Management company will remove all services to the apartment rented by us

Sandra_Silver

Hello there

Myself and my partner have been renting an apartment for the past 4 years in Dublin 22. We keep the place in very good order and have never missed a rent payment.We rarely contacted our landlord unless there was a problem with the property. Two years ago we received a letter from a company informing me that my landlord has been having severe financial difficulties and that properties owned by my landlord were repossessed by them. The apartment was surrendered and we signed a new contract with an appointed agent. We kept paying rent as normal and everyting was in order. Unfortunately some time later we found out that our landlord/ now appointed agent hasn't been paying management fees.
First of all the management company made us to remove our car from designated car space (otherwise the car will be clamped) as management fees hadn't been paid. Fine, we removed the car as required. About two months ago water supply to our apartment was turned off. My managed to turned it on again. The director of the management company has been extremely unpleasant and did not want to speak with me (he hang on the phone during the conversation)
We are now pawns and clearly we have been victimised by the management company in order to get our landlord to pay the arrears. I felt that the company using us, tenants to hassle property owner, we have have been threatening by them but we do not have any power to make our landlord to do anything (we cannot even contact him, we provided the management company with all details of the appointed agent including phone numbers, address and email).
Yesterday we received by post a letter advising us that all services to our apartment will be removed in 10 days. From 23rd June 2014 the management company will no longer facilitate water, gas and electricity to be supplied to the apartment.
Since the electricity/gas bills are in my name, can the management company can cut my power off etc?

I accept that management charges have to be paid. I accept that this can be difficult. The correct approach is to sue the apartment owner. Not to hassle third parties. Can we do anything? we wont be able to rent a new apartment within 10 days?

I urgently need some advice as our services will be removed in few days . Thank you in advance

dissed doc

I would contact PTRB to lodge a complaint as the apartment as per the tenancy agreement is not available to you, meaning with access to parking, normal services, etc., .

If it has been going on this long I would also find a new apartment. You are dead right it is between the owner and the management company. Basically the lease is being broken by the landlord by not supplying the property as per expectations. IMO.

They could cut off the services like electricity or whatever, but I doubt they actually can legally do that. It doesn't stop them actually doing it though. They just want the money, and will probably bully someone into paying the fees (that someone could include you).

Then again, the notice you got is effectively for the owner. The management company have no interest in the tenant really, just need to inform the owner what their obligations are under the management company contract.

mickdw

Sandra_Silver wrote: »

Hello there

Myself and my partner have been renting an apartment for the past 4 years in Dublin 22. We keep the place in very good order and have never missed a rent payment.We rarely contacted our landlord unless there was a problem with the property. Two years ago we received a letter from a company informing me that my landlord has been having severe financial difficulties and that properties owned by my landlord were repossessed by them. The apartment was surrendered and we signed a new contract with an appointed agent. We kept paying rent as normal and everyting was in order. Unfortunately some time later we found out that our landlord/ now appointed agent hasn't been paying management fees.
First of all the management company made us to remove our car from designated car space (otherwise the car will be clamped) as management fees hadn't been paid. Fine, we removed the car as required. About two months ago water supply to our apartment was turned off. My managed to turned it on again. The director of the management company has been extremely unpleasant and did not want to speak with me (he hang on the phone during the conversation)
We are now pawns and clearly we have been victimised by the management company in order to get our landlord to pay the arrears. I felt that the company using us, tenants to hassle property owner, we have have been threatening by them but we do not have any power to make our landlord to do anything (we cannot even contact him, we provided the management company with all details of the appointed agent including phone numbers, address and email).
Yesterday we received by post a letter advising us that all services to our apartment will be removed in 10 days. From 23rd June 2014 the management company will no longer facilitate water, gas and electricity to be supplied to the apartment.
Since the electricity/gas bills are in my name, can the management company can cut my power off etc?

I accept that management charges have to be paid. I accept that this can be difficult. The correct approach is to sue the apartment owner. Not to hassle third parties. Can we do anything? we wont be able to rent a new apartment within 10 days?

I urgently need some advice as our services will be removed in few days . Thank you in advance

Surely the bank / agent / handler to whom you currently pay rent is somehow in breach of contract?
I know the legals here but when this issue first arose I would have sought a legal opinion on the situation. Would you be within your rights to world rent early on when services were not available due to non payment of management charges. Certainly at this stage they would not be seeing a penny from me if I was in your situation.
It's likely a bank or nama that now had control of the property so lack of rental payments might get them moving.

Sandra_Silver

PTRB are not interested, was told that they only deal with tenant- landlord issues and not tenant -management company . The point is that there is an appointed agent who in now "our landlord" but the management company do not want to deal with them. I do not really want to move out within next few months as we are in the process of applying for a mortgage. that could take another 6 months.

sharpsuit

The owners' management company do not have the legal powers to suspend services to you as occupiers of the dwelling. The MUD Act provides how they can pursue the landlord via the courts. In my opinion, you need to take an aggressive position against the owners' management company, possibly a Circuit Court injunction. Obtain legal advice.

