Mgt Company - involvement with Houses

Cookie_Monster

Sparked by another thread.

It is well documented on here that if you buy or rent an apartment that you generally can't put up satellite dishes and all sorts of other clauses because the outside of the building and grounds are under the ownership and management of the management company.

Is this ever the case for a house though? Even if it is in a development, surely it is still your property as you have paid for the house and any garden.The only communal owner property would be the boundary wall of house or garden?

If there is an estate mgt company would they not only be entitled to deal with the common areas, roads, footpaths greens etc.

How can they insist you can/can't do certain things on your own property? (obviously once they are all legal)

Why would people sign deeds with such insane conditions attached?
Should the CC or local authority not be taking responsibility for the estate once complete?

Finally from my personal experience of living at home (which is part of a large estate). The residents association try to collect subs etc from people but not many pay it as there is no reason to, nor any comeback for not paying it.
Now I can understand that if you want to pay to help upkeep of estate, fair enough but we never believed the assoc did anything useful so didn't bother. All they ever did was cry in the newsletter that no-one had paid it.

Any thoughts?

D3PO

some good questions here. I really dont believe management companies should have any involvement with houses, finish the estate and hand it over to the council.

Id hate to have my house "managed"

antoinolachtnai

It depends on the lease and conditions under which the property were sold.

It could be a condition of the planning permission that there be a management company.

athtrasna

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Finally from my personal experience of living at home (which is part of a large estate). The residents association try to collect subs etc from people but not many pay it as there is no reason to, nor any comeback for not paying it.
Now I can understand that if you want to pay to help upkeep of estate, fair enough but we never believed the assoc did anything useful so didn't bother. All they ever did was cry in the newsletter that no-one had paid it.

Any thoughts?

A residents association has no legal foundation. Nobody is obliged to contribute to a RA.

A Management Company is a legal entity comprising all the owners in a development. If there are clauses in the leases/contracts signed at purchase which commit the owners to paying fees then there is an obligation on the owners to do so.

It always amazes me how many people sign deeds for managed developments without ever reading the detail!

D3PO

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It depends on the lease and conditions under which the property were sold.

It could be a condition of the planning permission that there be a management company.

i know this but i still dont understand it. If we had proper planning procedures in this country there would be no need to have this as a PP stipulation.

Cookie_Monster

athtrasna wrote: »

A residents association has no legal foundation. Nobody is obliged to contribute to a RA.

A Management Company is a legal entity comprising all the owners in a development. If there are clauses in the leases/contracts signed at purchase which commit the owners to paying fees then there is an obligation on the owners to do so.

It always amazes me how many people sign deeds for managed developments without ever reading the detail!

I realise the difference, but as far as I can see Mgt companies are (to a large degree) another symptom of the Celtic Tiger, would I be wrong?

Cookie_Monster

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It could be a condition of the planning permission that there be a management company.

In what circumstances would this apply do you think?

dan_d

I live in a ten year old housing estate. There is no RA.There was never one in the estate I grew up in.The council have the estate in hand for years now obviously - to me, the only need for an association would be if the estate was not in hand and had public lighting and grass areas etc that needed looking after. Once the council are in the estate, there should be no need for a resident's association for houses.They are just money making schemes that grew up in the last few years to be honest.

thebiglad

I agree that Management companies were just another way for the builder to screw more money from the residents.

That said, if one is in place then it has a purpose to fulfil (until council can be convinced to take over) - the estate must have public liability insurance, underground services must be maintained, ESB paid for communal lighting etc - this is in addition to the landscape maintenance.

Major cost of Management Company comes from the Property Management Company which will invariably be instructed to manage the estate on behalf of the residents.

Each year their must be an AGM, at this AGM the previous years expenditure will be outlined and the forthcoming year's budget approved.

If you are not happy with your charges get on the Resident's committee or go to the next AGM.

You will be contractually obliged to pay, fall behind or ignore and you will find a bill for all unpaid fees (include any interest etc) presented to you before you can sell your house/apt.

wintear

Is it not the case that the newer estates in Dublin have not been taken on by the council/ Corpo. Meaning that the estate has to have a management company to look after it.

This means that in some cases Houseowners have to pay a management fee, this was certainly the situation at a number of Developments I had a look at.

thebiglad

wintear wrote: »

Is it not the case that the newer estates in Dublin have not been taken on by the council/ Corpo. Meaning that the estate has to have a management company to look after it.

This means that in some cases Houseowners have to pay a management fee, this was certainly the situation at a number of Developments I had a look at.

I think until a developer hands over all common areas in an estate then the estate cannot be taken over by Co Co.

After that date based on my own experience there is a reluctance by the Co Co to take over the estate - ultimately it is to their cost whenever they take one over, that is the main reason why residents want rid.

A well run Management Company (by the residents for the residents) can be highly beneficial to the estate.

20goto10

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Why would people sign deeds with such insane conditions attached?

I'm in exactly this situation. I own a house but the estate has an apartment block in it. So management company try to apply the same rules to the houses. I am also aware of what I signed and it's very simple, just because I signed it does not make it enforceable. Management company rules do not overrule the law and the law says I can put up a satellite dish on my own private property.

It's a horrible situation to be in. I am constantly fighting with management company over bills and rules. for example the apartment block got new gates to the car park which came out of the sinking fund, the same sinking fund we pay into. now why should I pay for their bloody gates?? CoCo will not take over the common areas because they say it is all part of an apartment complex. It's double taxation, we are still paying for ESB bill for the street lights 7 years after moving in.

Crooks the lot of them.

astrofool

No satellite dishes may be part of the planning permission, in which case it could be enforced. A lot of new estates had this stipulated, whether they were apartments or not.

Just because I own my own private house and land, doesn't mean I can build a 200ft tower on it. (luckily I can add a satellite dish..)

