SWB And the Ownership Of Communal Parts

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 10:14

Just a word of caution to those intending to buy from SWB. Make sure you ask the following two questions and make sure you get a clear answer and have it clearly stated in your contracts:

1. Are the communal pools jointly owned by the buyers?

2. Are the other communal parts like the bar and the restaurant jointly owned?



These are very important and very pertinent questions as to the authority of who runs the maintenance services. If the swimming pool is not jointly owned by the buyers, then the vendor will be free to sell it to someone else or keep the ownership and thus impose the maintenance charges on the users. Furthermore they will have the right to open it for use to outsiders with of course certain benefits to themselves. This is my personal interpretation of the situation if the communal pools are not jointly owned. It will be interesting to hear other views on the subject.



The ownership of other communal facilities like the bar, the restaurant, beauty salon etc. .... ctd.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 10:19

ctd.

is more argueable. If they are jointly owned by the owners they would be a good source of income to pay towards the cost of maintenance for the whole site. In thgis case their cost should naturally be reflected in the prices of the houses sold there. Whatever the case may be, it should be clearly stipulated in the Sale Contracts so that the buyers know exactly what they are buying. Terms in the contract such as "the Vendor will allow unrestricted use of the communal parts by the buyers is neither here nor there and in my view not clear enough which may lead to legal trouble later on.

Buyers be warned and whatever you are buying make sure that it is clearly stated in your contracts. That is in the interests of all parties concerned.

ismet

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 11:47

Good points Elco .



It can be clear on one contract such as a purchaser owns a proportion of a site as it states this so the purchaser knows they have the proportion costs of maintaining of site .



However my question here would be does a second contract need to be drawn up when their is no mention of owners owning a proportion on the original contract as quite simply the owner does not have an obligation on paying a proportion of the maintainance of the site . whilst there is no mention on who owns it .

flutterby


Joined: 11/01/2008
Posts: 214

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 11:59

I was under the impression that with the apartment laws of TRNC, this means that if you own on a communal site, then the entire site is owned in equal shares, including all communal areas.

flutterby


Joined: 11/01/2008
Posts: 214

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 11:59

I was under the impression that with the apartment laws of TRNC, this means that if you own on a communal site, then the entire site is owned in equal shares, including all communal areas.

flutterby


Joined: 11/01/2008
Posts: 214

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 12:01

To add to the above, if for example, there was an area designated to being a restaurant/bar, how could the owners would not have a licence to sell goods, so this would have to be 'rented out' to someone who does have a licence?

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 12:08

I think it has to be stated on the original contract of purchase !!

flutterby


Joined: 11/01/2008
Posts: 214

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 12:19

Surely Contracts of Purchase have to be written around the TRNC Laws?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 12:32

It all depends on the wording used. If in the appendix to the sale contract a bar, restaurant etc. is listed there as communal facilities, then I would imagine that these facilities are part and parcel of the "communal areas" and hence jointly owned by the owners. Again, one has to look at the whole contract and of course the courts will always have the final say if need be. The aim of the original post was to draw attention to a potential trouble point so that it can be avoided if possible by making these points clear in the contract in the first place. Then it is up to the vendor and the buyer to agree or not to agree. Its best to avoid ambiguous language. Fair is fair.

I realize that some oversensitive people may get upset by my posts but that is not my problem, my job is to enlighten people truthfully and I take great pride in this.

ismet

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 12:34

so if the contract says you own for instance



1/88 th of the communal land and its facilities you are covered if stated in your contract



however if it does not say this and not proportioned equally and these facilities belong to someone else, then surely as an owner you will not have to pay for the maintenance of the facilities.



a bit messy if this is the case ?

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 12:40

This has always been my concern Sienna, as the developer owns the communal areas he could build on, add on knock down or re build exactly what he wanted, as in a nutshell the communal areas belong to him .

