Management company with new tactic

Little CuChulainn

I've seen posts here about management companies introducing clamping or preventing access to carparks for people who are in arrears of their fees but I was speaking to someone recently who has been told that the management company will be changing the locks on the entrance to their apartment block and will not be giving access to people in arrears. This seems tantamount to eviction to me. Has anyone heard of a management company taking that kind of action before?

godtabh

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I've seen posts here about management companies introducing clamping or preventing access to carparks for people who are in arrears of their fees but I was speaking to someone recently who has been told that the management company will be changing the locks on the entrance to their apartment block and will not be giving access to people in arrears. This seems tantamount to eviction to me. Has anyone heard of a management company taking that kind of action before?

they havent touched private property. What's the issue? Pay your fees

Little CuChulainn

godtabh wrote: »

they havent touched private property. What's the issue? Pay your fees

I don't pay fees. I live in a house.

4ensic15

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I've seen posts here about management companies introducing clamping or preventing access to carparks for people who are in arrears of their fees but I was speaking to someone recently who has been told that the management company will be changing the locks on the entrance to their apartment block and will not be giving access to people in arrears. This seems tantamount to eviction to me. Has anyone heard of a management company taking that kind of action before?

Yes. It is quite common.

Kings Inns or bust

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

This seems tantamount to eviction to me. Has anyone heard of a management company taking that kind of action before?

Seems so to me too, has anyone tested it yet?

Gatling

Some management companies brought in electronic key fob entry for apartment blocks if fees are late or in arrears access blocked this mostly effects rental tenants who have no contract with the management company when
It comes to fee's ,
Was always interested to see how it would work in a court situation, tenant denied access to his or her home due to landlord /management fees issues

Kings Inns or bust

Gatling wrote: »

Some management companies brought in electronic key fob entry for apartment blocks if fees are late or in arrears access blocked this mostly effects rental tenants who have no contract with the management company when
It comes to fee's ,
Was always interested to see how it would work in a court situation, tenant denied access to his or her home due to landlord /management fees issues

That one should be pretty easy - tenant recovers from LL.

Little CuChulainn

Gatling wrote: »

Some management companies brought in electronic key fob entry for apartment blocks if fees are late or in arrears access blocked this mostly effects rental tenants who have no contract with the management company when
It comes to fee's ,
Was always interested to see how it would work in a court situation, tenant denied access to his or her home due to landlord /management fees issues

Mostly owner occupiers in the apartments he's in.

godtabh

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I don't pay fees. I live in a house.

that was a general pay your fees as your question was a general one

godtabh

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Mostly owner occupiers in the apartments he's in.

they are lease holders and leave under the lease of the management company.

Little CuChulainn

godtabh wrote: »

that was a general pay your fees as your question was a general one

Of course it was. It was still a useless post though.

godtabh wrote: »

they are lease holders and leave under the lease of the management company.

So you believe it is a completely legitimate and legal act to prevent access to a persons home in order to force payment of the debt? The only legislation I can see is the 2011 Act which states such debts should be dealt with in court.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/2/section/22/enacted/en/html#sec22

Marcusm

Firstly, I think every leaseholder should pay properly levied management charges.

With respect to the proposal, most apartment purchases involve a lease over the actual apartment footprint together with a right of way ("right to pass and repass ") over the common areas of the development. This right of way is a covenant of the freeholder/OMC in the same manner as the payment of properly levied management charges is a covenant of the apartment owner.

However, I cannot believe that there is a development in the state where there is a legal interdependence between these covenants, ie I do not believe that failure to pay management charges gives the OMC the right to deny access to the property or impede it in any way.

It's maddening that despite the proliferation of managed developments and the enactment of the MUD Act that the government has not established an appropriate tribunal to deal with these matters. While management charges can presumably be sued for in the DC or CC, I think breach of the right of way would have to go to HC.

Little CuChulainn

Marcusm wrote: »

Firstly, I think every leaseholder should pay properly levied management charges.

With respect to the proposal, most apartment purchases involve a lease over the actual apartment footprint together with a right of way ("right to pass and repass ") over the common areas of the development. This right of way is a covenant of the freeholder/OMC in the same manner as the payment of properly levied management charges is a covenant of the apartment owner.

However, I cannot believe that there is a development in the state where there is a legal interdependence between these covenants, ie I do not believe that failure to pay management charges gives the OMC the right to deny access to the property or impede it in any way.

It's maddening that despite the proliferation of managed developments and the enactment of the MUD Act that the government has not established an appropriate tribunal to deal with these matters. While management charges can presumably be sued for in the DC or CC, I think breach of the right of way would have to go to HC.

