Private clamping

Pov06

Hi,

Does anyone know if the new private clamping legislation is in place yet?

We are living in a private housing estate and the management company has decided to set up permit parking because the majority of houses haven't paid their management fees.

Management companies have changed 3 times here but it doesn't seem like anyone will ever pay. They do not have enough funding to actually do the work they are supposed to do due to non payment and basically people won't pay because they don't do any work

Is it legal for them to do this? They have basically requested car registration details and now in the permit letters they didn't include a permit for any household that is in arrears (even on a payment plan).

Is what they are doing legal?

Mr. Incognito

I am not sure but seems reasonable thing to do if people refuse to pay fees.

Stheno

Are you saying that you live in a development with management fees to manage the likes of parking and that people who are not paying those fees are not being given a permit, and are being clamped?

Little CuChulainn

The legality of it has not been tested in a court above district level and it is unlikely it will be before new legislation is brought in. Effectively the management are using the clamping to circumvent the civil courts and force payment of arrears. I don't personally think the courts would side with them in this regard, especially seeing as how there is unlikely to be such a punitive measure provided for in the original agreement the apartment owner signed. But until it goes to court we just won't know. Neither will we know what way the courts will side with someone who keeps cutting any clamp off their vehicle.

athtrasna

Stheno wrote: »

Are you saying that you live in a development with management fees to manage the likes of parking and that people who are not paying those fees are not being given a permit, and are being clamped?

The management company is withdrawing services to non paying units by the sound of it. This is not done lightly, sounds like funds are low.

slimjimmc

Pov06 wrote: »

Hi,

Does anyone know if the new private clamping legislation is in place yet?

It's all ready and waiting for the minister to issue commencement order(s). AFAIK this hasn't been done yet so the legislation currently isn't in force.

Pov06

Stheno wrote: »

Are you saying that you live in a development with management fees to manage the likes of parking and that people who are not paying those fees are not being given a permit, and are being clamped?

Parking has nothing to do with the management company. When we bought the house in the residential area the deed listed access to a communal car parking space.

The area has went through a couple of changes in management companies and people stopped paying when very little work was being done.

When we bought the house in 2007 the management fees were €900 per year which covered gardening, rubbish collection, lawn mowing and window cleaning.

Now the charge is €1100 and it only includes rubbish collection and lawn mowing.

There are people with thousands in arrears and they have decided to introduce clamping to make people pay. I don't see how they can take away our right to a car park space which is on the deed because they don't want to spend money on debt collection.

The property manager in the mgmt company wrote to us that we should contact them if we didn't receive a permit and they will set up a payment plan. I sent off €300 via a postal order which leaves me €700 in debt. I contacted her and she accused me of "only sending money in so you can get a permit". Well isn't that the point???

After this conversation and her being so rude we have decided to not pay the fees and if the legislation is not passed I have no problem removing the car off the wheel clamp.

athtrasna

Pov06 wrote: »

Parking has nothing to do with the management company. When we bought the house in the residential area the deed listed access to a communal car parking space.

Access to a communal parking space OWNED by the management company, you park there with their consent. They are now withdrawing consent from non compliant members, as they are most likely to be entitled to do, I know we checked it out in our development. So parking has everything to do with the management company.

Can I suggest you start by digging out your purchase paperwork and reading what you signed up to?

Management fees have been increasing everywhere, you're talking about over eight years. Costs have increased and the lower the payment rate the higher the fees will be for everyone as the management company require day to day funding.

You don't sound happy with the management company, have you attended AGMs? Have you volunteered to act as a company director? That's how you change things, not by threatening to cut off clamps.

Little CuChulainn

athtrasna wrote: »

Access to a communal parking space OWNED by the management company, you park there with their consent. They are now withdrawing consent from non compliant members, as they are most likely to be entitled to do, I know we checked it out in our development. So parking has everything to do with the management company.

Can I suggest you start by digging out your purchase paperwork and reading what you signed up to?

Management fees have been increasing everywhere, you're talking about over eight years. Costs have increased and the lower the payment rate the higher the fees will be for everyone as the management company require day to day funding.

You don't sound happy with the management company, have you attended AGMs? Have you volunteered to act as a company director? That's how you change things, not by threatening to cut off clamps.

