Not allowed to paint house?

random10

We've gone sale agreed on a house, it's the third phase of the development other houses are up to six years old, they are all big fine houses but none of them are painted. I made a comment to a girl at work as her in laws own a house there and she said you are not allowed to paint the houses, could this be true? Why the houses would look so much better.

Stheno

random10 wrote: »

We've gone sale agreed on a house, it's the third phase of the development other houses are up to six years old, they are all big fine houses but none of them are painted. I made a comment to a girl at work as her in laws own a house there and she said you are not allowed to paint the houses, could this be true? Why the houses would look so much better.

When I bought my house, some of the rules attached to living there as part of the management contract included:

No greyhounds
No running businesses from the house which could involve people calling to the house
No hedges or plants of any kind that were more than 6 feet high
No leylandyi
No keeping hens
And finally, the front door could only be painted one of six colours

What type of brick has the house been built with? Breeze block or more decorative?

_Kaiser_

Ridiculous when you think about it..

Unless it's illegal or in contravention of things like noise pollution laws, you should be able to do what you like with YOUR house.

I would not be dictated to by some Management Company if I'd gone through the effort and expense of buying a place - what exactly happens if you ignore them and paint your house a different colour?

I can only presume this all stems from the Irish attitude to property generally and "notions" about what it says about them.

Stheno

It is rather.

Our contract stated we had to keep a certain level of maintenance in relation to the garden/lawn and the "lawn" on the path outside our house, and had a clause to say that if it were not kept up to date, that the management company could do it themselves and charge back for it.

Twas full of notions, none of it was ever enforced

h2005

How would they go about enforcing this if you did paint the house?

bumper234

What can a management company do if you were to paint your house? Honestly never had any dealings with one so wondering if you are contracted to follow their "rules" or can you ignore? Has anyone ever broken a rule and been prosecuted by a management company? If you have just spent a few hundred grand on a property surely you have the right (within reason of course) to paint your home whatever colour you want.

Santa Cruz

bumper234 wrote: »

What can a management company do if you were to paint your house? Honestly never had any dealings with one so wondering if you are contracted to follow their "rules" or can you ignore? Has anyone ever broken a rule and been prosecuted by a management company? If you have just spent a few hundred grand on a property surely you have the right (within reason of course) to paint your home whatever colour you want.

If there is a management company then every house owner is a shareholder. When purchasing the house they sign up to the company Articles and Lease. If you don't like the rules you have two options, dont join or join and try to get them changed at an EGM

athtrasna

It's all about changing the external appearance of the development, if there's a management company they shouldn't allow you to do it but should provide it periodically as a service.

random10

Santa Cruz wrote: »

If there is a management company then every house owner is a shareholder. When purchasing the house they sign up to the company Articles and Lease. If you don't like the rules you have two options, dont join or join and try to get them changed at an EGM

Would it possible to change a rule like that at an AGM I wonder, I wouldn't mind if we were given a few choices

athtrasna

random10 wrote: »

Would it possible to change a rule like that at an AGM I wonder, I wouldn't mind if we were given a few choices

It may be a planning permission issue but I certainly wouldn't suggest deviating from the official colour scheme, you may do tasteful but there's no recourse against crazy and a neighbour could seriously affect your resale value. At the end of the day of you've signed documents that say you will abide by certain rules you really should not break those rules. A uniform colour really does look so much better

bumper234

Santa Cruz wrote: »

If there is a management company then every house owner is a shareholder. When purchasing the house they sign up to the company Articles and Lease. If you don't like the rules you have two options, dont join or join and try to get them changed at an EGM

So you are not obligated to join and follow management company rules?

athtrasna

bumper234 wrote: »

So you are not obligated to join and follow management company rules?

It's not optional, a management company is a legal entity not a voluntary body like a residents association.

GarIT

Why do management companies exist? All they ever do is waste money and cause trouble for people, the only job they do is do the same things the council do for free anyway.

athtrasna

GarIT wrote: »

Why do management companies exist? All they ever do is waste money and cause trouble for people, the only job they do is do the same things the council do for free anyway.

A legal requirement for developments in past decade or so. Lots of reasons, mostly legitimate but unless owners are proactive amd participate positively in the company (of which they are a member) the scope for things to do wrong is huge.