These particular apartments were built just before the downturn. So in the beginning there was large portion of them held by the developer. He used his position to pass his own motions in the management meetings and appointed his own company as management company. They didn't do very much int he way of maintenance so some apartment owners withheld their fees in protest. Eventually the apartments sold and a new management company was retained. This led to a bit of an issue between residents who had paid and those who hadn't. Those who hadn't paid were denied a vote at the management meetings and were not allowed pay for their current years fees without settling arrears first. I'm sure you can imagine how this escalated over the next four years.

The current management company is new again and refusing to deal with anyone in arrears. The only thing they have done since being hired is setting up a clamping system to clamp cars of people who are not up to date on fees. The whole thing is a mess. I told him to sell up and pay the fees and get out. What strikes me as even more dodgy is that they have notified all people in arrears that they will be proceeding to court for recovery of arrears. If this is the case it seems like madness to be engaging in clamping and locking people out of their homes. I'd imagine a judge wouldn't be best pleased with that behaviour. You are asking the court to side with you and award payment while at the same time trying to coerce payment by other means.

4ensic15

Marcusm wrote: »

However, I cannot believe that there is a development in the state where there is a legal interdependence between these covenants, ie I do not believe that failure to pay management charges gives the OMC the right to deny access to the property or impede it in any way.

.

It is provided in all leases that the lessee (Unit owner) complying with his obligation shall have the right of free and uninterrupted passage over the common areas of the development. It follows that if he fails to comply with the covenants then he is no longer entitled to free and uninterrupted passage over the common areas of the development.

In the virtually all cases a unit owner who is not paying service charges won't go to court as the costs may well be greater than the charges and if he can't pay the charges how can he pay for lawyers.
If he can afford the charges he is unlikely to gamble the costs of a case, particularly where he will get little sympathy from the court.

Marcusm

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is provided in all leases that the lessee (Unit owner) complying with his obligation shall have the right of free and uninterrupted passage over the common areas of the development. It follows that if he fails to comply with the covenants then he is no longer entitled to free and uninterrupted passage over the common areas of the development.

In the virtually all cases a unit owner who is not paying service charges won't go to court as the costs may well be greater than the charges and if he can't pay the charges how can he pay for lawyers.
If he can afford the charges he is unlikely to gamble the costs of a case, particularly where he will get little sympathy from the court.

I can state with absolute certainty that your comment on what "all leases" contain cannot be correct. Additionally, I would be shocked that any solicitor liable to a lending institution would knowingly accept such a covenant but then I find the ability of many to be truly lacking!

Marcusm

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is provided in all leases that the lessee (Unit owner) complying with his obligation shall have the right of free and uninterrupted passage over the common areas of the development. It follows that if he fails to comply with the covenants then he is no longer entitled to free and uninterrupted passage over the common areas of the development.

In the virtually all cases a unit owner who is not paying service charges won't go to court as the costs may well be greater than the charges and if he can't pay the charges how can he pay for lawyers.
If he can afford the charges he is unlikely to gamble the costs of a case, particularly where he will get little sympathy from the court.

Until recently, I spent 10 years as a leaseholder in a London development bearing all these hallmarks with one distinction - the developer/freeholder never followed proper procedure and thus found it difficult to enforce charges. Many of us paid without an obligation to do so. The tribunal was of great assistance in the early years in putting proper management in place. In later years, different factions arose amongst the 200 or so leaseholders culminating in 4 further tribunal cases, one of which involved 18 days of oral evidence and countless binders of written evidence- it did not help much that there were resident lawyers on both sides. One of these cases is heading for the court of appeal (I kid you not). Legal fees borne directly by the leaseholders amounted to 750k (after much reductions).

The tribunal approach is not always the best but personally I feel that a properly cobstituted legal process for the recovery of management fees is preferable to coercive action as is contemplated here.

4ensic15

Marcusm wrote: »

I can state with absolute certainty that your comment on what "all leases" contain cannot be correct. Additionally, I would be shocked that any solicitor liable to a lending institution would knowingly accept such a covenant but then I find the ability of many to be truly lacking!

What lease does not allow a unit owner to get to his apartment?
What lease does not oblige the unit owner to comply with his covenants?

