Apartment Mananagement Co bringing in charges for flimsy bike rack

Shmaav

In my apartment building there is a ground floor car park (rented spaces), bins and some bike racks.

In the past few years there has been an increase in the number of cyclists in the building resulting in an increased demand for bicycle spaces or any space that a bike can be locked to. The management company has taken to putting notices on bikes that are locked up in such a way as they might cause an obstruction, and in some cases has removed those bikes (fair enough). In order to get ones bike back the company states that they must pay a €50 release fee, but some have mentioned calling the Gardai to get the bike back and suddenly the fee disappears...

Recently the company installed a few more bike racks in a space that is too narrow for a car to park in. These bike rack are as flimsy as anything (made from the same tubing as a wardrobe rail). The management company has now decided to place notices on all of the bikes that are not locked to their bike racks, (regardless of whether they are in the way or not, even those parked in their owners parking spaces), stating that they must be removed as there are sufficient bike spaces, and if not removed by the owner they will remove them.

This morning I received a notice that there will now be a charge to use the bike racks. They will remove any bikes not parked in the racks, or bikes that have not paid to use the racks. They also will not accept responsibility for any damage or theft of the bikes from their racks.

I have issue with this as;
- there are still insufficient racks for locking up bikes.
- the racks themselves are not fit for their purpose.
- the company demands that we avail of the service, but do not take responsibility for failure of the service if the bike is stolen or damaged.
- I have personally had a bicycle stolen from the complex from these bike racks in the past and I do not believe that I should have to pay to put my bike in a more vulnerable position.

This all screams scam to me as surely it is already their responsibility to provide these facilities from the (extortionate) management fees they charge the owners?

And surely if they are to provide facilities they must be fit for their purpose, and take responsibility if (when) they do fail?

Maybe I'm just biased but this doesn't seem right to me... It's the principle of the thing more than anything, I wouldn't mind paying if I knew my bike would be safe...

The Hill Billy

Moved to Accommodation & Property.
Not directly relevant to East.

tHB

Paulw

Well, the management company would have no responsibility if your bike was stolen anyway, same as they would have no responsibility if a car was stolen.

Management fees are agreed by unit owners at the company AGM each year. Any charges and facilities are usually voted on by the members. If you have an issue, and you are a unit owner, then take this issue up at the next AGM.

If you are a tenant, then take your issue to your landlord.

There is no scam, since a management company is owned by the unit owners, and does not run for profit. It runs to cover all it's costs.

April 73

I would object to paying extra for using a bike rack. The provision of bike racks should be included in the management company fee. However I don't think the management company is liable for stolen bikes either.
Was this change decided at an AGM of members?

Shmaav

To be fair I didn't hold them responsible the first time my bike was stolen, these things happen, but the fact that they won't let me lock my bike somewhere more secure in the garage bugs me. Would it not be reasonable to think that because a contract would be formed (by having to pay for the bike space) that they should be somewhat responsible for the security of the bikes? Given that the whole point of a rack is to provide a safe place to lock a bike (within reason, I can't imagine many bike racks would withstand an angle grinder)...

I'm a tenant so I don't know if this was brought up in the AGM, I'll check with the landlord and see if it was.

If it's a case that it's fees should cover all of the costs then surely this shouldn't be an extra charge??

Paulw

Shmaav wrote: »

I'm a tenant so I don't know if this was brought up in the AGM, I'll check with the landlord and see if it was.

If it's a case that it's fees should cover all of the costs then surely this shouldn't be an extra charge??

Nope, the management company would not be liable for bikes stolen.

As you are a tenant, then you need to address everything to your landlord.

It is not uncommon for a specific extra charge to be levied for something like this. We have a controlled bike shed, and there is a charge for provision of a key for access. The charge is much more than just the cost of a key.

In relation to your specific development and bike parking, I wouldn't be able to comment since I have no idea how it is done or billed. Again, you should take any concerns to your landlord.

caviardreams

Can you not just leave your bike in your apartment? Not ideal but more secure.

Shmaav

@Paulw
Thanks for your advice, I'll get in touch with the landlord.

@caviardreams
Unfortunately the apartment is a bit on the small side, but absolutely more secure, might be time for a bit of feng sui and McGyver fusion...

athtrasna

We have bike sheds but not racks. Bikes are parked at owners risks. I don't see why owners who don't have bikes should have to subsidise bike users. If you want your bike to be secure surely you should pay for that?

