Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Management company will remove all services to the apartment rented by us
Options
Comments
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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 .....
FFS0 -
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?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.
This, and as your contract is with the landlord, you will be evicted and lose your deposit.The_Morrigan wrote: »Folks the withholding of rent is illegal
Correction; no receiver should stop paying management fees as end game will mean they don't get the rent owed.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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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 up0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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.0 -
In my development, there are water tanks in the underground car park and the water is pumped up to the apartments.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.0 -
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.0 -
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 up0 -
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:0 -
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"?0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.
so if he is no longer entitled to these services how can he rent them to the OP?0 -
The MC aren't chasing the tenant now. In fact the OP specifically says the MC does not want to engage with them.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"?
The OP only has a contract with the owner of the apartment. If something is wrong with the apartment, the OP should only be contacting the owner. If the owner does not remedy the problem, the OP should move out. The OP has no relationship with the MC at all.Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and dark mode). Now available through the extension stores
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/
Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce
0 -
Any management company worth their salt would make provisions for non-payment of fees, provisions that don't target an innocent bystander.
You clearly have no understanding of a management company or how it is run.
A management company produces a proposed budget for the coming year. The costs are then split by unit, as per the terms in their contracts. There is no provisions for unpaid debt. All debt is debt due to the company and must be paid. Would you want to pay more than you had to, just because someone else isn't paying? I think not.
I have deep sympathy for the OP. They are caught in this mess, due to the landlord not paying his fees which he is legally liable for. The MC is not chasing the OP, the MC is chasing the landlord, and has notified the OP that they are removing services.
The OP should file a case with the PRTB against the landlord. The OP should also seek proper legal advice.0 -
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"?
:rolleyes: The OP is indirectly sponging off the rest of the estate because the OP's landlord is sponging off the rest of the estate. I thought that was pretty clear - the OP's landlord isn't paying fees so can't expect to receive services for said fees. Therefore, any tenant in the landlord's property won't get services.
Why would you call your neighbours bullies, you ask? Because you said so in one of your posts - you said the management company is resorting to bully tactics. The management company IS the OP's neighbours so your post said that their neighbours are bullies by cutting off their services.
Making provisions for non payment of fees? They are not just gonna write off a load of fees owed without trying to get it paid. If that was the case, nobody would ever pay fees and no services would be provided to the estate. A management company is not a charity, it is a non profit organisation to provide services to an estate. The OP is not an innocent bystander technically, they are renting off a LL who hasn't paid fees. I've said it before and I'll say it again - the OP's issue is with the LL. If they are not happy with paying rent in that area then threaten to move out as that may make the LL pay up what is owed. So yes, it is your reasoning that the OP should remain unaffected by this and that their property should continue to receive services which are not bring paid for (if things like water is cut off and if the management company own the tanks then these need to be services etc).
And what is your point about if the OP moves out? What does that have to do with anything? The management company will still chase the LL (ie property owner) for the fees outstanding. The fees is nothing to do with the OP - if fees aren't paid, services to that unit get cut off, regardless if it's occupied or not. And the LL will get nobody to move in if services are cut off, therefore the LL will finally start paying up their fees to get a new tenant in.
Finally, the LL has been in arrears for a few years now, this is obviously being done as a last resort, management companies don't just cut people off if they are a few months behind. They do actually try to work with the property owners, set up payment plans, etc.0 -
You clearly have no understanding of a management company or how it is run.
A management company produces a proposed budget for the coming year. The costs are then split by unit, as per the terms in their contracts. There is no provisions for unpaid debt. All debt is debt due to the company and must be paid. Would you want to pay more than you had to, just because someone else isn't paying? I think not.
I have deep sympathy for the OP. They are caught in this mess, due to the landlord not paying his fees which he is legally liable for. The MC is not chasing the OP, the MC is chasing the landlord, and has notified the OP that they are removing services.
The OP should file a case with the PRTB against the landlord. The OP should also seek proper legal advice.
Well clearly I don't. And that's fine, but I find it bizzare that such provisions are not made.
I agree, massive sympathy for the OP. I find it morally wrong that water / electricity can be cut off like that.0 -
tinkerbell wrote: »Finally, the LL has been in arrears for a few years now, this is obviously being done as a last resort, management companies don't just cut people off if they are a few months behind. They do actually try to work with the property owners, set up payment plans, etc.
Do you think the MC could show a little bit of discretion and give the OP some time to move given the current market conditions?
I think given that the LL has given the MC the runaround for years, the MC could extend at least something of a courtesy or compassion to the OP? Give them maybe 2 months? Is that too much to ask?0 -
Do you think the MC could show a little bit of discretion and give the OP some time to move given the current market conditions?
I think given that the LL has given the MC the runaround for years, the MC could extend at least something of a courtesy or compassion to the OP? Give them maybe 2 months? Is that too much to ask?
Without knowing the state of the management company's finances it's impossible to say. An insurance company or refuse company won't extend and courtesy or compassion to the management company. It's not fair that other owners potentially will suffer because of the OP 's landlord. While I have every sympathy for the OP I would have started to hassle the landlord at the parking issue and not let it get this far. The landlord is the bad guy here, not the management company.0 -
Well clearly I don't. And that's fine, but I find it bizzare that such provisions are not made.
It's not that the provisions you would like are not made, it is that those provisions can't be made. A MC is designed just to run the development. There is no profit/loss to be made by an MC. It's costs are it's costs and must be fully accounted for and met by the members.
If one person doesn't pay then the whole development suffers, and if more than one doesn't pay then it just gets worse. In general, Management Companies spend a large part of their time chasing the fees due, and have to do everything they can to make some people pay. More often than not, the people who fail to pay are landlords who don't live there.0 -
I'd say ESB Networks would have a thing or two to say about anyone cutting off a supply!0
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement