The Wood A.G.M.

woodser

Anybody know when this will happen ?.By law they have to give 3 weeks notice and must have it by 31st of Dec. Anyone get notice ?Its usually well over by now.At this rate and going by todays date they cant hold it now until after Nov Bank holiday.Is there something going on???Whats all this about we having to pay €3500 and €2500 on a one way system that was published in the Wicklow Times.Thats €6000 of the management companies money on what and why? Who has decided this who is allowing this why havent all the members of the company ie us been informed. Any help from any quarter to clarify this welcome.

Sky Captain

The relates to the Court and not Wood. Hope that helps.

woodser

Well Sky captain it states the Wood in the wicklow times and on the recent overall management company newsletter .
If they want to change the traffic system let them pay for it out of the sinking fund in their company otherwise let the residents of the wood decide what they want done with their money and how and where.
W.C.C. have a cheek to demand and engineering report when they
a)havent taken the estate in charge therefore the road belongs to the management co.and
b)they obviously messed up when planning approval was granted and didnt spot the problem.
c)I think its appalling they way they want nothing to do with the estate on the one hand and then on the other want to maintain control of what happens with the roads on the other yet not take on the responsibility of ownership and maintenance.€3500 on an engineering report that will probably find a)insufficient parking provided and b)reccommend aone way system which everyone knows already then€2500 to change 4 signs and roadmarkings over a couple hundred metres.:mad:

Charlie-Bravo

@ woodser, totally agree - This cost is unacceptable and plus not to consult the relative people first disgusts me.

I did note that it said the Wood in the Wickla Times. Then I was thinking they must just mean Charlesland to have a one way system up one side of the spine and down the other (a big roundabout if you ask me). As Sky Cap said, when you bring the Court into the mix, is this just the green area when you drive into the Court.

The Wood entrance off the roundabout has a one way system around the green which works quite well apart from the odd eegit taking a short-cut cause they're too tight on petrol to drive the proper way round (maybe a sign of things to come for any one-way system).

woodser

astrofluff wrote:

@ woodser, totally agree - This cost is unacceptable and plus not to consult the relative people first disgusts me.

I did note that it said the Wood in the Wickla Times. Then I was thinking they must just mean Charlesland to have a one way system up one side of the spine and down the other (a big roundabout if you ask me). As Sky Cap said, when you bring the Court into the mix, is this just the green area when you drive into the Court.

The Wood entrance off the roundabout has a one way system around the green which works quite well apart from the odd eegit taking a short-cut cause they're too tight on petrol to drive the proper way round (maybe a sign of things to come for any one-way system).

No I made contact with the cllr that brought it up. In all fairness to him backing up the residents and it is the second turn into the wood. They have a nightmare there with parking its a two way system can't understand why the planning was so bad as every other square on that side is one way any one got access to plans for road sinage maybe just maybe the developers took ashort cut and went two way I've searched and searched in W.C.C. and cant find a plan directing traffic flows internally in the estates.Maybe just maybe it never existed.And maybe just maybe "the Wyse ones" haven't copped it.If so W.C.C. have no juristiction as you cant change something that never existed in the first place or can you????Any help appreciated has anybody ever seen aplan showing traffic flows and specifying one or two way systems or seen it specified on planning applications.Its certainly not in W.C.C.

JanneG

When the second phase of the Wood was being finished the builders used the "green" for their barracks etc and the upper side was totally closed off. They then put down roadmarkings for a two-way system and I think they just couldn't be arsed changing it into a one way system and therefore made the other side two-way as well...

If I would have gotten 50 cent for every time I've had to fling the car up onto the footpath due to someone coming flying towards me (technically on the wrong side of the road) I could have paid for the remarkings myself...

Just waiting for a serious accident to happen...

woodser

I think you may be right janneg about the markings being thrown down willy nilly.My aim is to find if they were put down incorrectly in the first place if I can prove this then W.C.C. have no right to ask for an engineers report thus saving the management company ie you and me €3500 in an engineers report. And €2500 in works as it will be the developer who is liable.

Sky Captain

These representations were made on behalf of the Court and not the Wood. Given the plethora of estates within the development, some confusion had arisen as to which part of the estate referred to, but it is absolutely the Court.

