35 years and unemployment in the area can be as high as 70%. The regeneration project is due to cost €26 million.

This is one of the big estates that were poorly built in the 1970s and 1980s and nothing has been done with them since then. Among the proposals contained in the draft plan is the development of quality housing in the area. This includes the refurbishment and redevelopment of some existing houses as well as the demolition and replacement of others. The Cranmore regeneration project intends to provide quality recreational space and a new centre block with a multi-purpose hall. This is most important.

It is important to provide children's amenities, playgrounds and multi-purpose halls. Otherwise, there will be a massive problem with the young population who will be completely disillusioned. The State is failing in its responsibility to provide this service. It is imperative the concerns of Cranmore residents in Sligo are taken on board as the regeneration plan for the estate gets under way. The Minister has been discussing this with the borough council. I urge the Department to progress this project as quickly as possible. The plan is on the Minister's desk and the Minister of State with responsibility for housing has viewed the area. Support is necessary.

When discussing the regeneration of regions and the housing stock of the country — 80,000 homes have been built in the past year — there is a massive responsibility to get high density housing right. There is now a ratio of 16 houses to the acre. It is critical that a concrete jungle is not being built without amenities for children. They are the next generation. There are single parents and demographic difficulties in every region, town and village. We welcome the boom in the economy and how noticeable it has been in the housing sector but the crisis facing the economy is the huge level of dissatisfaction with, and the lack of responsibility of, contractors who fail in their obligation to include amenities.

These developers are multimillionaires. This is not speculative development but speculation by developers. Given the amount of high density apartment blocks being built, it has been a major mistake not to have a legal framework in place that would obligate developers to fulfil their social obligations. There is great social anxiety at present and the Celtic tiger has generated that to a huge extent. It even extends to coastal communities which have been equally propelled by tax breaks. I urge the Minister to do the decent thing and seriously consider accepting this Bill. If he does, he will deal with a significant issue that faces huge numbers of the population in Dublin and throughout the country.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Roche)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete "now" and to add at the end of the motion "this day nine months".

I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Connor. I hope to do the decent thing and I am taking the unusual step of proposing an amendment to postpone the acceptance of Second Stage of the Bill for a nine-month period. I had hoped to move this as a reasoned amendment outlining in the amendment the basis for doing so, but I understand that is not possible.

I agree with the general sentiment that this is an area that requires change and specific attention. However, with the best will in the world, it does not achieve this and I will try to explain why and the reason I seek to postpone Second Stage. First, the Law Reform Commission is examining the issue of the regulation of these companies and is expected to report in the near future, which I will encourage. Second, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is developing proposals for a national property services regulatory agency and, third, I consider that legislation will most appropriately be developed in the light of this ongoing work. There are issues which need to be addressed with regard to management companies in Ireland but I am not convinced that the Bill in its current form will address those issues. I do not say this with the intention of putting down the author of the Bill. I accept the sentiment, but the Bill has some fundamental flaws which I will outline.

Apartment living has multiplied in Ireland in the past 15 years or so. As the Fine Gael Bill accepts, there is a need for management companies in modern apartment complexes. There is also a need to ensure that people's hard earned investment in their home is protected by ensuring that the structure and external fabric of the building is maintained.

It is clear that the law in this regard in Ireland has not kept pace with the increase in high density living we now see. Countries with long-standing apartment living have a more sophisticated approach than we have. That is why the Government has asked the Law Reform Commission to examine this issue. It is also the reason the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is developing proposals for a national property services regulatory authority. The Government does not oppose the thinking behind this Bill. We are happy to work constructively with all interested parties to review current arrangements, but there are some fundamental problems.

I understand the Bill was only printed over the weekend and the House has not had the opportunity to review all its provisions. However, from an initial view there are problems in its approach in some regards. If we passed it, I do not think Fine Gael would get any marks for regulatory impact analysis. To rush this Bill and get an unsatisfactory result would be a disservice to apartment dwellers and would be counter-productive to what we intend to do in the area. It is for those reasons that I propose to postpone the Bill.

There are a number of serious questions about the approach proposed in this Bill, including the level of bureaucratic involvement it implies, which I will outline in more detail. The proposal that the private residential tenancies board, PRTB, should be involved in regulating the relationship between property owners and managing agents would not be appropriate and would seriously detract from the PRTB's role with regard to landlord and tenant matters in the private rented accommodation. We must remember the reason the PRTB was established was to operate the new landlord and tenant system in the private rented sector. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to give the board this additional role.