CollyFlower

athtrasna wrote: »

We have bike sheds but not racks. Bikes are parked at owners risks. I don't see why owners who don't have bikes should have to subsidise bike users. If you want your bike to be secure surely you should pay for that?

People living on the ground floor who don't use the lifts have to pay for the maintenance of them in their management fees.... There's a bike shed in my apartment block but an extra charge in management fees has never been applied for the use of it.

ted1

athtrasna wrote: »

We have bike sheds but not racks. Bikes are parked at owners risks. I don't see why owners who don't have bikes should have to subsidise bike users. If you want your bike to be secure surely you should pay for that?

Parking spaces cost a lot more to provide and insure

April 73

There's a certain amount of cross-subsidy that always goes on in multi-unit developments.
Lifts, parking, bike-sheds, painting certain common areas, upkeep of green areas.
If everyone started saying "I never use a lift, why should I pay?", "I don't have a bike, why should I pay?", "I can't see the planted areas from my window, why should I pay?" - it would become impossible to manage costs & administer the management company.
Certain costs should be borne by the company & shared between all owners to provide facilities.
At least in my opinion.

4ensic15

April 73 wrote: »

There's a certain amount of cross-subsidy that always goes on in multi-unit developments.
Lifts, parking, bike-sheds, painting certain common areas, upkeep of green areas.
If everyone started saying "I never use a lift, why should I pay?", "I don't have a bike, why should I pay?", "I can't see the planted areas from my window, why should I pay?" - it would become impossible to manage costs & administer the management company.
Certain costs should be borne by the company & shared between all owners to provide facilities.
At least in my opinion.

There is usually a service charge per assigned parking space. If there is landscaping or gardens everyone has access whether they can see them or not. Management agents are usually behind these schemes to take money from people. They should be reported to the PRA.

April 73

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is usually a service charge per assigned parking space. If there is landscaping or gardens everyone has access whether they can see them or not. Management agents are usually behind these schemes to take money from people. They should be reported to the PRA.

That's a complate generalisation though. Management agents are employed by the management company which is owned by the owners of a development. If you have good owner-directors elected, they don't allow management agents to invent schemes to take money off people.

Paulw

4ensic15 wrote: »

Management agents are usually behind these schemes to take money from people.

Please do explain this. A management agent simply follows the instructions of the management company, which is made up of all unit owners. A budget is set each year, at the AGM, and voted on by the members who bother to show up.

A management company making more money than is budgeted is not very logical. Yes, the extra funds can be added to the sinking fund, but usually the next year the management fees are reduced.

Most management companies want to keep the fees at a decent level, and try to keep them fairly constant, depending on the needs of the development.

Things don't fund themselves - bike parking requires funding for the racks. You either increase management fees, or else you levy/charge for usage. Simple really.

F412

People living in the apartment should be allowed lock their bikes elsewhere if they choose to though once they aren't causing an obstruction and this is not being allowed either.

peter_dublin

F412 wrote: »

People living in the apartment should be allowed lock their bikes elsewhere if they choose to though once they aren't causing an obstruction and this is not being allowed either.

Depends. You don't own the common areas so you can't go keeping your stuff bike included in it. And not everyone likes to see bikes fixed to railings never mind liability if someone tripped over a badly placed bike.

TheDoc

Bike in the apartment sounds like an idea. Assuming its one of the modern bikes that weigh less then a book, should be no problem in storage. Few of my mates have them hanging in their apartments/houses. Racks that you get from Woodies to hang ladders or tools usually does the trick.

From what you have described you've been asked to pay for a service that does not seem fit for purpose, via a consultation you weren't involved in. Would find it hard to stomach paying it myself. Granted I've actively avoided apartment setups like that, for that exact reason. Nonsense fees and charges and from reading this forum and from friends experiencies, just a ridiculous amount of stress and headaches getting **** sorted or done.

athtrasna

TheDoc wrote: »

From what you have described you've been asked to pay for a service that does not seem fit for purpose, via a consultation you weren't involved in. Would find it hard to stomach paying it myself.

The OP is a tenant, and as such has no right to be involved in any decisions made by the management company.