Local councils and district authorities are hesitant to take responsibility for dangerous buildings as lawmakers prepare new rules giving them greater powers to act.
A bill proposed by MP Marinos Mousiouttas suggests cutting off water and electricity to dangerous buildings and stopping owners from renting them out.
If owners ignore safety warnings, authorities would be allowed to enter these buildings and take action to remove risks. Owners who fail to comply could face fines of up to €40,000 or up to two years in prison.
Many local councils are unwilling to take on this responsibility because owners often refuse to pay for necessary repairs. According to government officials, this forces councils to cover costs and then try to recover the money spent on making structures safe.
Proposed law
The proposed law allows authorities to issue fines of up to €40,000 and order buildings facing the threat of collapse to be evacuated.
When a building is identified as being in a dangerous condition, officials must inform the owner and explain the reasons. The owner is then given a deadline to hire an engineer to assess the risks and suggest repairs.
Under the plan, owners have 30 days to submit their response in writing. If they fail to act, authorities can issue fines and arrange the necessary work. This may include making repairs, demolishing, or fencing off the building.
The costs of these works would then be registered as a charge against the affected property with the District Land Registry Office. This would prevent its owner selling the building without first paying the debt.
Parliament is expected to discuss the bill in the coming weeks as officials try to find a fair way to handle dangerous buildings across the island.
The construction industry is facing a critical issue—rapid building deterioration due to a lack of long-term accountability from developers and construction companies. While most new buildings come with a structural guarantee, this is often ignored or inadequately enforced, leaving property owners burdened with costly repairs soon after purchase.
To address this, legislative reform is necessary. Governments must implement a law requiring all developers and construction companies to not only provide a structural guarantee but also maintain the building in excellent condition for a minimum of ten years. This will ensure that buildings remain safe, structurally sound, and properly maintained, benefiting both property owners and the overall real estate market.
The Need for a Maintenance Obligation
Currently, once a developer completes and sells a project, their legal responsibility often ends, leading to situations where buildings quickly deteriorate due to poor construction quality or lack of maintenance. By the time issues arise, the financial and legal burden falls on the property owners or homeowners’ associations, who may struggle with expensive repairs.
A mandatory maintenance period would eliminate this issue, ensuring that developers remain responsible for their projects beyond the point of sale. Whether through an insurance-backed warranty, an allocated maintenance fund, or by incorporating the cost into the construction budget, developers must be held accountable for their work.
Key Components of the Proposed Law
1. Legally Enforceable Structural Guarantee
• All new buildings must come with a mandatory structural guarantee.
• Developers must ensure that any defects or structural issues are promptly addressed within the guarantee period.
2. 10-Year Maintenance Obligation
• Developers must be responsible for maintaining the building for a minimum of ten years.
• This includes structural integrity, facade maintenance, common areas, and any other essential upkeep to prevent deterioration.
3. Financial Safeguards
• Developers can meet their obligations by securing an insurance-backed maintenance policy or setting aside funds for future upkeep.
• The cost of this obligation may be factored into the selling price or construction budget, ensuring transparency for buyers.
4. Strict Penalties for Non-Compliance
• Developers who fail to uphold their maintenance obligations will face substantial fines.
• Repeated violations may result in legal action, suspension of construction licenses, or restrictions on future development projects.
The Impact on Property Buyers and the Real Estate Market
Implementing this law would provide property buyers with long-term security, protecting their investments and ensuring they do not face unexpected maintenance costs. Additionally, it would improve construction standards across the industry, as developers would be incentivized to build high-quality structures to avoid costly repairs.
From an economic perspective, well-maintained buildings retain their value, benefiting the broader real estate market and encouraging sustainable urban development.
Conclusion
The time has come to hold developers accountable beyond project completion. A legally mandated 10-year maintenance obligation will protect property owners, ensure higher construction standards, and create a more responsible and sustainable construction industry. Governments must act now to implement this critical reform, ensuring that new buildings are not just built—but built to last.
When someone acquires new property they get a guarantee for defects for a period of 12 months after delivery. The Cyprus common law states that the developer is liable for the structural stability of a building indefinitely (unless it’s due to earthquake, poor maintenance etc).
After 12 months, it’s possible for the buyer to take insure against hidden (latent) defects. There’s one company that offers full 10-year protection against losses resulting from defects in the design and/or materials and/or workmanship of a property that results in major damage to the structural elements.
The company will settle the claim without the buyer having to prove negligence or blame on behalf of the developer or contractor. This avoids lengthy delays in making repairs and the costs involved in obtaining reports from independent engineers and drawn out and expensive litigation proceedings.
The core issue lies in the absence of accountability—those responsible for the construction and ongoing maintenance of buildings are not being held liable, and there are no real consequences for negligence. This lack of enforcement fosters complacency. There must be a system in place that instills a sense of responsibility and, where necessary, fear of legal or financial repercussions to ensure that safety and maintenance standards are upheld.
I’ve personally seen buildings that are just two years old already showing serious signs of deterioration—cracks in pillars, structural weaknesses, and visible damage. While a 10-year structural guarantee may technically exist, it often only covers the bare minimum of the core structure. The workmanship guarantee typically applies to internal finishes within the apartments, but I’m referring to the integrity of the building itself—the communal areas, the external walls, and the core framework.
We also need to ask ourselves why so many 30-year-old buildings across the country are in such poor condition. It’s not just about age—it’s about a lack of proper maintenance, oversight, and accountability from the start. This is exactly where stronger enforcement and higher standards are needed to protect both the long-term value of properties and, more importantly, the safety of residents.
I believe the new ‘jointly-owned building law’ currently being discussed with MPs will address the issues of building maintenance and safety – including regular inspections.
I cannot see in real terms the benefit of registering a charge without the ability to then foreclose against that charge. But the likelihood is, the property will have a mortgage as primary charge anyway, deleting any value in a second and subsequent charge as more often, foreclosure under the mortgage act means auction and debts wiped clean. Not always but likley.
If sold other than auction then the chance of anyone but the primary charge hold getting anything is low to slim, more often.
The option given, should be to condemn the building and serve notice to evict. If the building is not safe then there are reasonable grounds. That should stop those who do nothing and continue to live in a building irrespective. Well, in my view at least.
You make some good points. Let’s wait and see what’s in the final bill.