Aren't people in arrears generally denied a vote at the AGM? The fact remains that many management companies are using clamping solely to force payment of debts rather than to manage parking.

athtrasna

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Aren't people in arrears generally denied a vote at the AGM? The fact remains that many management companies are using clamping solely to force payment of debts rather than to manage parking.

The OP said they've been there since 2007, they're currently €700 in debt which suggests they haven't always been in debt. Not having a vote doesn't preclude them from attending or having their say.

Pov06

And how do they expect me to pay them when they want to clamp my car so I can't go to work in the morning?

athtrasna

Pov06 wrote: »

And how do they expect me to pay them when they want to clamp my car so I can't go to work in the morning?

That's your problem not theirs. Speaking with my director of management company hat on, getting the money in is the key thing, where the money comes from is an issue for the owners in debt.

MrWalsh

Yeah theyve done this in my development now too.

End result 1 - people are cutting clamps off cars and the Guards are not interested as it is a civil matter.

End result 2 - no outstanding monies were collected as a result of introducing clamping.

End result 3 - a couple of residents are very angry after being clamped incorrectly and want letters sent out telling everyone that they are not in arrears at all.

End result 4 - nothing but bad feeling has come out of it.

Little CuChulainn

MrWalsh wrote: »

Yeah theyve done this in my development now too.

End result 1 - people are cutting clamps off cars and the Guards are not interested as it is a civil matter.

End result 2 - no outstanding monies were collected as a result of introducing clamping.

End result 3 - a couple of residents are very angry after being clamped incorrectly and want letters sent out telling everyone that they are not in arrears at all.

End result 4 - nothing but bad feeling has come out of it.

It can't be a good gig for the clamping company and it only annoys the residents, both those in arrears and those not. In addition, it's clearly not being used merely for parking management because then people in arrears would not be clamped because it is a separate issue.

MrWalsh

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It can't be a good gig for the clamping company and it only annoys the residents, both those in arrears and those not. In addition, it's clearly not being used merely for parking management because then people in arrears would not be clamped because it is a separate issue.

Actually I forgot to mention another end result which is that some people have taken to parking at the entrance to the estate, blocking up the road and area and annoying the residents there instead. Of course this puts everyone in a bad light with the neighbouring houses.

Its a completely ridiculous solution that simply doesnt work - and thats not even getting into the legality (unproven) or morality of clamping peoples cars to enforce payment of unrelated debt - and worse, clamping peoples cars to enforce payment of OTHER peoples unrelated debt (ie, clamping tenants to force landlords to pay up).

I simply cant see how it would stand up in court.

Pov06

MrWalsh wrote: »

Actually I forgot to mention another end result which is that some people have taken to parking at the entrance to the estate, blocking up the road and area and annoying the residents there instead. Of course this puts everyone in a bad light with the neighbouring houses.

Its a completely ridiculous solution that simply doesnt work - and thats not even getting into the legality (unproven) or morality of clamping peoples cars to enforce payment of unrelated debt - and worse, clamping peoples cars to enforce payment of OTHER peoples unrelated debt (ie, clamping tenants to force landlords to pay up).

I simply cant see how it would stand up in court.

The same is happening in our estate now. People are parking on double yellows outside the estate because nobody bothers to clamp them there on the public road :pac:

Victor

Pov06 wrote: »

Management companies have changed 3 times

Do you mean the management agent?

The management company comprise the owners of the units.

On the face of it, all the problems are down to people not paying.

Pov06 wrote: »

Parking has nothing to do with the management company. When we bought the house in the residential area the deed listed access to a communal car parking space.

You also agreed to pay your fees.

Decisions and actions have implications. Not paying your fees, between you and your neighbours, means that fewer services can be used. If you filled-up with petrol for your car, didn't pay, but used it anyway, would you bitch and moan a the staff in the petrol station?

Pov06

Victor wrote: »

Decisions and actions have implications. Not paying your fees, between you and your neighbours, means that fewer services can be used. If you filled-up with petrol for your car, didn't pay, but used it anyway, would you bitch and moan a the staff in the petrol station?

I see where you are coming from but the car park has nothing to do with the management agency.

They currently cover the costs of electricity for lighting, landscaping and bin services. Nothing is done to car parks and nothing should be done to them.

