Apartment gate control fob woes

ondafly

Hi folks,

We live in a gated apartment complex. The gates are opened via remote control fobs.We were given 2 with our apartment (when we purchased) and bought a spare one @ €160 approximately 5 years ago.

Last Thursday the gates stopped working and the management co. arranged to have them left open. Saturday night a gang walked in with angle grinders and cut open the bike shed.

Monday I received a letter from the Management Co. informing me a new control system is being installed and that old remote fobs will need to be replaced @€;45 each. This changeover will happen this evening. You must also exchange you're old remote fobs.

If I don't pay the €45 for each fob tonight, I will be unable to drive in/out of the complex until I pay up. Am I being unreasonable to refuse to pay and believe that the Management co. should be covering the costs from the sinking fund ? which I have contributed to for 10 years ?

I haven't spoken to them yet, as we only received the notification last night.

Is this extortion/ransoming by the Management Co. or am I over reacting ?:o

dianec401

I think you are being a bit unreasonable. Your management company have responded sensibly and promptly to a security risk, in getting the gates repaired quickly. After 5 years, I wouldn't mind having to pay again for another two fobs and at least you're not being quoted €160 for their replacement. €45 seems a reasonable amount to have to pay for a fob.

The Sinking Fund is not for general, run-of-the-mill small scale expenses. It's in place for significant structural updates and repairs to your building (ie: new lifts, roof replacements/repairs etc).

Of course if you are unhappy with how your Management Company is run and if you are an owner you should be attending AGM's where you can voice your concerns.

It's unfortunate that this expense is being incurred in the run up to Christmas when nobody needs extra bills - however think how much worse it would be if your building was left unsecured and you were burgled. Bad enough that the bike shed was broken into.

Ray Palmer

You seem unreasonable to me. If they provided them free you would just be paying the extra anyway in fees so even more pointless arguing the point. This way the people who want multiple fobs can get them but others don't get stung with this.

A hint to keep costs down is buy one and then buy cheap learning fobs and program it from the €45 one.

Thomas D

I can see your issue. These things should be paid for with management fees / sinking fund.

robot7080

I personally don't think you're being too unreasonable. I would say the management company is making the most of a bad situation by holding you to ransom and screwing you, and before anyone jumps in, they are screwing them. The reality is that most of those key fobs / locks can be programmed to operate at a certain frequency in about 5 seconds and cost a fraction of what their charging. I learned this when I lost my key fob for which the company was also trying to charge me 45e. We had a spare which was being used by my housemate so I got the model, went online and got it for 14e and cloned the code.

If I were you OP I would hold out and see if you can park it for free nearby for a few days, see what fobs the neighbours get and copy them before sacrificing that cash. TBH I could've got a keyfob for far less if it didn't have to be the same...

djimi

I dont think its unreasonable to expect that even one fob be provided per household, however as Ray has said the cost will have to come from somewhere and would most likely end up on the management fees either way so its really makes no odds.

listermint

djimi wrote: »

I dont think its unreasonable to expect that even one fob be provided per household, however as Ray has said the cost will have to come from somewhere and would most likely end up on the management fees either way so its really makes no odds.

Im not sure how it makes no odds if someone is already paying into the management fees for such outcomes.

Its double taxation as such. Whats the point in management fees if they are not there to manage the complex and its workings ?

1 should be provided to everyone with one, personally i think if you have 2 you should get 2.

Thomas D

listermint wrote: »

Im not sure how it makes no odds if someone is already paying into the management fees for such outcomes.

Its double taxation as such. Whats the point in management fees if they are not there to manage the complex and its workings ?

1 should be provided to everyone with one, personally i think if you have 2 you should get 2.

Ditto for the sinking fund. If the bins need to be replaced are they going to go cap in hand to every apartment looking for€50 and banning them from using the bins till the ypay?

Ray Palmer

listermint wrote: »

Im not sure how it makes no odds if someone is already paying into the management fees for such outcomes.

Its double taxation as such. Whats the point in management fees if they are not there to manage the complex and its workings ?