GarIT

athtrasna wrote: »

A legal requirement for developments in past decade or so. Lots of reasons, mostly legitimate but unless owners are proactive amd participate positively in the company (of which they are a member) the scope for things to do wrong is huge.

So a management company is required by law? It's just another reason to leave this country, a much bigger reason than unemployment.

So if I ever buy a new house I will have to have the hassle of dealing with a management company? IMO every management company is the equivalent to the private clamping companies.

I have never heard of any management company doing any good.

athtrasna

GarIT wrote: »

So a management company is required by law? It's just another reason to leave this country, a much bigger reason than unemployment.

I have never heard of any management company doing any good.

I am an owner director of ours and the development is in much better condition than when we took it over from the developer. It's taken a lot of time and work by the directors, all volunteers but we're proud of our development.

bumper234

athtrasna wrote: »

I am an owner director of ours and the development is in much better condition than when we took it over from the developer. It's taken a lot of time and work by the directors, all volunteers but we're proud of our development.

So if op decides to paint house what could/would happen?

Am sure most are well run but what happens if you get someone with a grudge against you on the committee or some busybody who wants to stir it?

Paulw

They are not "rules". They are legally binding components of a contract, which you are a party to. When you buy your property, you signed a document which listed every single clause of the contract, including these "rules". You should have read and understood those before buying. Your solicitor should have gone through them with you.

A management company has many positive things about it. It is comprised of all unit owners. If owners make even a small effort then things run very well and can bring benefits.

If you want clauses changed, then you need to get a 100% vote to change, including ALL parties to the contract (so this doesn't always mean just members of the management company, but can also include the land owner). And by 100%, I don't mean 100% of those who attend the AGM, but 100% of all members. You will almost never get a 100% attendance at an AGM. And even if passed by the vote, it may still need agreement from the local planning authority, depending on what clause you wish to change.

GarIT

athtrasna wrote: »

I am an owner director of ours and the development is in much better condition than when we took it over from the developer. It's taken a lot of time and work by the directors, all volunteers but we're proud of our development.

Does the condition matter if you are charging people a fee to live in their own home. Paying tax to the government is one thing but a management company is just insane.

GarIT

Paulw wrote: »

They are not "rules". They are legally binding components of a contract, which you are a party to. When you buy your property, you signed a document which listed every single clause of the contract, including these "rules". You should have read and understood those before buying. Your solicitor should have gone through them with you.

A management company has many positive things about it. It is comprised of all unit owners. If owners make even a small effort then things run very well and can bring benefits.

If you want clauses changed, then you need to get a 100% vote to change, including ALL parties to the contract (so this doesn't always mean just members of the management company, but can also include the land owner). And by 100%, I don't mean 100% of those who attend the AGM, but 100% of all members. You will almost never get a 100% attendance at an AGM. And even if passed by the vote, it may still need agreement from the local planning authority, depending on what clause you wish to change.

This country has really gone to the dogs. Name any positive things that a management company can do that outweigh the costs.

Paulw

bumper234 wrote: »

So if op decides to paint house what could/would happen?

Am sure most are well run but what happens if you get someone with a grudge against you on the committee or some busybody who wants to stir it?

If you break any clause, then the management company can take you to court for breach of contract. And, they will more than likely win.

Or, they can repaint your property, to the proper allowed colour, and then add the cost, plus any admin fees, to your management fees.

Of course, if you don't pay the fees, eventually it ends up in court, and again, the management company usually wins.

If people object to a director, and want to "stir it", then they are free to put themselves forward to be elected as director at the next AGM. But, again, the management company is made up of all unit members. These members elect directors at the AGM each year.

athtrasna

GarIT wrote: »

Does the condition matter if you are charging people a fee to live in their own home. Paying tax to the government is one thing but a management company is just insane.

It's not profit making, it's money for insurance, gardening, refuse and structural repairs. The home owner doesn't have to pay these themselves, it's what the fees are for. Every owner is entitled to be a director and get involved if they have concerns about fees. As PaulW said, these are legally binding agreements owners have signed, if you don't like them buy somewhere else.

GarIT

athtrasna wrote: »

It's not profit making, it's money for insurance, gardening, refuse and structural repairs. The home owner doesn't have to pay these themselves, it's what the fees are for. Every owner is entitled to be a director and get involved if they have concerns about fees. As PaulW said, these are legally binding agreements owners have signed, if you don't like them buy somewhere else.

