Name and Shame of members of management company

Mailman

Does anyone know if it is legal to use the minutes of an AGM to name and shame members of a management company who have not paid their annual service charge?

The_Conductor

Hmmm-

The fact that there are people who have not paid should be obvious by the presence of "deferred income" on the balance sheet for the MCM. Having the offending members read into the minutes is a different matter. Defamation of character is only if the item is untrue. Its not in this case......

Victor

Please don't do it here.

Mailman wrote: »

Does anyone know if it is legal to use the minutes of an AGM to name and shame members of a management company who have not paid their annual service charge?

Make sure that its right first and that they haven't paid up since.

RobY

Hi,

If you look at Page 81 of the following ODCE attachment

http://www.odce.ie//GetAttachment.aspx?id=3c09d63b-3eeb-4908-b80a-b33326ec6826

You will see the following:

23. No member shall be entitled to vote at any general meeting unless all moneys immediately payable by him to the company have been paid.

So, if people haven't paid, it might be necessary/prudent to note that this excluded them from voting on matters raised at the AGM. For example, if your minutes note that there were 50 attendees but your record of a vote during the AGM was 30 in favour and 10 against with 6 abstentions, it would be relevant to note the 4 'missing' votes as 'disqualified' or something similar.

Of course, the people who don't pay often don't attend the AGM.

Mailman wrote: »

Does anyone know if it is legal to use the minutes of an AGM to name and shame members of a management company who have not paid their annual service charge?

The_Conductor

RobY wrote: »

Of course, the people who don't pay often don't attend the AGM.

We routinely get fewer than 1/3 of our members turning up..... its not just the offendors who don't attend

On a related note- I see that the legislation which was promised on Management Companies etc- has been taken from the agenda as it was feared it was open to legal challenge. Its supposed to be reintroduced to the Oireachtas Diary in the Autumn session.......:mad:

Paulw

It has happened that people at an AGM were not allowed to vote due to the fact they hadn't paid their full fees.

It's a quick way to shame people in to paying on the spot.

Yes, it is perfectly alright to list/name those with outstanding management fees at your AGM and have the details minuted.

The_Conductor

Paulw wrote: »

It has happened that people at an AGM were not allowed to vote due to the fact they hadn't paid their full fees.

It's a quick way to shame people in to paying on the spot.

Yes, it is perfectly alright to list/name those with outstanding management fees at your AGM and have the details minuted.

By rights the people who have not paid their Management Fee have no right to attend the AGM, as their membership of the Management Company lapses, until such time as their financial obligations towards the Management Company are in good stead.

SimpleSam06

Wasn't there something about not disclosing the amount of money owed by someone, the Stubbs Gazette comes to mind for some reason...

The_Conductor

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Wasn't there something about not disclosing the amount of money owed by someone, the Stubbs Gazette comes to mind for some reason...

For Stubbs Gazette- you need to get a court judgement against the offending party and then register the judgement in the high court. Its automatically entered into Stubbs Gazette then.

Mailman

What motivation does the non-paying management company have not to be listed in Stubbs Gazette?
Will it prevent them getting credit in the future?

SimpleSam06

smccarrick wrote: »

For Stubbs Gazette- you need to get a court judgement against the offending party and then register the judgement in the high court. Its automatically entered into Stubbs Gazette then.

There are no particular restrictions on discussing/publicising matters of debt so?

bobbysands81

Mailman wrote: »

What motivation does the non-paying management company have not to be listed in Stubbs Gazette?
Will it prevent them getting credit in the future?

Generally speaking the Management Company can begin legal proceedings against anyone not paying their management charges.

The worst thing that anyone can do is refuse to pay their management charges as they will have signed a contract stating that they will pay their portion of the annual service charges, if they do not they are in breach of contract and (in most cases) it is an open and shut legal case if this happens.

