I believe this development was occupied by tenants not owner occupiers, still a disaster for the residents.

These apartments were never sold or released to the market. When the downturn happened the developer simply let the apartments and subsequently went into receivership.

With regard to surveyors on behalf of mortgage lenders, the surveys carried out were valuation surveys not structural surveys so the €100 paid for the survey was just a watered down report describing the property and it’s estimated value. This was to confirm the Loan to Value ratio!

Jack. Sound like a cop out from you. The Loan to Value ratio would be affected my sub-standard workmanship, materials or the property not complying with fire regs. Regardless of the fact that this development was occupied by tenants not owners. The fact remains that our building regulations allowed & still do allow, for self certification of buildings by the developers, which in turn ensures our incompetent financial institutions do not conduct correct due diligence. The result is the buyer is left to carry the cost of this mess, because they were incompetent enough not to obtain their own independent structural & valuation reports. Caveat venditor rules the way. Sure is that not what capitalism is built upon?

Culm, calm down!! Where’s the cop out? I’m just stating a fact! The survey carried out when applying for a mortgage is a Valuation Survey NOT a Structural Survey! €100 is the fee paid when applying for a mortgage which is paid to a surveyor (one of which is on a panel approved by the lender), as I said the survey required by the lender is a valuation survey, simply to confirm the LTV ratio and that the property is as described as per the mortgage application. A structural survey is a very different matter and costs a hell of alot more than €100!

Yes with hindsight these survey’s should go into more depth and ensure the buildings are of sound quality and within the building regulations. But the fact is they don’t, at the end of the day it is you that is purchasing the property not the mortgage lender. The mortgage lender is simply advancing you the money to make the purchase, so the caveat em pour (buyer beware) rule falls to the purchaser not the lender. Most people, if not all simply go with the lenders requested survey thinking it is a full structural survey when it is not!!

I don’t understand why you’re ranting at me, as I’m not a surveyor, just a struggling mortgage holder that has had to get a structural survey done for my own benefit (not the lenders) so I’m just drawing on my own experience.

Jack. I’m not having a go at you. You pointed out the bank only requires a Valuation Survey. I simply pointed out a Structural Survey should have formed part of the Valuation Surey, otherwise the Loan to Value Ratio would be incorrect. This has proven to be the case where buyers have purchased properties that are now worthless as they are unable to live in or even sell them. I still make the point that if the regulations or mortague contracts had required structural surveys none of the problems described above would now exist. I agree when purchasing a property the new owner should get a structural survey, I did it cost me £1500 back in 2000 (I imagine that would be €6k or more now), but it saved me much more in the long run.

A surveyor completes a snag list prior to purchase. This covers cosmetic defects and can only drawn attention to bigger (structural) defects if they manifest on the surface. Conformity with the building regulations is the remit of those whose carry out the periodic inspections prior to completion and sale. Unfortunately it is their omission or inability to take on the client which leads to the purchaser buying and living in sub-standard accommodation.

Can’t upset the old school tie club

KPMG couldn’t give a shite about residents. €€€€€€ is the only thing they are thinking about.

It was obvious to all tradesmen on the ground that there was a given timeframe from Government to Developers to make as much money as they could and it was up to the Independent Developer to uphold buliding regulations anyway they saw fit .The money grab lead to disgraceful contruction standards which was disguised by a good finish to the buildings while the unseen core was 3rd rate for the prices they were being sold for.I would like the also mention small buildind contractors who were doing a fine job on their projects and keeping the standards high were continously targeted by the regulators making their life hell on the smallest of issues whilst turning a blind eye to the big developers constant disregard for building regulations.I feel soory for the people who paid completely ott prices for what they thought was a good product i always advised people i knew not to buy if i knew the work was unsafe and 3rd rate unlike Mr Aherne who told people to splash on 1 2 3 apartments houses ect knowing damn well the property bubble was a debt trap. You will see alot more of this in time to come the only way to get monies back from Major Developers is get out on the street.

Excuse some of my spellings and what not i have a wee man running around my ankles.

Hi there – I’ve replied to your email with my number if you would like to get in touch,
Kind regards
Aoife

Exactly Sandra. Myself & my girlfriend are in the same position. KPMG have been no help, try & contact that them & “Sinead” is away for 3 days & every other excuse. People moved in there because of the location, a lot of us work in Dundrum SC & being in Sandyford is a total pain. Have you spoken to a Lawyer?

What does Kenny have to do with this apartment complex?

There is a Facebook group set up by some other residents & I believe it is being discussed. A lot of people have been further annoyed by KPMG claiming that they are helping residents when the truth couldn’t be further away.