The PRTB case is fine but this will not be against the management company and you will still lose vital services.

Marcusm

Find a Free Legal Advice Centre (FLAC) or approach Threshold. It may be that this falls into a gap but, by way of example, in the UK it is a criminal act for a freeholder/landlord/management company to interfere with the provision of basic services (water particularly). The proper procedure for the mgt company/freeholder to adopt would have been to seek forfeiture of the lease, relet it and recover the management fees from the sales proceeds.

Lantus

You are not being victimised by the management company, you are (have) been victimised by the unit owner. They failed to pay their service fees (probably a long time ago) and their mortgage it seems as you have to stop paying for years and years before the bank move to repossess.

However, the landlord seemed to have no financial difficulty in taking all the rent money from you and not paying his bills. Lovely.

The management company as a matter of last resort is now having to take regrettable action against the unit owner. The fact you have entered into a third party arrangement with the unit owner is neither here nor there.

The provision of services is entirely dependant on payment of fees. There will be a range of services the OMC can cease to provide for this unit within the provisions of the lease. some they cannot. It depends on the building and what they own and the lease itself.

The usual services to withdraw to apartments are access to common areas, parking and common TV systems or remove devices from the company's buildings. Primary utilities are entering a 'grey' area. Some OMCs own the water storage tanks so they could restrict water although you should still get a trickle for basic water needs. If gas is communal they could also restrict this if the system design allows it but not sure re electricity.

If a rent receiver has been appointed they should pay these fee's. I would tell the receiver you are moving out immediately.

If I was the OMC I would cut every service I could and refuse to provide any documentation or insurance certs (required for a sale) until they paid every penny.

Appreciate that you are in the middle but your unit owner has done this to you 100%. They bought the apartment , rented it out and stopped paying fees knowing full well you may bear the brunt. shame on them.

Greaney

To re-iterate a previous post. I believe it's illegal to cut off water.
http://www.keepingyourhome.ie/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

tinkerbell

OP, your issue is with the Landlord, not the management company. The management company actions are as a direct result of your Landlord not paying fees. So either take it up with the Landlord and get it sorted out or else your only option is to move out. Honestly, how can you expect to get services from the management company when your Landlord isn't even paying for said services? The mind boggles.

Lantus

Greaney wrote: »

To re-iterate a previous post. I believe it's illegal to cut off water.
http://www.keepingyourhome.ie/if_your_landlord_wants_you_to_leave.html

That relates to landlords and tenants. OMCs are not landlords they are building owners. They do not rent out property and therefore as correctly pointed out by the OP the PRTB have no jurisdiction regarding the management company.

The primary lease signed by the owner will usually state that ALL services are 100% dependant on payment of fees.

Essential services like block insurance are paid through service fees. There are no magic fairies, trees or organisations to make up the difference. You pay on the date or you don't get it. If your employer was 6 months late in paying your wages and you couldn't pay for food, rent, insurance I'm sure you would take all required action to secure that money that was due to you. The company is trying its best to do that and is avoiding costly legal action wherever possible.

Your the folks in the middle but don't confuse positive action from the management company as being the problem when in fact its 2+ years of negligence and contractual breaches by your unit owner which have led to this point.

fasttalkerchat

I would start off by demanding a reduction in rent because you no longer have a parking space. That should waken him up.

tinkerbell

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

I would start off by demanding a reduction in rent because you no longer have a parking space. That should waken him up.

Demanding a reduction in rent is not gonna solve the problem for the OP as unless the Landlord starts paying what he owes to the management company, the services will still not be supplied. If the Landlord refuses to pay then the only option for the OP is to move out.

Ardent

Just move out and rent elsewhere?! Why would you want this hassle?

keith16

Ardent wrote: »

Just move out and rent elsewhere?! Why would you want this hassle?

Did you read the OP?

Talk about an Irish solution to an Irish problem. Absolutely sickening that the management company would act in this way.

Bepolite

Offer to pay the rent directly to the management company to clear the arrears. Submit a reciept each month to the unit owners.

Sandra_Silver

When I rented the apartment I wasn't aware of the fact that he wasn't paying the management fees. Was told that everything was in order. The problem is that we have provided the management company with all the information required, we emailed them a copy of new contract and details of the appointed agent . The director of the OMC called me and said that we are both know that my landlord is still the owner and demanded me to get in touch with him (I honestly do not have idea what is going on and do not have my landlord's mobile number as he has changed it) . OMC refuse to deal with the company who took over the apartment. We are thinking of moving out but apparently it is not that easy as there is a shortage of renting accommodation in Dublin. In other words I will definitely wont be able to move within 10 days. Should the OMC give us more time to sort out the issue (10 days seems to be a very short notice). Not paying the rent is not a solution as I will be asked to move out by my landlord after 2-3 months (breach of contract ).
The management company asked us to pay them rent directly but again by doing this I will breach the contract sign with my the appointed agent.
I just want to get it sorted and not end up with no services...