They are just looking for a cheap way to regain their losses instead of going the legal route. What's the point of clamping my car making me late for work if it just means I will have less money to pay them? The costs of removing the clamp goes towards the clamping company anyway.

MrWalsh

Victor wrote: »

On the face of it, all the problems are down to people not paying.

You also agreed to pay your fees.

Decisions and actions have implications. Not paying your fees, between you and your neighbours, means that fewer services can be used. If you filled-up with petrol for your car, didn't pay, but used it anyway, would you bitch and moan a the staff in the petrol station?

If the OP didnt pay their ESB bill the ESB would have no right to come out and clamp his car. Nor does the private clamping company.

Clamping is not and should not ever be considered a proper recourse for collecting unrelated debt.

If the parking is considered a service and the managing agent wishes to remove that service from non payers, then they should install a car parking barrier and only issue fobs to those who are up to date with fees. Or they should follow the proper legal methods of recourse for debt collection.

Clamping someones car is not denial of a service, its a form of extortion. In its current form there is no legislation covering it (leo's proposed legislation isnt law yet and does not go nearly far enough imo), and there is no independent appeals process. So if a mistake is made, tough on the victim. Thuggery plain and simple.

While I agree that management fees need to be paid, clamping is not an appropriate counter measure against those who dont pay and I personally would have no hesitation in removing a clamp myself if I found a private company had clamped me on private property.

ezra_

MrWalsh wrote: »

If the OP didnt pay their ESB bill the ESB would have no right to come out and clamp his car. Nor does the private clamping company.

Clamping is not and should not ever be considered a proper recourse for collecting unrelated debt.

If the parking is considered a service and the managing agent wishes to remove that service from non payers, then they should install a car parking barrier and only issue fobs to those who are up to date with fees. Or they should follow the proper legal methods of recourse for debt collection.

Clamping someones car is not denial of a service, its a form of extortion. In its current form there is no legislation covering it (leo's proposed legislation isnt law yet and does not go nearly far enough imo), and there is no independent appeals process. So if a mistake is made, tough on the victim. Thuggery plain and simple.

While I agree that management fees need to be paid, clamping is not an appropriate counter measure against those who dont pay and I personally would have no hesitation in removing a clamp myself if I found a private company had clamped me on private property.

I think you are missing a point here;

Clamping is not being used to 'extort' money from the OP, it is being employed to prevent individuals, who have been denied use of the car park, from continuing to use the service of the car park. It is a cheaper, and more effective way than a barrier (I've lived in complexes with barriers but no clamping, eventually clamping was been brought in. Every time).

The OP has a choice; don't park his car in the complex or arrange parking off-site, or pay his debts (either through a bullet payment or a meaningful attempt at a regular payment plan.

Personally, I despise clampers. I had to pay them a few hundred quid when I left my parents car in my own spot and then went abroad. However, don't let the reflex action of 'all clampers are b**tards' translate into 'the use of clampers is, in and of itself, a heinous act and therefore wrong'.

The OP might be able to argue (successfully) that the management company have no right to deny access to the carpark, but the fact that they choose to enforce their decision with clamping is moot. Either the decision is valid, in which case the options for the OP are as above, or the decision is invalid and the management company are not able to deny access by any means.

The argument that 'the use of clampers as an enforcement to deny a service is wrong, but the use of other means to achieve the same end is OK' is, quite simply, ridiculous.

ETA - If I fail to pay my ESB bill, two things happen:
My ESB is cut off (my service is denied), this is analogous to clamping and fees associated with release are the penalty you pay for continuing to use a service that you have been denied.

ESB seek recovery of the amount due - it seems the management company haven't gone down this route yet.

The two actions are distinct and do correlate (in part) with the OPs saga.

gaz wac

We voted this into our estate. Yea, people not happy but needed to be done! Funds started to come in to pay towards the upkeep/bills etc which is great. Yea a few people, hack them off but sure that's the clamping comp problem.


Ive spoke with a few people who really are in dire financial problems, we told the agent to go easier on these people, so I think most of the people are happy. Two years in now, we will go until the funds are looking healthy again. Also helps when there is illegal parking from the local GAA club, if their carpark is full, they block the roads in our estate, stopped soon enough when they started getting clamped.