The piece in the recent overall residents commitee newsletter referred to the spine road, as follows:

"The matter of traffic-calming and traffic management measures on the spine road is being discussed between Zapi Properties and Wicklow County Council. These include consideration of formal parking provision, one-way systems, the installation of ramps, double yellow lines, speed limit signs and bollards."

However, the representations at the recent town council meeting relate to the two middle greens within the Court.

Both are currently two way and it was following a consultation exercise some time back with residents that it was decided to move forward with proposals to make these one way and to determine what was involved. This does not have any bearing on any other management company, apart from the Court's. Residents have previously been advised in the Court that they will be notified directly of any developments and, of course, can email at any time.

Hope this clarifies certain matters.

woodser

Then why was the question put down to the county manager and planning official for the area at last months meeting of W.C.C.relating to the wood and no mention of the court.The cllr in question asked three questions about the Wood specifically 1the fence bordering the Wood and three trouts. 2 The two way system in the second part of the wood.And finally if the council would be expedient in taking the wood in charge as it was the first completed development in charlesland.It was these questions that were reported on in the wicklow Times with no mention of the spine road or the Court.

Sky Captain

I am afraid the councillor confused the two estates, but is now very clear. Cheers

woodser

ok if you understand he did, he but upon speaking to the cllr again last night he was very clear that the fence was in relation to both moreso the wood but the one way system he spoke about was most certainly the wood as was the request he put in about the taking in charge of the estate .the only estate advanced enough with surveys and snag lists was the wood according to him.

katek

Sorry I only saw this post now....
Does that mean that the second part of the wood (from 100ish up) may be turned into 1 way system. This would be great as the current situation is so dangerous, very sharp right which 2 cars have to yield to each other to go round the green space, children playing on bikes and no children at play signs (there are ones on the first part of the wood) and a huge truck parked on one side of the green space regularly. Also added to this people drive far too quickly through this area......
I would be delighted if something was done about this. As for the speed of those using the spine road, it is just so dangerous. For those coming out of the Wood also with the cars parked, it is so dangerous.

woodser

Well its the 25 of oct with 4 weeks notice by company law that makes it the 21st of nov if it doesn't come tomorrow or after then it will have to be the 28th of nov that is pushing it very close to the legal deadline that the Management co have to abide by for an A.G.M..I spoke to a girl in da agents orifice and she said that it would be issued over the next two weeks because certain "ISSUES" have to be dealt with, but two weeks time would mean the week before christmas by the time the agm is called- if the letter of the law is to be complied with -any less than 4 week notices and I'm going to the c.r.o. What "issues"-anybody know whats up? there is obviously some problem but what?

mikedragon32

They borked the refunds. Overpaid some and underpaid others afaik.

woodser

mikedragon32 wrote: »

They borked the refunds. Overpaid some and underpaid others afaik.

You cant be serious tell me in this day and age with one of the top accountancy firms in the country they managed to do this .Correct me if I'm wrong from reading their letter with the last refund they admitted that they not only botched the accounts from 04 and 05 and 06 but now they have botched correcting this error.
Will this mean that people will have to pay them back money in order that others can get what is duly owed to them.
No I cant believe this.:rolleyes::mad:then again miked you have always been a solid source of information and I trust you have your sources.Inflation since 04 around 12% .If I'm owed money I'll be claiming 12%interest on it and 12% on what I was already given.I paid about 5000 a year for the past 3 years for properties thats 15000 I gave them and got 1700 back they wont be seeing another penny from me under the current arrangements and let them pursue it anyway they want I'd preferto spend 5000 on a solicitor and 5000 on a barrister next year.Jesus I cant believe it are people so complacent around here that they are allowing themselves tobe ripped off.Joe Duffy even though I cant stand him might be agood place to start.

woodcutter

You cant be serious tell me in this day and age with one of the top accountancy firms in the country they managed to do this

Perhaps one of the Top 279 firms :rolleyes:

Correct me if I'm wrong

If you insist

from reading their letter with the last refund they admitted that they not only botched the accounts from 04 and 05 and 06

They NEVER admitted botching any set of accounts.

but now they have botched correcting this error.

Will have to concede this one I’m afraid.

Will this mean that people will have to pay them back money in order that others can get what is duly owed to them.

Yes, pay back money that was never rightly theirs in the first place

then again miked you have always been a solid source of information and I trust you have your sources.

miked would rather do time than reveal his (or her) sources. I know this for a fact so don’t even bother asking him (or her).