Cookie_Monster

why are saterlite dishes not allowed in general anyway, cos they're unsightly? sure the apartment block itself is ugly enough not to notice

Jo King

20goto10 wrote: »

I'm in exactly this situation. I own a house but the estate has an apartment block in it. So management company try to apply the same rules to the houses. I am also aware of what I signed and it's very simple, just because I signed it does not make it enforceable. Management company rules do not overrule the law and the law says I can put up a satellite dish on my own private property.

It's a horrible situation to be in. I am constantly fighting with management company over bills and rules. for example the apartment block got new gates to the car park which came out of the sinking fund, the same sinking fund we pay into. now why should I pay for their bloody gates?? CoCo will not take over the common areas because they say it is all part of an apartment complex. It's double taxation, we are still paying for ESB bill for the street lights 7 years after moving in.

Crooks the lot of them.

Why don't you buy the fee simple and be done with them?

antoinolachtnai

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

In what circumstances would this apply do you think?

There has been a lot of rigmarole about this.

The reason the Council does this, I understand, is because the Council is not in a position to take on the maintenance and lighting costs for the roads and public areas of the housing estate. It costs money, and the Council does not have any budget to cover it on an ongoing basis. It would be irresponsible for the Council to give planning permission for a development that it cannot afford to maintain.

20goto10

Jo King wrote: »

Why don't you buy the fee simple and be done with them?

Sorry I don't understand what you mean.

Edit: ok I see what you mean. I own the property and land it is on. What my maintenance fee pays towards is the common areas.

20goto10

astrofool wrote: »

No satellite dishes may be part of the planning permission

It can't be. The same planning permission laws apply to everyone in the country. You can't make up your own subset of laws that apply to one estate and not the other. Besides the dish is not an issue for me anymore. They tried to threaten me into taking it down but they were empty threats. There's nothing they can do about it and they know it.

Ste.phen

They can absolutely grant planning permission subject to conditions. Conditions which can include restrictions on the usage of the property (such as 'no satellite dishes allowed on the front of the building'.)

Goesague

20goto10 wrote: »

Sorry I don't understand what you mean.

Edit: ok I see what you mean. I own the property and land it is on. What my maintenance fee pays towards is the common areas.

How can you be liable to the management co. so. A covenant cannot be enforced against a freehold.

20goto10

Goesague wrote: »

How can you be liable to the management co. so. A covenant cannot be enforced against a freehold.

Can you give me more details? I live in a private estate and must contribute to the running of that estate, or so I've been told.

20goto10

Ste.phen wrote: »

They can absolutely grant planning permission subject to conditions. Conditions which can include restrictions on the usage of the property (such as 'no satellite dishes allowed on the front of the building'.)

If I signed a piece of paper saying I'll suck the developers cock would I then have to go and do it just because I signed it?? Its a basic human right. This is the EU, not China. EU trumps dodgy Irish planning laws in any court.

I have my dish up 5 years now, so clearly I am in the right otherwise they would have done something about it.

Goesague

20goto10 wrote: »

Can you give me more details? I live in a private estate and must contribute to the running of that estate, or so I've been told.

On what basis must you contribute. Who do you pay? What is your legal connection to the entity you pay?

markpb

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I realise the difference, but as far as I can see Mgt companies are (to a large degree) another symptom of the Celtic Tiger, would I be wrong?

Almost every country which has apartment blocks has a concept of a management company, owners company or strata. If you live in a shared block, there are shared costs.

athtrasna

20goto10 wrote: »

? Its a basic human right. This is the EU, not China. EU trumps dodgy Irish planning laws in any court.

The EU right you refer to is the right to be able to receive television signals from your own country, usually by satellite. And yes you have that right in Ireland. In Ireland you can erect satellite dishes. So therefore it is up to you to live in a place in Ireland where satellite dishes are permitted. You are not entitled to receive these signals in every place in every country.

Re the other points, even as a house owner you would be a member of the management company that owns the common areas, roads, paths, borders etc. Regardless of freehold of your own property, estates remain private and the responsibility of the Management Company until taken in charge by the council.

Cookie_Monster

so for arguements sake if the estate (made up of houses) is complete and has been for lets say 2 years and under mgt of the mgt company is there anything you can do towards getting the CoCo to take it over, or does this only happen when they decide to themselves?

astrofool

The developer will usually have a list of items to complete before the council will take over, some developers will try and keep the estate away from the CoCo if they have more land nearby they want to develop (so they can build through roads for example). Once the council is satisfied the developer has met all areas of the planning permission, then the council may take over the state over the course of a couple of years. The management company (not agent) must apply to the council themselves as well.

Most apartment blocks will never be taken over by a council, due to the internal areas, they are often far better run by the residents themselves via a mangement company/agent. A lot of CoCo managed apartment blocks turn to slums over time.

It can't be. The same planning permission laws apply to everyone in the country. You can't make up your own subset of laws that apply to one estate and not the other. Besides the dish is not an issue for me anymore. They tried to threaten me into taking it down but they were empty threats. There's nothing they can do about it and they know it.

Different estates can certainly have different rules in their planning permission, this can range from colours, height of property, amount of green areas, to no satellite dishes.

They could certainly do something about it if they were that bothered, there's likely bigger issues to deal with.

Cookie_Monster

Why do you need planning permission for satellite dishes but not a shed or conservatory or oil tank?

Seems a bit over the top to me.

astrofool

The planning permission that the council grants to the developer could have any number of clauses, including no satellite dishes, no shed, conservatory etc. The individual who buys a property in that development will also be subject to the same restrictions.

It's not a case of having to apply for planning permission for a single dish, but that the council only let the houses be built on proviso that there be no dishes.

It could also be a rule put in place by the management company, of which, all owners are a member of.