So if I have a management company, my personal gardens and rubbish is collected for free? I've never heard of that before. Management companies certainly don't get value for money as far as I can see. Maybe they are no for profit, but they do piss money away on things some residents cant afford.
Even at 1k per year for bins and grass it is insane, any why would somebody pay for these twice? We already pay the council to maintain the local area, so why do we pay a management company to do the councils jobs, any residents association or anything like that is only ever the super stuck up people anyway, that have no idea of how financially stuck some people are.

Paulw

GarIT wrote: »

Management companies certainly don't get value for money as far as I can see. Maybe they are no for profit, but they do piss money away on things some residents cant afford.

I assume you are speaking from experience? You're a member of a management company? Are you a director? Have you ever put yourself forward to be a director?

Have you ever checked the full accounts for your management company? Have you offered to help tender for the different services to get the best prices?

athtrasna

GarIT wrote: »

So if I have a management company, my personal gardens and rubbish is collected for free? I've never heard of that before. Management companies certainly don't get value for money as far as I can see. Maybe they are no for profit, but they do piss money away on things some residents cant afford.

In our development all common area gardens are looked after and we have bin sheds for refuse that all owners use. We do not pay separate refuse charges.

And we certainly get value for money and don't spend foolishly

GarIT

athtrasna wrote: »

In our development all common area gardens are looked after and we have bin sheds for refuse that all owners use. We do not pay separate refuse charges

That makes it a little more reasonable.

GarIT

Paulw wrote: »

I assume you are speaking from experience? You're a member of a management company? Are you a director? Have you ever put yourself forward to be a director?

Have you ever checked the full accounts for your management company? Have you offered to help tender for the different services to get the best prices?

I'm not bothered getting involved, I just don't want other home owners dictate what I can do to my house.

Currently we pay €50 per year to have some grass cut 4 times per year that any of the local teenagers would be happy to do for €5. We have 42 houses paying €50 per year and get 0 back from it.

athtrasna

GarIT wrote: »

I'm not bothered getting involved, I just don't want other home owners dictate what I can do to my house.

Currently we pay €50 per year to have some grass cut 4 times per year that any of the local teenagers would be happy to do for €5. We have 42 houses paying €50 per year and get 0 back from it.

That's a residents association, totally different kettle of fish, no legal basis

Paulw

GarIT wrote: »

I'm not bothered getting involved.

Well, that sums up the majority of people who moan about management companies. I'm assuming it's a legally binding management company you are talking about, and not a resident's association, which has no basis in law and no ability to compel payment.

Those who complain most tend to be the ones who can't be bothered, but yet complain when others have to make the hard decisions.

As for cutting the grass, I'm sure these "teenagers" are insured to cut the grass? If not, and there was an accident, the directors could be directly financially responsible and liable for any claim.

Again, it's a case of bitching without getting involved and knowing the facts.

Arbiter of Good Taste

GarIT wrote: »

So a management company is required by law? It's just another reason to leave this country, a much bigger reason than unemployment.

Seriously? Worse than unemployment? Please think about what you have written.

bumper234

Paulw wrote: »

If you break any clause, then the management company can take you to court for breach of contract. And, they will more than likely win.

Or, they can repaint your property, to the proper allowed colour, and then add the cost, plus any admin fees, to your management fees.

Of course, if you don't pay the fees, eventually it ends up in court, and again, the management company usually wins.

If people object to a director, and want to "stir it", then they are free to put themselves forward to be elected as director at the next AGM. But, again, the management company is made up of all unit members. These members elect directors at the AGM each year.

Thanks for the answer, as i said have never had any dealings with a management company and where i am buying this year does not have one so was just wondering what the fuss is about.

marathonic

The development my father lives in has a management company that was set up AFTER the development was built and was entirely voluntary. It wasn't written into the contracts but everyone contributed a small amount per year which went into a sinking fund.

With this money, the development had things like salt bins placed up the steep lane going through the development during the icey weather and the repair of the water pump that serviced the development before the council took it over (this was needed due to poor water pressure).

As it wasn't a legal requirement for people to join and the development was built in the early 2000's, two people stopped paying when the recession hit and they saw their property value plummet below purchase price.

The development uses a standard colour scheme for the houses and only the door of each differs. The management company funds were recently used to repaint the entire development (obviously, homeowners painting the same colour at different intervals would result in different shades throughout the development and the overall cost would be higher than it was when using a single painting contractor).

