The Mega **Management Company** thread

Paulw

It means that once the bill is enacted, the developer has 6 months to transfer control of the common area to the management company, which would also enclude fully finishing the common area.

Dilynnio

Paulw wrote: »

It means that once the bill is enacted, the developer has 6 months to transfer control of the common area to the management company, which would also enclude fully finishing the common area.

Yes but what so many people are unaware of is that the Directors of the Management Company and the Builders of the apartments are usually the same people..............so they are still controlling the property!

At the end of the day........once the builders continue to rule the place you will get only lip service but they will make the decisions unless all the apartment owners come together and vote them out...........but no one ever wants to take on that role.........so as long as the builders/management company directors are still controlling the place you can expect very little changes to occur.

The_Conductor

Once its officially transferred to the Management Company- the owners of any units in the development are covered by Company Law- in particular by clauses in relation to the protection of minority shareholder rights. Regardless of whether a developer is still in control of a Management Company or not- this bill will make life incredibly difficult for the sort of shenanigans of yesteryear to continue into the future......

markpb

Dilynnio wrote: »

so as long as the builders/management company directors are still controlling the place you can expect very little changes to occur.

From 1st April

- developers have 6 months to vest ownership of the common areas to the mgt company
- for many complexes, this will trigger full company shareholder rights for owners
- they will have one vote per unit owned (and fully paid for) regardless of any golden shares they've given themselves (unless a Circuit Court allows them to)
- owners must approve the budget before the start of the financial year
- contracts for longer than 3 years cannot be signed

Dilynnio

markpb wrote: »

From 1st April

- developers have 6 months to vest ownership of the common areas to the mgt company
- for many complexes, this will trigger full company shareholder rights for owners
- they will have one vote per unit owned (and fully paid for) regardless of any golden shares they've given themselves (unless a Circuit Court allows them to)
- owners must approve the budget before the start of the financial year
- contracts for longer than 3 years cannot be signed

What if the Developer still owns multiple units?

Pull the other one.....they will still reign!

BTW i wonder do the Developers who do infact own multiple units pay management fees for each one?

I don't think the Bill is going to make any difference......we will wait and see!

markpb

Dilynnio wrote: »

What if the Developer still owns multiple units? Pull the other one.....they will still reign!

Only if they own more units than everyone else put together. Or if the owners are disorganised and don't vote them off.

BTW i wonder do the Developers who do infact own multiple units pay management fees for each one?

They didn't have to before but they do now.

I don't think the Bill is going to make any difference......we will wait and see!

You optimist. Other than developers having votes for each apartment that the own (which DoJ were adamant was a constitutional issue), what specific problems do you have?

The_Conductor

If a developer does not pay the Management Charge for each unit that he/she owns, they are not a member (shareholder) of the management company in good standing. They are only entitled to a vote per unit, for units for which the management charge is paid, and they are not entitled to dispose of any units- until all outstanding charges are cleared, and a certificate of good standing is provided by the company secretary. In addition- there is now the EUR200 per unit that must by law be ringfenced for the sink fund. That is going to hurt a lot of people more than they realise.....

markpb

smccarrick wrote: »

there is now the EUR200 per unit that must by law be ringfenced for the sink fund. That is going to hurt a lot of people more than they realise.....

The amount isn't fixed. They recommend €200 but the owners can agree any amount (more or less) at an AGM.

Dilynnio

markpb wrote: »

what specific problems do you have?

That as long as the developers have multiple units and are part of the Management Company, the paying customer of the developer are the people who will continue to suffer unfairly.

Take for instance......tenants of the developers......i have heard horror stories where developers have brought in really bad elements to complexes in order to fill up their empty units which i think is very unfair to their customers who have bought their homes in good faith to live in respectable areas and have paid threw the nose for them.

Do you think this is fair on the owner? I don't think there will ever be any control on this.

markpb

Dilynnio wrote: »

Take for instance......tenants of the developers......i have heard horror stories where developers have brought in really bad elements to complexes in order to fill up their empty units

Ignoring, for a minute, the fact that anyone at all can bring in dodgy tenants, there are ways to fix it.