The whole area of property management is complex, involving a number of different dimensions and issues, including the role of developers, managing agents and their relationships; the role and responsibilities of management companies; the role of the new property services regulatory agency; practical issues such as the standard of maintenance, level of and increases in management charges; the application of conveyancing law and practice in this area; issues relating to the operation of owner-controlled management companies and requirements of company law in that context; and linkage, in some cases, between planning conditions and provisions relating to management companies in purchase contracts. I am less than happy with the way some local authorities have operated in this area.

The Bill before us, as drafted, is not capable of capturing all these different, complex and interrelated elements. We would do people a disservice by not incorporating these diverse issues in legislation we produce. In its current format the Bill would not deal with a number of key issues that give rise to problems. I will return to this issue.

The Government will address the problems on a number of fronts, particularly in the context of the upcoming report from the Law Reform Commission. My Department and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will jointly prepare a report for the Government on the work done to date on this issue.

The legal issues involved are generally outside my area of responsibility. However, I am concerned, both from the perspective of my Department's housing role and the need for householders to get a fair deal, to promote practical action to tackle the problems we have come across. The solutions to problems in this area do not depend entirely on statutory action. Many, indeed most, of the difficulties that have come to light are attributable to what might charitably be termed shoddy practice on the part of certain interested parties. Deputy Connaughton spoke wisely on this and pointed out that some of the information on conveyancing given to clients leaves much to be desired.

Property owners in multi-unit structures must be put in a position which will allow them to ensure that their management companies operate effectively and in the common interest. There are many instances where unit owners have been prevented from taking effective control of the management entity. There also tends to be an information deficit in this area, which is inimical to the effective operation of management arrangements, particularly through the control of those arrangements by the owners. We will address these deficiencies through legislation where necessary and in the meantime through practical measures.

The legal profession also has a key role in protecting home buyers from abuses. Conveyancers need to be vigilant in ensuring that the rights of buyers are fully safeguarded from inappropriate obligations or excessive costs in house purchase contracts, particularly where buyers feel pressurised in the context of a rising property market. I hope that the legal profession as a whole will be able to help raise the level of protection further and I will expand on this later.

Local authorities must also play their part. In particular they must avoid adding to complexities or uncertainty in the context of applying planning conditions relating to management arrangements. My Department is pursuing this aspect with local authorities. Local authorities have taken a diverse range of actions and we will make it clearer to them what we expect in this regard.

A basic source of difficulty in the area is the general lack of information and understanding about the need for and role of management companies and the rights and obligations of home owners. As an immediate practical step to address this information deficit, I have asked my Department to co-ordinate the provision of clear and concise general information, particularly for home buyers. In the past ten years alone over 100,000 apartments have been built.

Apartment complexes have special management and maintenance needs because of the extent of shared or communal elements involved. Interdependence is an inherent feature of apartment living. This necessitates a range of rights and responsibilities with a mechanism for upholding, enforcing and where necessary, reconciling these, in the interest of all the owners and residents. The fact that most apartment buildings accommodate different tenures, and in some cases a mix of residential and commercial use, adds a further level of complexity.

Arrangements for managing and maintaining the communal elements of private apartment complexes are generally addressed through management companies. The appropriate practice is that shortly after the sale of all units in an apartment complex is complete, control of the management company is transferred from the developer to the owners of the individual units. The legal requirements relating to membership of these companies and associated obligations are brought to bear through the conveyancing process.

A cause of confusion in this area is misunderstanding of the role of "management companies" and "managing agents", because we tend to use the two terms interchangeably. It may be more meaningful to regard management companies as "ownership" companies or vehicles. On the other hand, property managing agents or management service providers are commercial entities engaged by management companies to carry out day-to-day operations. These agents appear to be a key source of problems and complaints from apartment owners, particularly regarding levels of fees, quality of service and accountability.

Problems have arisen from a range of factors, including failings on the part of developers or managing agents, poor administration of management companies, often due to inadequate participation by apartment owners, refusal of some owners to pay charges and the fact that some requirements under company law do not appear to be well suited to the circumstances of apartment management companies. These are complex issues which must be dealt with systematically.

