Management Company Turning off Water

coco_lola

I'm asking this question on behalf of a friend who owns an apartment in a complex. He has not paid the management fees in a couple of years, which he is aware he is responsible for. However, he has a tenant in there atm, and the tenant has advised that a plumber came and turned off the water indefinitely. They gave no reason for turning the water off. Are the management company within their rights to do this, even if the management fees are unpaid?

helen1

I dont think they have a right to do this. Where I live we dont get our parking permits if the management charges arent paid, this is a new thing in the last couple of months and they said they had to do something to get the money in.
May your management company are in the same position and are desperate to get arrears paid. If they have done it due to outstanding fees you can be sure that they have gotten legal advise on it.

Lemming

helen1 wrote: »

May your management company are in the same position and are desperate to get arrears paid. If they have done it due to outstanding fees you can be sure that they have gotten legal advise on it.

I wouldn't be so sure that they've gotten legal advise such seems to be the woeful lack of knowledge regards obligations & tenants rights that seem to circulate amongst Irish landlords/letting/management agencies.

Pretty desperate and appalling thing to do to a tenant. There's also an air - a fairly despicable one at that - of using tenants by proxy as weapons, thus putting them in the middle of a dispute that has no bearing on them [tenants]. If the management company has gone to the bother of legal consultation, then why not simply hit the owner with threat/notice of legal proceedings and be done with it.

hollypink

I'd be surprised if the management company/agent were within their rights to turn off the water and even if they were, they would surely have to notify the owner before doing so. Is the tenant sure it isn't for maintenance or something?

On a side note, I do think it's a pity that someone who hasn't paid their management fees but is benefitting from the services provided (waste disposal, block insurance etc.) is more focused on the rights of the management company as opposed to their own obligations.

djimi

Good lord as a tenant I would kick up an unholy stink with everyone and anyone involved if my water was shut off!

This problem has to be sorted ASAP as far as Im concerned; its not the tenants problem if the landlord doesnt pay his management fees, and in no way should a management company be allowed to affect the living conditions of a tenant because a dispute they have with the landlord. The law needs to be changed to protect tenants when a dispute arises between their landlord and the management company (and anyone else the landlord might have pissed off).

Absolutely disgusting behaviour by the management company. I dont know the legal situation of this so I cant advise but I will say that I hope that the tenant absolutely goes to town on your friend and the management company until the situation is resolved.

Zulu

It really sickens me people not paying the management fees. There are a good few of my neighbours who don't. I only wish my management company would cut them off.

Solair

That's a terrible situation for the tenant and I would assume that they will dissolve the lease immediately.

Whatever about the management company's tactics, the landlord can't seriously expect someone to live in an apartment without running water!?!

I would assume the tenant could simply dissolve the lease and expect a full refund of their deposit. You can't just let an apartment without running water or sanitation services. It's would be a breech of human rights, never mind the lease!

I sincerely hope that your friend, the landlord, is working tirelessly to resolve this situation??

helen1

Did the plumber actually say the water was being cut off due to non payment of management fees.

coco_lola

helen1 wrote: »

Did the plumber actually say the water was being cut off due to non payment of management fees.

No he didn't - I am just adding that in to be thorough.


I don't intend for this to come across as back seat modding, but can everyone please answer the original question I asked - are the management company within their rights to turn off water in this situation? My friend knows that management fees must be paid but I added this in just to be thorough.

Thanks.

coco_lola

Solair wrote: »

I sincerely hope that your friend, the landlord, is working tirelessly to resolve this situation??

Thanks for your post. Yes he is, he just asked for me to query here as he doesn't use forums and thought it might be an idea to get more opinions here. This only happened today, but he is seeking legal advice.

markpb

coco_lola wrote: »

This only happened today, but he is seeking legal advice.

Would it be catty to suggest that he'd be better of spending his money paying his bills instead of paying a solicitor?

Zulu

"Seeking legal advice" = "no intention of paying management fees".

If your friend made the tiniest effort to pay his bill and act as a responsible, decent, person, they'd have this issue sorted today. All the residents want is for your friend to contribute. If your made an effort & commitment to contribute - like say giving the fee's they're spending on legal advice as a part-payment of what they owe - the water would most probably be turned back on.

Sadly, it doesn't look like your friend is interested in doing that however. I'm sure their parents are proud.

helen1

If he is registered with the PRTB could the tenant ring them and ask if the management company has the right to do this.

hollypink

Originally Posted by helen1:
Did the plumber actually say the water was being cut off due to non payment of management fees.

coco_lola wrote: »

No he didn't - I am just adding that in to be thorough.