First, if the tenant is doing physical damage to the management company property, the developer will be one of the people paying for the repairs so it's in their interest to remove these people.

Secondly, the law now states that the house rules must form part of any contract between an owner and their tenant. If the management company or owner is not enforcing those rules, any other owner can sue both the owner and the company in the Circuit Court for breach of lease.

Dilynnio

markpb wrote: »

Secondly, the law now states that the house rules must form part of any contract between an owner and their tenant. If the management company or owner is not enforcing those rules, any other owner can sue both the owner and the company in the Circuit Court for breach of lease.

This I did not know!

Thanks for that.

Yes but do you really think that the managing agent is going to reprimand their employer (management company) for having unruly tenants?

I get confused as to whom the managing agent listens too!

I just think that owners are treated with no respect and that the developers are continuing to be protected......and that is the way it will always be.

markpb

Dilynnio wrote: »

I just think that owners are treated with no respect and that the developers are continuing to be protected......and that is the way it will always be.

It's not perfect but it goes a long way. If developers have to vote normally and pay service charges like everyone else, I think it should encourage them to grow up and act sensibly. Previously they were able to take the piss but now I think they'll be more inclined to sell up at a cheaper price than rent and have to pay service charges.

Faolchu

Dilynnio wrote: »

That as long as the developers have multiple units and are part of the Management Company, the paying customer of the developer are the people who will continue to suffer unfairly.
.

I think in most cases unless there are large numbers of unsold units the developer normally resigns as director and teh estate is fully handed over to teh management company. I know in our estate this is what happened. the developer resigned, two owners were voted onto the board and they're in the process of verifying the handover.

as for golden votes does MUD not specify one vote per member and not one vote per property? this would ensure people like local councils that purchase for affordable housing for example dont have controlling interest in the development.

i think MUD also states that developers must contribute their fair share to service charges for unsold units.

The_Conductor

Faolchu wrote: »

as for golden votes does MUD not specify one vote per member and not one vote per property? this would ensure people like local councils that purchase for affordable housing for example dont have controlling interest in the development.

The bill allows the owner of multiple units apply to the Circuit Court, for leave to exercise individual single votes per unit for each unit they are the titular holder thereof.

Golden votes (which related to certain properties, or in some cases classes of properties) where there may have been a different number of votes or a different vote weighting, than other properties- are outlawed period. Its one vote- per unit- and each vote carries equal voting rights. As per above- if you own more than one unit- you need to apply to a circuit court if you wish to exercise these multiple votes.

Dilynnio

Hey

Does anyone have a link to the exact legislation that is coming in under the MUD Act. Can't find it anywhere.

Thanks in advance.

markpb

Dilynnio wrote: »

Hey

Does anyone have a link to the exact legislation that is coming in under the MUD Act. Can't find it anywhere.

Thanks in advance.

It's on the front page of the Apartment Owners website - on the right side, under New Legislation. There are also links on the site to the Dept. of Justice press release.

Dilynnio

markpb wrote: »

Secondly, the law now states that the house rules must form part of any contract between an owner and their tenant. If the management company or owner is not enforcing those rules, any other owner can sue both the owner and the company in the Circuit Court for breach of lease.

Hi Mark

Do you have a link for this piece of legislation?

Thanks in advance.

Paulw

http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Multi_Unit_Act

markpb

Dilynnio wrote: »

Do you have a link for this piece of legislation?

Section 23, subsection 1:

An owners’ management company may, as respects the multi-unit development for which that company has responsibility, make house rules as respects the development or part of the development relating to the effective operation and maintenance of the development and with the objective of enhancing the quiet and peaceable occupation of units generally in the development, and such house rules shall be binding on—
(a) unit owners,
(b) tenants of unit owners

Section 23, subsection 10:

It shall be a term of every letting of a unit in a multi-unit development that the letting is subject to the observance by all those occupying the property (including their licensees, servants or agents), in whatever capacity, of—
(a) the conditions and covenants in the title documents relating to the use and enjoyment of the property, and
(b) house rules made under this section,
and a summary of such relevant conditions and covenants together with a copy of any house rules shall be incorporated into the letting agreement relating to the unit concerned.