Inflation since 04 around 12% .If I'm owed money I'll be claiming 12%interest on it and 12% on what I was already given.

Ever heard the saying ‘rob Peter to pay Paul’?

I paid about 5000 a year for the past 3 years for properties thats 15000 I gave them

Who’s ‘them’?? ‘You’ are the Management Company

and got 1700 back

I hoped you thanked those involved in securing that refund and perhaps, bought them a pint

they wont be seeing another penny from me under the current arrangements

Again, who are ‘they’?? and what’s a ‘penny’?

and let them pursue it anyway

‘They’ don’t need to pursue it. ‘They’ can leave it sit, gathering interest and really inconvenience you just at that critical moment when that all-elusive buyer you managed to track down after 9 months and numerous price drops of trying to sell one of your many properties is about to sign on the dotted line…….

Jesus I cant believe it are people so complacent around here

Please ignore ealier comment about thanking those responsible for securing refund, I didn't realise you were involved.

that they are allowing themselves tobe ripped off.

Ripped off how?

Joe Duffy even though I cant stand him might be agood place to start.

Ah, the last refuge of the loon!

woodser

woodcutter wrote: »

Perhaps one of the Top 279 firms :rolleyes:


If you insist


They NEVER admitted botching any set of accounts.


Well the letter more or less said that due to it being brought to their attention they were making a refund -yes the accounts were botched at the last agm they had the wrong management company name and were full of errors .I recall someone commenting that a junior cert student would have done better.We also were suppose to have recieved a corrected set which I eventually procured Mike says that they botched the refunds therefore their accountancy and procedures must have been botched.


Will have to concede this one I’m afraid.Agree


Yes, pay back money that was never rightly theirs in the first place.
Of course the money was ours in the first place


miked would rather do time than reveal his (or her) sources. I know this for a fact so don’t even bother asking him (or her).
I never asked him just commented that going on all his past posts his sources and information were 100% correct.



Who’s ‘them’?? ‘You’ are the Management Company.
Effectively I am not-as I have just discovered- the structure as it is with 2 directors from the developer and 1000 votes by them opposed to 270 or so to the residents.Quite apart from this I was referring to the Agents and Accountants which I and the majority of shareholders have no say over.As opposed to the directors who have no vested interest have 1000 says over.It has also come to light that we are paying for services we should not be until we take the estate back and also that The developer is benifitting materially from services that we are paying for i.e. he doesnt have to pay for them as set out.


I hoped you thanked those involved in securing that refund and perhaps, bought them a pint.I did actually they were in my company along with the moderator one night 6 months ago


Again, who are ‘they’?? and what’s a ‘penny’?


‘They’ don’t need to pursue it. ‘They’ can leave it sit, gathering interest and really inconvenience you just at that critical moment when that all-elusive buyer you managed to track down after 9 months and numerous price drops of trying to sell one of your many properties is about to sign on the dotted line…….
I dealt with that before and they had to pick up the tab as a result of a legal point they were aware of that wasnt in the lease agreement.

Please ignore ealier comment about thanking those responsible for securing refund, I didn't realise you were involved.I wasnt but I gave a certain gentleman in wyse a hell of a headache independently at the time.


Ripped off how?
Running the budget on estimates and not basing them on any actual spend in any of the previous years and just dumping the surplus into the reserve fund which when pointed out to them they were very quick to refund


Ah, the last refuge of the loon!

The last refuge but not quite yet. Sounds like you may work for wyse or the accounts.First post and all that .If So Perhaps you can answer a question for me then .I'm almost certain I can send my solicitor to the A.G.M. as my proxy would this be true?

woodcutter

I seriously doubt that you will get an admission from anyone involved that the accounts were wrong, so 'more or less' just doesn't cut it.

If residents received a refund in excess of what they were entitled to then the money was not theirs in the first place.

You ARE the management company (you perhaps more than most as it would appear from previous posts that you have more than 1 property & therefore more than 1 vote).

Of course you have a say of the Agents and Accountants. You just need to know how best to use that voice. Knowledge is power.
That knowledge might include the FACT that the Directors do NOT have 1,000votes but it is in FACT the Developer who has that vote. Symantics perhaps, but an important legal difference. That simple difference can be exploited if you know how.