Bepolite

Sandra_Silver wrote: »

Not paying the rent is not a solution as I will be asked to move out by my landlord after 2-3 months (breach of contract ).

Making deductions from the rent for something the LL will not resolve is not withholding rent. It will take much longer than 3 months to get you out even if you stopped paying rent entirely and moved in 15 hookers (the rugby variety ofc).

I'm afraid the only other option, as far as I can see it, is to move out. There is no cotract between you and the management co. You may be able to seek an injuction etc. but that seems a lot of hassle to go through.

tinkerbell

keith16 wrote: »

Did you read the OP?

Talk about an Irish solution to an Irish problem. Absolutely sickening that the management company would act in this way.

Why is it sickening? The management company is made up of all the unit owners of the estate. So you think that the other unit owners should fund services to the OP who is not even an owner of the estate, just because the OP's landlord (ie another unit owner) won't pay their fair share of charges incurred to provide services to the estate? That's ridiculous. You mention an Irish solution to an Irish problem - no. It's people expecting to get free services and not pay for them.

OP, your ONLY option is to go to the Landlord - they are the person making this an issue for you. However didn't you say they haven't paid for 2/3 years? Unless they start making pretty decent contributions to make up for their arrears straight away, it might be a while before you get to see the benefits. So I suggest you start looking for alternative accommodation immediately.

Mrs OBumble

keith16 wrote: »

Did you read the OP?

Talk about an Irish solution to an Irish problem. Absolutely sickening that the management company would act in this way.

And your suggested alternative is???


OP, I'd suggest you talk to the council: let the housing department know what the management company is planning, and that you will have no option but to present as homeless if they do.

Hopefully the council will be able to stop them cutting services.

The other alternative is to approach a local journalist and us the press to shame them into not doing so, or a TD or local councillor and use a more low key method. Whcih one to choose depends on who you have contacts with.


Frankly, you need to be talking to the appointed agent about this, and they need to be talking to the management company. If the MC won't talk to them, then the agent needs to tell you what to do next - and one option would be that the agent finds you another property to live in.

jd

Sandra_Silver wrote: »

The director of the OMC called me and said that we are both know that my landlord is still the owner and demanded me to get in touch with him (I honestly do not have idea what is going on and do not have my landlord's mobile number as he has changed it) . OMC refuse to deal with the company who took over the apartment.

I'd guess what's happened here is a rent receiver has been appointed, and the actual ownership of the unit hasn't changed. In fact technically, neither you nor the rent receiver should be told the owner of the apartment is in arrears with his service charges (Data Protection)

Cyrus

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And your suggested alternative is???


OP, I'd suggest you talk to the council: let the housing department know what the management company is planning, and that you will have no option but to present as homeless if they do.

Hopefully the council will be able to stop them cutting services.

The other alternative is to approach a local journalist and us the press to shame them into not doing so, or a TD or local councillor and use a more low key method. Whcih one to choose depends on who you have contacts with.


Frankly, you need to be talking to the appointed agent about this, and they need to be talking to the management company. If the MC won't talk to them, then the agent needs to tell you what to do next - and one option would be that the agent finds you another property to live in.

It's nothing to do with the council and while it's regrettable the op is caught up in this the owners actions are detrimental to the rest of the owners in the complex. Their actions mean the tenant will take some action against the owner and hopefully get it resolved

Grandpa Hassan

If an apartment owner in my complex stopped paying the service charges I would expect the management co to do exactly what is being done here. It is unfortunate for the tenant to get stuck in the middle but the hope is that either the tenant forces the LL to resolve the situation, or else moves out and the LL gets all power cut such that he can't let it to anyone else. That is the only thing that might force his hand

The only other alternative is for the other unit owners to cover the missing payments themselves by an increase in the service charge, or else accept a reduced service. And that is not acceptable.

I think the OPs only realistic action, in the absence of action by the LL, is to get a few days delay to give then chance to find a other apartment

irishredmist

sharpsuit wrote: »

The owners' management company do not have the legal powers to suspend services to you as occupiers of the dwelling. The MUD Act provides how they can pursue the landlord via the courts. In my opinion, you need to take an aggressive position against the owners' management company, possibly a Circuit Court injunction. Obtain legal advice.

The PRTB case is fine but this will not be against the management company and you will still lose vital services.

Are tenant rights the same here as UK.. you can be arrested by the police if you touch the water or electric supply (cost my lanlord £5,000 for such) also is a court order needed to remove tenants regardless of whether they are paying rent or not? ?