1 should be provided to everyone with one, personally i think if you have 2 you should get 2.

It is an additional expenditure that has to be paid for. If it comes out of the sinking fund the fund is then short the next year and your management fees go up to cover the shortfall. You pay one way or the other.

You only pay once, all you are arguing is when you pay it. The reason they cost €45 is the extra administration involved and the records need to be kept. Overly expensive but that is how these things work.

listermint

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is an additional expenditure that has to be paid for. If it comes out of the sinking fund the fund is then short the next year and your management fees go up to cover the shortfall. You pay one way or the other.

You only pay once, all you are arguing is when you pay it. The reason they cost €45 is the extra administration involved and the records need to be kept. Overly expensive but that is how these things work.

Whats the sinking fund for Ray?

wclarke20

Don't know if I should post this but I will anyway....

Those gate fobs can be got on ebay for €6.
99% of electric gates work off the same frequency.
Our management company was asking for €50 for a gate fob which is how I researched and found a cheaper alternative.

Ray Palmer

listermint wrote: »

Whats the sinking fund for Ray?

Major repair works like roof replacement.
It is based on the costs of expected works of repair and maintenance. So for example the roof is worked out as a 20 year life span. Costs of those replacement is put into the sinking fund estimated on the replacement costs and the time that expenditure comes out. So everybody pays in a portion of the roof repair every year.

However if the fund is short or the work has to take place earlier than expected say 15 years, the owners have to pay the extra money that year.

The question that comes in did they have the gates in the sinking fund and was there enough for the works.

Chances are people aren't paying attention to the management fees or the sinking fund coverage.

Either way the money is due and you have to pay for it one way or the other. There isn't a magic fund that you can take money out of for every expense.

listermint

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Major repair works like roof replacement.
It is based on the costs of expected works of repair and maintenance. So for example the roof is worked out as a 20 year life span. Costs of those replacement is put into the sinking fund estimated on the replacement costs and the time that expenditure comes out. So everybody pays in a portion of the roof repair every year.

However if the fund is short or the work has to take place earlier than expected say 15 years, the owners have to pay the extra money that year.

The question that comes in did they have the gates in the sinking fund and was there enough for the works.

Chances are people aren't paying attention to the management fees or the sinking fund coverage.

Either way the money is due and you have to pay for it one way or the other. There isn't a magic fund that you can take money out of for every expense.

No one said its magic ray its there to cover costs such as non functioning security gates this shouldnt come out of double billing tenants.If for instance the roof of the complex didnt last 15 years id be more inclined to be pursing the builder of the complex than seeking to pay for it out of a sinking fund.

Im unsure why you seem to take issue everytime a resident has to abnormally put their hand in their pocket for something that they have already paid for.

hfallada

I cant imagine a key fob being more than few Euros. They arent state of the art technology. The same technology is found in about 3/4 cards in my wallet eg visa debit card, ID cards, bus ticket. They all use frequency.

You can buy a keyfob writer on ebay for about €65 and keyfobs for a few euros

ondafly

Glad to see my little post has inspired some debate on the issue !

I telephoned the Agent earlier this morning, only to be greeted with a response, that it was the Board of Directors decision, and to put my concerns in an email, these would be relayed to the Board for consideration. I sent off an email, but as of yet still have received no reply. So its looking like a potential mexican stand off this evening, with residents refusing to handover money for a fob but then being unable to drive to work tomorrow or in the extreme let in Emergency Services. Parking outside of the complex is a non runner, as the area is disc parking only and Dublin CoCo won't permit us to purchase an annual permit. I don't fancy running out every 3 hours tonight to top up the parking disc either.

Now I have served on the board in the past, and in my time we used the sinking fund for situations that were an unexpected cost and not budgeted for the year ; like a leak coming into someones apartment from the roof of the block for instance. Or in this case, a complete removal off a security system that has suddenly failed and needs replacement.

Ray Palmer

listermint wrote: »

No one said its magic ray its there to cover costs such as non functioning security gates this shouldnt come out of double billing tenants.If for instance the roof of the complex didnt last 15 years id be more inclined to be pursing the builder of the complex than seeking to pay for it out of a sinking fund.