If, as you claim, you are paying for services which are the responsibility of the Developer, what have you done to challenge this? If the Directors of the Management Company contractually obligated the Mgt Co to meet a liability and the main beneficiary of that assignment is a company with which the Directors are connected, then there may be grounds for the Mgt Co to extricate itself from that obligation. But in order to do so, the full facts must be known.

The Directors of the Mgt Company are fully entitled to run the company based on estimates as per the terms of the lease.

My first post perhaps but not my last. Up to now I have chosen to merely observe the goings-on. As to your question; If you can find him, you can send Santa Claus himself as your proxy. Just ensue that whomever you choose is properly appointed and the Company Secretary notified in accordance with the proxy instructions.

woodser

"If, as you claim, you are paying for services which are the responsibility of the Developer, what have you done to challenge this? If the Directors of the Management Company contractually obligated the Mgt Co to meet a liability and the main beneficiary of that assignment is a company with which the Directors are connected, then there may be grounds for the Mgt Co to extricate itself from that obligation. But in order to do so, the full facts must be known."
So woodcutter what you are saying
a)Is that the directors of the Management co for the past 3 years also being Directors of the development company having a majority shareholding in the management co 1000 to 270 actually control the the management co and all decisions therein.
so
b) according to the planinng terms which state that the common areas areas should be the responsibility of the developer until such time as a handover to the local authority occurs.

If However the developer in their wisdom decided to pass this responsibility on to the residents ie through the management co_- possibly avoiding this financial responsibility and the financial burden, also meaning that the developer may have financially benifitted thus the directors of the management co also being directors of the development co may have bennifitted and I stress may as this is a mere postulation;)
As the developer didnt have pay the costs of this upkeep for the past 3 yearseffictively their company may and again I state may have saved 2 to 3 hundred thousand.

Interesting postulation and certainly seems to make some sense.A small bit of homework on the lease agreement, the Bord pleanala sanction and terms of planning and the formulation of the leases should show the precise facts and clauses and prove or disprove this postulation -any views woodcutter?
As a newbie here you seem to know quite a bit. I'll take back the accusation that you are somehow connected to the agent accountants and developers.What do you think of my elaboration of your point.

woodser

woodcutter wrote: »

I seriously doubt that you will get an admission from anyone involved that the accounts were wrong, so 'more or less' just doesn't cut it.

If residents received a refund in excess of what they were entitled to then the money was not theirs in the first place.

You seem to have confused the issue .I'm angry because we recieved an incorrect refund and thta we actually were entitled to a refund and were over charged and that it had to take persons to apply serious pressure on the agents and recieve constant rebuttals from the agents to finally get it then it was botched not because I have to pay it back

You ARE the management company (you perhaps more than most as it would appear from previous posts that you have more than 1 property & therefore more than 1 vote).
Perhaps but in its current make up I may as well be someone from outside the company questioning the running of it or having input into it.

Of course you have a say of the Agents and Accountants. You just need to know how best to use that voice. Knowledge is power.
That knowledge might include the FACT that the Directors do NOT have 1,000votes but it is in FACT the Developer who has that vote. Symantics perhaps, but an important legal difference. That simple difference can be exploited if you know how.
I agree perhaps I put it too simplistically in my post above

If, as you claim, you are paying for services which are the responsibility of the Developer, what have you done to challenge this? If the Directors of the Management Company contractually obligated the Mgt Co to meet a liability and the main beneficiary of that assignment is a company with which the Directors are connected, then there may be grounds for the Mgt Co to extricate itself from that obligation. But in order to do so, the full facts must be known.
Dealt with this in a seperate post

The Directors of the Mgt Company are fully entitled to run the company based on estimates as per the terms of the lease.
But for how long under company law?Is this really best practice?

My first post perhaps but not my last. Up to now I have chosen to merely observe the goings-on. As to your question; If you can find him, you can send Santa Claus himself as your proxy. Just ensue that whomever you choose is properly appointed and the Company Secretary notified in accordance with the proxy instructions.

Oh yes I will

woodcutter

Woodser, You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment. I'm just a backroom boy.

woodser

Yeah right

macca66

woodser wrote: »

I think you may be right janneg about the markings being thrown down willy nilly.My aim is to find if they were put down incorrectly in the first place if I can prove this then W.C.C. have no right to ask for an engineers report thus saving the management company ie you and me €3500 in an engineers report. And €2500 in works as it will be the developer who is liable.

