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

athtrasna

miss no stars wrote: »

But they know it's not occupied by the owner, thus they're pursuing tan unrelated third party.

Seriously, how is this not an illegal eviction? You can't live somewhere that doesn't have water ffs. They KNOW the owner doesn't live there, they have been given as much contact info as possible for the owner, go pursue the owner. What they're doing isn't pursuing the owner, is punishing a third party.

They are taking the action against the unit not the tenant. Yes the tenant is affected but that's the landlord 's fault and any action the tenant can take has to be against the landlord because that's who their lease is with. This should have happened when the parking space was withdrawn and not have been allowed to get this far.

miss no stars

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

The result would be the tenant moving out

So... They're KNOWINGLY forcing a tenant, who is legally occupying the apartment, out of the apartment. How is that not an eviction?

Cyrus

miss no stars wrote: »

So... They're KNOWINGLY forcing a tenant, who is legally occupying the apartment, out of the apartment. How is that not an eviction?

no, they are cutting services to a unit owner who isn't paying for them, i.e. the provision of water to their unit

anncoates

You don't run up an unpaid tab in a shop or refuse to pay your phone bills and still use the service.

Similar to clamping, Irish people love 'rights' without the burden of attached personal responsibility.

Not you OP. I'm sympathetic to your situation, just not your landlord.

The MC IS the residents. Every owner is part of the company and - presuming the estate is finished and handed over - they elect directors to run the estate, usually via a management agency.

It's a bad situation for the OP but at the end of the day, his landlord is refusing to pay fees when contractually obliged to do so and when their unit is still using services that other owners are paying for.

It's a bit weird to solely pin this on the management company and let the landlord take the piss, and even more weirdly, to think that taking legal action against the MC and potentially complicating life every owner and tenant on the estate even to the extent of bankrupting the company or having contractors refuse to service the estate.

I personally wouldn't agree with cutting off utilities but I wish people could grasp how these places work: it's a company owned by the resident owners (and ran by directors elected by them) that needs fees to pay for basic services that people use every day and it can go bankrupt.

Your landlord is taking the piss out of you and all the other residents in the development that stump up for their bins. street lights, internal lighting, landscaping, block insurance, parking permit, painting and on and on.

athtrasna

miss no stars wrote: »

So... They're KNOWINGLY forcing a tenant, who is legally occupying the apartment, out of the apartment. How is that not an eviction?

The landlord is the one who is allowing this to happen by not paying the fees. The company are taking the action against the unit. That it is rented means nothing. The management company bears no responsibility for the tenants.

athtrasna

anncoates wrote: »

The MC IS the residents. Every owner is part of the company...


I personally wouldn't agree with cutting off utilities but I wish people could grasp how these places work: it's a company owned by the resident owners (and ran by directors elected by them) that needs fees to pay for basic services that people use every day and it can go bankrupt.

Just to clarify, it's the legal entity comprising all owners whether resident or not. This includes the OP 's landlord.

anncoates

athtrasna wrote: »

Just to clarify, it's the legal entity comprising all owners whether resident or not. This includes the OP 's landlord.

Sorry my mistake. That's what I meant.

I'm a resident director of a MC and I can assure people that it''s not some kind of resident association power trip.

It's just involves a lot of unpaid work trying to sort things out that other people take for granted: street lighting, bins with no rats in them, pleasant public spaces outside your dorr and other "do gooder" sh_t.

Do people honestly think that MC go after people for the craic? Some of these people owe tens of thousands of euros for years of free services that other people pay for despite having multiple properties in areas that they could discharge them easily if they chose to.

If you owned a shop, would you let people come in and help themselves for free and subsidize the losses out of your own pocket?

quietsailor

anncoates wrote: »

Sorry my mistake. That's what I meant.

I'm a resident director of a MC and I can assure people that it''s not some kind of resident association power trip.

It's just involves a lot of unpaid work trying to sort things out that other people take for granted: street lighting, bins with no rats in them, pleasant public spaces outside your dorr and other "do gooder" sh_t.