Dilynnio

markpb wrote: »

Section 23, subsection 1:



Section 23, subsection 10:

Thanks Mark.

I appreciate that.

Faolchu

markpb wrote: »

It's on the front page of the Apartment Owners website - on the right side, under New Legislation. There are also links on the site to the Dept. of Justice press release.

some light reading for the weekend

judeanthony

HI all

The good news that since 2 weeks ago,i've come a long long way. I've spoken to 2 solicitors and one top barrister in Dublin and have 99% assurance that i can get rid of the existing management agent - all thanks to the MUD bill

If anyone here is having similar issues with their management agent etc, drop me a PM and im happy to share my knowledge

markpb

judeanthony wrote: »

HI all

The good news that since 2 weeks ago,i've come a long long way. I've spoken to 2 solicitors and one top barrister in Dublin and have 99% assurance that i can get rid of the existing management agent - all thanks to the MUD bill

If anyone here is having similar issues with their management agent etc, drop me a PM and im happy to share my knowledge

Is there anything you could share here so everyone could benefit from your experience?

Faolchu

judeanthony wrote: »

I've spoken to 2 solicitors and one top barrister in Dublin and have 99% assurance that i can get rid of the existing management agent - all thanks to the MUD bill

I've just finished reading it and there's nothing in it that i can see that specifically deals with the removal or appointing of an agent (open to correction of course). can you tell me what section it falls under becuase i'd be pretty interested in going over that bit again.

they may be refering to the long term contracts section, whereby the company can not be entered into a contract of more than 3 years, but i dont recall it stating that this contract could not be renewed upon its expitration only that the company could not be entered into a contract of more than 3 years.

you may find that your head lease comes into play and this normally states who can appoint the agent, in our case the directors of the company have the sole responsibility for doing that.

markpb

Faolchu wrote: »

I've just finished reading it and there's nothing in it that i can see that specifically deals with the removal or appointing of an agent (open to correction of course). can you tell me what section it falls under becuase i'd be pretty interested in going over that bit again.

I assume (I haven't read his previous posts) that he means they can call an AGM, vote with parity with the developer, elect directors from within the owners and those directors will appoint a new agent. It's possible he wasn't able to do this in the past because the director held a golden share which gave them a majority vote. The developer will have apply to the Circuit Court to use their golden shares each time from 1st April.

Faolchu

ah right that makes sense because for the life of me i couldnt find anything specifically relating to the change of agent.

Faolchu

ok MUD

14(3) states:

The words “owners’ management company” shall be included
in the name of every owners’ management company to which this

section applies which words may be abbreviated to “OMC”.

anyone know if that applies ot management companies already established? basically were X management company LTD. to insert the word Owners by my understanding means that we need to approve the name change at general meeting (no real problem) , file the name change in the CRO and then create new memo and Arts to reflect the name chage and circulate these memo and arts. The filing and creation of memo and artc costs over €500 the printing and circulation of these will cost a small fortune.

does this section only apply to new companies or to new and old?

markpb

Faolchu wrote: »

does this section only apply to new companies or to new and old?

Section 14 (4) says that

This section applies to owners’ management companies of multi-unit developments in respect of which no contract for the sale of a residential unit has been entered into prior to the enactment of this Act

so the OMC bit only applies to developments where none of the apartments have been sold.

claire.lanigan

Hi

Why don't you get a professional to sort this mess out for you. In the long run, its the best solutuion


***Personal advertising of this nature is *not* allowed in this forum, details removed by moderator***

Faolchu

MUD states 21 days notice for AGMs. anyoen know if this would be 21 calander days or 21 work days?