News   May 16, 2024
 408     1 
News   May 16, 2024
 513     0 
News   May 16, 2024
 529     0 

Verdale Condos, The (Remington Group) - Real Estate -

^

Actually, I'd love to know if anyone asked about bulkheads. I'm worried that my unit's going to have them everywhere. I've seen some interior shots of a few units over in the Bijou buildings that had them in the living rooms and bedrooms.
 
^

Actually, I'd love to know if anyone asked about bulkheads. I'm worried that my unit's going to have them everywhere. I've seen some interior shots of a few units over in the Bijou buildings that had them in the living rooms and bedrooms.

They're inevitable. If the engineers are nice they'll try to group them all in one big one but usually you'll see at least 2 running lengthwise.
 
for sure you'll have bulkheads in the bedrooms, and you MAYBE only able to avoid bulkheads in the living room in a small condo unit, otherwise for larger suites bulkheads are necessary to ensure heating/cooling HVAC are circulated to the entire suite ... check with your building to see if they can show you the architectural / HVAC drawings if you want to find out (but certainly you can't change anything)
 
for sure you'll have bulkheads in the bedrooms, and you MAYBE only able to avoid bulkheads in the living room in a small condo unit, otherwise for larger suites bulkheads are necessary to ensure heating/cooling HVAC are circulated to the entire suite ... check with your building to see if they can show you the architectural / HVAC drawings if you want to find out (but certainly you can't change anything)

I know someone who had some significant bulkheads in the apartment unit which they were not advised of before the purchase and because it was suppose to be 10ft ceiling, and so they disputed and ended up getting some perks back.....think is a discount of some sort.....
 
I know someone who had some significant bulkheads in the apartment unit which they were not advised of before the purchase and because it was suppose to be 10ft ceiling, and so they disputed and ended up getting some perks back.....think is a discount of some sort.....

I don't believe builders are obligated to let purchasers know where bulkhead will be located, most people don't find out until they move into the suite

even if they showed you where the bulkhead was before hand, builders are allowed to make changes as they wish since they are not tied to the HVAC plans ... further, condo feature sheets typically read something like:

The ceiling height of the unit will be approximately (one of) 8’/9'/10' , measured from the upper surface of the concrete floor slab to the underside of the concrete ceiling slab, provided however that various areas of the dwelling unit may contain (or be subject to) ceiling bulkheads and/or dropped ceilings, in order to facilitate the installation of structural components, mechanical systems and/or ductwork, and accordingly in those areas of the unit that are subject to said bulkheads and/or dropped ceilings the overall ceiling height will be reduced accordingly.

so if your friend was able to get some credits that was great, but I wouldn't expect that as a norm
 
Last edited:
I've seen some units without them, so I'm hoping to get lucky. :)

Interesting that some places cast them inside the concrete though.
 
Yep, although it's probably not without it's obvious drawbacks. Not everyone out there gets a warranty plan either.
 
I've seen some units without them, so I'm hoping to get lucky. :)

Interesting that some places cast them inside the concrete though.

U've seen some units in Verdale without them or in other condo projects? I think regular condos will definitely have them. Perhaps you were looking at a high end condo? If you think about it, an average duct work is anywhere between 6 to 10 inches deep. If a 40 story high rise have concrete slab floors an extra 6 inches, you'll be loosing around 2 equivalent floors if you're using cast in duct-work. If there are around 6 units on each floor at around 300k, you'll be missing out on $3 million big ones.
 
Remington Purchasers Beware

Sleezy builder (Remington) charges purchasers $7k to $11k plus through closing cost adjustments at Rouge Bijou Condominiums in Downtown Markham ... even though these charges not paid/required by the muncipality

Ill faithed business merits ?? I think so ... :mad:

Buyers hit with big bills for surprise adjustments

November 7, 2009
Bob Aaron

As many as 244 purchasers received a nasty surprise at the end of September when they got hit with thousands of dollars in "fictitious" charges on final closing of their new condominium units.

The development in question is a 244-unit medium-rise building near Warden Ave. and Enterprise Dr. in Markham.

The builder's agreement of purchase and sale contains an escalation clause typical of those used by local builders.

The clause contemplates that prior to final closing, there may be increases in the municipal levies or development charges, which were in place prior to construction.

The agreement states that in the event there is an increase in any of these existing levies after the day the document has been signed, "the purchaser shall pay the increase to the existing levy ... as an adjustment" to the builder on closing.

This means that the purchasers have to pay the builder the amount of increases in any government charges, which come into effect between signing and closing. Of critical importance, the clause is silent on whether the purchasers must reimburse the builder only for increases actually paid by the builder, or as well for increases imposed by the Town but from which the builder is exempt because the levies were prepaid.

Toronto lawyer Stephen Shub represented a number of purchasers in the Markham project. He told me that on closing, all of his clients were shocked to see that they were being charged between $7,680 and $11,283 for increases in existing levies.

A schedule attached to the builder's statements of adjustments for each purchaser detailed the amount of levy increase charged.

Shub discovered that the builder had not actually paid the amounts set out in the schedule. At the time the building permits were issued in May 2007, the builder had prepaid less than $300 in levies for each unit. When the town subsequently imposed thousands of dollars in higher levies, the builder did not have to pay those amounts because the increases were not retroactive.

