Management company introducing parking fees

banjopaul

Hey all, just looking for some advice on this. I am renting an apartment that comes with a parking space currently, on part 4 and ~1.5 years since signing lease, relevant lease terms below:

There will be one parking space per apartment which will be assigned upon
signing. Each apartment will be given a parking permit. If another space is
required, there will be an extra charge payable.

We recently got a letter saying that they are introducing a €50 a month charge for the space. There is no mention in the lease of charges being possibly introduced. Do they have grounds to do this?

squidgeroo

Yes, this would be agreed by the board of management at the AGM (made up of people who own the properties). Though quite high cost!!! Main reason for the introduction of the parking permit fees is to get people to pay their management fee! - no management fee paid - not entitled to a permit (which is around €12 pa). But this is normally a way to get fees in - it is unusual to pay a high monthly fee for parking on top of this. check with the landlord on this as they should have received the correspondence. There must be a reason for this.

Kings Inns or bust

While I would be dubious of such a measure being legal at the board level that's not really your issue OP. You're contract is with your Landlord - what does your lease say about parking?

Gumbo

banjopaul wrote: »

Hey all, just looking for some advice on this. I am renting an apartment that comes with a parking space currently, on part 4 and ~1.5 years since signing lease, relevant lease terms below:



We recently got a letter saying that they are introducing a €50 a month charge for the space. There is no mention in the lease of charges being possibly introduced. Do they have grounds to do this?

We get one permit as part of our management fee, and ach additional permit is €8 per year. We do live in a housing estate though.

€50 per month is very expensive!

jd

banjopaul wrote: »

Hey all, just looking for some advice on this. I am renting an apartment that comes with a parking space currently, on part 4 and ~1.5 years since signing lease, relevant lease terms below:



We recently got a letter saying that they are introducing a €50 a month charge for the space. There is no mention in the lease of charges being possibly introduced. Do they have grounds to do this?

Be careful of the terminology!
Is it your landlord (letting agent) introducing the parking fee, or is the Owners' Management Company?

I suspect your landlord may be looking at ways to increase the rent by the back door

banjopaul

Sorry I wasn't clear. The apartment is owned and rented by the management company in this case, so the lease is directly with the company. The only mention of parking in the lease is the section included in the first post here.

I would have thought that if the lease included a parking space with no mention of a charge it couldn't then be introduced at a later date.

davo10

Car park spaces are owned my the management company, not the individual owners in most cases. Spaces can be assigned but that doesn't mean they are always free of charge, permits are usually introduced to stop randomers from parking in the car parks and to ensure management fees are paid.

Op, you are still being assigned a space but the management company are now requiring payment, as the tenant, it is your car which is parked there not the landlord's. You might argue that you didn't have to pay for it up to now, but neither did the LL. I suspect it will be a case of either pay it or park somewhere else, the space is still assigned to you but there is now a fee.

4ensic15

You can complain to the RTB about it if the management co is your direct landlord. The RTB will examine the issue and see if it is really a sneak rent increase or not.

Glass fused light

banjopaul wrote: »

Sorry I wasn't clear. The apartment is owned and rented by the management company in this case, so the lease is directly with the company. The only mention of parking in the lease is the section included in the first post here.

I would have thought that if the lease included a parking space with no mention of a charge it couldn't then be introduced at a later date.

So your Landlord issued a lease for Appartment no X and car space Y (with a parking permit) at a fixed inclusive rent per month.


The owner of the building is also the Management Company.
The owner \ management company has decided to add a charge which the Landlord has to pay.
The Landlord is also the owner of the building and the Management Company.

The Landlord has to abide by the law and not increase your rent.
I would say your poor Landlord will have to swallow the cost increase.

banjopaul

The management company is my landlord as mentioned above, there is no separate owner of the apartment.

Thanks for all the replies guys, much appreciated.

Paulw

banjopaul wrote: »

The apartment is owned and rented by the management company in this case, so the lease is directly with the company.