Little CuChulainn

ezra_ wrote: »

I think you are missing a point here;

Clamping is not being used to 'extort' money from the OP, it is being employed to prevent individuals, who have been denied use of the car park, from continuing to use the service of the car park. It is a cheaper, and more effective way than a barrier (I've lived in complexes with barriers but no clamping, eventually clamping was been brought in. Every time).

The OP has a choice; don't park his car in the complex or arrange parking off-site, or pay his debts (either through a bullet payment or a meaningful attempt at a regular payment plan.

Personally, I despise clampers. I had to pay them a few hundred quid when I left my parents car in my own spot and then went abroad. However, don't let the reflex action of 'all clampers are b**tards' translate into 'the use of clampers is, in and of itself, a heinous act and therefore wrong'.

The OP might be able to argue (successfully) that the management company have no right to deny access to the carpark, but the fact that they choose to enforce their decision with clamping is moot. Either the decision is valid, in which case the options for the OP are as above, or the decision is invalid and the management company are not able to deny access by any means.

The argument that 'the use of clampers as an enforcement to deny a service is wrong, but the use of other means to achieve the same end is OK' is, quite simply, ridiculous.

ETA - If I fail to pay my ESB bill, two things happen:
My ESB is cut off (my service is denied), this is analogous to clamping and fees associated with release are the penalty you pay for continuing to use a service that you have been denied.

ESB seek recovery of the amount due - it seems the management company haven't gone down this route yet.

The two actions are distinct and do correlate (in part) with the OPs saga.

But they are using it to extort money from people. Pay up or we'll disable your car. That's basic extortion right there. The management company don't have the right to deny access to the carpark to apartment owners no more than they can change the lock on their front door. It doesn't matter who votes it in. Use of the space is provided for in the deed and is not conditional on paying management fees, at least in any I've seen. The requirement to pay fees is a seperate thing altogether.

As to the ESB example. This isn't the equivalent of ESB cutting off your electricity for not paying the bill. This is more like them cutting off your gas until you pay your electricity bill.

MrWalsh

ezra_ wrote: »

The argument that 'the use of clampers as an enforcement to deny a service is wrong, but the use of other means to achieve the same end is OK' is, quite simply, ridiculous.

This is completely nonsensical.

Clamping a car does not deny access to the service of a carpark, AND it prevents legitimate parking in a space that is now blocked by a clamped car.

Of course it is relevant what means are used as enforcement, would you be ok with someone coming into your home and taking your tv off you until you pay your tv licence or would you rather go through the legal process that exists to enforce payment?

What about other bills? Can the ESB break your legs in order to force to pay up? No. Nor can they put a lock on your front door to prevent you access to the ESB in your home. Thats why the means of enforcement are important. We have moved past medieval times.

I dont think you see what the issue is here.

We have legal methods of debt collection. Clamping is not one of them. We cannot just arbitrarily decide that we can hold onto or prevent usage of peoples private property to force them to pay up on unrelated debts. When it was tested in the courts in the UK it was found to be extortion and if it is ever tested in the courts here it will no doubt go the same way.

ezra_

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

But they are using it to extort money from people. Pay up or we'll disable your car.

MrWalsh wrote: »

This is completely nonsensical.

Clamping a car does not deny access to the service of a carpark, AND it prevents legitimate parking in a space that is now blocked by a clamped car.

This is the root of the issue here:

Clamping is not being used to recover the debt.
If it was, the car would be clamped wherever it was parked, and not released until the debt is paid in full or until the satisfaction of the management company.

Instead, the management agency have stated that if you want to avail of the car park, then you must have no outstanding debt. This is reasonable and (presumably) legitimate.

Nothing is stopping the OP from parking somewhere else. The OP will only get clamped if

• he choses to continue ignoring the management companies request; AND
• he continues to park in the car park of the estate

There is no nexus between the OP and the clamping company that relates to the debts owed to the management agency. He can continue to accrue debts to his hearts content, so long as he keeps his car outside of the estate. This is his choice and in no way can it be considered 'extortion' or 'debt recovery' by clamp.

As to the comment that clamping isn't an effective deterrent? Try it and see. An aggressive APCOA campaign will solve overparking issues within a couple of weeks. The fact that we all detest the clampers, is a testament to their effectiveness.