No matter how bad things are in an estate I would not recommend that anyone refuse to pay charges for a variety of reasons (being taken to court for it, not enough money in the Management Co to pay it's bills, Management Co going bankrupt and ownership of your home reverting to State as a result etc...) Instead pay your charges and go after the company through the ODCE or other legal routes if they're not doing the business.

Basically, not paying charges is a breech of contract for which the owner can be sued. That will lead to many problems in getting credit etc... in the future and surely that is incentive enough for owners to pay their bills?

Paulw

Currently in our development we are chasing those with outstanding fees. People were sent solicitor letters last week and given 7 days to pay. Failure to pay will result in legal action being taken. And we're also charging interest on any fees due from 2007. This interest will cover the solicitor fees for now.

People seem to think that they can refuse to pay their fees if they have a complaint or issue. Right now, they're finding out the hard way, that they MUST pay their fees.

I wouldn't mind, but we have few complaints in general, and our management company is well run (we have our own elected directors) and our management agent is doing a damn good job. At our recent AGM, we had questions from the floor, but mostly people were very very happy.

Iago

I don't think enough people challenge these fees, for example in my estate the householders are expected to pay charges that are only applicable to the apartment blocks. e.g. maintenance of fire equipment and stairways/halls etc, litter clean up of apartment gardens, security patrols and car park maintenance and so on and so forth. there's also a provision for a "sinking fund" which nobody seems to be able to explain to me and I don't see why I should pay it as a result.

I've sent all these questions to the managment company in question so it'll be interesting to see if I get a response.

Mailman

Please provide more info. about Stubbs Gazette.

The non-payers appear to be shameless but like buying stuff.
Does Stubbs Gazette close off lines of credit to these people.

Management fee is not issue here - management fee is the smallest I know. Estate is self-managed with full representation of members.
It is not an act of protest as the non-payers haven't voiced any discontent; they just don't feel like they have to pay and I need to give them motivation to pay.

Paulw

Iago wrote: »

I don't think enough people challenge these fees, for example in my estate the householders are expected to pay charges that are only applicable to the apartment blocks. there's also a provision for a "sinking fund" which nobody seems to be able to explain to me and I don't see why I should pay it as a result.

I've sent all these questions to the managment company in question so it'll be interesting to see if I get a response.

Each development is different, for sure, and your management company directors and the management agent should be able to answer your questions.

A sinking fund is needed for projects such as emergency issues, structural issues that crop up over time, and such. Things like repainting buildings etc. Something that only happens every few years (5-10) but is expensive.

When you signed your contracts, when buying your unit, you should have been told exactly what your fees were for. If you weren't, then you should go back to your solicitor and query the fine details.

At your AGM you should be able to raise all issues about the management fees and such.

athtrasna

As PaulW says, sinking funds are used for things such as exterior repainting. They also cover cost over runs due to unexpected issues, pest control, plant damage, carpet replacement in common areas. A healthy sinking fund is the only way to avoid levies everytime something needs to be done in the development.

Regarding the naming of non-paying units. The list of fees paid and due by each unit is listed in our company accounts so it's very obvious who hasn't paid up. The accounts are issued to all members of the management company in advance of every AGM.

what2do

normally the sinking fund is a segregated account preferably at a higher interest rate that is not for day to day issues. Painting and carpeting of communal areas is one of the biggies that it should cover. The other option without this is that there would be a levy applied in the year that painting is being done, however this could involve a substantial increase of your fee in that year.

RE naming of the non payers, as everyone is a member of the management company I would presume everyone has a right to a list of people who owe the mgt co money.

bobbysands81

Mailman wrote: »

It is not an act of protest as the non-payers haven't voiced any discontent; they just don't feel like they have to pay and I need to give them motivation to pay.

