# Rules and regulations of Nakheel



## Jay.n (Jun 12, 2016)

My room mate and I just leased an apartment in shoreline the palm. After signing and preparing to move in, our agent informed us that Nakheel is refusing to provide more than 1 pass to use the facilities (gym,pool,etc). The contract is made in both our names and signed by the landlord. It is a 2 bedrooms apartment and should have 2 accesses minimum. We are 2 male cousins. Does anyone know or had any experience as such? Any advise or helpful guidance is welcome. Thanks!


----------



## twowheelsgood (Feb 21, 2013)

It's nothing to do with Nakheel as its the landlord who pays for access to the areas other than the actual apartment. He does this as part of his service fees. And it's up to him what he provides - what does it say in your contract ? I am guessing nothing. 

Contracts are in one persons name from the point of view of the Authorities. You may both be in it it from Nakheels viewpoint it's one renter and one 'guest'. I was in that position for a couple of years when I stayed with a friend. You only get two of anything if you are in a three bed unit. 

It's how landlords on the Palm are cutting back in costs as rents drop. 

If you want actual swipe cards for the doors, as opposed to membership cards, you can buy them with the usual ton of paperwork from Nakheel offices on the Al Sufuoh Road.


----------



## Jay.n (Jun 12, 2016)

twowheelsgood said:


> It's nothing to do with Nakheel as its the landlord who pays for access to the areas other than the actual apartment. He does this as part of his service fees. And it's up to him what he provides - what does it say in your contract ? I am guessing nothing.
> 
> Contracts are in one persons name from the point of view of the Authorities. You may both be in it it from Nakheels viewpoint it's one renter and one 'guest'. I was in that position for a couple of years when I stayed with a friend. You only get two of anything if you are in a three bed unit.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your reply. This is really helpful. The agency who is based on the palm must have tricked us into it then. They have been telling us all this drama about going to Nakheel offices with the landlord and asking for approvals etc. and that Nakheel is refusing. Do you think there is anything we can do about it? Or shall we just accept that we've been scammed ...


----------



## Stevesolar (Dec 21, 2012)

Hi,
I would be very unhappy if this happened to our family.
You would rightly expect two passes for a two bedroom apartment.
What happens if a married couple lease an apartment? Do they need to take turns to use the facilities!
I would be pressing hard for two passes.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## twowheelsgood (Feb 21, 2013)

I understand what you mean Steve but there is s common misunderstanding that being a resident on the shoreline 'entitles you' to beach access for free/as part of your rental agreement. This is not the case - you get what is in your lease agreement and I am guessing that it's not in the OP's agreement. It certainly used to come as part of the agreement and you might have got Riva membership once but times are harder these days. 

The agent is probably trying to get Nakheel to lean on the club and provide one for free, or the agent is trying to get Nakheel to pay for an extra membership out of the service fees. 

The landlord pays the membership fee if it's in the contract and if it isn't then they have no obligation to provide it. The beach clubs are independent entities and are not bound by anyone's rental agreement directly. 

As with all things in this area, you get what the contract contains and nothing more. 

Our Shoreline agreement had it, whereas our Marina Residences did not.


----------



## Stevesolar (Dec 21, 2012)

twowheelsgood said:


> I understand what you mean Steve but there is s common misunderstanding that being a resident on the shoreline 'entitles you' to beach access for free/as part of your rental agreement.
> 
> This is not the case - you get what is in your lease agreement and I am guessing that it's not in the OP's agreement.
> 
> ...


Hi,
You already pay a hefty premium to live on an artificial island - and if you have apartments by the sea - you expect beach access (otherwise you would choose apartments inland).
Of course, I would have also checked this and got it in writing before signing a lease!!
Cheers
Steve


----------



## twowheelsgood (Feb 21, 2013)

Stevesolar said:


> Hi, You already pay a hefty premium to live on an artificial island - and if you have apartments by the sea - you expect beach access (otherwise you would choose apartments inland)


You aren't living by the sea any more than residents of the Dubai marina are by the sea. The frond residents are directly on the beach and their rental area abuts directly to the sea whereas two thirds of the shoreline apartments aren't on the shore and none of them actually offer access direct to the beach.

Half of them overlook monorail and thesix lanes of traffic between them and the shoreline apartments with a Sea view. 

The apartments are nothing whatsoever to do with the ownership of the beachfront which are different entities. 

It would be interesting to know which block the OP is located in as if it's 11-20 then they are in the centre of the island and actually closer to the Fairmont beach 

But you're right -checking the fine print is always the thing to do.

The only thing the OP can do is to tell the agents to simply pay for an additional access membership. Nakheel won't care about that and wouldn't stop it even if they could.


----------



## rsinner (Feb 3, 2009)

twowheelsgood said:


> But you're right -checking the fine print is always the thing to do.


Except that if the agent says that the apartment comes with beach access, I would generally have believed him. 