The_Morrigan

irishredmist wrote: »

Are tenant rights the same here as UK.. you can be arrested by the police if you touch the water or electric supply (cost my lanlord £5,000 for such) also is a court order needed to remove tenants regardless of whether they are paying rent or not? ?

No they aren't the same.

who_ru

Sandra_Silver wrote: »

When I rented the apartment I wasn't aware of the fact that he wasn't paying the management fees. Was told that everything was in order. The problem is that we have provided the management company with all the information required, we emailed them a copy of new contract and details of the appointed agent . The director of the OMC called me and said that we are both know that my landlord is still the owner and demanded me to get in touch with him (I honestly do not have idea what is going on and do not have my landlord's mobile number as he has changed it) . OMC refuse to deal with the company who took over the apartment. We are thinking of moving out but apparently it is not that easy as there is a shortage of renting accommodation in Dublin. In other words I will definitely wont be able to move within 10 days. Should the OMC give us more time to sort out the issue (10 days seems to be a very short notice). Not paying the rent is not a solution as I will be asked to move out by my landlord after 2-3 months (breach of contract ).
The management company asked us to pay them rent directly but again by doing this I will breach the contract sign with my the appointed agent.
I just want to get it sorted and not end up with no services...

OP I feel sorry for you and what is happening to you. It is a terrible reflection on how people who rent are treated in this country. Shameful behaviour.

househero

They are trying to get rid of you, to sell the property. EXACT same thing happened to us. All I will say, is go to their office and throw your weight around.

If you get treated like an idiot, act the idiot.

Mrs OBumble

Cyrus wrote: »

It's nothing to do with the council and while it's regrettable the op is caught up in this the owners actions are detrimental to the rest of the owners in the complex. Their actions mean the tenant will take some action against the owner and hopefully get it resolved

I'm not so sure that it's nothing to do with the council. They have some responsibility for ensuring that housing in their area is habitable. They have legal rights to inspect rental properties, and to force LLs to take action if they don't meet minimum standards (eg water supply).

What's more, they might have some informal influencing power the the MC that the OP doesn't.

Personally I'd be of the opinion that the OP should stop paying rent to the agent, and start directing the cash (with receipts of course) to the MC to pay the fees. Now that wouldn't be legal, so it's not advice that I can give here. But pragmatically it's an option that might work if the other more relationship-management based ones don't.

irishredmist

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'm not so sure that it's nothing to do with the council. They have some responsibility for ensuring that housing in their area is habitable. They have legal rights to inspect rental properties, and to force LLs to take action if they don't meet minimum standards (eg water supply).

What's more, they might have some informal influencing power the the MC that the OP doesn't.

Personally I'd be of the opinion that the OP should stop paying rent to the agent, and start directing the cash (with receipts of course) to the MC to pay the fees. Now that wouldn't be legal, so it's not advice that I can give here. But pragmatically it's an option that might work if the other more relationship-management based ones don't.

They are bullies I agree stop paying rent immediately and pay MC the fees. My response to them "court lets go"

3DataModem

sharpsuit wrote: »

The owners' management company do not have the legal powers to suspend services to you as occupiers of the dwelling. The MUD Act provides how they can pursue the landlord via the courts. In my opinion, you need to take an aggressive position against the owners' management company, possibly a Circuit Court injunction. Obtain legal advice.

The PRTB case is fine but this will not be against the management company and you will still lose vital services.

This.

Get legal advice.

The_Morrigan

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Personally I'd be of the opinion that the OP should stop paying rent to the agent, and start directing the cash (with receipts of course) to the MC to pay the fees. Now that wouldn't be legal, so it's not advice that I can give here. But pragmatically it's an option that might work if the other more relationship-management based ones don't.

Seriously?
That is advice...and you should know better.

Folks the withholding of rent is illegal and therefore a breach of the forum charter to suggest it.

Cyrus

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'm not so sure that it's nothing to do with the council. They have some responsibility for ensuring that housing in their area is habitable. They have legal rights to inspect rental properties, and to force LLs to take action if they don't meet minimum standards (eg water supply).

What's more, they might have some informal influencing power the the MC that the OP doesn't.

Personally I'd be of the opinion that the OP should stop paying rent to the agent, and start directing the cash (with receipts of course) to the MC to pay the fees. Now that wouldn't be legal, so it's not advice that I can give here. But pragmatically it's an option that might work if the other more relationship-management based ones don't.

The supply of services in a private apartment complex is contingent on management fees being paid, while this isn't the tenants fault the management company have no option as I'm sure the rest of the owners in the complex voted for this action as well they should have

phildin

OP: I'm not in a position to offer legal advise generally but I strongly suggest that you do not pay the management company arrears out of rent under any circumstances, you'll end up having to repay the rent that you withheld.