The proposed new national property services regulatory authority is intended to regulate these operations. It will have the function of licensing, regulating and dealing with complaints about property management service providers or agents. The group which recommended the establishment of the regulatory authority also recommended that agents be subject to oversight by the authority, to vetting and complaints procedures and that managing agents should contribute to a fidelity fund to be operated by the authority. This addresses some of the core issues raised by Deputy O'Dowd and will be a most important development because it is clear the operation of managing agents is a major element of many of the problems that arise with regard to property management.

Another major source of potential difficulties arises at the stage when the buyer of a house or apartment signs the contract to purchase. It is at this point that the obligation to become a member of the management company and make relevant financial contributions tends to arise. A key issue in this context is control of the management company. A fundamental source of current problems is the fact that house buyers can be obliged to sign contracts under which they have obligations, including hefty charges, with regard to management companies, but have no guarantee that they will be able to influence the operation of these companies because developers can use artifices to retain effective control of management companies. They do this, of course, because there is a profit for them in so doing. This seems to derive from the fact that standard conveyancing practice and documentation allows a way for developers, if they so wish, to retain control of these companies indefinitely by keeping ownership of at least one unit in the development. A specific time limit must be set for the transfer of control of the management company from developers to the owners of units. Deputy O'Dowd pointed out that the basic conveyancing instrument was established long before communal living became common.

A number of other issues arise with regard to conditions in house purchase contracts relating to management arrangements. The level of management charges is a particular focus of complaint. Provisions relating to management arrangements must provide for the reasonableness and adequacy of charges.

The allocation of responsibilities and associated costs between developers and management companies and their members seems to be a source of particular difficulty. This issue is not, nor could it be, properly dealt with in this Bill. The effectiveness or otherwise of the operation of the management company after control passes to the owners of units is another important issue which must be dealt with in comprehensive legislation.

It is precisely because there is a complex interplay of different legislative codes and differing practical and legal issues in this area that the Government requested the Law Reform Commission to convene an expert group to examine all of the issues that arise in the case of multi-unit structures. The commission's consultation paper is likely to be published by the summer. I expect this report will address the various issues to which I have referred. Another very important matter that will be addressed in the report is mechanisms to deal with situations where problems have already occurred, whether through defects or inadequacies in conveyancing documentation or problems with the constitution or operation of management companies. Obviously if we are to have an even playing field, we must address the deficiencies which already exist, in addition to putting controls in place for the future.

The Government will consider the recommendations in the Law Reform Commission's final report, including the need for any new legislation in this area. Without pre-empting the commission's recommendations, it seems likely some provisions in conveyancing law will probably be needed to deal with some of the problems that have come to light with regard to property management arrangements.

I am very conscious of problems being experienced by apartment owners and am determined to do everything in my power to resolve them. However, the solution to all of these problems will not be achieved by way of a very short Bill, however well intentioned it may be. If we were to take this particular step, as outlined in the Bill, we would not be doing anybody a service. That is why I am suggesting the delay of nine months.

It takes time to have new legislation drawn up and enacted, particularly in complex areas like this. Even though legislative action is not likely to arise primarily in my area of responsibility, I am determined to ensure any practical action that might help improve matters in the short term will be actively pursued.

Something of a side issue to the question of management arrangements has emerged in terms of a small number of local authorities imposing planning conditions requiring the establishment of management companies. This matter has been raised in parliamentary questions by Deputy Catherine Murphy and others and is one which also concerns me. Concern has been raised that some conditions have been drafted in a way, or applied in circumstances, that may permit uncertainty, at the very least, about the responsibility of developers to complete residential developments and to maintain and repair infrastructure.

Provisions of the planning laws should not be used to transfer responsibility for public infrastructure, such as roads, footpaths, sewers, water mains and public lighting in housing estates to the residents, although I have a suspicion that some local authority officials may have that at the back of their minds. Last January the Department issued a circular letter to planning authorities reminding them of their responsibilities under the Planning and Development Act 2000. It also reiterated that the existence of a management company to maintain elements of common buildings should not be used to frustrate the taking in charge of estates. The majority of planning authorities do not attach conditions to planning permissions requiring management companies to be set up, although a number do and I will be encouraging local authorities to discontinue this inappropriate practice.

