Web of buck-passing surrounds amenities dispute in Dublin apartment scheme as social tenants lodge more discrimination cases
A myriad of questions surrounding amenity access for social tenants in a Dublin apartment complex remain unanswered, as more residents lodge discrimination cases.
Castleview in Inchicore, Dublin, was thrust into the public eye following a recent Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) ruling that found the management company, Dillon Marshall, had discriminated against a social tenant who was blocked from accessing the on-site gym.
When the tenant, Agnieszka Nowakowska, offered to pay an additional out-of-pocket fee to use the facility, she was reportedly told her access was denied because she lived in the social housing block.
The management company, which did not send a representative to the hearing, was ordered to pay Ms Nowakowska €2,500 in damages. A 42-day window to appeal the finding is open for the next several weeks.
A subsequent series of enquiries by the Irish Independent about the nature of amenity access in the 392-apartment scheme led to a web of finger pointing, buck-passing and contradictory claims.
Eleven of the 12 blocks in the complex are owned by QuadReal, a multinational real estate firm headquartered in Vancouver, Canada, and managed by Dillon Marshall, a property management company that operates across Leinster.
These are privately rented for rates ranging from €2,150 a month for a one-bedroom apartment, to €3,550 for a three-bed.
Included in this price is access to a range of on-site facilities, including a gym, co-working space, residents’ lounge and private meeting room.
Block 5, consisting of 39 social homes, is owned and managed by approved housing body (AHB) The Iveagh Trust, which provides housing in the block to Dublin City Council (DCC) tenants.
These residents are currently blocked from accessing virtually all of the site’s amenities.
Aidan Culhane, chief executive of The Iveagh Trust, told the Irish Independent that he would like to see social tenants accessing the full range of Castleview’s amenities, but his hands are tied.
“We bought Block 5 of Castleview two years after an agreement was made between whomever, I don’t know, to exclude the residents from [the amenities],” he said.
“We own Block 5. That’s it. The rest of the development and the governing arrangements around it are out of our hands, and were made two years in advance of us taking it on.”
‘Some arrangement was entered into that would bar the residents of our block from access to the gym and other facilities’
He said The Iveagh Trust “can’t do anything” because it was “not party to the agreement when it was originally made”.
“We don’t control either the development or any of the surrounding entities. It’s owned by somebody else. We own Block 5,” he added.
“I don’t know this for a fact, but I’m around real estate long enough to know that what happened is the developer was selling all the development, barring the Part V, which is our block, to a fund.
“And whatever agreement was made, some arrangement was entered into that would bar the residents of our block from access to the gym and other facilities. So, that’s the agreement that’s keeping them out.
“What needs to happen is that the terms of that agreement would need to be amended, or otherwise agree to permit the residents to use the facilities, but The Iveagh Trust isn’t in a position to bring that about.”
The Iveagh Trust did not provide a copy of this agreement to the Irish Independent when asked.
A spokesperson for Golden Port Developments, the original developer of the scheme, denied the existence of such an agreement, and said there’s “never, ever” an exclusion built into their housing projects.
As for the council, it pays a basic management fee for Block 5 tenants that covers housing and does not include access to the full range of amenities. This is to ensure “appropriate spending” of public funds, it said.
“It is DCC’s view, however, that if a tenant wishes to use any of these additional services, they should be able to approach the management company and make a separate arrangement to pay to access these services at their own cost, and this should be facilitated where it is possible to do so,” said a spokesperson.
Damien Dillon, Dillon Marshall’s managing director, told the Irish Independent that meetings are being facilitated between the management company and the Iveagh Trust to solve the current impasse.
“In our view, it’s The Iveagh Trust that has to answer to this. It’s not ourselves,” he said. “We’re only the management agents here.”
Mr Dillon said the reason Ms Nowakowska won the WRC case against his firm is because their representative was “on holidays” and couldn’t attend the hearing.
“We wrote to the WRC looking for a postponement, and they never came back to us. But there have been previous cases in relation to this and they haven’t succeeded,” he said.
When asked if he supports the principle that social tenants should be allowed to access the facilities, he said: “Put it this way. We have other developments in Dublin where social tenants have access to amenity areas, where there’s AHBs in place.”
‘They can let anybody use that gym that they wish to let in, but they have to want to do it. It’s as simple as that’
“That’s an agreement between the AHBs, the local authorities and the owners of the complex. All three need to be aligned,” he said.
Representatives of The Iveagh Trust and Dillon Marshall met on Wednesday to discuss the matter. The meeting was said to be “cordial”, according to a source, but no further actions were agreed.
A spokesperson for QuadReal told the Irish Independent that it is “aware of concerns regarding amenity access” for Block 5 residents.
“Castleview comprises multiple blocks, which are under different ownerships and have separate management structures designed in accordance with planning requirements. Block 5 is owned by The Iveagh Trust, which only its residents may access.
“There are private amenities and a residents’ lounge in another Block in Castleview which is owned by QuadReal and may only be accessed by its residents.”
The spokesperson said all residents in the complex have access to “outdoor amenity spaces, including a children’s playground”.
QuadReal did not answer queries about whether the amenity arrangements could or would be altered.
A source familiar with the development said that not providing access to social tenants was down to lack of will rather than any operational or contractual difficulties.
“The desire is not there, that’s essentially what it is,” they said. “They can let anybody use that gym that they wish to let in, but they have to want to do it. It’s as simple as that.”
Meanwhile, a number of other Castleview residents are currently filing claims with the WRC, following in the footsteps of Ms Nowakowska.
Many social tenants see their exclusion as blatant discrimination, and are confident they have a strong case.
“To be honest, I don’t think they will back down. And I won’t either,” said one, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
“This isn’t about wanting something luxurious or getting something for nothing. It’s about equality, inclusion, and our children having the same opportunity to be part of the community they live in.
“We shouldn’t be building walls between children because of the type of housing their families live in.”