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 12:42

msg. 10

Sienna,

In my view, if the contract does not clearly stipulate that the bar or whatever is not part of the communal area, then it is jointly owned. Your contract does not ahve to state that you will also own x/xxth share of the communal parts, I think the laws already cover that and propably your share is proportional to your surface area divided by the total area.

ismet

tamand


Joined: 23/07/2009
Posts: 240

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 13:03

surely you should have checked these things before buying

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 13:13

msg. 13

I think there has been some changing of the goal posts by this developer e.g. some contracts stipulate that there will be a covered swimming pool but now they say that "by popular demand and conditions in north Cyprus" they changed it to a semicovered pool. I am not even sure if that description is a fair one http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=gxvaaCr

ismet

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 13:41

It seems the laws are very ambiguous out there and cause owners so much grief when buying and then...... if you manage to take possession of a fully finished site and or aparemnt or villa you then have the Management Companies to contend with !

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 20:19

msg. 15

Sienna,

The laws are not ambiguos at all, at least that is not the main problem. As I see it the main three problems are these in order of importance for me:

1. PTP: this should be replaced by a more practical solution i.e. if PTP is really necessarry, it should be given to individuals and not related to any property. Problem areas sould be marked on the map.



2. Buyers fall for the smooth sales talk and decide to buy without examining the conditions. They want to pay the deposit, sign the contract same day if possible and finish the deal. Who cares about the ownership of communal parts that day. The problem will come later.



3. With buyers as mentioned in parag. 2 above, if the advocate tries to point out the dangers or try to negotiate the problem clauses, the advocate becomes the bad person and is likely to lose the custom and even meet with resentment for any fees for the services rendered. No deal no money is the motto. So who is to blame?

ismet

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 20:26

I agree Ismet you are right ! the brits tend to leave their brains either on the plane or at the airport



However I do consider myself one of the lucky ones Ihope ohters will heed your warnings

LynxLtd


Joined: 24/04/2009
Posts: 46

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 23:20

Re message 10

In case the ownership of the common areas are not proportioned equally over the number of units the Developer may control the site’s infrastructure ie water distribution system, wells, backup generators, gated access etc and can/have cut off non-payers let alone non-transfer of title deeds and other tactics…. Agreed a bit messy but quite a bit of leverage as a result of the lack of municipal infrastructure ie water in some areas.

Lynx Management

http://www.lynxcyprus.com

andy-f


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 1256

Message Posted:
13/05/2010 23:44

strange how elko2 has picked on the sweetwaterbay site to highlight this . Swb is a fantastic development and the vast majority of owners like me are made up with our purchase and dont give a shit if swb own the pools or bar ect as long as they are kept in tip top condition ( which they are).



we have a couple of OAPs that reside 24/7 on site that think they can impose there will on the rest of us , this is more a concern than the said topic .



andy

millzer


Joined: 12/04/2007
Posts: 978

Message Posted:
14/05/2010 01:50

Message 19. I don't doubt that SWB is a fantastic development, in fact I visited the site in April and it looks very nice indeed.



Whether of not you give a wotsit about who owns the pools/bar etc may however be a little premature! Yes they may be in tip top condition now, and the charges may well be reasonable now, but what if the 'owner' at some point decides to hike up the price, or the standard of maintenance of same starts to deteriorate. Worse still, what if the 'owner' decides to sell, and the new 'owner' starts operating/changing the facilities in a way that the residents/users don't like or want.



If the 'communal owners' don't own the legal rights to the facilities then those same communal facilities could potentially be used to hold the communal owners to ransom at some point now or at any time in the future. I hope your words don't come back to haunt you at some point in the future and you can continue to not give a wotsit about it for the foreseeable future

keithr


Joined: 20/08/2008
Posts: 720

Message Posted:
14/05/2010 04:23

We have had a very similar situation occur here on Chelsey Village,the Bar/restaurant we all understood was in communal ownership,however the building conractor has claimed ownership,how we don't know,no one communicates with us about this issue.



The net result is that owners pay to maintain the adjacent pool while the contractor enjoys the profits from the bar,and the customers use the pool gratis....

