Cyprus Property Forum for Buyers, Sellers & Investors

Hi Nigel,
We took over a new house on a development of 12, with a communal pool, last year. Only 5 are owned up to now & nobody is permanent at the moment. The pool has, as of yesterday, been completed & filled up. The developer has said that he will complete 2 more houses this summer to rent out. As of now we are expected to pay the full upkeep costs divided by 5. Is it reasonable or even legal that the developer should be liable for the other 7 properties payments?
We had to pay for the landscaping of the surrounds ourselves & also 2 entrance gates to the pool (insurance req) after he had put railings around. We are trying to comply with all the various legalities but wonder if the developer is shirking his resposibilities!

Thanks Paul

Hi Paul & welcome to the forum.

No it is not legal & proper - the developer is trying to extort money from you!!

You should only be paying one twelfth of the costs, not one fifth.

I suggest you take legal advice on how best to deal with this rogue.

Regards,

Thanks for that Nigel,

I have been in touch with one of my neighbours on the complex who has apparently already spoken to his lawyer who said "The developer becomes responsible only for those properties that have been completed & are ready for sale or let whether or not they have been sold or let". Surely the developer, as the vendor in my contract, is the owner of the other half built properties & is therefore liable for communal costs as you say? How can the developer only become responsible after he has sold the houses?
I have to say that the lawyer in question is highly respected in property dealings so am at a loss as to what to do next!
I have read & reread my contract & can only find reference to the swimming pool & common areas in so much as the "Purchaser undertakes to participate in the expenses which are necessary for the maintenance, insurance, etc." on an area basis in common with the rest of the owners.

What do you make of this?

Regards Paul

Hi Paul

I'm a bit confused, perhaps I'm missing something.

You're on a development of 12 houses, 5 of which have been sold. The developer will complete 2 more houses in the summer (which will increase the number of houses on the development to 14).

It's the developers responsibility to pay the communal charges on the 7 unsold properties. But if he fails to rent out the further two he'll complete in the summer, he'll have to pay the charges on 9.

People become liable for communal charges when they take delivery of a property. So the developer could have sold a property, but its buyers do not pay the charges because they have not taken delivery.

The "on an area basis" is the way the charges are calculated. E.g if your property is 150m2 you will pay twice as much as someone whose property is 75m2, etc. Basically, the larger your property is compared to the others on the development, the more you pay.

You can work out very roughly how much you should be paying by dividing the amount the developer's trying to charge you by 12 and then multiplying it by 5.

Regards,

Hi Nigel,
Sorry for the confusion, I have confused myself already. The easiest way to put it is we are on a new unfinished development of 12 (4x 2 bed, 8x 3 bed). 5 are complete & owned (4x 2bed, 1x 3 bed). The 7x 3 bed have been left as carcasses until sold. The whole question is whether the developer is liable to pay the 7 unfinished houses share of the communal charges now or is it, as the lawyer says, only when they are finished anyone becomes liable?

Regards Paul

Hi Paul

I don't know the law in that much detail - but I know someone who does!

Bear with me for a day or two and I'll get back to you.

Regards,

Hi Paul,

A second opinion - There is nothing mentioned in the law about this issue but logically the common expenses are paid by the owners of the units who use them, therefore the units need to be finished. When the units are completed then the Developer has to pay for the common expenses related to the completed but unsold units.

So your neighbour's lawyer is correct.

Regards,