Do people honestly think that MC go after people for the craic? Some of these people owe tens of thousands of euros for years of free services that other people pay for despite having multiple properties in areas that they could discharge them easily if they chose to.

If you owned a shop, would you let people come in and help themselves for free and subsidize the losses out of your own pocket?

Have you (as a director) ever worked out a plan with a LL's tenants whereby a portion/all of their rent is paid to the MC to cover fees on a per month basis going forward from this point?

It's no different (IMO) from a tenant getting in a plumber to carry out work the LL refuses to deal with.
The Op's MC can then go after the LL for the fees owing as back debt knowing that future fees are going to be paid

Cyrus

quietsailor wrote: »

Have you (as a director) ever worked out a plan with a LL's tenants whereby a portion/all of their rent is paid to the MC to cover fees on a per month basis going forward from this point?

It's no different (IMO) from a tenant getting in a plumber to carry out work the LL refuses to deal with.
The Op's MC can then go after the LL for the fees owing as back debt knowing that future fees are going to be paid

How can a MC legally divert the rent due to a LL from a tenant? its just not feasible

28064212

quietsailor wrote: »

Have you (as a director) ever worked out a plan with a LL's tenants whereby a portion/all of their rent is paid to the MC to cover fees on a per month basis going forward from this point?

It's no different (IMO) from a tenant getting in a plumber to carry out work the LL refuses to deal with.
The Op's MC can then go after the LL for the fees owing as back debt knowing that future fees are going to be paid

Legally, the tenant owes the landlord. There is no legal right to withhold rent. If a tenant pays a plumber directly, they don't have a legal right to take it out of the rent. They might get away with it, but the landlord could cause trouble if they chose.

quietsailor

Cyrus wrote: »

How can a MC legally divert the rent due to a LL from a tenant? its just not feasible

28064212 wrote: »

Legally, the tenant owes the landlord. There is no legal right to withhold rent. If a tenant pays a plumber directly, they don't have a legal right to take it out of the rent. They might get away with it, but the landlord could cause trouble if they chose.

There has been several instances of advice to tenants on here when the LL isn't fixing problems to send the LL a registered letter outlining that the tenant is going to get he job priced by tradesmen and then pay for it taking the amount out of the rent owing, keeping receipts of course.

I suppose that's what I was asking - is this the same scenario, the LL isn't providing something that was on the lease - services in this case - so why can't the tenant tell the LL they are going to deal with it themselves.

The 2nd question to anncoates (with their director hat on) was would she as a director look favorably on a tenant dealing with them this way, would the MC agree to go forward with fees paid monthly by the tenant and let the tenant stay in the property.

I can't see the LL taking a PRTB case over it as they would look really really badly on a LL causing distress to a tenant and having no utilities or the threat of no utilities will cause distress

Cyrus

quietsailor wrote: »

There has been several instances of advice to tenants on here when the LL isn't fixing problems to send the LL a registered letter outlining that the tenant is going to get he job priced by tradesmen and then pay for it taking the amount out of the rent owing, keeping receipts of course.

I suppose that's what I was asking - is this the same scenario, the LL isn't providing something that was on the lease - services in this case - so why can't the tenant tell the LL they are going to deal with it themselves.

The 2nd question to anncoates (with their director hat on) was would she as a director look favorably on a tenant dealing with them this way, would the MC agree to go forward with fees paid monthly by the tenant and let the tenant stay in the property.

I can't see the LL taking a PRTB case over it as they would look really really badly on a LL causing distress to a tenant and having no utilities or the threat of no utilities will cause distress

You could do that, but the LL has no obligation to accept it, and can just kick you out for not paying rent

anncoates

Maybe somebody that is a director on a smaller development could answer the legal questions as we simply let a management agency deal with fee collection. We do obviously have to authorize their account collection methods like clamping, debt collection and whatever but I've never heard of what's being said about diverting rent.

It sounds legally dubious? I would assume the rent is a private contract between landlord and tenant? Also sounds like a huge pile of work and a logistical nightmare as trying to get payment directly from owners is hard enough.