Im unsure why you seem to take issue everytime a resident has to abnormally put their hand in their pocket for something that they have already paid for.

I don't get what you don't understand. You aren't being double billed. If there was enough money for the projected costs and the gate you wouldn't pay. There isn't so you pay. That is paying once.

You also have to understand estimate on life span on construction is an estimate and all that entails meaning it may be less or longer. You would not have a case against the builder after 15 years if he was still in business.

You have been informed no need to get personal with me about a situation you appear not to understand and that YOU signed an agreement for not me. None of this is my fault in anyway I did not agree to do it this way or construct the model you however signed bought into this.

dianec401

The Board of Directors were I assume voted in at the AGM to act in the best interests of the members of the management company and in this instance have decided to ask owners to pay out for new fobs. You may not agree with this decision but if it's a properly run management company - it is democratic.

Do all of the owners agree with you then that they should not need to pay for this upfront? If so, I would think you would have some bargaining power. But otherwise, I'm not so sure. I wonder if there is a compromise that could be reached - that Owners pay the actual cost price of fob plus say a small handling fee of €5 per person.

As Ray says, you'll be paying for it one way or another anyway. And personally, I would be glad that my management company had acted so quickly on this to safeguard security rather than giving them a hard time about what is not an astronomical fee.

Listermint, Ray is talking to the OP as an owner. Obviously any landlords in the complex should be paying for these replacement fobs and giving them to their tenants with the understanding that on leaving the fobs will then pass onto the next tenant.

listermint

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I don't get what you don't understand. You aren't being double billed. If there was enough money for the projected costs and the gate you wouldn't pay. There isn't so you pay. That is paying once.

You also have to understand estimate on life span on construction is an estimate and all that entails meaning it may be less or longer. You would not have a case against the builder after 15 years if he was still in business.

You have been informed no need to get personal with me about a situation you appear not to understand and that YOU signed an agreement for not me. None of this is my fault in anyway I did not agree to do it this way or construct the model you however signed bought into this.

The OP did not state there was no money for this, What makes you think there isnt? As for getting personal Ray im sorry but most of your posts in this forum seem to always indicate that then tenant or owner occupier is at fault and im fair sure that most of your posts have tenants or owner occupiers reaching in their pocket which is why i mentioned that in my post.

I complete understand the system thank you very much, and id be of the opinion that the OP needs to speak to the Board of directors on this as to ascertain where his money is going. The fund is specifically for these incidents and not just limited to 'leaky roofs' as you so put it.

And yes it is double billing if he is paying into a fund and then paying seperate and additional moneys in lieu of the original fund being used. Its called double billing.


As i said before what is the point of the fund if it is not being used for these circumstances. And scaremongering about it being entirely depleted is just that. As you dont know the circumstances in the OPs case.

listermint

dianec401 wrote: »

The Board of Directors were I assume voted in at the AGM to act in the best interests of the members of the management company and in this instance have decided to ask owners to pay out for new fobs. You may not agree with this decision but if it's a properly run management company - it is democratic.

Do all of the owners agree with you then that they should not need to pay for this upfront? If so, I would think you would have some bargaining power. But otherwise, I'm not so sure. I wonder if there is a compromise that could be reached - that Owners pay the actual cost price of fob plus say a small handling fee of €5 per person.

As Ray says, you'll be paying for it one way or another anyway. And personally, I would be glad that my management company had acted so quickly on this to safeguard security rather than giving them a hard time about what is not an astronomical fee.

Listermint, Ray is talking to the OP as an owner. Obviously any landlords in the complex should be paying for these replacement fobs and giving them to their tenants with the understanding that on leaving the fobs will then pass onto the next tenant.

ive already responded to that. The fund is designed to take care of such large spending incidents and site security would come under that umbrella.

ted1

dianec401 wrote: »

I think you are being a bit unreasonable. Your management company have responded sensibly and promptly to a security risk, in getting the gates repaired quickly. After 5 years, I wouldn't mind having to pay again for another two fobs and at least you're not being quoted €160 for their replacement. €45 seems a reasonable amount to have to pay for a fob.