Very unusual for a management company to own property. Most management companies wouldn't have the funds for that, since funds are made up from management fees.

Sounds like a very unusual situation in relation to the property and parking. But, again, parking spaces can be assigned, reassigned and conditions for use of parking can change.

But, your lease states that you have parking, so you should go back to your landlord with that, and if you can't get agreement, lodge an RTB dispute.

68 lost souls

I would argue that this cost is to be covered by the landlord as it states that you are renting the space as part of your lease and they are now having to pay the cat space fee in the same way that they are liable for property tax and not you

Baby01032012

Paulw wrote: »

Very unusual for a management company to own property. Most management companies wouldn't have the funds for that, since funds are made up from management fees.

Sounds like a very unusual situation in relation to the property and parking. But, again, parking spaces can be assigned, reassigned and conditions for use of parking can change.

But, your lease states that you have parking, so you should go back to your landlord with that, and if you can't get agreement, lodge an RTB dispute.

Agree with final two paragraphs, however developer may never have sold the units but instead retains ownership and rents out the units. So the developer/block owner as landlord has introduced a Parking charge. I don't think this is legal under terms of the tenancy agreement.

It confuses things to mention management company because the the usual circumstances where man co is owned by a collective of the individual owners doesn't apply here.

banjopaul

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Agree with final two paragraphs, however developer may never have sold the units but instead retains ownership and rents out the units. So the developer/block owner as landlord has introduced a Parking charge. I don't think this is legal under terms of the tenancy agreement.

It confuses things to mention management company because the the usual circumstances where man co is owned by a collective of the individual owners doesn't apply here.

Apologies, they describe themselves as a property management company. I think technically the property is owned by a holding company which is owned by the same people that own the management company.. but anyway will talk to them and see what happens.

Paulw

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Agree with final two paragraphs, however developer may never have sold the units but instead retains ownership and rents out the units. So the developer/block owner as landlord has introduced a Parking charge.

But, a developer is not the management company. If he retains units, then he may be a member of the management company, with all other unit owners as members too.

banjopaul wrote: »

Apologies, they describe themselves as a property management company. I think technically the property is owned by a holding company which is owned by the same people that own the management company.. but anyway will talk to them and see what happens.

It's still confusing.

Management company - a company made up of all unit owners as members.
Management agent - company employed by management company to run the development on their behalf.
"Property management company" - a letting agent who runs the properties on behalf of an owner (holding company)????

This property management company would have to abide by terms and conditions as set out by the management company.

But, you, as a tenant, have a lease. You have no direct contract with the management company, but conditions they impose may impact on you (such as this parking). Either way, your issue is with your landlord, or this property management company.

Walter2016

I would guess that it is a block owned by one of the REIT companies.

One of them own over 3000 apartments in Dublin, so yes they'd be owners and operators of the management company.

I would assume that as the lease states a parking space is included, then no extra fee is payable - otherwise its a sneaky rent increase.

Kings Inns or bust

It's possible the OMC are renting directly - I know we've offered to do it on repossessed apartments to offset management fees.

I think the OP needs to clarify the situation though - this seems like an odd one.

Incase you're aware OP generally apartments have an Owners Management Company (OMC). You buy an apartment leasehold, you get a share in the OMC. It's possible for KIOB's Property Management to buy an apartment in Boards.ie OMC. KIOB's Property Management are then merely a shareholder in Boards.ie OMC. Are you saying you're renting directly from Boards.ie OMC?

Glass fused light

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

It's possible the OMC are renting directly - I know we've offered to do it on repossessed apartments to offset management fees.

I think the OP needs to clarify the situation though - this seems like an odd one.

Incase you're aware OP generally apartments have an Owners Management Company (OMC). You buy an apartment leasehold, you get a share in the OMC. It's possible for KIOB's Property Management to buy an apartment in Boards.ie OMC. KIOB's Property Management are then merely a shareholder in Boards.ie OMC. Are you saying you're renting directly from Boards.ie OMC?