The marking look like they are put down pretty straight to me and not willy nilly. The only people who have a problem with this are the people at the top around the wood. Because people have to throw their cars on the sidewalk(maybe they should drive slower or mabe get past their L plates) you are going to penalise the people who bought at the entrance to the estate by making them drive all the way round when the people at the top have to anyway.

Maybe they should have looked at the parking situation before buying like I did. If you buy a place with one car park it doesn't give you the right to park on a bike lane because you live infront of it.

There is no need to make it one way, speed humps will work fine.

JanneG

macca66 wrote: »

The marking look like they are put down pretty straight to me and not willy nilly. The only people who have a problem with this are the people at the top around the wood. Because people have to throw their cars on the sidewalk(maybe they should drive slower or mabe get past their L plates) you are going to penalise the people who bought at the entrance to the estate by making them drive all the way round when the people at the top have to anyway.

Maybe they should have looked at the parking situation before buying like I did. If you buy a place with one car park it doesn't give you the right to park on a bike lane because you live infront of it.

There is no need to make it one way, speed humps will work fine.

Neither do I have an L-plate nor have I driven fast when having to throw my car up on to the footpath... However I have been in the correct lane and gone the right way around the green and have had to get out of the way of people going along in the wrong lane while flying along...

The way that people park around that green is just ridiculous at times + that road isn't wide enough to be two-way if you want to be able to park a car along there...

I can't honestly see how 'speed humps' will make any difference really as the road still won't be able to fit 3 cars widthways...

katek

can you just confirm where you are talking about, the second lot of the wood, the court or the spine road????????

Charlie-Bravo

Word has it that notification of an AGM will be issued by post this week therefore keep your diaries free for 21 days later.

Shall we assemble a list of important queries, meet the night before to discuss and this will stop a mickey mouse meeting?

macca66

JanneG wrote: »

Neither do I have an L-plate nor have I driven fast when having to throw my car up on to the footpath... However I have been in the correct lane and gone the right way around the green and have had to get out of the way of people going along in the wrong lane while flying along...

The way that people park around that green is just ridiculous at times + that road isn't wide enough to be two-way if you want to be able to park a car along there...

I can't honestly see how 'speed humps' will make any difference really as the road still won't be able to fit 3 cars widthways...

I am talking about the road that effects most of the Charlesland community. Turning it into a one way system so that the people at the top can get past their neighbours who park inconsideratly should not effect the rest of the community. You are saying that we who live down the bottom of the estate have to be put out because of your bad planning.

Speed humps will slow the cars down, and have you ever heard of a wonderful invention called a "NO PARKING SIGN"? Maybe it's time your neighbours literally got off the grass!

woodcutter

astrofluff wrote: »

Word has it that notification of an AGM will be issued by post this week therefore keep your diaries free for 21 days later.

Shall we assemble a list of important queries, meet the night before to discuss and this will stop a mickey mouse meeting?

To quote the song; I predict a riot.

Given the level of interest in matters pertaining to the Woods' Management Company by certain boards contributors, I would wager that there will be more fireworks at this year's AGM than last Wednesday night.

I would encourage you all to make every effort to be in attendence; encourage your neighbours; appoint a proxy in your absence. Irrespective of whether you make a verbal contribution on the night, the strongest message that you can send is to be in attendence. There will be plenty of residents with plenty to say on the night - you know who you are!

JanneG

macca66 wrote: »

I am talking about the road that effects most of the Charlesland community. Turning it into a one way system so that the people at the top can get past their neighbours who park inconsideratly should not effect the rest of the community. You are saying that we who live down the bottom of the estate have to be put out because of your bad planning.

Speed humps will slow the cars down, and have you ever heard of a wonderful invention called a "NO PARKING SIGN"? Maybe it's time your neighbours literally got off the grass!

????

The road that has been in question is for the second part of the wood. The internal road around the green is a two way road and is definately not built for it. I cannot see how this effects 'most' of the Charlesland community??

Charlie-Bravo

JanneG wrote: »

????

The road that has been in question is for the second part of the wood. The internal road around the green is a two way road and is definately not built for it. I cannot see how this effects 'most' of the Charlesland community??

@Macca & JanneG, you guys abviously have your wires crossed. Yes the internal green for The Wood 2 is tight enough (although I don't have cause to drive around there). It is similar in The Court too but we'll leave that up to them.