While the legal framework is an important element, insufficient awareness on the part of owners as to how apartment complex management arrangements work and a lack of appreciation of their own responsibilities and powers has contributed to problems. The maintenance and management of private apartment complexes is ultimately the responsibility of the apartment owners, just as any house owner has to take responsibility for his or her home. In the apartment complex context, this is catered for in a communal way through management companies but it must be stressed that ultimately control of these companies must rest with the apartment owners and not a third party which is using them as a source of revenue. If there are problems with the way a company is operating, it is primarily the responsibility of the owners, who are the company, to have these addressed.

Legislative measures to ensure timely transfer of control of management companies to owners and to enable these to operate effectively will be considered in light of the Law Reform Commission report. I expect the report will also address the need for consumer protection provisions such as requirements on developers to provide information and guidance to prospective buyers. I encourage buyers of apartments to ensure their solicitors examine carefully any clauses in contracts dealing with management arrangements and obligations. There is a particular onus on conveyancers to help protect buyers from any exploitation in this context. It would be desirable, in advance of any legislation, if a rigorous approach could be taken across the profession against inappropriate, even if not strictly illegal, contractual clauses relating to management companies to help squeeze out bad practices.

Under the Government's proposals, regulation of managing agents will be the responsibility of the new national property services regulatory authority. Legislation is being drafted to provide for the establishment of the authority and to detail its regulatory regime. I do not know what this will contain ultimately, but I expect it will provide for a much better level of control than that proposed in the Private Members' Bill.

I unreservedly agree with the need to make adequate provision for a sinking fund so sufficient funds are available to carry out major renovation. However, as I have stressed, it would be unwise to proceed with legislation without the benefit of the Law Reform Commission's recommendations as such issues require specific attention under law. I am suggesting the agreement of standard clauses in relation to sinking funds and other clearly identified matters for inclusion in all conveyancing documentation.

The Private Members' Bill seems to suggest that managing agents should be responsible for the provision of information on the rights and responsibilities of residents and on how management companies work, to the management company members. As managing agents are employed by management companies, is it appropriate to give them the role of educating their employers?

The Bill is predicated on the assumption that property management agencies are an inevitable feature of all apartment buildings. This is not the case as smaller complexes tend not to employ managing agents. Management companies of some larger complexes, whose owner-members are active, may decide to contract the required services directly and not utilise an agency. Is it wise for the legislation to be specific on these functions?

How would the Bill justify making the Private Residential Tenancies Board, whose mandate relates to private rented accommodation, responsible for the regulation of managing agents and their relationships with owners of apartments and the management companies of which they are members? How would such a proposal fit with the auctioneering review group recommendation, with which the Government agrees, that the proposed national property services regulatory authority should have responsibility for regulation of managing agents? How would it ensure such a major change would not undermine the role of the Private Residential Tenancies Board and the important functions it is performing in the private rented sector? How would the board be in a position to address property management issues on behalf of apartment owners related to aspects of conveyancing and company law?

The proposed functions are not appropriate to the board and would divert it from its core task of implementing and taking forward much-needed reforms in the private rental sector. It is essential that the board is allowed to continue its key role, which is still in the course of development, of providing a means for upholding the rights of tenants and supporting a professional approach by landlords. To divert the board from these functions would take from this important work. It would be unfortunate given that little attention was paid in the past to the sector, which is what the Residential Tenancies Act sought to redress.

The promoters of the Bill can ponder on these questions. I will be interested to hear views on these matters in the course of the debate and on how the entire range of issues relating to management of multi-unit structures can be effectively and comprehensively addressed.

I am reluctant to oppose the Bill as I have sympathy with its main objectives. However, the Bill as presented is deficient. That is why I am suggesting this approach. Members will know that my approach is based on good will towards the Bill and on an anxiety to resolve the problem.

Mr. O’Connor

I had a good day with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche. This morning he announced he was allocating €15,000 to Tallaght under South Dublin County Council's disability strategy.

The Minister and I agree there are challenges with the management of apartment complexes. The approach he is taking is a reasonable one. In the Dáil and other fora I have raised issues about the operation of estate management companies. The work of the Private Residential Tenancies Board is of particular interest to all Members. Recently, I have been at several meetings where the question of the functions of the board has been raised. I have concerns with its ability to tackle problems in rented accommodation.