As for the PRTB getting involved, maybe somebody could contradict me but I doubt they'd go near this as the management company are merely enforcing the terms of a contract signed when the property was purchased and decided by the directors who themselves are elected by the owners at the AGM.

jd

anncoates wrote: »

Maybe somebody that is a director on a smaller development could answer the legal questions as we simply let a management agency deal with fee collection. We do obviously have to authorize their account collection methods like clamping, debt collection and whatever but I've never heard of what's being said about diverting rent.

Management Companies appointed rent receivers in the past but there is a doubt now whether they can legally appoint them
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/killiney-eviction-couple-win-appeal-over-apartment-rents-29190495.html

As said here

Here the decision suggests that for a modest debt, the creditor should have referred the matter to the Sherriff or sought an instalment order or, perhaps, registered a judgment mortgage (when of course there may be no equity available in the premises). It is difficult to see good policy considerations for this approach.

LooksLikeRain

As a director of my MC we had a similar situation recently but without the large arrears. The tenant had been renting for a number of years but the LL got into difficulty and stopped paying the fees. The tenant was unaware of the problem until they got clamped. As directors we agreed to accept the fees from the tenant. This allowed the tenant to stay in the property with parking and other services.
As far as I know, the tenant reduced their fees and informed the landlord of the this while also opening a case with the PRTB on the basis of breach of contract by non provision of services. This allowed the tenant some time before finding an alternative apartment.
This put the onus back on the LL to take action and removes the MC from the situation and allowed to MC to get some income.
This was a short term solution which showed a bit of humanity for a tenant who was caught in the middle of someone elses difficulties.
The tenant has since moved out, a reciever took over the apartment and sold it. The MC blocked the first proposed sale of the apartment due to the unpaid fees, which had accumlated since the tenant moved out. The receiver then paid all the fees and charges before selling the apartment again.

beauf

Seems to me the new LL is doing nothing because they want to evict the tenant and sell the property in a rising market.

By doing nothing and the services being cut off seems to me like an illegal eviction. I would expect the LL could be liable for a big claim from the tenant if this was to happen. Thats the approach I would take with the PRTB, and the LL. I would gathering all the information, letters and material for this now.

It doesn't help the OP with finding something new. Unfortunately.

anncoates

beauf wrote: »

Seems to me the new LL is doing nothing because they want to evict the tenant and sell the property in a rising market.

The MC can stop the sale of the property until fee arrears have been discharged.

kerrygold47

When my old landlord stopped paying there fees for the apartment we were in the management withheld our post ( as it all went to the main office and people had to collect it) and rubbish had to be kept on our balcony till the landlord moved it as the management refused to allow us to leave it outside.
It's an impossible situation to be in.

Lantus

A lot of landlords know full well what they are doing. In my experience there is a high level cohort of unit owners who are experts at avoidance. They do this by refusing to provide their address or any contact details once they move and never answer any mail. They tend to be invisible on social media and even if you track them down using land registry or CRO data (you'd be surprised how many are company directors themselves and have 'holding' companies) the addresses are always filled in to be so ambiguous its almost impossible to tell where they really live. This is done deliberately.

I suspect that there is a group of individuals who are very accustomed to not paying bills even pre 2007 and don't believe they should ever have to pay.

There are units owners in developments near us where they have gone to court and had all but a notional amount of the mortgage written off and they still got to keep the unit! I suspect that this is more widespread in the buy to let, rental market.

The first round of debt judgements against these people is just money wasted as they will ignore them. Often they already have judgements from banks if you get land registry data. It will be the court order to make payments which comes in the 2nd, third round of court battles. Before that you need to undertake a financial review and these are people who can make you believe they are poor to the point of starvation when in fact they are often far from it. On one occasion I found such an owner who claimed he was penny less and could never pay his fees but foolishly went on to brag about buying a unit for 30k cash, having a very expensive tablet and owning several cars. The value systems of these people is geared towards using the system to maximum advantage and not towards honesty or doing the right thing.

beauf

anncoates wrote: »

The MC can stop the sale of the property until fee arrears have been discharged.

Indeed. But its not an issue for the tenant.