Will who the landlord is matter in the context of the original contract includes a "free" parking space?
The OP's landlord can't increase the rent for 2 years no matter who they are eg can the landlord write to the OP and say that its decided to add a monthly balcony charge?
So the question should be when was the rent last adjusted?

The_Conductor

We're in the process of doing exactly this at the moment- one parking space per unit (as per the 600 year lease)- and if you want another space- its 50 Euro per month and you *have* to notify the contact details and the registration details for all vehicles to the Management Agent.

If you are allowed one space in your lease- you are allowed this one space. We don't charge extra for that one space. Its the additional spaces- once you go over the one space, that get charged for.

Its a measure to combat some tenants parking improbable numbers of vehicles in the complex for protracted periods of time- to the detriment of those who don't abuse their one parking space. We've had our security cameras blocked with high sided vehicles left for weeks on end by one tenant- which facilitated flytipping (and the robbing of an exhaust system from a Merc M3 legitimately parked by another tenant..........

50 quid per month- for additional vehicles other than the first one which you are legitimately allowed- is cheap going- try getting a quote for parking elsewhere...........

Turtle_

The_Conductor wrote: »

We're in the process of doing exactly this at the moment- one parking space per unit (as per the 600 year lease)- and if you want another space- its 50 Euro per month and you *have* to notify the contact details and the registration details for all vehicles to the Management Agent.

If you are allowed one space in your lease- you are allowed this one space. We don't charge extra for that one space. Its the additional spaces- once you go over the one space, that get charged for.

Its a measure to combat some tenants parking improbable numbers of vehicles in the complex for protracted periods of time- to the detriment of those who don't abuse their one parking space. We've had our security cameras blocked with high sided vehicles left for weeks on end by one tenant- which facilitated flytipping (and the robbing of an exhaust system from a Merc M3 legitimately parked by another tenant..........

50 quid per month- for additional vehicles other than the first one which you are legitimately allowed- is cheap going- try getting a quote for parking elsewhere...........

All of which is irrelevant to the OP who is being charged €600pa for the first space.

The_Conductor

The lease terms he has signed- allow for one space to be assigned per apartment on signing of the lease- and the charge applies to subsequent spaces. Its not clear from the OP's post- that the 50 Euro a month applies to space no. 1- and if it does- if the wording of the lease is as he states- he has legitimate grounds to dispute it (obviously not for subsequent spaces)............

The wording is key to all of this- from what the OP has quoted- they are home and dry.

the groutch

hope OP disputes this, definitely sounds like an attempted rent increase through the back door.

Turtle_

The_Conductor wrote: »

The lease terms he has signed- allow for one space to be assigned per apartment on signing of the lease- and the charge applies to subsequent spaces. Its not clear from the OP's post- that the 50 Euro a month applies to space no. 1- and if it does- if the wording of the lease is as he states- he has legitimate grounds to dispute it (obviously not for subsequent spaces)............

The wording is key to all of this- from what the OP has quoted- they are home and dry.

Yea op mentions that a space is included in the rent, and that a charge is being Introduced for the space.

There's Already a charge for subsequent spaces making it clear that introduction of a charge could only relate to a space not already charged for, I.e. The first space.

Only way to deal with this is dispute it. Space included in rent, now being charged for, either constitutes unilateral change in the terms of the lease, or a rent increase. Op only there 18 months so rent increase can't be legal.

campingcarist

I recently, as a tenant, had a lease agreement which included a clause that any other charges or taxes which are liable by a tenant to be paid by him. I can't remember the exact wording but that was the general gist.

Kings Inns or bust

Glass fused light wrote: »

Will who the landlord is matter in the context of the original contract includes a "free" parking space?
The OP's landlord can't increase the rent for 2 years no matter who they are eg can the landlord write to the OP and say that its decided to add a monthly balcony charge?
So the question should be when was the rent last adjusted?