MrWalsh

ezra_ wrote: »

Instead, the management agency have stated that if you want to avail of the car park, then you must have no outstanding debt. This is reasonable and (presumably) legitimate.

I cant see how this is either reasonable or legitimate?

It is a completely unreasonable solution for a management agent to employ the services of an unregulated company to engage in extortion of homeowners.

Nor is it legitimate. Car parking and management fees are unrelated. Further complicated if the car parking space was provided for in the deeds of the apartment.

Of course until someone tests it in court we will have to agree to disagree but I believe very strongly that a judge would not agree that it is either reasonable or legitimate to engage private unregulated clampers to extort money from homeowners as enforcement for unrelated debt.

And of course it is being employed for debt recovery - no amount of semantics will change the fact that these gurriers operate on a list of non payers. That is the purpose of it - to force people to pay their fees. Extortion in other words.

ezra_

MrWalsh wrote: »

I cant see how this is either reasonable or legitimate?

It is a completely unreasonable solution for a management agent to employ the services of an unregulated company to engage in extortion of homeowners.

Nor is it legitimate. Car parking and management fees are unrelated. Further complicated if the car parking space was provided for in the deeds of the apartment.

Of course until someone tests it in court we will have to agree to disagree but I believe very strongly that a judge would not agree that it is either reasonable or legitimate to engage private unregulated clampers to extort money from homeowners as enforcement for unrelated debt.

And of course it is being employed for debt recovery - no amount of semantics will change the fact that these gurriers operate on a list of non payers. That is the purpose of it - to force people to pay their fees. Extortion in other words.

I think here we have to agree to disagree.

Yes - a consequence of the proposal is that if the OP wishes to continue to park in the estate, he will have to clear his debt.

Is this de facto debt collection? I think it would be a stretch to say yes as;

• He can make other arrangement for parking (next estate, sublet a space in the estate from an apartment with a permit) and continue to ignore his debt
• When he is clamped, the release fee paid is independent of his accruals with the management company. He can keep ignoring them, and keep getting clamped but there is no impact on his underlying debt

While I get the frustration, if people aren't paying their fees and the management agency is able to deny the defaulters the use of the car park, then clamping is valid and legitimate, if a somewhat distasteful option. But the directors would fail in their duties as directors of the company, if they ruled out such options (and therefore allowed the debts to continue to accrue) on the basis of 'it wasn't liked'.

MrWalsh

ezra_ wrote: »

...the management agency is able to deny the defaulters the use of the car park, then clamping is valid and legitimate.

This would never stand in court. The management company do not have any more right to deny use of the car park than they do to deny use of your own apartment.

mahoganygas

An estate in Dublin 15 brought in this clamping recently.

The head of the residents committee got a brick through his window. He resigned from the committee understandably.

The committee still proceeded with getting the clamping company in.

nidge2015

People who pay management fees are shareholders of the actual management company and therefore are not legally obliged to continue payment or face penalty if they are not happy with the services of the management agent.

My suggestion would to call an A.G.M and elect a new board of directors consisting of homeowners whom have a genuine interest in their properties and actually live on the estate, this process is very simple to achieve and can be very productive and cost effective, for example cut out the middle man and take control of the company yourselves.

There will be some legal documents to process as well as registering the newly elected director's with the company registers office.
If someone between yourselves have a legal background this too can save money.

When this particular of the process is complete you can now appoint your own landscape company, litter and bin collection companies and generally appoint your own agreed housing and parking rules, also the local council office are obliged to assist in bringing the estate to a peaceful and happy environment for all concerned.

athtrasna

The management company owns all common areas. They are entitled to restrict access to non fee compliant members.

The OP needs to read their purchase documents and reaffirm what they legally signed up to. Read the articles of association of the management company too. Nobody on here knows the contents of either so in truth we are all just guessing at what we think are the right answers.

Victor

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

But they are using it to extort money from people.

But can you accuse someone of extortion for wanting the money they are legitimately owed?

MrWalsh

Victor wrote: »

But can you accuse someone of extortion for wanting the money they are legitimately owed?

The clampers are extorting the price of removing the clamp.