The issue for the tenant is if services are turned off. Which could be seen as illegal eviction. The LL might not have considered that.

beauf

Lantus wrote: »

...these are people who can make you believe they are poor to the point of starvation when in fact they are often far from it.
...

The value systems of these people is geared towards using the system to maximum advantage and not towards honesty or doing the right thing.

So very true. its all very much what you can get away with.

mgcf81

OK so the first thing here is that the Management Company really can't do this to you. They have no right to effect your supply of electricity or gas as I assume you are responsible for discharging these accounts in accordance with the terms of the lease.

Your water, again, you are responsible for discharging this account when it comes into effect. To date it has not. Therefore they cannot remove these things from you and to so is an infringement of your rights.

Their issue is with the landlord and they have recourse through the courts where he has failed to settle a bill he has raised with them. You are an unfortunate pawn in this game.

I note advice suggesting you should pay the rent directly to the management company to settle the arrears. Do not do this, you are not entitled to reduce the rental payment without prior agreement with the landlord and further you should not enter into one single negotiation on his/her behalf.

You are now in an 11th hour situation so my advice to you would be this. Get onto who ever has been signing the letters being sent to you first thing in the morning. Explain that you are just a victim here and appeal to their better nature, should they have one. I suspect this will fail so you then tell them you are going to ring Joe Duffy and highlight this matter. You also tell them you are going to go to every red top you can to show how you are being bullied and remind them you have the letters for print media.

The final thing I would suggest to you is this, your lease will say that you are entitled to "quiet enjoyment of the property". You are currently being harassed. It might be worth a chat with An Garda Siochana about it, they might make a call to the management company that would soften their cough quick enough

athtrasna

mgcf81 wrote: »

OK so the first thing here is that the Management Company really can't do this to you. They have no right to effect your supply of electricity or gas as I assume you are responsible for discharging these accounts in accordance with the terms of the lease.

Your water, again, you are responsible for discharging this account when it comes into effect. To date it has not. Therefore they cannot remove these things from you and to so is an infringement of your rights.

Their issue is with the landlord and they have recourse through the courts where he has failed to settle a bill he has raised with them. You are an unfortunate pawn in this game.

I note advice suggesting you should pay the rent directly to the management company to settle the arrears. Do not do this, you are not entitled to reduce the rental payment without prior agreement with the landlord and further you should not enter into one single negotiation on his/her behalf.

You are now in an 11th hour situation so my advice to you would be this. Get onto who ever has been signing the letters being sent to you first thing in the morning. Explain that you are just a victim here and appeal to their better nature, should they have one. I suspect this will fail so you then tell them you are going to ring Joe Duffy and highlight this matter. You also tell them you are going to go to every red top you can to show how you are being bullied and remind them you have the letters for print media.

The final thing I would suggest to you is this, your lease will say that you are entitled to "quiet enjoyment of the property". You are currently being harassed. It might be worth a chat with An Garda Siochana about it, they might make a call to the management company that would soften their cough quick enough

Power, gas and water all access the unit through management company property so they can. People need to stop giving the OP any advice other than the straightforward legal one which is sort this with your landlord. Tbh the story doesn't ring true as it appears they took the removal of the parking space too quietly, why would anyone continue to pay rent when such a big part of the rental is removed?

mgcf81

athtrasna wrote: »

Power, gas and water all access the unit through management company property so they can. People need to stop giving the OP any advice other than the straightforward legal one which is sort this with your landlord. Tbh the story doesn't ring true as it appears they took the removal of the parking space too quietly, why would anyone continue to pay rent when such a big part of the rental is removed?

Access does not grant a right. If the person is discharging their account then this is not something the management company can do. They can enable a utility company to disconnect services for non payment but they cannot choose to cease supply because they feel like it.

The OP has discharged their monies to the landlord in accordance with their agreement and so for a third party to deny them their services is a fraud.

Cyrus

mgcf81 wrote: »

OK so the first thing here is that the Management Company really can't do this to you. They have no right to effect your supply of electricity or gas as I assume you are responsible for discharging these accounts in accordance with the terms of the lease.