If it's the OMC themselves and they've made the decision he might have some luck having a chat.

It's not, to my knowledge, yet been tested to see if an ancillary charge in addition to the rent is considered and upwards rent review. Each case is going to turn on it's own facts. This one is fairly easy: What does the lease state about parking? That would be the main issue here.

banjopaul

Walter2016 wrote: »

I would guess that it is a block owned by one of the REIT companies.

One of them own over 3000 apartments in Dublin, so yes they'd be owners and operators of the management company.

I would assume that as the lease states a parking space is included, then no extra fee is payable - otherwise its a sneaky rent increase.

Thanks! Not sure why everyone else is getting so bogged down on technicalities.

banjopaul

Have sent an email disputing this now, thanks everyone.

Turtle_ wrote: »

Yea op mentions that a space is included in the rent, and that a charge is being Introduced for the space.

There's Already a charge for subsequent spaces making it clear that introduction of a charge could only relate to a space not already charged for, I.e. The first space.

Only way to deal with this is dispute it. Space included in rent, now being charged for, either constitutes unilateral change in the terms of the lease, or a rent increase. Op only there 18 months so rent increase can't be legal.

The_Conductor wrote: »

The lease terms he has signed- allow for one space to be assigned per apartment on signing of the lease- and the charge applies to subsequent spaces. Its not clear from the OP's post- that the 50 Euro a month applies to space no. 1- and if it does- if the wording of the lease is as he states- he has legitimate grounds to dispute it (obviously not for subsequent spaces)............

The wording is key to all of this- from what the OP has quoted- they are home and dry.

Yeah just to confirm charge is introduced for first space which has been free for last 18 months.

Kings Inns or bust

banjopaul wrote: »

Thanks! Not sure why everyone else is getting so bogged down on technicalities.

Because of the frequent misuse of colloquial parlance in relation to this subject.

banjopaul

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

This one is fairly easy: What does the lease state about parking? That would be the main issue here.

The only mention of parking in the lease was included in my first post.

laugh

Stick up that part of your lease in a common area, other people might not realise.

Kings Inns or bust

banjopaul wrote: »

The only mention of parking in the lease was included in my first post.

Did you mean lease or head lease? Did you mean property management company or OMC?

You might have it right, which is an infrequent occurrence. It's also relatively unusual to have the OMC and LL be the same entity. In fact I suspect that it is not, it just happens that you've two companies with the same directors.

Incidentally you misused the term holding company to my mind.

I trust that the point is now better explained?

banjopaul

laugh wrote: »

Stick up that part of your lease in a common area, other people might not realise.

Excellent idea. I'll wait for a reply to my email first.

Kings Inns or bust

banjopaul wrote: »

The legitimacy of the introduction of the fee is the same regardless of who was introducing it, that's all I was asking about, so I can't see what the nitpicking is actually achieving here.

It would matter due to privity of contract and the practical issues that would create. I attempted to assist you and I attempted to clarify the situation so I could assist further. You may see that as nit picking, just as I may draw my own conclusion on what sort of fellow you are when people attempt to be helpful, especially ones with a, modest to be sure, legal background and a directorship in what's considered quite a good OMC.

I'll leave you to it so.

laugh

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

It would matter due to privity of contract and the practical issues that would create. I attempted to assist you and I attempted to clarify the situation so I could assist further. You may see that as nit picking, just as I may draw my own conclusion on what sort of fellow you are when people attempt to be helpful, especially ones with a, modest to be sure, legal background and a directorship in what's considered quite a good OMC.

I'll leave you to it so.

In what circumstances would the provision of a parking space with the apartment in his lease agreement be invalid and require payment of the 50 euro a month by him?

jd

banjopaul wrote: »

Thanks! Not sure why everyone else is getting so bogged down on technicalities.