Pov06

nidge2015 wrote: »

People who pay management fees are shareholders of the actual management company and therefore are not legally obliged to continue payment or face penalty if they are not happy with the services of the management agent.

My suggestion would to call an A.G.M and elect a new board of directors consisting of homeowners whom have a genuine interest in their properties and actually live on the estate, this process is very simple to achieve and can be very productive and cost effective, for example cut out the middle man and take control of the company yourselves.

There will be some legal documents to process as well as registering the newly elected director's with the company registers office.
If someone between yourselves have a legal background this too can save money.

When this particular of the process is complete you can now appoint your own landscape company, litter and bin collection companies and generally appoint your own agreed housing and parking rules, also the local council office are obliged to assist in bringing the estate to a peaceful and happy environment for all concerned.

Where did you find this information? Doesn't sound right, IMO.

And I can assure you - the clamping WAS put in just to get people to pay which was written on the notes of the last AGM. Unfortunately less than 10 people turned up and the ones who turned up have probably paid their fees, have no kids and no real knowledge of how hard it is to pay for everything with minimum wages.

Someone above suggested we should have a "meaningful" attempt at a payment plan. Are you saying paying €300 of a €1000 debt is not meaningful? There are people in this estate with €5000+ in debt.

One of my neighbours was asked to provide details of all income and expenditure they have each week so they can decide an appropriate payment plan. Why should anyone have to tell their neighbours (committee members) what they earn and what they spend it on? It's just not right. I am pretty sure there will be an EGM held soon enough because over 50% of people signed a petition to say that they disagree with this nonsense. The committee members seem like a bunch of power freaks.

When the estate opened up there was a private playground built up. One of the committee members was unhappy with the noise from the kids as his house is close, so they decided to buy some locks at a meeting and lock to the gates of the playground so kids cannot play Same people without kids who haven't a clue...

Pov06

MrWalsh wrote: »

The clampers are extorting the price of removing the clamp.

Exactly. The money doesn't even go to the management company. It goes straight to the pockets of NCPS!

nidge2015

I have first-hand experience in dealing with this situation as becoming a director of the company I am a shareholder in which is the management company of my estate, the company was taken from the hands of an agent and the director's where voted out for failure to attend an A.G.M

In most cases the director's of the initial company turns out to be the developer of the estate and this is fronted by a management agent hiding the fat cat's.

The situation your company is in with its debts could actually be a good thing, if the shareholders called

Del2005

Pov06 wrote: »

When the estate opened up there was a private playground built up. One of the committee members was unhappy with the noise from the kids as his house is close, so they decided to buy some locks at a meeting and lock to the gates of the playground so kids cannot play Same people without kids who haven't a clue...

Do you know how much it costs to insure a playground? If people aren't paying their management fees how can the management company pay out a huge amount for insurance of the playground and not the block insurance, electricity, sinking fund etc. Some people haven't a clue.....

BTW you know by the residents not paying their management fees you run the risk of the company going bankrupt and then the real fun will begin.

Little CuChulainn

Del2005 wrote: »

Do you know how much it costs to insure a playground? If people aren't paying their management fees how can the management company pay out a huge amount for insurance of the playground and not the block insurance, electricity, sinking fund etc. Some people haven't a clue.....

BTW you know by the residents not paying their management fees you run the risk of the company going bankrupt and then the real fun will begin.

So with the playground closed the fees should have gone down due to the massive expense being eliminated. Whats the bet the fees have never gone down?

athtrasna

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

So with the playground closed the fees should have gone down due to the massive expense being eliminated. Whats the bet the fees have never gone down?

It would still need to be insured but probably has a higher excess/lower cover now that it's closed. Insurance for developments is massively expensive and goes up year on year, I wouldn't be sure that money has been saved.

Anyway this is off topic. The op needs to get involved with the management company. Becoming a director is the best way to look after the development and see what can be done about clamping.

nidge2015

There should be no separate insurance policy for a playground, this should be insured on the mandatory public liability insurance that covers all common areas, what is the name of the company and the current agent.

jd

Pov06 wrote: »

When the estate opened up there was a private playground built up. One of the committee members was unhappy with the noise from the kids as his house is close, so they decided to buy some locks at a meeting and lock to the gates of the playground so kids cannot play Same people without kids who haven't a clue...