The Sinking Fund is not for general, run-of-the-mill small scale expenses. It's in place for significant structural updates and repairs to your building (ie: new lifts, roof replacements/repairs etc).

Of course if you are unhappy with how your Management Company is run and if you are an owner you should be attending AGM's where you can voice your concerns.

It's unfortunate that this expense is being incurred in the run up to Christmas when nobody needs extra bills - however think how much worse it would be if your building was left unsecured and you were burgled. Bad enough that the bike shed was broken into.

Nonsense a one off replacement may be understandable , but a bulk buy change out at 45 is unfair.
How many apartments are there? The MC should get them for a 5er each. Then can change extra for replacements.

If the are not capable of getting a decent price a gsm controller is about 300 and can operate with about 5000 saved numbers.

dissed doc

listermint wrote: »

Im not sure how it makes no odds if someone is already paying into the management fees for such outcomes.

Its double taxation as such. Whats the point in management fees if they are not there to manage the complex and its workings ?

1 should be provided to everyone with one, personally i think if you have 2 you should get 2.

Management fees don't cover everything. They cover the usual maintenance but one-off expenses can arise. The money is paid by you anyway. If it cost e.g., €15k to pay for new gates and fobs for every apartment, that will just be divided across the management fees the next year. This way you pay for what you want and the cost is not 'socialised'. Management can only reasonably cover the normal expenses; of course one off expenses crop up that need to be paid for.

It's not double billing. the management fees paid for this year might not cover the additional costs. It might mean the management company getting a loan, paying interest and the next years fees go up more than they would. Management fees are not an endless bucket of magic money; it's finite and precisely based on what the estimated costs for the year should be. Large new expenses might simply be over budget.

You'll either pay the fee now, or pay it on the next management fees. It hasn't been "paid for already". Running costs are detailed. Maybe the €45 includes the new installation and fob, not just a fob.

P. Breathnach

ondafly wrote: »

...
Now I have served on the board in the past, and in my time we used the sinking fund for situations that were an unexpected cost and not budgeted for the year ; like a leak coming into someones apartment from the roof of the block for instance. Or in this case, a complete removal off a security system that has suddenly failed and needs replacement.

I'd have a problem with that. You do not seem to distinguish between a sinking fund and a contingency fund.

A sinking fund is created, as Ray Palmer has already said, to provide for the sort of major repairs that might be needed at intervals. People find it hard enough to pay normal charges. Can you imagine the trouble if there were a levy of €4000 per unit to pay for major refurbishment because there was no sinking fund to pay for the work?

A contingency fund is there to meet relatively minor expenses that were unexpected and thus not provided for in the budget.

Ray Palmer

listermint wrote: »

The OP did not state there was no money for this, What makes you think there isnt? As for getting personal Ray im sorry but most of your posts in this forum seem to always indicate that then tenant or owner occupier is at fault and im fair sure that most of your posts have tenants or owner occupiers reaching in their pocket which is why i mentioned that in my post.

If you have a problem with my post refute them. Again you are making a personal comment and fail to understand this is NOT double billing.

If you want to believe that my stance is always the same fine but if you look it is usual somebody expecting not to pay for something and put the cost to somebody else just once they don't pay. That is not how the world generally works.

Valentine1

Seems to me that as ever, some people expect to get something for nothing. A new gate system is needed, that's unfortunate but it has to be paid for by the owners and it will be so really this is just an argument about where the money comes from.

From my understanding of the situation as per the OP's post, the new security system for the gates is being covered by the sinking fund/management fees but the cost of the fobs is not. In my opinion that is an entirely reasonable solution and decision of the Board. This way owners of each apartment only pay for the number of fobs they need.

There is no double payment either, the money taken from the sinking fund to pay for the gates will have to be made up in the management fees for next year, if the cost of fobs was also taken from the sinking fund that cost would also have to be paid in additional fees. Sinking funds have to have money paid into them as well as taken out of them.