If I've understood, the landlord is still in receivership so there's no point in trying to contact the landlord, contact the receiver instead. I'm not sure how this works but there should be some way to find out the contact details of the receiver. The essence of this situation is that while the receiver is working things out, he will stop all non essential payments going out and vigourously pursue all payments that should be coming in; that's his/her job.

In essence, the OMC is owed money along with a lot of other parties. The OMC wants to skip the queue; this is illegal. If the receiver pays off the OMC ahead of other creditors, s/he will have to justify this or else, be guilty of a criminal offense. The receiver is dealing with other peoples money and if any creditor is getting paid off first, this needs to be fully justified.

In this case, the receiver needs to be convinced that in order to continue receiving rent, that the OMC needs to be paid off and will need documentary evidence to support this. I suggest getting a solicitor to draft a letter saying that the rent will be held in escrow unless the situation with the OMC is resolved. Actually following through on this threat could be risky and expensive and I'm not advocating following through (bear in mind that you'll still have no services for the duration) just give the receiver something s/he can use as a justification for paying off the OMC ahead of the others.

If this doesn't work, then I think your only option will likely be to move out. Certainly the landlord has breached the contract and you have been wronged but you will have no remedy for this if the landlord is in receivership.

Cyrus

phildin wrote: »

OP: I'm not in a position to offer legal advise generally but I strongly suggest that you do not pay the management company arrears out of rent under any circumstances, you'll end up having to repay the rent that you withheld.

If I've understood, the landlord is still in receivership so there's no point in trying to contact the landlord, contact the receiver instead. I'm not sure how this works but there should be some way to find out the contact details of the receiver. The essence of this situation is that while the receiver is working things out, he will stop all non essential payments going out and vigourously pursue all payments that should be coming in; that's his/her job.

In essence, the OMC is owed money along with a lot of other parties. The OMC wants to skip the queue; this is illegal. If the receiver pays off the OMC ahead of other creditors, s/he will have to justify this or else, be guilty of a criminal offense. The receiver is dealing with other peoples money and if any creditor is getting paid off first, this needs to be fully justified.

In this case, the receiver needs to be convinced that in order to continue receiving rent, that the OMC needs to be paid off and will need documentary evidence to support this. I suggest getting a solicitor to draft a letter saying that the rent will be held in escrow unless the situation with the OMC is resolved. Actually following through on this threat could be risky and expensive and I'm not advocating following through (bear in mind that you'll still have no services for the duration) just give the receiver something s/he can use as a justification for paying off the OMC ahead of the others.

If this doesn't work, then I think your only option will likely be to move out. Certainly the landlord has breached the contract and you have been wronged but you will have no remedy for this if the landlord is in receivership.

Except they arent skipping the queue as when the apartment is sold the unpaid management fees will have to be settled, so in essence they are a preferential creditor.

In any event they are within their rights to do what they are doing, whether people like it or not.

keith16

tinkerbell wrote: »

Why is it sickening? The management company is made up of all the unit owners of the estate. So you think that the other unit owners should fund services to the OP

Who exactly is funding water / electricity and gas services to the OP? The management co. has nothing to do with the provision of these services.

No management co. in the country should have the ability to do this and it's absolutely disgusting that they use these bully boy tactics against someone who is no more able to influence the situation than they are.

It's absolutely petty and is another symptom of the property illness in this country.

Cyrus

keith16 wrote: »

Who exactly is funding water / electricity and gas services to the OP? The management co. has nothing to do with the provision of these services.

No management co. in the country should have the ability to do this and it's absolutely disgusting that they use these bully boy tactics against someone who is no more able to influence the situation than they are.

It's absolutely petty and is another symptom of the property illness in this country.

no they should just let landlords not pay the management fee to the detriment to all of the rest of the property owners who are .....

FFS

the_syco

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Personally I'd be of the opinion that the OP should stop paying rent to the agent, and start directing the cash (with receipts of course) to the MC to pay the fees.

MC could continue not to do jack ***, as the fees are 2 or 3 years out of date, so I'm guessing a decent amount has yet to be paid?

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Folks the withholding of rent is illegal

This, and as your contract is with the landlord, you will be evicted and lose your deposit.

keith16 wrote: »

No management co. in the country should have the ability to do this and it's absolutely disgusting that they use these bully boy tactics against someone who is no more able to influence the situation than they are.

Correction; no receiver should stop paying management fees as end game will mean they don't get the rent owed.

Grandpa Hassan

keith16 wrote: »

Who exactly is funding water / electricity and gas services to the OP? The management co. has nothing to do with the provision of these services.

No management co. in the country should have the ability to do this and it's absolutely disgusting that they use these bully boy tactics against someone who is no more able to influence the situation than they are.

It's absolutely petty and is another symptom of the property illness in this country.

Rubbsih. Not the management company's fault at all. If I were a paid up owner of another unit, I would support the management company's stance 100%. Otherwise, everyone will just stop paying their fees.