The first apartment I lived in when moving to Dubai, I was "sold" the well equipped gym. Except that it turned out that it wasn't free, and was run by a third party and required a membership. Wouldn't have know that this had to be checked!


----------



## twowheelsgood (Feb 21, 2013)

rsinner said:


> Except that if the agent says that the apartment comes with beach access, I would generally have believed him.


Sure, but that belief would have extended to checking it was actually in the contract surely ?


----------



## rsinner (Feb 3, 2009)

twowheelsgood said:


> Sure, but that belief would have extended to checking it was actually in the contract surely ?


Would you also include gym and pool access in the contract? The parking spot [I do not have this mentioned in my current 14 page tenancy contract]? Maybe not the exact same situation, as we are talking about a beach club here.


----------



## twowheelsgood (Feb 21, 2013)

rsinner said:


> Would you also include gym and pool access in the contract? The parking spot [I do not have this mentioned in my current 14 page tenancy contract]? Maybe not the exact same situation, as we are talking about a beach club here.


Yes, yes and yes on the Shoreline as the gym isn't even in the same building for two thirds of the tenants. I'm not sure what you have in 14 pages but it must have a lot of guff as mine was 3 pages long and it had parking spaces, beach membership etc. in there. 

Parking allocation is one slot per 1 or 2 bed apartment and two slots for the 3+ apts, but I did wonder what would happen if the owner decided to use the parking slot and not mention it in the lease.

There isnt a pool other than those inside the clubs 

The beach club, again, is NOT part of the building - in most cases its across six lanes of road, and the other side of another building.


----------



## rsinner (Feb 3, 2009)

twowheelsgood said:


> Yes, yes and yes on the Shoreline as the gym isn't even in the same building for two thirds of the tenants. I'm not sure what you have in 14 pages but it must have a lot of guff as mine was 3 pages long and it had parking spaces, beach membership etc. in there.
> 
> Parking allocation is one slot per 1 or 2 bed apartment and two slots for the 3+ apts, but I did wonder what would happen if the owner decided to use the parking slot and not mention it in the lease.
> 
> ...


Makes sense..... yet I do see how people WILL be duped (and maybe not in Palm Jumeirah if its so obvious) if some "usual" trappings of an apartment suddenly become non standard. 
PS: I have a 3 page long termination clause, and half english half arabic contract. LOTS of fluff.


----------



## Jay.n (Jun 12, 2016)

Well guys thank you for your comments. Just to be clear that before signing the contract, we asked the agent to check if both of us would have access. The agent then after called us and confirmed that they checked with Nakheel and it will be okay. 
Our contract is a standard contract of 2 pages back to back. There is no mention of the amount of passes or accesses granted. There is however the list of the community rules and explanations on how and when to use the facilities. 
We trusted the agent, and only after we signed the contract, the agent said to me quote: "Nakheel changed their mind and they will only grant one pass". The agent even said that it was submitted to higher management in Nakheel for approval, but I guess that was all talk since you guys said it was the landlord responsibility to grant access.
Anyway, that's that for now. My plan is to visit Nakheel's office and get a clear picture myself.


----------



## Stevesolar (Dec 21, 2012)

Jay.n said:


> Well guys thank you for your comments. Just to be clear that before signing the contract, we asked the agent to check if both of us would have access. The agent then after called us and confirmed that they checked with Nakheel and it will be okay.
> Our contract is a standard contract of 2 pages back to back. There is no mention of the amount of passes or accesses granted. There is however the list of the community rules and explanations on how and when to use the facilities.
> We trusted the agent, and only after we signed the contract, the agent said to me quote: "Nakheel changed their mind and they will only grant one pass". The agent even said that it was submitted to higher management in Nakheel for approval, but I guess that was all talk since you guys said it was the landlord responsibility to grant access.
> Anyway, that's that for now. My plan is to visit Nakheel's office and get a clear picture myself.


Don't hold your breath!


----------



## twowheelsgood (Feb 21, 2013)

Jay.n said:


> but I guess that was all talk since you guys said it was the landlord responsibility to grant access


To be clearer, your contract is with the landlord and it is solely he/she who is responsible for providing access to the contracted facilities. Nakheel have no part in that.

The tricky bit is your contract appears to have no obligation for the landlord to provide access, but you were assured that access would be granted. That bit you;re stuck with as the agreement wasnt worth the non-existent paper it was never written on. If however you have an email from them, or an advert saying it was part of the deal, you could try the Housing Disputes people ..... but still a long shot.

The landlord can always grant access - simply by paying the fees in your name, but I am guessing he doesn't want to do that as it costs him money and its not in the contract. As the owner of the apartment, he is probably entitled to some kind of access (but only one) and is hoping Nakheel will give him two accesses that he can pass on to you.

The OP's problem is with the landlord and agent and Nakheel are just a red herring.


----------