Although I am not suggesting that the Dublin South-West constituency is different from any other, it is accepted that there have been particular challenges in the Tallaght area. The Springfield parish in which I live, which includes Virginia Heights, has had several challenges with rented accommodation. The Private Residential Tenancies Board must be given the resources and mechanisms to deal with these issues.

I compliment Deputy O'Dowd on his efforts in producing the Bill. On several occasions, I have raised issues relating to estate management companies. When Deputy Gilmore last raised the issue, I stated I had been to several public meetings in Tallaght, particularly in the Marfield Estate. I always speak positively about Tallaght. It is a different place from the one I moved to many years ago. Since the town Square opened 15 years ago, Tallaght has come of age in its development.

Mr. F. McGrath

It is not as nice as Marino or Clontarf.

Mr. O’Connor

As I only have a few minutes, I will take the Deputy on another time.

Mr. Roche

There is no need for Deputy Finian McGrath to be so elitist.

Mr. O’Connor

It was often said that Tallaght had the population of a city but the status of a village, but it has changed.

Mr. Perry

They will erect a statue to that man in Tallaght.

Mr. O’Connor

Deputy Finian McGrath can jump on the Luas with his banjo and I will greet him at the Square.

Mr. F. McGrath

I do not play the banjo.

Mr. O’Connor

It is an ever-changing environment and in five years it will be an entirely different place. The Square is known by some as crane place. It is a hive of activity with much building work going on. I am concerned with the number of apartment blocks being developed. I know housing is an important issue, but different challenges are coming to the surface with apartment block developments and we must be careful that what we are allowing to be developed will be good for our towns.

There are concerns about the operation of apartment block management companies. I do not know if the position is the same in Marino and Clontarf but gaining access to many apartment blocks is not easy. I spend much time trying to reach constituents in apartment blocks. There is also the wider issue of the registration of voters in apartment blocks. It is not just political activists who have this problem but also postal workers. Given that our dwelling habits are changing, the Department must consider the difficulties that arise.

I am glad the Minister accepts there are problems with the operation of management companies. I gave the example of the Marfield Estate. That was a case of people believing they were not treated in the best way when the estate was handed over. I am glad that local authorities will not be allowed to abdicate their responsibilities in this regard. I have often spoken about the need to remind local authorities that the taking in charge of estates and accommodation units is an important process. People depend upon us to make that point. There are estates in my constituency where taking-in-charge procedures were not initiated for many years, which causes many problems. There is one estate in Tallaght where people are still waiting for the grass to be cut regularly. Some 15 years after the estate was built the builder still has not finished the estate. I wish the Minister well in tackling these problems. He has my support, as ever. I compliment my colleagues on the Opposition benches for their initiative.

Mr. Gilmore

I wish to share time with Deputy Broughan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Gilmore

On behalf of the Labour Party I welcome this Private Members' Bill which has been tabled on behalf of Fine Gael by Deputy O'Dowd to amend the Residential Tenancies Act. I welcome the Bill as a further opportunity to debate the need to end the practice whereby management companies are being used to perform work that should be done by local authorities in normal housing estates. It is also an opportunity to call for the abolition of management charges in housing estates, as distinct from apartment buildings.

The management charges levied on housing estates and apartment blocks are, in effect, the modern form of domestic rates. However, these rates are paid not to local authorities but to private management companies. They are paid, in the main, by first-time home buyers in new housing estates and new apartment developments for the same public services which used to be provided by local authorities — public lighting, management of open spaces, provision and maintenance of roads and, in some cases, the provision and maintenance of water and sewage services.

They are an additional burden on families already overstretched with mortgage repayments and child care costs. Such charges can range from €500 to over €1,000 per annum. The amount is not controlled or regulated and it can be charged indefinitely.

The Labour Party previously addressed this issue in a Private Members' motion that was debated in the House on 22 and 23 November 2005. That motion sought to solve the growing problem of management charges and management companies in private housing development. That motion called on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to take three forms of action to address the management company problem, namely, to stop new management companies being formed and new management charges being levied, to regulate management companies and charges where they currently exist and to legislate to wind up management companies, end management charges and have the housing development taken in charge and maintained by local authorities.

Sadly, on that occasion the Government saw fit to table its own amended motion. That motion promised action on the issue of management charges but nothing has happened. In this evening's debate, the best the Minister can do is to plead for another nine months of further inactivity.