They faced a conundrum - do we offer to paint the two houses that aren't paying. They decided not to and I must say, it really does take away from the whole look of the development and has the potential to turn off prospective purchasers.

With this in mind, the existence of a management company wouldn't turn me off a house purchase, in particular if it was well run.

I believe that 'official' management companies must maintain minutes of their annual AGM's and you can review them prior to a house purchase. These should give a good indication of how well run the management company is.

Mrs OBumble

GarIT wrote: »

So if I have a management company, my personal gardens and rubbish is collected for free? I've never heard of that before. Management companies certainly don't get value for money as far as I can see. Maybe they are no for profit, but they do piss money away on things some residents cant afford.
Even at 1k per year for bins and grass it is insane, any why would somebody pay for these twice? We already pay the council to maintain the local area, so why do we pay a management company to do the councils jobs, any residents association or anything like that is only ever the super stuck up people anyway, that have no idea of how financially stuck some people are.

The council only maintain areas that they have taken in charge.

If an estate has not been taken in charge, then the owners collectively are responsible for maintenance of the common areas. And they are liable if anyone has an accident on the common areas too - smart ones have public liability insurance in place to cover this.

IMHO management companies should be working to put themselves out of being needed and get their estates taken in charge. But some residents want their area maintained to a higher standard than the council's usual one, or want to impose more rules on the development. This is the price of buying in an development with a management company. If you don't like that, then don't buy in such a development.

athtrasna

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The council only maintain areas that they have taken in charge.

If an estate has not been taken in charge, then the owners collectively are responsible for maintenance of the common areas. And they are liable if anyone has an accident on the common areas too - smart ones have public liability insurance in place to cover this.

IMHO management companies should be working to put themselves out of being needed and get their estates taken in charge. But some residents want their area maintained to a higher standard than the council's usual one, or want to impose more rules on the development. This is the price of buying in an development with a management company. If you don't like that, then don't buy in such a development.

Councils won't take on landscaping any more and would never insure buildings or pay refuse so I can't see how a development could function without them, unless a development of houses only.

Santa Cruz

GarIT wrote: »

Does the condition matter if you are charging people a fee to live in their own home. Paying tax to the government is one thing but a management company is just insane.

You haven't grasped the concept of management companies. Each management company is made up up the owners of the properties. It is a limited company and each owner has one share. Directors are elected
to run the management of the estate/apartment complex. This is either done by themselves or by employing a management agent to organise cleaning, maintenance etc.
Like everything else in this country there are good management companies and bad management companies. The bad ones are usually the ones where the owners/shareholders don't take any interest in the management of the estate and are generally ignorant of the legal position which they signed into

Santa Cruz

GarIT wrote: »

I'm not bothered getting involved, I just don't want other home owners dictate what I can do to my house.

Currently we pay €50 per year to have some grass cut 4 times per year that any of the local teenagers would be happy to do for €5. We have 42 houses paying €50 per year and get 0 back from it.

You don't have a management company. You have a residents association. No legal basis whatsoever.
If you don't like them there is nothing stopping you from setting up your own one.

random10

Santa Cruz wrote: »

You don't have a management company. You have a residents association. No legal basis whatsoever.
If you don't like them there is nothing stopping you from setting up your own one.

in relation to my original question about not being able to paint, have you ever heard of a planning authority putting in this stipulation

Paulw

random10 wrote: »

in relation to my original question about not being able to paint, have you ever heard of a planning authority putting in this stipulation

It may not be a planning stipulation, but it is still a legally binding clause in your contract with the management company, which you signed up to upon purchase of the property.

Mrs OBumble

random10 wrote: »

in relation to my original question about not being able to paint, have you ever heard of a planning authority putting in this stipulation

Yes. More along the lines of "everything must be painted the same colour" though, not "nothing can be painted at all".

L1011

random10 wrote: »

in relation to my original question about not being able to paint, have you ever heard of a planning authority putting in this stipulation

Yes, usually in conservation areas though.

conorhal

bumper234 wrote: »

So if op decides to paint house what could/would happen?

Am sure most are well run but what happens if you get someone with a grudge against you on the committee or some busybody who wants to stir it?