As for whether €45 is too much for a Fob I would think it is reasonable enough, Personally I've been quoted much higher in the past. Also I would expect that for legal and insurance reasons the Board are obliged to use a reputable supplier for all such security systems. And besides, its not the Board's Job nor the Management Agent's Job to source cheap fobs and programmers from the internet and then actually programme them, that is what the security companies are payed for.

EDIT: I should say that I don't believe the OP has a bad attitude to this, my comments are more directed at other posters. I also think the OP is lucky to have an active and presumably well run Management Company, he himself has been on the Board so he is clearly well aware that this stuff doesn't just happen by itself. This situation could have been much worse if not dealt with swiftly.

L1011

hfallada wrote: »

I cant imagine a key fob being more than few Euros. They arent state of the art technology. The same technology is found in about 3/4 cards in my wallet eg visa debit card, ID cards, bus ticket. They all use frequency.

You can buy a keyfob writer on ebay for about €65 and keyfobs for a few euros

I suspect the inflated fob price is to try recoup the cost of the gates. Fobs are cents not euros in bulk by now

Valentine1

MYOB wrote: »

I suspect the inflated fob price is to try recoup the cost of the gates. Fobs are cents not euros in bulk by now

Recoup it from who? and why? the Management Company belongs to the Apartment owners so if they are trying to recoup money from the owners they are doing it from themselves.

Incidentally my understanding is that the "Fobs" in question are actually infrared garage controls, "Clickers" for a parking garage rather than credit card sized Near Field Communication Fobs that are used for security doors in office etc

Ray Palmer

MYOB wrote: »

I suspect the inflated fob price is to try recoup the cost of the gates. Fobs are cents not euros in bulk by now

What people fail to understand is administration and tracking of fobs costs money. Yes you can buy them cheaper but you are paying a management company to get them and keep an audit of them. If you don't like what the company charges get another one.

If you had to organise the fobs and deal with people being given them you would probably soon realise you should be paid for the work and that it is a lot of hassle.

On accounts and sinking funds. The management of the funds was done by the residence committee and when an audit was done the sinking fund was short about 80k as the committee took money out of the fund for everything over the years. When the roof needed to be done it cost each owner and extra €7.5k that year on top of 70% increase to maintenance charges to shore up the sinking fund. We are still paying the extra and will be for another 5 years.

Patrickheg

Ray Palmer wrote: »

If you have a problem with my post refute them. Again you are making a personal comment and fail to understand this is NOT double billing.

If you want to believe that my stance is always the same fine but if you look it is usual somebody expecting not to pay for something and put the cost to somebody else just once they don't pay. That is not how the world generally works.

Listermint has a very valid point.

I'd say if a landlord opened fire on tenants in an apt complex you would somehow blame the tennant

L1011

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What people fail to understand is administration and tracking of fobs costs money. Yes you can buy them cheaper but you are paying a management company to get them and keep an audit of them. If you don't like what the company charges get another one.

If you had to organise the fobs and deal with people being given them you would probably soon realise you should be paid for the work and that it is a lot of hassle.

You're making an assumption that there *are* records and audits. Neither are common from my experience. Far more common is charging a fee (€45 is cheap, as they go) for someone to program a very cheap device and forget about it.

Ray Palmer

MYOB wrote: »

You're making an assumption that there *are* records and audits. Neither are common from my experience. Far more common is charging a fee (€45 is cheap, as they go) for someone to program a very cheap device and forget about it.

There has to be records for the accounts. It isn't an assumption it is something they have to do. They have to pay vat and claim vat back. Have you ever managed property to have experience to know what is common?:rolleyes:

L1011

Ray Palmer wrote: »

There has to be records for the accounts. It isn't an assumption it is something they have to do. They have to pay vat and claim vat back. Have you ever managed property to have experience to know what is common?:rolleyes:

Keeping records of taking a payment in does not equate a register of fob-holders, which is solely what you were referring to.

Care to withdraw your snide little smiley there?