A letter from the Management Co. solicitor stating that they are being taken to court should be the kick that they need as they have signed a contract tating that they will pay these charges.

bobbysands81

Iago wrote: »

I don't think enough people challenge these fees, for example in my estate the householders are expected to pay charges that are only applicable to the apartment blocks. e.g. maintenance of fire equipment and stairways/halls etc, litter clean up of apartment gardens, security patrols and car park maintenance and so on and so forth. there's also a provision for a "sinking fund" which nobody seems to be able to explain to me and I don't see why I should pay it as a result.

I've sent all these questions to the managment company in question so it'll be interesting to see if I get a response.

If you're not getting some sort of benefit from the services then you should not be paying for the service. However, (I think you own a house in a multi-unit development, is that right?) there are indirect benefits which you derive from the entire estate being kept well prented, tidy and gardens kept etc... In saying that though I do not see any reason why you should be paying for the likes of maintenance of fire equipment and internal common areas.

How

stovelid

Iago wrote: »

I don't think enough people challenge these fees, for example in my estate the householders are expected to pay charges that are only applicable to the apartment blocks. e.g. maintenance of fire equipment and stairways/halls etc, litter clean up of apartment gardens, security patrols and car park maintenance and so on and so forth. there's also a provision for a "sinking fund" which nobody seems to be able to explain to me and I don't see why I should pay it as a result.

I've sent all these questions to the managment company in question so it'll be interesting to see if I get a response.

The not-paying-fees road is misguided. If you have a valid issue, chase it up through other channels.

Some of the most persistent defaulters on our estate claim it's a "protest". So, by taking issue with one or two charge items, they withhold all their fees, even though the fees are used for things that they have no issue with.

At the end of the day, I'm all for people opposing dodgy charges but it's selfish to make others pay for their share of the waste management/ landscaping/lighting while they fight with the company.

Our AGM is in a few days and I would love for the defaulters to be named, but as somebody else said, the people most likely to show up will have paid their fees.

what2do

By not paying you are doing a disfavour to the entire development. When I had an issue in the past I withheld part payment, therefore I felt they had cash from me to cover day to day issues but it was in their interest to resolve my issues in order to get the entire sum.

One point is that you cannot sell your unit if there are outstanding fees.

How Strange

stovelid wrote: »

Our AGM is in a few days and I would love for the defaulters to be named, but as somebody else said, the people most likely to show up will have paid their fees.

AFAIK, under data protection laws you can't publish the names of people who haven't paid but you can distribute a list of apartment no's who've defaulted with the minutes of the AGM and at the AGM itself.

Also, in case some of the defaulted owners do attend, have a list to hand at the AGM with the names and apartment numbers to hand so everytime someone wants to speak ask them what apartment number they are. If they haven't paid they'll have the shame of facing all the other owners present.

You'd be suprised how many defaulted owners will turn up because they have a sense of moral righteousness for witholding payment. In my experience, they were usually the ones on the phone complaining about services not being delivered but they couldn't seem to get their head around the correlation between unpaid fees and delivery of service.

athtrasna

bobbysands81 wrote: »

If you're not getting some sort of benefit from the services then you should not be paying for the service. However, (I think you own a house in a multi-unit development, is that right?) there are indirect benefits which you derive from the entire estate being kept well prented, tidy and gardens kept etc... In saying that though I do not see any reason why you should be paying for the likes of maintenance of fire equipment and internal common areas.

How

Not as easy as that!!! If you've signed legal documents at purchase to say you will contribute to the management fund of the development at a set rate then regardless of whether or not you benefit from the services.

In our development each unit pays a % of the budget depending on unit size. I don't get window cleaning, common area cleaning, fire alarm service etc lie the common area apartment because I have my own front door but according to the documents I signed I can't pick and choose what my fee covers.

Buyer beware...but we learned too late!

Paulw

athtrasna wrote: »

Not as easy as that!!! If you've signed legal documents at purchase to say you will contribute to the management fund of the development at a set rate then regardless of whether or not you benefit from the services.

In our development each unit pays a % of the budget depending on unit size.

Exactly. That's the way it is. You signed a legally binding contract to pay management fees based on set criteria (usually floor space of the unit).