Do you know for deifinite this was the reason? I've heard of access to roof gardens etc being removed because insurance was cheaper if this was done.

nidge2015

Public liability covers all common areas of the estate including communal gardeners, playgrounds, footpaths, parking areas, access to these can not be restricted to shareholders, as its part of the purchase agreement. The management agent are playing with fire in this case, they have no rights to ammend these rights of shareholders under any circumstances unless it's a threat to public safety and only when it is deemed unsafe by the insurance company. If someone here lives on this estate would like to contact me I would be willing to proxy on their behalf to tackle these rules that are been enforced by the agent.

Paulownia

I imagine that permit parking will have a possible detrimental effect on the value of the houses in the estate. I live on a road with no on street parking and neighbours selling houses have found viewers don't want to live somewhere without adequate parking for visitors on the street

thebiglad

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

So with the playground closed the fees should have gone down due to the massive expense being eliminated. Whats the bet the fees have never gone down?

As a member of the Management Company which every home owner is, you will receive a copy of the accounts with your annual bill - it is very easy to see where the fees are being spent.

if there is something you are not happy about, i.e. cost of insurance then attend an AGM and raise a concern or request to be informed regarding the process for purchasing of insurance.

Better still why not stand to joint the Committee or Board of Directors and provide your time for free trying to run the estate if you think you can add value or do better.

If your estate is still run by the Company created by the builder you definitely to take control!

As was stated by an earlier poster 10 people attend the AGM but everyone in the estate then complains about what is agreed.

Graham

nidge2015 wrote: »

People who pay management fees are shareholders of the actual management company and therefore are not legally obliged to continue payment or face penalty if they are not happy with the services of the management agent.

I'd be curious to see the specific legislation that backs this statement up.

athtrasna

Graham wrote: »

I'd be curious to see the specific legislation that backs this statement up.

There isn't any. The management company hire the management agent, if the members have an issue with the agent it's as simple as callling an EGM if the directors won't make the change.

Members of the management company are contractually obliged to pay fees in accordance with their contract.

Graham

athtrasna wrote: »

Members of the management company are contractually obliged to pay fees in accordance with their contract.

Thanks, that would be my understanding too.

nidge2015

Graham wrote: »

Thanks, that would be my understanding too.

A contract is a two way agreement and in this case both are not adhering to the it, we can all **** around on a forum all day blaming either side, but someone needs to grow a pair of balls and get their ass in gear to step up and take control and get the residents together to resolve this matter, it won't be fixed here I can assure you.. people power is what's needed...

athtrasna

nidge2015 wrote: »

A contract is a two way agreement and in this case both are not adhering to the it, we can all **** around on a forum all day blaming either side, but someone needs to grow a pair of balls and get their ass in gear to step up and take control and get the residents together to resolve this matter, it won't be fixed here I can assure you.. people power is what's needed...

The contract is with the management company and that's who the fees are being paid to, via the agent. I've already posted what to do if you're unhappy with the agent. We replaced ours a few years ago, best thing we ever did.

Little CuChulainn

athtrasna wrote: »

The contract is with the management company and that's who the fees are being paid to, via the agent. I've already posted what to do if you're unhappy with the agent. We replaced ours a few years ago, best thing we ever did.

And what is the usual legal remedy if someone has breached a contract with you? If you ordered something from Argos and it wasn't delivered would you go and board up their shop door?

Graham

nidge2015 wrote: »

A contract is a two way agreement and in this case both are not adhering to the it, we can all **** around on a forum all day blaming either side, but someone needs to grow a pair of balls and get their ass in gear to step up and take control and get the residents together to resolve this matter, it won't be fixed here I can assure you.. people power is what's needed...

Yup. I'll bet you the contract says something along the lines of pay your service charge and you will be provided with certain services by our appointed agents. If you fail to pay then those services may be withdrawn and/or we may make a charge against your property.

As a shareholder you will have a right to vote to replace the management company if you're unhappy.

jd

Graham wrote: »

Yup. I'll bet you the contract says something along the lines of pay your service charge and you will be provided with certain services by our appointed agents. If you fail to pay then those services may be withdrawn and/or we may make a charge against your property.

As a shareholder you will have a right to vote to replace the management company if you're unhappy.

Management company doesn't change - the agent might.