Because it will help us to figure out what is going on.
I'll put it another way, are all the apartments in the complex owned by the same company/person. There is nobody there that owns their own apartment?

banjopaul

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

It would matter due to privity of contract and the practical issues that would create. I attempted to assist you and I attempted to clarify the situation so I could assist further. You may see that as nit picking, just as I may draw my own conclusion on what sort of fellow you are when people attempt to be helpful, especially ones with a, modest to be sure, legal background and a directorship in what's considered quite a good OMC.

I'll leave you to it so.

Are you sure you were a director of quite a good OMC? Just asking because of the frequent misuse of colloquial parlance in relation to this subject. You may have meant a property management company? You might have it right, which is an infrequent occurrence. In fact I suspect that it is not.

Incidentally you misused the term 'helpful' to my mind.


I trust that the point is now better explained?

banjopaul

jd wrote: »

Because it will help us to figure out what is going on.
I'll put it another way, are all the apartments in the complex owned by the same company/person. There is nobody there that owns their own apartment?

Yep!

laugh wrote: »

In what circumstances would the provision of a parking space with the apartment in his lease agreement be invalid and require payment of the 50 euro a month by him?

Thanks, exactly what I was thinking.

Glass fused light

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by banjopaul
The legitimacy of the introduction of the fee is the same regardless of who was introducing it, that's all I was asking about, so I can't see what the nitpicking is actually achieving here. End quote


If it's the OMC themselves and they've made the decision he might have some luck having a chat.

It's not, to my knowledge, yet been tested to see if an ancillary charge in addition to the rent is considered and upwards rent review. Each case is going to turn on it's own facts. This one is fairly easy: What does the lease state about parking? That would be the main issue here.

I agree that if the OP's contract allows that the fee as an ancillary charge it's payable. I was assuming* that the Appartment and 1 space were fundamental to the contract, therefore any charge for the space was a de facto rent increase.

* I think we both agree that I would be wise to saddle that ass before riding:D

OP the legitimacy of the introduction of the fee is not same regardless of who was introducing it.

You have a contract with a landlord and both are bound by it. One of the protections the law provides is that there is now an additional term which only allows the rent increase every 2 years. As this was given to you by a change in the law 'trumps' existing terms about rent changes.

Your landlord has a separate contract with the OMC and both are bound by it. The landlord has no protection if the contract provides that a parking fee can be charged, the landlord has to pay. It just happens that both the landlord and OMC may be the same company.

In your case assuming that the space is fundemental not ancillary it falls under the protection of law, the charge is legitimate and the landlord pays the OMC, but the cash stays in the one bank account and the landlord can't by law pass the charge on to you.

If the space is not covered under the law,the charge is legitimate, but now the landlord passes the charge and money moves from your account to the landlords account.

Edit IMO

jd

Because it will help us to figure out what is going on.
I'll put it another way, are all the apartments in the complex owned by the same company/person. There is nobody there that owns their own apartment?

banjopaul wrote: »

Yep!



.

Ok, so it seems a REIT or similar owns the whole complex and rent out apartments. There is not an OMC as such.
It looks like anarbitrary increase in rent to me, however they term it.

BrokenArrows

I think its pretty clear that your lease includes the apartment and a parking space in exchange for your monthly rent.

If they want to charge 50 per month for parking thats not your problem and you are entitled to the parking space without paying it.

Whoever the landlord is (doesn't matter if its a management company or not) will have to swallow this cost of this 50 per month.

Caliden

These increases or additional charges for services that were free up until now seems to becoming more widespread.

There was a thread a week ago about a management company adding a monthly refuse charge on top of management fees (where it was paid for previously).

That was also for a large apartment building.


Is this a new loophole management companies are using to increase rent while bypassing the 2 year rent freeze?

Baby01032012

Any change in relation to management fees, parking etc. are between the OMC and the unit owner, not between OMC and the tenant. If it so happens that the OMC and the landlord are the same it makes no difference, they can not pass the charge onto the tenant. Especially as the parking space was already mentioned in the lease. The tenant is contracted to pay the rent which includes the provision of a parking space.