The receiver should be paying the fees, knowing the repurcussions if they do not.....both economic (they will get no more rental income if the tenant moved out) and human (in that it screws the tenants) And if they are not allowed to do that, since it would be prioritising this creditor over others, then the law needs to be changed.

That doesn't help the OP, who is stuck in the middle, but I support the management company in this.

Marcusm

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Rubbsih. Not the management company's fault at all. If I were a paid up owner of another unit, I would support the management company's stance 100%. Otherwise, everyone will just stop paying their fees.

The receiver should be paying the fees, knowing the repurcussions if they do not.....both economic (they will get no more rental income if the tenant moved out) and human (in that it screws the tenants) And if they are not allowed to do that, since it would be prioritising this creditor over others, then the law needs to be changed.

That doesn't help the OP, who is stuck in the middle, but I support the management company in this.

I agree that the management company fees should be paid by the receiver but I do not support the removal of basic water and electricity services. Indeed, absent a court order, interfering with the supply of electricity by the management company would amount to an offence under the Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 (as amended). The OMC has the right to recover the management fees as a simple contract debt. If the unit is rented out then it is aware that there is a cashflow which it can secure. The managing agent should be capable of seeking such a court order, registering a judgement and ultimately appointing its own receiver. All costs of enforcement would be borne out of the rent and not become a cost of the other unitholders.

There is a complexity in this case because of the existing receiver but frankly it should be possible for the managing agent to negotiate with the receiver in order to ensure that the cash keeps flowing. Ultimately, the OMC is like a super preferential creditor as the ultimate sanction is forfeiture and only the net proceeds (after costs) would be available to the reciever. LIkewise if the receiver wants to sell the property it is in its client's interests that services be maintained throughout the development as a whole.

It does seem here that the managing agent is focusing its efforts on the wrong people - it either needs to get the receiver to meet its obligations or obtain orders to have the rent diverted. In either case, applying what is, in my opinion, inappropriate pressure to the tenant to unlawfully divert the rent away from the receiver is not only wrong but it is possibly criminal.

keith16

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

Rubbsih. Not the management company's fault at all. If I were a paid up owner of another unit, I would support the management company's stance 100%. Otherwise, everyone will just stop paying their fees.

The receiver should be paying the fees, knowing the repurcussions if they do not.....both economic (they will get no more rental income if the tenant moved out) and human (in that it screws the tenants) And if they are not allowed to do that, since it would be prioritising this creditor over others, then the law needs to be changed.

That doesn't help the OP, who is stuck in the middle, but I support the management company in this.

But the tenant is not responsible for the fees? If the tenant had some sort of request of the MC, they would be told to get lost.

But here, the MC is aggressively targeting the OP. I'm not saying the LL should not pay his fees btw, and I would support the MC in their efforts to recoup the cost, but not like this. Not targeting an innocent party who has nothing to do with the transaction.

Not by removing the landlords source of income. The fees will still have to be paid if the unit is empty, correct?

It's bullsh1t behaviour on the part of the MC tbh.

Grandpa Hassan

keith16 wrote: »

But the tenant is not responsible for the fees? If the tenant had some sort of request of the MC, they would be told to get lost.

But here, the MC is aggressively targeting the OP. I'm not saying the LL should not pay his fees btw, and I would support the MC in their efforts to recoup the cost, but not like this. Not targeting an innocent party who has nothing to do with the transaction.

Not by removing the landlords source of income. The fees will still have to be paid if the unit is empty, correct?

It's bullsh1t behaviour on the part of the MC tbh.

I think that the removal of the LL's source of income will likely be the thing that prompts them to pay up

Cyrus

keith16 wrote: »

But the tenant is not responsible for the fees? If the tenant had some sort of request of the MC, they would be told to get lost.

But here, the MC is aggressively targeting the OP. I'm not saying the LL should not pay his fees btw, and I would support the MC in their efforts to recoup the cost, but not like this. Not targeting an innocent party who has nothing to do with the transaction.

Not by removing the landlords source of income. The fees will still have to be paid if the unit is empty, correct?

It's bullsh1t behaviour on the part of the MC tbh.

MC is targeting the LL, by cutting off servies to the LL property the tenant will complain to the LL and probably withold rent, prompting the LL to take action.

Do you honestly believe they havent exhausted every other avenue before reaching this point.

Its regrettable the OP is caught up in it, but all of the other unit holders who pay their management fee are affected and have the right to have action taken.

El_Dangeroso

The_Morrigan wrote: »

Seriously?
That is advice...and you should know better.

Folks the withholding of rent is illegal and therefore a breach of the forum charter to suggest it.

This is a genuine question:

Previously on this forum where a tenant has not received satisfaction in terms of repair (for example being left without hot water for over a week with no sign of resolution), people advised to send a registered letter outlining the issue and giving the landlord a reasonable time frame to resolve the issue. If the issue is not resolved in that time they can then legally deduct the cost of the repair from the rent.