During the debate last November, the Minister told us the Law Reform Commission was engaging with this issue. We have received the same answer this evening. The only advance is that the Minister now tells us the Law Reform Commission is likely to publish a consultation paper — not even a report — this summer. We are a long way from the point at which the Law Reform Commission will produce a report and even further from the point where the Government will take action on it.

The Minister also told us last November that he had asked the Department to obtain a report from planning authorities on their policies for attaching conditions concerning management companies to planning conditions for residential development. We have heard nothing about this report since then. We have heard from the Minister this evening that a letter went from his Department informing local authorities of their responsibilities to take estates in charge but we do not appear to have had any information from the Minister. At least, he has not taken the opportunity to put on record the practice throughout local authorities with regard to the establishment of management companies.

Last November, the Minister also told us that local authorities could use section 180 of the Planning and Development Act, which allows residents in a housing estate to petition the local authority to have the estate taken in charge. He assured the House that was perfectly feasible and legal, and that it would resolve the problem. Within weeks of the Minister having told the House that was the case, Fingal County Council produced a report, on foot of a resolution proposed by my Labour Party colleagues on that council, which stated the provisions of section 180 do not apply to estates where a management company exists, as the land in question is in the ownership and control of such a company. The report went on to refer to the difficulties the local authority had in dealing with vesting orders as defined under the Planning Act 2000. Therefore, the measure the Minister claimed could be used by residents to provide relief was not workable.

In the same November debate, the Minister hinted that——

Mr. Roche

On a point of information, if the Deputy wishes to send me that information in writing I will provide him with a full legal response to it, point by point.

Mr. Gilmore

I sent the information to the Minister on 11 January 2006. I wrote to him on that date about this point. In the course of his reply in November he told us the following week he would launch a draft of modern guidelines for planning authorities on development management. I interpreted that to mean there would be some response in those draft management guidelines to address the issue of management companies. There was no mention of the management companies, however, in the draft guidelines which were published by the Minister within a couple of weeks of the debate last November. That matter was the subject of a letter I sent to the Minister on 11 January 2006, in which I addressed both the absence of action on the draft management guidelines to deal with management companies and the issues raised in the manager's report from Fingal County Council.

This issue has been raised by a number of Deputies, including myself. It was the subject of a Labour Party motion last November and is now the subject of a Fine Gael Private Members' Bill, yet the Minister is seeking extra time. This is not an area where additional time can be played for because people are being fleeced and financially crippled by management charges. There are housing estates where management companies have been inappropriately established as a means of dealing with the maintenance, running and upkeep of the estates.

People currently buying houses and apartments are being subjected to a requirement to join a management company and pay management charges in a completely unregulated environment. It is bad enough that young working families who are trying to start out in life must pay a huge price for their homes and furnishings, in addition to legal and other professional fees. They are then caught, however, for an annual charge for something that, certainly in the case of housing developments, should be the remit of local authorities.

I accept the idea of management companies ordering and maintaining residential developments was previously confined to private apartment developments and some small, expensive housing developments. Until recently, normal housing estates did not have management companies or charges. These housing estates were usually designed, constructed and completed to a standard which the local authority required for taking in charge. As we know, some developers failed in their obligation to complete housing estates satisfactorily, a subject that has already been addressed by a Labour Party Bill which passed Second Stage in this House in spring 2005.

In the case of apartment developments, matters were a bit more complicated, so a solution was found whereby developers would establish a management company, generally comprised of the owners of the apartments. This management company would have responsibility for the care, maintenance and management of the common areas. The apartment owners would pay an annual charge to the management company for these services. This practice was largely confined to apartment developments and, except for a few exceptional circumstances, it did not apply in normal housing developments. The picture has changed since. We now have the problem of management companies being used in standard housing developments and the problems which arise in mixed types of developments containing houses and apartments where the distinctions are blurred. The use of a management company which would have been appropriate within the immediate curtilage of the apartment buildings is extended to include the car parking area, roads and the general open space.

Other problems which arise, especially in apartment developments, are those associated with multiple ownership. In some cases the developers of apartments retain ownership of quite a number of units. The old situation was that a block of apartments was sold to individuals who either lived in them or used them as investment properties and let them. Generally one had one apartment per one owner. We now have situations where people buy multiple units in apartment blocks or where the original developer or a company associated with him or her retains ownership of some or large numbers of the apartments, in effect controlling the management companies established.