Thank god for (effective) management companies. They save us all from the 'it's moy roite to do what I loike, loike' crowd, who's rather dubious interpretation of what they consider their 'rights' are generally the bane of everybody else on a street.
The OP 'thinks the house would look nicer' if it was painted, I might think mine looked nicer with 6 life-size day-glo plastic unicorns on the roof.
If a street has been built to a certain aesthetic than that should be maintained. After all, is there anything uglier than a nice red brick terrace that one person in the middle of which has decided 'looks nicer' with some 70's stone-clad all over the front of their house?

Satriale

There is a lot worrying anyone, who is bothered by the colour or texture of their neighbours house. My neighbour has half a wall of the aforementioned stone cladding and the rest painted a tinge of mustard.
Not to my taste, but they are very good neighbours.

athtrasna

Satriale wrote: »

There is a lot worrying anyone, who is bothered by the colour or texture of their neighbours house. My neighbour has half a wall of the aforementioned stone cladding and the rest painted a tinge of mustard.
Not to my taste, but they are very good neighbours.

The difference being (probably) that you bought in a traditional development that doesn't have a management company. Problems arise where people buy in a managed development and agree to lease conditions and then a neighbour breaks them, or they do. It can be a source of stress and expense for the management company to enforce these conditions.

Satriale

athtrasna wrote: »

The difference being (probably) that you bought in a traditional development that doesn't have a management company. Problems arise where people buy in a managed development and agree to lease conditions and then a neighbour breaks them, or they do. It can be a source of stress and expense for the management company to enforce these conditions.

Fair enough. But these things are only a problem if you allow yourself to be worried about somebody elses taste.
Me, I'd prefer a good neighbour with bad taste, than a bad neighbour with good taste.

athtrasna

Satriale wrote: »

Fair enough. But these things are only a problem if you allow yourself to be worried about somebody elses taste.
Me, I'd prefer a good neighbour with bad taste, than a bad neighbour with good taste.

No, these are a legal problem and something that will affect every other owner one way or the other. You can't wilfully break lease conditions and not expect repercussions. Enforcement will happen, you will pay the cost as will every other owner if legal fees are involved. This is the reality of living in a managed development.

I'd prefer a good neighbour too, but in a managed development, a good compliant neighbour. If someone breaks the rules on an issue of taste then no matter how good they are to me, they will ultimately cost me money so that cancels out personal experience.

Satriale

athtrasna wrote: »

No, these are a legal problem and something that will affect every other owner one way or the other. You can't wilfully break lease conditions and not expect repercussions. Enforcement will happen, you will pay the cost as will every other owner if legal fees are involved. This is the reality of living in a managed development.

I'd prefer a good neighbour too, but in a managed development, a good compliant neighbour. If someone breaks the rules on an issue of taste then no matter how good they are to me, they will ultimately cost me money so that cancels out personal experience.

Hmmm, I prefer to get along with my neighbours. Shake the rule book long enough and they may all get together to vote in a management that likes that much maligned stone cladding. Then there may only be one house with red brick, along with a summons ordering its change...

athtrasna

Satriale wrote: »

Hmmm, I prefer to get along with my neighbours. Shake the rule book long enough and they may all get together to vote in a management that likes that much maligned stone cladding. Then there may only be one house with red brick, along with a summons ordering its change...

See earlier posts re planning permission

marienbad

athtrasna wrote: »

See earlier posts re planning permission

What do you do if a householder can no longer afford the management fees ?

athtrasna

marienbad wrote: »

What do you do if a householder can no longer afford the management fees ?

Take every step we can to get fees paid. Our management company goes legal after giving every opportunity to arrange a payment plan. That can go as far as obtaining a judgement mortgage against the property. In some developments services can be withdrawn e.g. parking, refuse etc.

Payment of fees is a legal obligation, other owners should not be expected to subsidise non paying units.

marienbad

athtrasna wrote: »

Take every step we can to get fees paid. Our management company goes legal after giving every opportunity to arrange a payment plan. That can go as far as obtaining a judgement mortgage against the property. In some developments services can be withdrawn e.g. parking, refuse etc.

Payment of fees is a legal obligation, other owners should not be expected to subsidise non paying units.

So one set of neighbours goes through other neighbours financial circumstances ?

athtrasna

marienbad wrote: »

So one set of neighbours goes through other neighbours financial circumstances ?

No, the company accounts are produced at the AGM, though directors would have access to that information during the year as part of their cash flow management.