I suppose what I'm interested in for this AGM is if the council will take in charge the Wood Estate. It would save me €400 a year! Also I hear that Ballymore still own two of the units (the creches if I hear correctly). Anyone know if this can stop the council taking in charge the estate?

woodcutter

astrofluff wrote: »

I suppose what I'm interested in for this AGM is if the council will take in charge the Wood Estate. It would save me €400 a year! Also I hear that Ballymore still own two of the units (the creches if I hear correctly). Anyone know if this can stop the council taking in charge the estate?

The developer does still retain ownership of these units and is currently appealing WCC decision to refuse change of use. The lease agreement does connect the Developers involvement in the Mgt Co to the disposal of all units.

The Council will not take in charge, any estate which still has the involvement of the Developer. Serious consideration should be given to the consequences of (a) the Developer stepping down from the Mgt Co and (b) the Council taking the estate in charge.

Charlesland, as a whole, is in a somewhat unique situation in terms of its set up and there are other obstacles to be cleared before any approach to the Council could even be considered.

woodser

Have to say I agree with woodcutter I have been doing some research over the past few days any estate in Charlesland will take years to be taken over by the council .The spine road would have to go first before anyone else can be taken over as per the lease agreement . It provides access to each estate and the council cannot take in charge an estate that it has not taken in charge the access to.Source -Mr Sweetman legal advisor to W.C.C.
The residents taking over from the developer at this stage could have serious consequences financially for each resident in an estate .
An estate in North West dublin which I have been asked not to name as the developer has won a litigation case against residents has just seen each household been levied 8000 euros for works on common areas and sewers to bring it up to standard for the council to take over.
The residents allowed the developer to hand it back to them four years ago thus absolving him of all responsibility for it and taking on the liability themselves.The best legal advice I have got and advice from W.C.C. over the past few days is not to allow the developer to hand back the management co. to the residents before the council take over.
This is best practice --unless each resident in the wood want to pay an €8000 to 10000 levy to put the place right in the future .All other management cos. in charlesland should be made aware of this too.As it has transpired that all of us have almost identical lease agreements.Covenants and deeds of easement.
IT looks like the park are already in a precarious situation as they are now resonsible themselves for all future costs without being to legally chase the builder for any flaw of substandard elements in the future.
The management co. there ie the residents are now 100 per cent liable .At least in other estates the builders hold the majority hareholding and are still in the main responsible for any faults or infrastructural flaws that could arise.

daveco23

woodser wrote: »

Have to say I agree with woodcutter I have been doing some research over the past few days any estate in Charlesland will take years to be taken over by the council .The spine road would have to go first before anyone else can be taken over as per the lease agreement . It provides access to each estate and the council cannot take in charge an estate that it has not taken in charge the access to.Source -Mr Sweetman legal advisor to W.C.C.
The residents taking over from the developer at this stage could have serious consequences financially for each resident in an estate .
An estate in North West dublin which I have been asked not to name as the developer has won a litigation case against residents has just seen each household been levied 8000 euros for works on common areas and sewers to bring it up to standard for the council to take over.
The residents allowed the developer to hand it back to them four years ago thus absolving him of all responsibility for it and taking on the liability themselves.The best legal advice I have got and advice from W.C.C. over the past few days is not to allow the developer to hand back the management co. to the residents before the council take over.
This is best practice --unless each resident in the wood want to pay an €8000 to 10000 levy to put the place right in the future .All other management cos. in charlesland should be made aware of this too.As it has transpired that all of us have almost identical lease agreements.Covenants and deeds of easement.
IT looks like the park are already in a precarious situation as they are now resonsible themselves for all future costs without being to legally chase the builder for any flaw of substandard elements in the future.
The management co. there ie the residents are now 100 per cent liable .At least in other estates the builders hold the majority hareholding and are still in the main responsible for any faults or infrastructural flaws that could arise.