4ensic15

Marcusm wrote: »

Until recently, I spent 10 years as a leaseholder in a London development bearing all these hallmarks with one distinction - the developer/freeholder never followed proper procedure and thus found it difficult to enforce charges. Many of us paid without an obligation to do so. The tribunal was of great assistance in the early years in putting proper management in place. In later years, different factions arose amongst the 200 or so leaseholders culminating in 4 further tribunal cases, one of which involved 18 days of oral evidence and countless binders of written evidence- it did not help much that there were resident lawyers on both sides. One of these cases is heading for the court of appeal (I kid you not). Legal fees borne directly by the leaseholders amounted to 750k (after much reductions).

The tribunal approach is not always the best but personally I feel that a properly cobstituted legal process for the recovery of management fees is preferable to coercive action as is contemplated here.

London is in a different jurisdiction. Conveyancing law and practice is different there.

Marcusm

4ensic15 wrote: »

What lease does not allow a unit owner to get to his apartment?
What lease does not oblige the unit owner to comply with his covenants?

I am stating that I do not believe it is possibke to state that they are interdependent; ie I do not believe that "all leases" remove the unitholder's dight of way, which is vital for quiet enjoyment of the leased property, where the unitholder's is in breach of its obligation to pay fees.

The covenants in many, if not most or all cases, will stand independent of each other.

Marcusm

4ensic15 wrote: »

London is in a different jurisdiction. Conveyancing law and practice is different there.

That's as statement of the bleeding obvious. It's a discussion forum into which I am trying to explain experience is a similar if different jurisdiction. I am pointing out that there are other means of enforcing service charges. There is much greater societal experience of service charges in the UK and it s disappointing, if not entirely predictable, that the MUD Act failed to introduce a system which would provide a workable environment for the benefit of all Unitholders.

Fundamentally, coercive tactics such as attempting to remove access is less successful and will regularly lead to less successful outcomes than, for example, easier court orders and enforcement actions (eg bailiffs!).

jd

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

..appointed his own company as management company. ..new management company was retained. ..
The current management company..

Could you please use the correct term ie Management Company and Managing Agent as appropriate!

4ensic15

Marcusm wrote: »

I am stating that I do not believe it is possibke to state that they are interdependent; ie I do not believe that "all leases" remove the unitholder's dight of way, which is vital for quiet enjoyment of the leased property, where the unitholder's is in breach of its obligation to pay fees.

The covenants in many, if not most or all cases, will stand independent of each other.

The covenants are stated that the one complying with his covenants is entitled to the benefits of the others covenants.

Little CuChulainn

jd wrote: »

Could you please use the correct term ie Management Company and Managing Agent as appropriate!

Are you just being pedantic or are you confused about any post in particular?

jd

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Are you just being pedantic or are you confused about any post in particular?

I just hate sloppiness. Are you a legal professional?

Many people are confused about management companies and managing agents.

Marcusm

4ensic15 wrote: »

The covenants are stated that the one complying with his covenants is entitled to the benefits of the others covenants.

In "all leases"? I have not the arrogance to assume I am omniscient. Can you post some examples?

Little CuChulainn

jd wrote: »

I just hate sloppiness. Are you a legal professional?

Many people are confused about management companies and managing agents.

So pedantic then. Management agents are generally known as management companies to most people. And those that know the difference shouldn't really have an issue deciphering my post. But I'll use the correct terms from now if it would make you feel better.

Paulw

There's a very big difference, legally, between management company and management agent. One is appointed, while the other is made up of unit owners.

Not using the correct terms causes even more confusion, especially when it comes to the legal responsibilities.

You don't change management companies, but the management company can change the management agent.

Little CuChulainn

Paulw wrote: »

There's a very big difference, legally, between management company and management agent. One is appointed, while the other is made up of unit owners.

Not using the correct terms causes even more confusion, especially when it comes to the legal responsibilities.

You don't change management companies, but the management company can change the management agent.

Were you confused though or did you know what I meant?

quadrifoglio verde

jd wrote: »

I just hate sloppiness. Are you a legal professional?

Many people are confused about management companies and managing agents.

I agree with you.
I find it quite annoying when someone goes on about how their management company charges high fees and that they're not getting anything in return. Generally followed by management companies are the biggest rip-offs etc
not realising that they're a member of the management company
if they bothered to go to the company meetings, they'd find out why fees where so high in the first place :mad:


Joe duffy got caught out on it a few months back when they were discussing the fees in different developments. He couldn't understand how one management company with a couple of hundred apartments was charging over a grand a year and yes an estate with 40 houses was charging 100 a year and all they were doing was cutting grass. I may have switched him off after that :pac:

Mixing them up leads to confusion

Pat Mustard

Mod note:

This is a reminder to all posters to remain civil at all times, please.