Welcome to our Public Beta Site - What does this mean?
Dublin: 12 °C Wednesday 23 May, 2012

Council could offer Priory Hall residents €50,000 for apartments

Image: Sasko Lazarov/Photocall Ireland

DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL has tabled two unofficial proposals to owners of apartments at the ill-fated Priory Hall complex but neither are likely to lessen the enormous problems facing residents.

Although no formal proposal has been put forward, the council suggested it could pay €50,000 per unit to buy 100 apartments which currently cannot be lived in because of safety concerns.

The suggestion was made at a meeting between the DCC and the Priory Hall residents’ committee but no financing or commitment was given.

A spokesperson for Priory Hall told TheJournal.ie that even it it was, the proposal is not an option for residents.

“We have mortgages of at least €250,000 so we would have no way of paying for that loan if we sold the properties for €50k,” said Graham Usher.

The only winner in that scenario is the council. We would have a large personal loan and also need to find a way to pay for new accommodation. We would be homeless and forced into bankruptcy.”

A second suggestion involved a rental agreement utilising the developer Tom McFeely’s remaining 60 apartments. However, no details of this were fleshed out, said Usher.

However, it would be likely that residents would have to foot some of the €7.3 million repair bill.

No formal offers have been made by DCC in terms of either suggestion and the council wishes to keep all communications between the two parties confidential.

Facing destitution

Fears are mounting among the 100 owner-occupiers of the substandard Donaghmede complex that they will “have to face the worst” after a Supreme Court hearing on 19 January.

The council is contesting a High Court ruling that it should cover the costs of temporary accommodation for the residents until works have been completed at the apartment block.

The total bill to date has been €570,000 but a further €135,000 is expected to be spent on housing.

The council will argue in the Supreme Court that they should not be liable after 3 February and residents fear it will win the appeal.

As a result, the residents’ committee has asked financial experts to come and talk to the apartments’ owners about the consequences of defaulting on mortgages and bankruptcy.

Who is responsible?

Priory Hall was evacuated on 17 October after the council deemed it unsafe over fire hazard concerns.

Usher has called on DCC to “stand up and take responsibility” for the situation as it was the building control authority overseeing the development.

“The building site of Priory Hall was the subject of failed health and safety inspections back in 2006. If the site itself was dangerous, why was the finished development not one of the council’s 15 per cent that are inspected?” asks Usher.

Previously, he told TheJournal.ie that the doomed complex shows “a complete failure on the part of the State and the local authority”.

“It is not an overstatement to say that we all now face destitution,” he concluded.

This video of the complex’s car park was taken by the residents’ committee this weekend to highlight how much the development has deteriorated since it was emptied three months ago. It has experienced on-and-off flooding but water levels had reached 2 feet when this footage was captured.

McFeely, was sentenced in November to jail for three months and fined €1 million for contempt of court orders relating to his development. The judge in the case later granted McFeely a reprieve against the sentence.

Read: Ours will just be the first case of many>

Read: Priory Hall residents ask Taoiseach to intervene>

Read: Residents tell McFeely: ‘We don’t wish you a Happy New Year’>

In pictures: Six weeks on, Priory Hall is a ghost town>

Read Next:

Comments (65 Comments)

  • Stephen Watson 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    What a fecking insult to those poor residents!

    Reply
  • P Wurple 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    What a disaster of a situation. Those unfortunate residents. And it is going on for so long! Really glad this is kept in the media attention. Planners and council should have done those inspections, I really hope they learn from this mess. (developer a disgrace obviously also)

    Reply
    • mart_n 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      Further to that; prospective buyers should also employ an independent building inspector before committing themselves. You can not and should not rely solely on the seller to comply fully with regulations.. sad as that may be. You wouldn’t buy a car unless you had it checked over first.

    • Diego Attley 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      @mart_n: That’s all very good saying that but didn’t most of these people buy from plan? If that’s the case the banks should have made these people (or anyone buying from plan) take out insurance for an outcome like this. These people are most likely default (through no fault of there own) and it will be the tax payer that will make up the difference. How is it possible that the scumbag that built these apartments isn’t responsible for this?

    • Tommy 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      He is totally responsible but he has no money. It’s similar to buying a car off plan that is not fit for purpose and the dealer and manufactuer go out of business. Who do you sue? Nobody, you’re stuck with a bad consumer decision.

    • Diego Attley 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      The man has loads of money. I think what you mean is his business has none. I bet he was having a good chuckle to himself watching 6.01 there at the report on PH sitting in his big mansion.

    • SMcB 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      You are aware that an application to have Tom McFeely declared bankrupt has been scheduled for Jan 16?

  • Joan Featherstone 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    A paltry sum, a bloody insult really. Poor people out of their homes through no fault of their own. Looks like anyone can be a ‘builder’ with no recourse!