Baby01032012

Caliden wrote: »

These increases or additional charges for services that were free up until now seems to becoming more widespread.

There was a thread a week ago about a management company adding a monthly refuse charge on top of management fees (where it was paid for previously).

That was also for a large apartment building.


Is this a new loophole management companies are using to increase rent while bypassing the 2 year rent freeze?

OMC are generally not landlords, they are the collective unit holders. They work for the owners. Refuse charges are becoming much higher so some owners/omc are Charging for this outside the budget. Landlord as with management fees has to pick up the tab. Nothing to do with by passing my two year rule on rent review.

Caliden

Baby01032012 wrote: »

OMC are generally not landlords, they are the collective unit holders. They work for the owners. Refuse charges are becoming much higher so some owners/omc are Charging for this outside the budget. Landlord as with management fees has to pick up the tab. Nothing to do with by passing my two year rule on rent review.

Passing it on as a charge mid lease could be an issue though depending on how the lease is worded.

Baby01032012

Caliden wrote: »

Passing it on as a charge mid lease could be an issue though depending on how the lease is worded.

My point was that they can't pass on to the tenant. Same way they can't pass on repair/ maintenance of the lifts via the management fee. This is a charge on the owner not the tenant. Landlord can of course take it into account for the next valid rent review.

Caliden

Baby01032012 wrote: »

My point was that they can't pass on to the tenant. Same way they can't pass on repair/ maintenance of the lifts via the management fee. This is a charge on the owner not the tenant. Landlord can of course take it into account for the next valid rent review.

Ah ok, my mistake.

Stealthfins

Somebody on the board decided that if everyone pays 50 Euro a month it'll be enough to cover their bad debts such as apartments in Bulgaria and some fictitious island off the coast of Kilkenny.

The powers that be will try and take an extra tenner off every one every week.

That's 520 per year.

The_Conductor

Baby01032012 wrote: »

My point was that they can't pass on to the tenant. Same way they can't pass on repair/ maintenance of the lifts via the management fee. This is a charge on the owner not the tenant. Landlord can of course take it into account for the next valid rent review.

However- in this case- the waters are murkied- by virtue of the fact that the Management Company- is also the Landlord.......... I.e. they are trying to wear a second hat, and impose fees as a Management Company- rather than as a landlord- because they are one and the same.........

Whatever way you look at it- it is an increase by the back door- and tenants should dispute it to the fullest extent possible............

REITs in particular seem to be playing this game- and indeed, are uniquely placed to do so- whether they are allowed get away with it or not- remains to be seen.........

Given the fact that REITs aren't even paying tax here- where regular landlords are- I would argue they deserve significant oversight over and above that of regular landlords- as they are getting away with riding roughshod over everyone- esp. the taxpayers of Ireland...........

Turtle_

The_Conductor wrote: »

Whatever way you look at it- it is an increase by the back door- and tenants should dispute it to the fullest extent possible............

They'll probably argue that they're looking at it the other way - they're just not providing a parking service any more... They'll probably say that the tenants can avoid the extra charge by not availing of a parking space...

Not saying they're right, just that they are likely to claim something similar.

The_Conductor

Turtle_ wrote: »

They'll probably argue that they're looking at it the other way - they're just not providing a parking service any more... They'll probably say that the tenants can avoid the extra charge by not availing of a parking space...

Not saying they're right, just that they are likely to claim something similar.

Good luck with that argument- the lease specifically states there is one space allocated per unit- and you can have additional spaces at a fee, if you require them...... So- it is a dimunition in a contractual agreement- to remove the space- or specify a fee for it- when they only provided for a future fee for additional spaces? If its viewed in this light- it becomes a civil matter between the tenant and the landlord.

ted1

Turtle_ wrote: »

All of which is irrelevant to the OP who is being charged €600pa for the first space.

No he's getting one free the second space is chargeable