Many devices are used to do this. One is where the original developer initially has control of the management company and will not cede that control until the last unit is sold. All the developer has to do is retain ownership of the last unit and effectively he or she retains control of the management company. It is a jungle out there for people trying to buy homes. They are trying to make ends meet and are being fleeced, not only for the price of the unit of accommodation in the first place but also for continuing charges.

It is scandalous that we return to this issue month after month and session after session and the Government has not budged. Asking the House to wait another nine months to deal with an urgent problem long past the stage when it should have been dealt with is unacceptable. I take this opportunity to again call for the introduction of measures proposed by the Labour Party last November to ban the use of management companies in normal housing estates. They should be taken in charge by local authorities. Where management companies must apply they should be regulated and the Fine Gael Bill provides a framework for such regulation. Some relief must be provided for people already stretched by payment of their mortgages from having to pay a charge for what should be a public service in the first place and for which, in any event, they pay taxes.

Mr. Broughan

I read with interest the Minister's speech in response to this valuable legislation produced by our Fine Gael colleagues. The Minister often appears inside and outside this House as somebody who trained his entire life to be a Minister in the Cabinet. It is obviously a job he would like to continue doing after this time next year. It is regrettable that he told us that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is developing a proposal for a national property services regulatory authority. The Minister has had a long innings in which to address this issue.

The current situation developed during the massive construction boom we had during the past nine years, culminating in 250,000 apartment and other housing units during the past three years. The entire system of planning, construction and selling homes is riddled with sharp practice from start to finish. Examples of this are the rezoning scandals we discussed in the House last week, the failure to involve in the planning system ordinary people living in areas and districts changed beyond belief by massive high-density plans, such as in the north side of Dublin, and the auctioneering profession. The Building Control Bill is a valuable initiative but it comes too late for a large tranche of development in the greater Dublin area and throughout the country.

The man sitting behind the Minister, who identifies a great deal with Tallaght, made points on how houses are sold and how young people are treated throughout the process. Finally, they get their keys and find out the incredible situation regarding management companies. It is riddled with sharp practice and the Government had the opportunity to address it during the past nine years and nothing has been forthcoming.

The modest Bill before us might address these issues. I welcome the establishment of the private residential tenancies board and the information it has given us about the residential and rented markets. It is the first sign of a regulator in this territory in our history and the first sign of any attempt to give tenants and young householders a fair crack of the whip. It might be easier to extend the powers of an existing regulator as described in the Fine Gael Bill.

The type of sharp practice taking place in many major new developments is astonishing and appalling. As my colleague, Deputy Gilmore, stated builders and developers hold a tranche of apartments or houses for themselves. Young people in one of the famous early morning queues find out an entire block of houses or apartments has been held for the developer and his or her colleagues who will then establish a management company and acquire additional revenue after the massive profits they will make from the sale of most of the development and additional rents.

I do not know whether colleagues mentioned the particularly poignant email many of us received from a Dublin West constituent in recent weeks. He outlined the outrageous impact of the management company. He did not know anything about it when he reached his estate. He states his concerns are numerous, the main ones being the way in which he found out about the existence of the management company; the unbelievable pressure which existed at the point of signing the contract, even through his solicitor; the lack of information and time to assess it; the natural injustice of backdating increases of management charges on those who paid two years upfront, amounting to €400 or €500 per annum, and receiving early bills for the third and fourth years; the exponential rate at which the fees increased and failure to deliver key services.

That last point is the most blatant. This involves an estate of houses where there was an absolute failure to deliver key services on cleaning, street lighting and other basic services which we all assumed would be delivered by local authorities. Other concerns listed in the email were the extent of the liability company, which includes public liability and the extent to which householders themselves are liable in that regard; and confusion about house insurance and the basic injustice that those who benefit from this mechanism are the instigators of the system.

The author of the e-mail indicts Fingal County Council most of all for allowing this system through the planning process. There is also the injustice of older households having a full range of services from city and county councils while new householders do not receive any service. He details the great anguish he has suffered for the past three or four years living on this estate in Dublin West, and the way he and his family have been "gouged" for these charges by the management company. He knew nothing about this company when he went to view the estate and bought the house. It is sharp practice, as I said recently to the head of one of the leading auctioneering firms. It is the Minister's responsibility to take some action and he could start by adopting this Bill.

Debate adjourned.