    Reply
  • john g mcgrath 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    50000 for the lot not a bad deal

    Reply
  • jimbo 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    DCC trying to make a quick buck,you should be ashamed of yourselves,so much for been broke and willing to make an offer.
    Offer residents full price or get the boat

    Reply
  • Emsy wemsy 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    How to add insult to injury!

    Reply
  • Aaron McKenna 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    If the residents were developers the likes of which constructed this sick joke of an apartment complex, they could go to England and declare themselves bankrupt there for 12 months. They do it here, they’re in for 12 years of hell.

    Reply
  • Martin O Donnell 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    lesson to all ….never buy from plans ….everything we buy we try out first …yet people were encouraged to buy property from plans without getting to check out the property and the powers that be are going back on assurances to these people….instead of lining their own pockets the government and banks should give these people replacement properties afterall they all have got €300 k plus mortages…..its an absolute disgrace the way enda and co are ignoring these people

    Reply
    • Paul Mallon 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      You should be able to buy confidently from the plans this is a failure on the parts of:

      The developers.
      The builders.
      The council.
      The government.

      Even if you do get checks done yourself, how can they inspect the property after it’s built? and even when they do, they don’t have any responsibility either, all you’re entitled to is a refund on your inspection fee if they miss something.

    • Dom Morgan 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      If you buy a new car very often you inspect a sample. You can end up with a dog buying a car in the same way these guys ended up with the dog deal. But the thing is that the residents should be able to choose whether they accept the fire risk and live in the place or vacate. Where the state is preventing them from enjoying the property due to the failure of the state to enforce its own regulations – this should not be at the expense of citizens.

  • Emsy wemsy 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    If the council can afford to give 50,000 for each apartment, why not just pay to make the apartments safe and let the residents move back in? Then everyone is happy and this can all just end….

    Reply
  • Adam Magari 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    This isn’t a local authority issue but political pressure and noise is making it into one without any thought for precedent. Presumably the lenders that funded the purchase of the apartments have some charge on insurance cover taken out as a condition of the mortgage. We’re these apartments covered by any kind of Home Bond deal at time of sale?

    Reply
  • Report this comment

    Why should the tax payer have to pay for these people? They bought them not us!

    Reply
  • MichelleSRyan 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    Where is the home insurance they’re supposed to take out when they get a mortgage?

    Reply
  • Francis Stokes 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    That sounds to me like an insult to the residents. They will still have to pay the mortgage. What will the council do only renovate these apartments and maybe sell them at a profit. The minster for housing should have this at the top of his agenda and tackle the problem up front I am afraid they do not have the luxury of going to England to declare Bankruptcy You cannot go to England top declare yourself bankrupt unless you have business interests there as well. .

    Reply
  • Frank2521 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    The City Manager is brilliant at spending the taxpayers money. He handed a cheque for over 5 million Euro for 26 of these apartments and now wants to throw more money at this failured project which was build under his watch and which he is responsible for the lax levels of project management associated with this site and other sites controlled by this developer. I doubt he would just throw his own money at a builder should the issue arise in his own home. This man needs to be arrested for negligence and incompetence. Imagionocity one of his family being treated as he has and continues to treat these poor people. Has any of the tenets gone to the Garda and reported the risk of another Stardust as a result of this man and the developer – I feel that the City Council(ie City Manager) is responsible.

    Reply
    • Adam Magari 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      Good points. Many people are banging on about how the Council allegedly in its oversight etc. a simple question: has anyone in DCC lost his or her job over Priory Hall?

    • Paul McCluskey 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      So the banks lend and act recklessly and the government bails them out. Ordinary members of the public buy a home in good faith and the council try’s to screw them over.

  • Faceless Man 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    Has anyone lost their job over this yet?

    Reply
  • Tony Nugent 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    Residents should all default on their mortgages and walk away!! Simples

    Reply
    • Tommy 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      Great idea. Ruin their credit record for life whilst also having court orders to repay the full amount of loan plus arrears and legal fees.

    • Norman Hunter 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      Not simples in this country the debt follows you unless you are declared bankrupt which is not easy either.

    • Niamh Byrne 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      Billy~ tom are we beginning to see the smallest grain of sympathy and understanding or are you just in a good mood? (:

  • Andreas Riha 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    Dublin City Council deny such an offer to Prioryhall owners via RTE news
    http://ow.ly/1DxKcv

    Reply
  • Tony Nugent 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    Tommy,

    Any person that defaults would be blacklisted for 12 years if I remember correctly…. Better that than paying negative equity off an apartment you can’t even live in!! Makes perfect sense to me.

    Reply
    • Tommy 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      You’re confusing bankruptcy and defaulting on a non-recourse mortgage although I agree. If they can’t afford to pay they should declare bankruptcy but they won’t.

  • Dom Morgan 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    What exactly is wrong with these apartments?

    Reply
    • Tommy 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      They’re too small, badly made and on the northside.

    • Norman Hunter 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      Dom are you serious have you watched the news read the papers read pervious comments.They are a fire safety risk.