Could the tenant not do this for the provision of a parking space and give the current landlord a week in which to resolve the issue, which if not resolved the tenant can legitimately resolve the MC arrears from the rent?

Tiger Mcilroy

Cyrus wrote: »

MC is targeting the LL, by cutting off servies to the LL property the tenant will complain to the LL and probably withold rent, prompting the LL to take action.

Do you honestly believe they havent exhausted every other avenue before reaching this point.

Its regrettable the OP is caught up in it, but all of the other unit holders who pay their management fee are affected and have the right to have action taken.

But the LL isnt suffering here, the op has stated that the have contacted the LL and its been a waste of their time.

This tactic by the Management company will solve nothing and frankly is a desperate act from people that clearly have no imagination or idea how to deal with the issue.

Im 100% behind management fees and they must be paid if people want to live in shared housing but targetting the tenants who have ZERO responsibility is wrong. And constantly stating about the other unit holders is irrelevant to this situation as the OP isnt liable for this fee.

They should be going through the courts to get the fees back.

Cyrus

Tiger Mcilroy wrote: »

But the LL isnt suffering here, the op has stated that the have contacted the LL and its been a waste of their time.

This tactic by the Management company will solve nothing and frankly is a desperate act from people that clearly have no imagination or idea how to deal with the issue.

Im 100% behind management fees and they must be paid if people want to live in shared housing but targetting the tenants who have ZERO responsibility is wrong. And constantly stating about the other unit holders is irrelevant to this situation as the OP isnt liable for this fee.

They should be going through the courts to get the fees back.

The LL suffers when the tenant leaves obviously or doesn't pay rent because there is no water in their apartment.

This is the most sensible course of action from the MC, no costly courts fees and a fairly instant result.

Its unfortunate that the tenant is impacted, but its the quickest and most effective course of action.

tinkerbell

keith16 wrote: »

Who exactly is funding water / electricity and gas services to the OP? The management co. has nothing to do with the provision of these services.

No management co. in the country should have the ability to do this and it's absolutely disgusting that they use these bully boy tactics against someone who is no more able to influence the situation than they are.

It's absolutely petty and is another symptom of the property illness in this country.

keith16 wrote: »

But the tenant is not responsible for the fees? If the tenant had some sort of request of the MC, they would be told to get lost.

But here, the MC is aggressively targeting the OP. I'm not saying the LL should not pay his fees btw, and I would support the MC in their efforts to recoup the cost, but not like this. Not targeting an innocent party who has nothing to do with the transaction.

Not by removing the landlords source of income. The fees will still have to be paid if the unit is empty, correct?

It's bullsh1t behaviour on the part of the MC tbh.

So by your reasoning then, the management company (which is made up ENTIRELY of the property owners in the estate) and collects fees to provide services to the property owners should just let people continue to leech off everybody else and get provided services for free just because one property owner's tenant is inconvenienced by their Landlord not paying their fair share? I don't think so. And by doing this, the tenant CAN influence the situation - they can threaten to move out, Landlord would no longer receive rent so the Landlord would then start paying their fees as they won't be able to get a new tenant in if services aren't being provided.

Regarding the water getting cut off, maybe the management company owns the infrastructure of it for the estate so can actually do this.

I'd highly suggest that people actually read up on what it is a management company is there for. There's so many wrong views on this thread on the management company - it's all this management company are evil rubbish which makes it pretty obvious that there's a lot of misconceptions about a management company. If you don't pay your fees, then you get no service. Do you think it's ok to just let the OP sponge off the rest of the estate just because they are a third party? That's nonsense. It's the same as expecting to get electricity / gas / broadband / TV / whatever for free without paying for it. Their beef is with the Landlord, NOT the management company.

Management company = all the property owners of the estate. There is nobody else involved here. The OP's Landlord is a member of the management company as they are a property owner, and are not co-operating by not paying their fair share, therefore it is the Landlord screwing over the OP. A management company is not a managing agent, which is completely different and gets mistaken to be the same thing by many people. If you think the OP has a right to be angry with the management company over this, then would you suggest that the OP goes around and visits all their neighbours (who collectively, ARE the management company) and moan about not getting a parking space or whatever because their Landlord hasn't paid their management fees and expect all the other unit owners to say "ah god love you, here we'll sort it out for you and we can all pay more money in fees so you can get your parking space". Because that's essentially what is being said here by this whole "management company is a big bully" rubbish. Go to your neighbours and call them bullies. I'm sure you'd be told to sling your hook fairly sharpish.

jd

tinkerbell wrote: »

Regarding the water getting cut off, maybe the management company owns the infrastructure of it for the estate so can actually do this.

In my development, there are water tanks in the underground car park and the water is pumped up to the apartments.