At the last Park/grove Mgt Company meeting the builder resigned - am I correct in assuming this now puts park and grove residents into the situation you describe above?

woodcutter

Woodser, you have indeed been busy. A levy such as you have described certainly puts a meagre 400euro service charge into perspective.

daveco23, the situation for the Grove\Park will very much be determined by what exactly transpired at the recent AGM. There is a significant difference between the resignation of the developer from the Board and the formal handing over of the common areas by the developer to the Management Company. The latter is specifically covered by the lease agreement in terms of how and when this can occur.
It would obviously be prudent for one side to ensure that the estate common areas were signed over to the Management Company following the resignation from the Board by the developer.
It would be imperative that any new Board were independently advised, and made aware of the potential consequences of their actions, prior to signing off on such action.

woodser

Correct again woodcutter --I was just assuming that this happened as the developer would relinquish their major shareholding as the directors in the case of the Park/Grove.It depends on whether they signed over the roads and the common areas which I assume they did why else would they sign off as directors if they didnt want to relinquish control of these.Surely the new directors would have checked this and hired their independent legal advice before agreeing to this.They hardly would have accepted it back out without doing this and bringing the liability solely on all the residents.Or would they?

woodcutter

I was just assuming that this happened as the developer would relinquish their major shareholding as the directors in the case of the Park/Grove

The Shareholding and the Directorships control 2 different aspects of the Management Company and are not inextricably linked. Relinquishing one does not automatically result in the other being relinquished.

woodser wrote: »

Surely the new directors would have checked this and hired their independent legal advice before agreeing to this.They hardly would have accepted it back out without doing this and bringing the liability solely on all the residents.

You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

woodser

woodcutter wrote: »

The Shareholding and the Directorships control 2 different aspects of the Management Company and are not inextricably linked. Relinquishing one does not automatically result in the other being relinquished

That is what we need to find out.Will both be relinquished ---or better still can the new directors of the Management company change or have changed the terms of the lease agreements -in the best interests of the residents--I'm currently chasing up this line of enquiry with the law society and so far feedback is quite positive.It could have a major impact on the entire setup and who is responsible for what.Report back in afew days if we have time.Think this should be taken into the realm of p.m.ing woodcutter and anyone else who is interested as things are moving to a lets call it delicate stage where some sharing of information and pooling of rsources is best kept to ourselves from this point on.I think we may be close to a real kaiboshing of some elements of The property management Scene

avantarklu

The 'shareholding' referred to is not such but is a voting entitlement. In the case of the developer, 1000 votes versus 277. Result - total control.
The Woods Articles of Association state that "the developer shall cease to be a member of the company upon completion of the sale of the reversion in the estate to the company under the terms of the management company sale agreement" - i.e. when the common areas are assigned to the management company. As long as the developer remains a member of the company, he maintains his 1,000 voting block and he retains the right to appoint and remove directors. So, until such time as the common areas are handed over, the Developer is stuck with us and us with him (not necessarily a bad thing if woodser has his facts right). I hate to burst your bubble but the kiboshing will have to wait.
As for getting 277 residents to agree to a new lease agreement that satisfies everyones needs, well, best of luck!!. I'm sure your best interests wouldn't tally with everyone elses. All it takes is one resident to say, no, I like the 'no satellite dish' clause. Maybe your friends in the law society smell a nice fee?

woodcutter

Woodser, riddle me this;
If the current Board of Directors are only there in order to retain control, and they are more than capable of achieving this with their current number, why go to the bother of appointing a third puppet director (whose 'Other Directorships' include the development company) on the 22nd of October last?

woodser

You mean Mr Barry Hickey heard about that on the 25th Oct.I believe we shalll meet him in person at the a.g.m. the C.R.O. have been alerted and are updating me daily on any changes should or if they occur -daily. As have the offfice ofe director of consumer affairs and the the office of Director of corporote enforcement i.e. Mr Appelbys office.Woodcutter I have been made aware of your strategy via email .While it has great merit hold off on it for a while until I get counsel from the ODCE

woodcutter

A strategy lacking clear objectives is destined to fail. If the desired goals have not been identified and evaluated first, and alternative outcomes considered, then any successes may be short lived? Some might suggest that the [apparent] situation that the Park & Grove find themselves in is evidence of this.

Charlie-Bravo

woodcutter wrote: »

Some might suggest that the [apparent] situation that the Park & Grove find themselves in is evidence of this.

Elaborate please?

woodcutter

The indication is that the the developer of the Park & Grove may have resigned from the Board of Directors. The [apparent] situation refers to the question over whether the common areas have been handed over by the developer to the Management Company and the consequences of such action for the residents.