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
14/05/2010 09:23

msg. 21

Keith,

In my opinion, if your sale contract or one of its appendices include Bar/Restaurant as part of the Communal Areas, then it is part of the communal areas i.e. it should be part of joint ownership. However I am aware of a few developers who are trying to pull a fast one. I suggest you consult your advocate with a view of starting a court case and ask the court to make a Declaration based on your contract to the effect that the Bar/Restaurant is part of the Communal Areas and thus it belongs to joint ownership. You have to take preemptive action to stop them. Otherwise when the time comes for the transfer of title deeds (if ever), you may find that the parcellization has been done in such a way that the bar/restaurant is not jointly owned. what is worse the developer may sell the pool and other communal facilities to third persons and even have it registered at the Land Registry Office. Its best to act quickly and also expose these would be cowboys.

ismet

frontalman



Joined: 28/02/2008
Posts: 499

Message Posted:
14/05/2010 10:16

Well done Ismet for placing your head above the parapet and raising a very important issue. It doesn't apply to us or our particular circumstances, as we bought a small piece of land and had a house built to our specs, privately. The issues you raise are those can can come back and bite, once the initial euphoria surrounding any development has worn off. Developers will be looking to maximise their incomes in the future and may wish to exploit situations, who knows what may happen. Therefore best to get it all down in black and white.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
14/05/2010 14:01

Thanks Frontalman for the appreciation of such an important and vital issue. Of course some prefer to bury their heads into the sand and even worse try to attack or belittle my comments by referring to them as "funny". It will make no difference to me and I will continue to comment on important issues as I see fit. My full personal details are given in my profile, so I have nothing to hide and of course nothing to be afraid of. Any threats of libel action will only make my day. Would any one like to try it please?

ismet

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
15/05/2010 10:38

Are there any similar concerns with other Developers in north Cyprus and what is the situation in south Cyprus, any information on that please?

ismet

sweep


Joined: 11/10/2007
Posts: 241

Message Posted:
15/05/2010 12:13

andy



have checked and we do own the coumminal areas , ie the pool area etc so no worries.



see yer is aug, off the france next week fishing.

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
15/05/2010 12:49

Most def Ismet . No mention of owner ship of communal area's, on this particular site in the contract.

Then half built villas were added on to the complex after the apartments were sold off plan .

Owners were sold apartments off plan with a brochure of the complex project no mention of the added villas .

So these unfinished villas remain half built, a constant eye sore and view blocking to boot for some owners on site .

Arthur


Joined: 04/11/2008
Posts: 687

Message Posted:
16/05/2010 17:45

Thanks Lee. Send my regards to your brother. I don't expect us as owners to have an interest in the commercial units, but we must own the common facilities such as the pool, gym etc.



I must confess I like I suspect others wonder at Elko's very keen interest in the SWB site.

cyprusjoker


Joined: 29/08/2009
Posts: 1107

Message Posted:
16/05/2010 19:22

Who gives a flying fiddlers fanny, most of you old gits only got a few years left anyway.! One life, live it.!



Long time looking at the lid..

andy-f


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 1256

Message Posted:
16/05/2010 22:18

mess 29 " who gives a fiddlers fanny , most of you old gits only got a few years left anyway "



exactly ! thats are what we all saying to the two "old gits" at SWB who are kicking all the shit up .

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
16/05/2010 22:50

It's not always about the developer retaining ownership of the communal areas. Sometimes the planners divide areas into sites, particularly if the development is done in stages. You then find that ownership of the pool belongs to those that bought on site 1, whereas ownership of other parts of the development is shared only between those that bought on site 2, 3 or 4. This is not a problem until you come to sell and then the bomb shell.....Only phase 1 owners have legal ownership of the pool. You are selling your house/apartment with a communal pool you do not actually own shares in.



Obviously this affects the value of the property as you will be selling an apartment without any legal right to use the pool if restrictions by the "legal" owners are enforced.



Life-long Covenants can be drawn up to prevent this situation from happening. However it does devalue your property. I am not for one minute saying that this is the case on this development, but it does happen.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
16/05/2010 23:20

well said bradus it never ceases to amaze even when other highlight potential problems how blinkered some owners