    • Dom Morgan 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      Seen the news but not the detail, I am in Saudi. I know these are fire safety risk, but what exactly is wrong with these?

    • Niamh Byrne 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      Billy ~ tom…I spoke too soon….(see above).

    • Dom Morgan 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      It looks like nobody knows. After some googling I wasn’t able to find a list of breaches of fire regulations. What I did find is that the bloke who built those is a former (?) IRA buddy of Gerry A. I also found that the developer was at one stage given five weeks to fix this by the court which seems to suggest that no major construction work was required. A couple of questions are obvious:

      - if this can be fixed in five weeks surely it is cheaper than housing these people for months. So when the developer failed to honor the court order, why didn’t the court order the council to pay and put a claim against the developer (this claim could go into the que of creditros)

      - are these flats really such a massive fire risk? I honestly doubt these flats are less safe than hundred and fifty years old terraces converted into apartments so to me it seems that one the scenarios could be that this fella was cherry-picked and pushed into bankruptcy.

    • Dom Morgan 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      “…order the council to pay…” should read “…order the council to fix…”

  • Dom Morgan 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    And will the thumbs down brigade kindly fuck off. It’s a genuine question, not an opinion / joke!

    Reply
  • Ardo Ci 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    And the rest!

    Reply
  • always_running 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    How come the so called professionals (architect, engineers, fire consultants, etc.) are not being hung out to dry, at the end of the day these units could not have been sold without their sign off! Surely their P.I Insurance is ripe for the picking, there has to be some solicitor who can pin this on the professionals by using the Building Control Act?

    Reply
    • Dom Morgan 08/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      Usually these liabilities are not open ended.

    • Eileen Gabbett 09/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      Always running .
      T have been saying this for weeks now ”there has to be some solicitor who can pin this on the professionals by using the Building Control Act?” And the rest … Some one some where surly can help ! ( Erin Brokovich comes to mind )

  • mike grant 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    Sorry to compare this case to developing in the uk but here goes. If you are a developer you have to have fully planning permission, building regulations ( the local authority usually carries this out, although you can employ a private company ) and a 10 year insurance backed guarantee. (the developer must cover year 1 & 2 with the insurance covering years 3 to 10) normally the developer will finance the construction via the bank, the bank will only release the stage payments to the developer once each stage has reached ie oversite, wall plate, water tight, plastered out and finally compleat. The bank will only release the final payment to the developer on proof of the completion cert from the council and the insurance company.
    On the purchasers side their solicitors and mortgage companies will need the completion certificates to offer finance and compleat the purchase. Wtf happened with this development. The developer, local authority, banks, mortgage companies, solicitors and insurance guarantee companies must be held responsible. These poor hard working people have been let down by all those in position to protect them. If it was me I would be camping outside their houses and shaming the lot of them. I really feel for the home buyers who are being left with no property and a large mortgage.

    Reply
  • Darren B Waters 08/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    Ireland is becoming a joke and a bad one at that. But that’s what happens with nepotism.

    Reply
  • Rory Keogh 09/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    Could the banks not come in and try solve any outstanding issues. Was the cost to make it safe not approx €1m. Surely the bank have more to lose if the residents default on there mortgages. At this stage the apartments would be deemed unsellable due to the constant press coverage.

    Reply
    • Sinmac 09/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      @Rory, the current estimate is 7.5 million but it could be a lot more as they open up the development and maybe uncover other defects

  • Marlon Major 09/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    As a foreign resident viewing this… I often wonder how Ireland has gotten as far as it has…. In Ireland, often laws do not exist to manage the most minute… And if they do… They are not enforced. People elected to office, often mean well but usually have little experience or skillset to complete the job. Its actually comical, disturbing and sad observing this implosion.

    Reply
    • Caitriona Reilly 11/01/12 #
      Report this comment

      Totally agree Marlon, Unfortunatly the people who run for office are nearly always public servants, actually teachers are the predominate public servants now in public office. You rarely see Accountants, Business people , engineers etc on the ballot papers. Until we improve who runs , there will not be any remarkable changes in Irelands future.

  • always_running 09/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    One of differences I found between the UK & Irish building systems was in the UK the majority except Building Regulations & adhere to them, while in dear auld Ireland its a case of doing the bare minimum to comply or better still to find a way to become exempt from the need to comply!

    Having done a very small bit of research on Building Control in the UK I don’t believe Ireland could of set up something similar (e.g Building Control tasked to keep Belfast in order – 90 staff)! I also found that local councils in the UK are also trying to move away from Building Control to allow private companies to carry out all the inspections & carry the can should something go wrong! Pretty much like all governments are striving for – collect all the rates & have very little (no) responsibility!

    Reply
  • Cabinbee.com 19/01/12 #
    Report this comment

    All while we are selling a house for less than 500 euro :-)
    http://www.cabinbee.com

    Reply

Add New Comment