Claw Hammer

O\P, contact the Energy Regulator regarding your electricity. The management company or its agents have no right to interfere with your supply and the Regulator will tell them so point out that it is a criminal offence to interfere with the domestic electric supply.

The Local authority is responsible for ensuring that every dwelling within its area has a supply of water. It is an offence to impede the local authority carry out its statutory obligations.

Management companies have numerous means of enforcing their rights and should not be resorting to this thuggery. Cutting off water would cause a health hazard, initially for you, and then your neighbours.

gctest50

Cyrus wrote: »

The LL suffers when the tenant leaves obviously or doesn't pay rent because there is no water in their apartment.

This is the most sensible course of action from the MC, no costly courts fees and a fairly instant result.

Its unfortunate that the tenant is impacted, but its the quickest and most effective course of action.

The tenant shouldn't be affected at all

Unless they are totally incompetant, they should have forseen this occurring and had a plan in place in the contracts
- basically the rent goes to the mgt. company
- the landlord or his agents "barred" from entering the complex until paid up

Cyrus

gctest50 wrote: »

The tenant shouldn't be affected at all

Unless they are totally incompetant, they should have forseen this occurring and had a plan in place in the contracts
- basically the rent goes to the mgt. company
- the landlord or his agents "barred" from entering the complex until paid up

sure, because cutting off services the management company provides isnt ok, but taking the rent directly from the tenant is...... :pac:

keith16

tinkerbell wrote: »

So by your reasoning then, the management company (which is made up ENTIRELY of the property owners in the estate) and collects fees to provide services to the property owners should just let people continue to leech off everybody else and get provided services for free just because one property owner's tenant is inconvenienced by their Landlord not paying their fair share? I don't think so. And by doing this, the tenant CAN influence the situation - they can threaten to move out, Landlord would no longer receive rent so the Landlord would then start paying their fees as they won't be able to get a new tenant in if services aren't being provided.

Regarding the water getting cut off, maybe the management company owns the infrastructure of it for the estate so can actually do this.

I'd highly suggest that people actually read up on what it is a management company is there for. There's so many wrong views on this thread on the management company - it's all this management company are evil rubbish which makes it pretty obvious that there's a lot of misconceptions about a management company. If you don't pay your fees, then you get no service. Do you think it's ok to just let the OP sponge off the rest of the estate just because they are a third party? That's nonsense. It's the same as expecting to get electricity / gas / broadband / TV / whatever for free without paying for it. Their beef is with the Landlord, NOT the management company.

Management company = all the property owners of the estate. There is nobody else involved here. The OP's Landlord is a member of the management company as they are a property owner, and are not co-operating by not paying their fair share, therefore it is the Landlord screwing over the OP. A management company is not a managing agent, which is completely different and gets mistaken to be the same thing by many people. If you think the OP has a right to be angry with the management company over this, then would you suggest that the OP goes around and visits all their neighbours (who collectively, ARE the management company) and moan about not getting a parking space or whatever because their Landlord hasn't paid their management fees and expect all the other unit owners to say "ah god love you, here we'll sort it out for you and we can all pay more money in fees so you can get your parking space". Because that's essentially what is being said here by this whole "management company is a big bully" rubbish. Go to your neighbours and call them bullies. I'm sure you'd be told to sling your hook fairly sharpish.

That is not my reasoning at all. That is your reasoning.

This is not a minor inconvenience for the OP. It is a hugely stressful situation that they had no hand or part in creating.

It is not the same as not paying for TV or internet or electricity. These are services which the OP directly consumes.

The MC provides services to the LL, who in turn rents his space (WITH THESE SERVICES INCLUDED) to the OP. The OP is already paying for these services indirectly via the rent. The OP is sponging off nobody.

But somehow, according to YOUR reasoning, the LL is not paying his share, but it is the OP that is sponging? What a load of absolute horse manure.

Don't reduce this argument down to a bit of hassle for the OP because they have no parking space or "whatever".

Why would I call my neighbours bullies? They haven't turned off my electricity, water or gas that I pay for so they might get 5 grand or whatever other pittance from a rogue landlord.

Why would they tell me to "sling my hook"? Am I living in east London in this situation?

Any management company worth their salt would make provisions for non-payment of fees, provisions that don't target an innocent bystander.

Instead there is an amateur response that is perfectly in line with peoples amateur attitude to property in this country.

What happens when the OP moves out? Does the MC still chase them around saying, "hey, tell your landlord we are not switching back on his stuff unless he pays for all that stuff you sponged when you were living there"?

Cyrus

keith16 wrote: »

What happens when the OP moves out? Does the MC still chase them around saying, "hey, tell your landlord we are not switching back on his stuff unless he pays for all that stuff you sponged when you were living there"?

No one will move into an apartment with no water, so either the landlord sells it and MC get their fee or he pays up so he can rent it out again.

Either way the MC (and by extension all the other residents) get their money.