Charlie-Bravo

'Tis a good point I suppose. Seeing as were doing pop-quizzes here: how does the overall Charlesland management company fair in all of this? When (and it's gonna happen at some stage whether next year or not) the wood estate is taken in charge by the council what happens legally in respect of this overall management company?!

woodser

A simple answer to your question astrofluff is that it would not affect the overall management co or any management co for that matter as they by legal agreements would have to remain in place for perpetuity.The only effect of the council taking over would be that the utilities would looked after by them.In fact they would have to take over the spine road before takingover the individual estates as the spine road controls all the utilities ie if there was a problem lets say with sewage system under the spine road that affected one of the estates if the council didnt have control of the spine road then they couldn't do any thing about it if they didnt take it over.
On another matter to deal with woodcutters post about not having clearly defined goals and strategy changing the usual format of the top table at an agm could have the wrong reprecussions and let certain people off the hook.

woodcutter

Interesting postulation Woodser. Let’s take a moment to explore it.

The chairman is the regulator of the meeting and must impartially regulate the proceedings and maintain discipline. His duties will include ensuring that the meeting is properly convened and constituted, ensuring that business is taken in the order set out in agenda and no business which is not mentioned in the agenda is taken up unless agreed to by the members. He may exercise his powers of adjournment of the meeting, should he in good faith feel that such a step is necessary. He must exercise his casting vote bonafide in the interest of the company.

Can you identify anyone with an involvement in the Management Company, be they Resident, Committee Member, Agent or Director, who could, nay should be entrusted with that much power?

Last years’ lesson should be a lesson learned.

woodser

Its not for me to nominate anyone.
I hear others and possibly yourself are preparing for that.
Last year was actually an opportunity lost when the pressure was on things could have been pushed a little bit more.
The chair could have been put on the spot a lot more efficiently by saying as agent who had to answer questions he would not be
a)an impartial chair
b) Accounts were not concise
C)minutes ommitted important issues raised the previous year and issues not answered re the same.
d)constant having to refer back to the directors or developers on issues raised on the floor and none of these questions have been annswered to date.
Will they be address at the upcoming A.G.M. or be once again ommitted from the minutes?
These are the issues that should be raised this year as I believe the accounts issue is sorted or is it woodcutter?.
Also residents should be ready for what I believe may be a hand over of directorship and have the pertinent questions ready if not I will.

woodcutter

Of course it is for you to nominate someone – this is your AGM. Maintain the status-quo if you so wish but do not exclude yourself from that process.

Last year was an opportunity lost, more than most realise. I understand that there was plenty of pressure excerpted on the Chair that evening but perhaps in a somewhat disorganised fashion. A strategy, with clear objectives identified and evaluated with alternative outcomes considered, will achieve so much more. No amount of preparation however will affect the possibility of the current Directors stepping down and being replaced, even temporarily. Until such time as the common areas are handed over, the Developer retains the exclusive right to appoint and remove Directors. Nothing in itself would be achieved by such action nor attempting to disrupt it. Don’t get distracted by other issues.

woodser

I think youre going off on a tangent yourself woodcutter first I hear you are planning the strategy as I hinted at earlier then you say you dont want to follow it.
If the directors want to stand down well and good if they want to but under what terms .And what are they handing over and what liability will the new dieectors be taking on on behalf of the residents and b.t.w.the park and grove did have the common areas handed back and not a single person has questioned it or questioned the consequences it on the night.They also have an almost identical lease agreement.Will the wood be put in the same position

woodcutter

Truly fascinating news about the Park & Grove. Even more so if indeed no one questioned it on the night or indeed has questioned it up to this point. If Residents had knowledge of this and knew all the facts would it have been handled differently? Under what circumstances could the Residents now extricate themselves from this situation, I wonder? As I am not familiar with their Lease and it is not identical to any that I am familiar with, I could only speculate.

There are no restrictions on any of the current Directors resigning that position. The resignation of the Board is not inextricably linked with any other event. Even if the incumbents were to take the route suggested, any new appointments would remain under the control of the Developer.

woodser

Now I'm really confused woodcutter -who said anything about resinations of the board or the incumbents position.Do you know what exactly you are talking about .What do you mean not identical leases or familiarity with any you are aware of if you say you havent seen them????

Who mentioned restrictions on Directors resigning but if they signed up as directors and signed off on the handover there may be a question of liability for these actions.

Appointments would not remain under the control of the developer if he relinquished his control of the common areas and directorships along with his 1000 vote share --check before you theorise --chopper