Has he not asked the management agent why the water was turned off? I'd have thought that would be the first step rather than seeking legal advice. He/you might also get better advice on this thread with that information.

coco_lola

As I said, we don't actually know if that is why the water was turned off. I would have thought that a warning would at least have to be issued. I simply added in that they weren't paid to ensure that the full story was there. As the majority of the information in this thread was completely off-topic, and my friend has a friend who is a solicitor helping him with this, mods can we please lock the thread?

markpb

helen1 wrote: »

If he is registered with the PRTB could the tenant ring them and ask if the management company has the right to do this.

The PRTB have no authority or competency to deal with management company vs owner issues.

coco_lola

hollypink wrote: »

Has he not asked the management agent why the water was turned off? I'd have thought that would be the first step rather than seeking legal advice. He/you might also get better advice on this thread with that information.

Thanks - he is trying to get in touch with the management company, and he wanted to make sure he knew where he stood before he contacted them again.

Solair

coco_lola wrote: »

Thanks for your post. Yes he is, he just asked for me to query here as he doesn't use forums and thought it might be an idea to get more opinions here. This only happened today, but he is seeking legal advice.

Well, I'm glad to hear it.

I'd start by contacting the management company and seeing if they can switch the water back on and work out this dispute some other way that does not involve impacting upon the sitting tenant.

helen1 wrote: »

If he is registered with the PRTB could the tenant ring them and ask if the management company has the right to do this.

All the PRTB's only role is in negotiating between the landlord and the tenant and ensuring that the various relevant aspects of the law are implemented.

The landlord's dealings with third parties are their own business. He/she would have to consult a solicitor themselves and sort it out as it's just a commercial contract between the property owner and the management company.

The PRTB would only become involved should the landlord and tenant be unable to resolve some kind of a dispute. So far, there's no indication of any such problem in this thread.

However, the landlord would want to really make sure that there is running water restored a.s.a.p. !! Living in an apartment without it isn't really viable.

markpb

I always wonder why people have such a problem with management companies removing their services for non-payment. If you don't pay your bin company, they stop collecting your bins. If you don't pay your phone company, they cut you off. Yet when a management company remove services (like parking, water, car parks, estate gates, etc) from defaulters, they scream and cry about their rights.

I'd go as far as including water supply in that (though we've never considered turning it off in units before). We store the water, filter the waster and pump the water underground before it reaches the owners. If you don't pay the bills, why would you expect to keep receiving it? I'm sure people in water-metered countries get cut off for non-payment so I don't buy the human-rights excuse that I can see people using as a defence.

Perhaps most management companies are too soft so when the odd one flexes its muscles, it takes people by surprise.

hollypink

The Apartment Owner's Network suggests that services can be reduced if service charges are unpaid but it doesn't specify what services or what 'reduced' means.

http://www.apartmentowners.ie/knowledge-library/debt-collection/

You could consider more extreme measures such as removing access to underground car parks, reducing the services to their block (as long as it doesn’t affect other people) and even note their policy on the block insurance. This means they cannot claim against the management companies insurance policy and could create a lot of hassle for them with their bank.

Solair

In most low-rise buildings, is the water not just provided by the local authority via a fairly normal main though?

markpb

Solair wrote: »

In most low-rise buildings, is the water not just provided by the local authority via a fairly normal main though?

In my 3 story apartment complex, there is a single feed from the city mains which is fed into underground water tanks in the car parks. From there, it's split and fed to each apartment. I've seen the same in several other apartment complexes so I'd imagine it's quite common.

Apparently the demand for water in the morning and evening peaks would be too much for the normal city supply to support so it's stored locally and replenished during the quiet periods. It's also quite handy when there is water disruption because between the water tank in the apartment and the water tank in the car park, we can usually keep supply up for a few hours when the mains is low/dry.

juan.kerr

We have water pumps / tanks etc, these supply both houses and apartments.

Solair

Interesting, we had a fairly standard setup in our last apartment. It was similar to a typical house, only in a slightly different layout i.e. a local tank in the apartment itself in a closet over the immersion and the city mains came in.