Your water, again, you are responsible for discharging this account when it comes into effect. To date it has not. Therefore they cannot remove these things from you and to so is an infringement of your rights.

Their issue is with the landlord and they have recourse through the courts where he has failed to settle a bill he has raised with them. You are an unfortunate pawn in this game.

I note advice suggesting you should pay the rent directly to the management company to settle the arrears. Do not do this, you are not entitled to reduce the rental payment without prior agreement with the landlord and further you should not enter into one single negotiation on his/her behalf.

You are now in an 11th hour situation so my advice to you would be this. Get onto who ever has been signing the letters being sent to you first thing in the morning. Explain that you are just a victim here and appeal to their better nature, should they have one. I suspect this will fail so you then tell them you are going to ring Joe Duffy and highlight this matter. You also tell them you are going to go to every red top you can to show how you are being bullied and remind them you have the letters for print media.

The final thing I would suggest to you is this, your lease will say that you are entitled to "quiet enjoyment of the property". You are currently being harassed. It might be worth a chat with An Garda Siochana about it, they might make a call to the management company that would soften their cough quick enough

Your advice is wrong

athtrasna

mgcf81 wrote: »

Access does not grant a right. If the person is discharging their account then this is not something the management company can do. They can enable a utility company to disconnect services for non payment but they cannot choose to cease supply because they feel like it.

The OP has discharged their monies to the landlord in accordance with their agreement and so for a third party to deny them their services is a fraud.

The landlord is effectively subletting the apartment, the management company is the primary landlord. The landlord will have in their contract with the management company that they can only rent out the apartment as long as they are compliant with the terms of that contract.

The OP is a pawn here for as long as they allow themselves to be. They either stand up to their landlord or they move out. The management company won't act without legal advice. But as I keep saying, this should have happened when the parking space was withdrawn, that it didn't, just doesn't ring true.

28064212

mgcf81 wrote: »

The OP has discharged their monies to the landlord in accordance with their agreement and so for a third party to deny them their services is a fraud.

The management company aren't withdrawing services from the tenant. They don't provide services to the tenant, so how could they withdraw them?

They do provide services to the landlord. The landlord has not paid for those services, so the management company is withdrawing them. This means the landlord can no longer provide services to the tenant. The tenant's problem is with the landlord, not the management company

mgcf81

athtrasna wrote: »

The landlord is effectively subletting the apartment, the management company is the primary landlord. The landlord will have in their contract with the management company that they can only rent out the apartment as long as they are compliant with the terms of that contract.

The OP is a pawn here for as long as they allow themselves to be. They either stand up to their landlord or they move out. The management company won't act without legal advice. But as I keep saying, this should have happened when the parking space was withdrawn, that it didn't, just doesn't ring true.

As long as the landlord holds the mortgage documents or title deed they are not sub-letting. This is misguided.

I agree about the parking space. That should have raised the first red flag. I would have addressed it straight away at that stage. But that said in our apartment there are just spaces in the basement. Those living in the "penthouses" have designated spaces and the number of times I have come home to find someone parked in our two spots is bizarre. Yet NCPS do nothing. However if I didn't have my parking permit displayed I would be clamped quick enough so there is a good chance that the Management company sent out clampers

jd

mgcf81 wrote: »

The OP has discharged their monies to the landlord in accordance with their agreement and so for a third party to deny them their services is a fraud.

In most apartments the water is pumped from water tanks, both (the pumps and tanks) being the property of the management company. If the landlord is not not paying for this service who should pay for it? I'd actually disagree with disconnection of services (electricity/gas) but wouldn't the OMC be within their rights to reduce the water pressure to a minimum.

Just one little point - it seems that the landlord was not paying his mortgage, hence the appointment of the receiver. There are too many landlords treating their property as an ATM, not as a business.

jd

mgcf81 wrote: »

As long as the landlord holds the mortgage documents or title deed they are not sub-letting. This is misguided.

Apartments are held under a long leasehold. Leaseholds have been forfeited in other jurisdictions because of non-payment of service charges.