No matter what you like, or don't like, you have to pay the fees due to you. You can, of course, query all fees with the company directors, but you must pay the fees.

Victor

RobY wrote: »

If you look at Page 81 of the following ODCE attachment http://www.odce.ie//GetAttachment.aspx?id=3c09d63b-3eeb-4908-b80a-b33326ec6826 You will see the following:

23. No member shall be entitled to vote at any general meeting unless all moneys immediately payable by him to the company have been paid.

Isn't that a recommended rule, not a mandatory rule?

Mailman wrote: »

Please provide more info. about Stubbs Gazette. The non-payers appear to be shameless but like buying stuff. Does Stubbs Gazette close off lines of credit to these people.

Stubbs Gazette is simply a newspaper that publishes lots of legal notices. What really harms someone's credit rating is the court judgement and if its picked up by the Irish Credit Bureau.

daheff

Out of interest...how much is the mgmt fee?


It may be that people just dont have the fee to pay in one lump sum?



As for people saying "you signed a contract when you bought your house"...that doesnt wash with me....you were not given a choice..you had to sign the contract to get the house/apt.

And before people say "you didnt have to buy there" ...dont...people seem to forget about how hard it was to get a house/apt over the last 5-10 years...remember the 3/4 days queuing outside developments waiting for them to launch? People were damn glad they could buy something...now they are finding out the downsides...developers are screwing them via the mgmt company (i'd say it would be very interesting to see who the contracts that the mgmt companys signed are with..i'd bet a lot are with companies owned by the directors of the builders!)

Mailman

less than 500 euro.

stovelid

daheff wrote: »

It may be that people just dont have the fee to pay in one lump sum?

Pay the service charge in installments then. Our company allows this, and I assume it's an option elsewhere. If not, petition them to introduce it.

I have seen the list of long term defaulters (i.e owing 4 years or more fees) from my estate. Funnily enough, being strapped for 600 -1000 quid a year doesn't stop some of them owning expensive cars, or indeed, singing up for large mortgages in the first place?

Paulw

daheff wrote: »

It may be that people just dont have the fee to pay in one lump sum?

People should make provision for their management fee, or pay by installment.

daheff wrote: »

And before people say "you didnt have to buy there" ...dont...people seem to forget about how hard it was to get a house/apt over the last 5-10 years...remember the 3/4 days queuing outside developments waiting for them to launch? People were damn glad they could buy something...now they are finding out the downsides...developers are screwing them via the mgmt company (i'd say it would be very interesting to see who the contracts that the mgmt companys signed are with..i'd bet a lot are with companies owned by the directors of the builders!)

Many management companies are NOT run by the developer. In fact, the OP stated that they run their own. So, no developer involved here.

In my management company, there is no developer involved either, and people still seem to not want to pay. But, we're dealing with that, through legal means.

RobY

In reply to my earlier quote:

23. No member shall be entitled to vote at any general meeting unless all moneys immediately payable by him to the company have been paid.

Victor asked:

Victor wrote: »

Isn't that a recommended rule, not a mandatory rule?

No, it looks like it is mandatory.

I had a quick look at the Irish Statute Book (No idea if any of this has been superseded)

---

Section 16, Companies Act 1963

Statutory forms of memorandum and articles.

The form of—


( a ) the memorandum of a company limited by shares;


( b ) the memorandum and articles of a company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital;


( c ) the memorandum and articles of a company limited by guarantee and having a share capital;


( d ) the memorandum and articles of an unlimited company having a share capital;


shall be respectively in accordance with the forms set out in Tables B, C, D and E in the First Schedule or as near thereto as circumstances admit.

---

Management Companies are type b and therefore Table C applies to them:

---

TABLE C.


FORM OF MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF A COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE AND NOT HAVING A SHARE CAPITAL.

---

Table C is what is referenced in the ODCE Guidance Note.