It was definitely the city mains as when there was a water outage, our water went off too.

djimi

markpb wrote: »

I always wonder why people have such a problem with management companies removing their services for non-payment. If you don't pay your bin company, they stop collecting your bins. If you don't pay your phone company, they cut you off. Yet when a management company remove services (like parking, water, car parks, estate gates, etc) from defaulters, they scream and cry about their rights.

Noone should give a toss what happens to an owner-occupier who doesnt pay their management fees; thats an issue between the management company and the owner. My beef is where there are tenants involved; they are not part of the dispute and should not have to suffer just because their landlord doesnt pay his management fees. What happened in the case of the OP (and in other cases where tenants lose their parking tag, get clamped etc) is a disgrace and should not be allowed to happen.

hollypink

djimi wrote: »

What happened in the case of the OP (and in other cases where tenants lose their parking tag, get clamped etc) is a disgrace and should not be allowed to happen.

You're right, it is a disgrace. And in these situations you refer to, who allowed it to happen? I suggest it is the owner, because they did not pay for those services.

coco_lola

Thanks everyone - the issue is being sorted at the moment. The apartment was unused for the time period that the management fees were unpaid, it was only rented to this new tenant starting this month. I do appreciate that the management fees should have been paid, but that was not what I was asking about at all. My friend just wasn't sure if this was why they turned his water off and should he bring it up or would they be in their rights to turn of water without a warning.

djimi

hollypink wrote: »

You're right, it is a disgrace. And in these situations you refer to, who allowed it to happen? I suggest it is the owner, because they did not pay for those services.

And as such it is the owner and only the owner that the management company should persue and penalize. A tenant does not know the financial standing of their landlord; that is none of their business. It is not right that they should be the ones to suffer; no matter whos fault it is that the situation has arisen.

Solair

Well, one would assume that the management company would have tried to collect the money owed and provided a few warnings before resorting to doing this.

At least that's how you'd normally try to do things in any company where there's an amount of money owed.

Perhaps correspondence was sent to the apartment's mailbox or an old address?

coco_lola

Solair wrote: »

Well, one would assume that the management company would have tried to collect the money owed and provided a few warnings before resorting to doing this.

At least that's how you'd normally try to do things in any company where there's an amount of money owed.

Perhaps correspondence was sent to the apartment's mailbox or an old address?

It is possible this happened - unfortunately I don't have the full story I was just asked to throw up a thread on this earlier today. He said he's getting it sorted anyway so whatever that means is up to him!

juan.kerr

Maybe there should be some provision for the tenant to withhold some of the rent and pass to the management company in a scenario like this.

Similar to tenants responsibility to withhold rent for tax purposes where landlord is based abroad.

Obviously it is not as simple as that, but from my experience of being involved in a mangagement company it is frustrating where you have landlords who have the apartment rented but aren't paying the management fees.

moranorla

I work in property management and i cant imagine a management agent would have either the ability or the right to turn off the water supply to an individual apartment in an apartment complex. Its more likely that the plumber was investigating a leak and just didnt bother explaining themselves properly. If the plumber had to enter the apartment to turn off the water then surely he just turned off the stopcock (probably under the sink) in which case the occupier can turn it back on again??

P. Breathnach

djimi wrote: »

And as such it is the owner and only the owner that the management company should persue and penalize. A tenant does not know the financial standing of their landlord; that is none of their business. It is not right that they should be the ones to suffer; no matter whos fault it is that the situation has arisen.

Why should a tenant have more rights than an owner-occupier? Management companies have limited leverage, and your suggestion would remove nearly all of it. The fundamental point is that landlords have an obligation to pay the management charges, in part to ensure that their tenants enjoy the benefits provided by the management company for occupiers.

juan.kerr wrote: »

Maybe there should be some provision for the tenant to withhold some of the rent and pass to the management company in a scenario like this...

That would be the perfect solution.

djimi

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why should a tenant have more rights than an owner-occupier? Management companies have limited leverage, and your suggestion would remove nearly all of it. The fundamental point is that landlords have an obligation to pay the management charges, in part to ensure that their tenants enjoy the benefits provided by the management company for occupiers.

Because the tenant is in no way involved in the dispute; they probably wont find out about it until the last minute and have no way to influence the outcome, yet they are the ones who will suffer all the fall out. That to me is just wrong; why should a tenant be left without services such as parking (or worse if that is indeed what happened with the OP) because their landlord is in dispute with the management company?

Victor

Zulu wrote: »

Sadly, it doesn't look like your friend is interested in doing that however. I'm sure their parents are proud.

No need to be quite so snide.