On behalf of his clients, Shub took the position that the builder had no right to charge purchasers for levies it had neither incurred nor paid. The disputed clause in the agreement, he said, "can only apply to monies paid by the builder to the Town of Markham and not to monies never paid by the builder."

Despite Shub's objections, the builder insisted it was entitled to recover levy increases that had been implemented by Markham but that it had not been required to pay.

In a letter to Shub, Michael C. Volpatti, solicitor for the builder, said that the purchase agreement entitled the builder to charge purchasers for "any new levy" after the date the agreement was signed, and "without regard to the date of payment" by the builder.

Translated from legalese, the builder's position is that, according to the agreement, it has the right to recover any new levies, including those that it was in fact exempt from.

Eventually Shub closed the transactions on behalf of his purchasers, and the amounts in dispute are being held in trust by the builder's lawyer until further resolution.

In a detailed letter to me, Shub estimated that the builder has pocketed as much as $2 million in "unreal, exaggerated, surprise closing adjustments" from 244 "unsuspecting buyers."

To make matters worse, the buyers had to come up with the cash for these charges, and could not add them to their mortgages.

Calling the builder's actions a "rip-off," Shub wants builders to commit to voluntary upfront disclosure of all closing adjustments. He also calls for regulatory intervention by the Ontario government so that builders will not spring "surprise attacks on the unsuspecting public."

I agree with him. Any attempt to force purchasers to pay thousands of dollars in fictitious charges does no credit to the public image of Ontario's homebuilders.

http://www.yourhome.ca/homes/columnsblogs/article/721269--buyers-hit-with-big-bills-for-surprise-adjustments
 
Sleezy builder (Remington) charges purchasers $7k to $11k plus through closing cost adjustments at Rouge Bijou Condominiums in Downtown Markham ... even though these charges not paid/required by the muncipality

Ill faithed business merits ?? I think so ... :mad:
That is sleazy. :mad:
 
From the weekend Economist and Sun (Markham Local Paper) and this time they mention Remington by name.

http://www.yorkregion.ca/News/Markham/article/99700

Condo buyers hit with fees
Markham
November 23, 2009 11:54 AM

BY L.H. TIFFANY HSIEH

Markham resident Chris Rose was enjoying his brand new condo in Markham Centre.

Then, three days before the final closing date in late September, he received a bill from the builder, asking for $7,680 in levy increases for his one-bedroom apartment.

"It just kind of came out of nowhere. They told me on a Wednesday and I had to come up with $8,000 for Friday and it had to be cash so you can't put it on top of your mortgage," said Chris, 24, a licensed electrician.

Chris was one of the lucky ones. His mortgage broker was able to let him take the money out of his un-maxed-out mortgage.

Still, "The feelings of the neighbours here are mutual. They (the builders) ... think people in Markham are stupid," Chris said.

"Once we found out that the Town of Markham didn't actually charge them (the levy increases), that's when people started getting really upset. Everyone's just seeing their lawyers to see what they can do. People are not going to sit around and do nothing about $10,000, you know? It's a lot of money."

The condo development in question is the seven-storey Promenade&Arbour on Upper Duke Crescent.

Richard Rose is Chris's father. He said he contacted builder Remington Group with concerns about the extra charges and was initially told the builder was just passing on increased development charges they had to pay to the Town of Markham.

"That was initially, now they are backing off. They are not taking my calls anymore," Richard said.

The Economist&Sun contacted the builder for a comment, but the group's spokesperson was unable to return calls before deadline yesterday.

Richard said the whole episode took the joy out of an important moment in his son's life.

"Here (Chris) is 24 years old, he's managed to save his money - he didn't get it from me - through his electrician apprenticeship, it was hard to save his down payment and he gets his mortgage, you are all excited about moving into your new place and then three days beforehand, he gets this surprise bill," Richard said.

"It was like, oh my God, what do we do? There was panic and everything. It took away the excitement of your first place."

No one knows this better than real estate lawyer Stephen Shub, who represents 15 buyers of Promenade&Arbour, which is priced from the low $200,000s and up.

Mr. Shub said his clients were hit with costs ranging between $7,680 and $11,283 for increases in existing levies. With 244 units combined between the two buildings, he said it amounts to about $2 million.

"The builder is going to have to pay the ... money back," Mr. Shub said. "I'm 90 per cent certain."

Mr. Shub said while there were levy increases, they came into effect after the permits were issued in May 2007.

He said the builder prepaid $300 in levies per unit and the increases were not retroactive.

"You only pay levy increases up to the point in time when the building permits are issued," Mr. Shub said.

"What they tried to do is to broaden the interpretation of the levy-increase clause to include the theoretical increases that came into effect prior to the final condo closing registration, even though they weren't actually being paid for by the builder."

Mr. Shub said for years these additional fees have only been in the hundreds and never in the thousands.

"This is a golden opportunity for the consumers, because when the builder gets too ... creative in their adjustments on closing over the years - this is now the last straw," he said.
 
indeed. i smell a class action lawsuit to reclaim the money back.
 

Back
Top