New Year brings with it splendid new opportunitiesJanuary 4, 2016 10:46
From Beach Club to Fight Club: One more Shoreline problem aired
One Shoreline Apartments owners sent a letter to Kipp questioning the Nakheel's method of distributing pool access passes.
February 7, 2012 4:49 by Reuters
For the last two weeks, Kipp’s been hot on the heels of Nakheel’s dilemma with keeping up to date with payments owned by houseowners. It all started with the Shoreline Apartments, for which tenants have been paying the consequences of the non-payment of house owners.
There’s been much debate about where to point the finger, after we published a few articles about it. It’s essentially become a vicious cycle called the blame game. Notably, discussions were heated when we published an article citing Nakheel’s chairman Ali Lootah’s unabashed thoughts on the Service Fee saga. (Click here for the full interview with Ali Lootah.)
The triumvirate of tension among tenants, home owners and the developer doesn’t even just stop with Shoreline. It’s been reported that similar non-payment consequences will be implemented on other Nakheel properties including Discovery Gardens and International City.
Kipp would like to keep the conversation going, and with the encouragement comes a number of letters and responses from parties involved—each complaint and response is of varying degrees. One such letter that came our way recently is from a UK-based Shoreline homeowner.
He claims to have fully paid the Service Charge and Club House Fees and has obtained a Beach Club pass for his tenant, who is a single lady.
Here’s what he had to say:
“I fully understand Nakheel’s actions in their attempt to get Service Fees paid.”
“However, I believe the system has a basic flaw in that if she takes a guest(s) to the beach they have to pay which is basically unfair. If a family applies they get passes for all.
“Surely the system should allow the pass holder to have one or two guests, provided the pass holder accompanies the visitors. Any other club in the world provides for the member to have guests.”
Again, his inquiry goes beyond debating the validity of pool access bans and more to do with the system with which the access passes are given. But we would like to give air space to as many valid issues as possible. And this one speaks to the misunderstanding in the defined regulations of what ‘premium lifestyle’ and “exclusive access” is supposed to be.
Remember those days? When The Palm meant luxury living and not pool access bans and battles about non-payment and perceived broken promises?