Landlord maintenance fee

Shaungoater

So my management company charge 700 per year management fee. This is for building insurance cutting grass etc, I have a duplex apartment in the property. There were some structural problems, facade and roof problems with quite a few properties, (not mine), and as the developers had gone bust it was decided we would all foot the bill to the tune of 1400 each. I paid half of this in 2015, but never saw any work despite assurances that the facade be fixed first, the roof and so on. So I hadn't paid anymore since. Never any letters about it either.

I usually pay my maintenance fee in two lots, one in Feb and another in June. I paid in Feb and got word back it was received. I the paid in June the other half. Last week I got a letter to say that my maintenance fee was still outstanding to be paid by end of August. I told them I had paid. They told me as I still owed for the 1400 so they put the 700 remaining off that. This is without warning and has peed me off big time.

Surely they can't just do this?

Victor

How is this related to a "Landlord maintenance fee" - are you the landlord?

A creditor can assign any funds received from a debtor to any particular debt, unless told otherwise.

The normal reason works can't be done is fees haven't been paid.

Has anyone looked at the developer's finances recently?

The_Conductor

OP- standard practice on receipt of funds- is to apportion it towards the oldest pre-existing debt first, unless explicitly told not to.

Vis-a-vis the Development Company going bankrupt- and you and your neighbours deciding to take things in house and manage it yourself- presumably the management company was extricated from the bust developer intact- i.e. it wasn't bankrupt too, and you just kept going?

You've noted a few issues here- but your post raises more questions than answers with me.

1. 700 wouldn't normally be sufficient to cover building and public liability insurance for a duplex- never mind any other expenses.

2. Simply footing the bill because the developer went bankrupt. Admirable community spirit- however, how does the Management Company feature in all of this? Does it even own the freehold on the properties? Did the Developer transfer the properties into an independent management company?

3. If there is a functional management company- there is an obligation to comply with company law- including presenting accounts to members within 6 months of the closing of the financial year (which isn't necessarily the calendar year) and holding an AGM at least annually. This is the venue at which you have the opportunity to put yourself forward as a director or committee member- and also the venue at which there would be a good explanation given regarding the finances of the management company- and its activities in the previous year- along with agreeing on management charges and activities for the coming year.

4. If you do not have a formal management company- you need to get to a solicitor fully au fait with company law- and get it reconstituted asap- depending on how long ago it was dissolved, or if it was never properly constituted- it can be expensive to reconsitute it. Note- if a Management Company is dissolved, and not reconstituted within 12 years- all its assets then vest in the Minister (for Finance).

You need to gather information, find out about an AGM- etc etc.
Note- in general, while you are a shareholder in the Management Company and entitled to attend the AGM- technically, you are not 'a member in good standing' and thus- may not be entitled to vote at the AGM (it depends on what your articles of association say).

Paying Management Charges- is not a voluntary process- the waters may have been murkied with your one off levy of 1,400 to pay for reconstituting poor construction- but you have to pay your fees, if you want to vote and have a say in how your development is run.

You have a few things to think about there.

Shaungoater

Yes I am the landlord.
The management company do have a yearly agm and accounts published at this. There is a committee formed from this with said directors. The management company were put on charge of collecting fees for maintenance work hence they are collecting this. The management company were organised by the board of directors, everyone owns their properties and builders had pulled off site.
700 does cover this, there are about 40 dwellings with duplex and apartment underneath.

I suppose the fact is I was under the impression I had paid my fees for the year but they were directed elsewhere without my knowledge and I feel it was a cheeky move.

Victor

Shaungoater wrote: »

I suppose the fact is I was under the impression I had paid my fees for the year but they were directed elsewhere without my knowledge and I feel it was a cheeky move.

They will see the non-payment of the other money as a "cheeky move".

Samuel T. Cogley

The OP isn't paying fees in a vacuum though, one assumes he's paying in response to a request for fees. Surely (genuine question) they can't just decide it's going somewhere else.

I'd suggest calling an EGM if the work has not been carried out, you'll need a number of other owners with you, the problem is in many cases people just can't be arsed. Some people don't even go to the AGMs.

Mrs OBumble

Normal commercial practise is to put any money received towards the oldest debt.

The work not having been done could be a cheeky move - you need to find out why this has happened. My guess is that too many people didn't pay.

It's concerning that the sinking fund didn't have enough cash to pay for the work though: if there are apartments then there probably need to be lifts as well, and they are costly.

Victor

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The OP isn't paying fees in a vacuum though, one assumes he's paying in response to a request for fees. Surely (genuine question) they can't just decide it's going somewhere else.

Two things:
* The OP owed the exact same amount (€700) on the repairs surcharge.
* It's public policy that debtors shouldn't be able to willy-nilly age debts so that they could eventually become statute barred. The debtor can of course specify a particular purpose of a payment - this prevents the creditor creating an unauthorised credit line.

Samuel T. Cogley

Thanks Victor noted for future study!

The work wasn't even done, what fool would pay for repair work on their own home that wasn't done yet the op is having money he paid towards his management fee stolen and paid towards repairs that haven't been completed.

If I was the op I would not be letting this drop and not another cent would I pay towards management fees or anything else for that matter until it's all sorted out.

The_Conductor

Devin Kind Market wrote: »

The work wasn't even done, what fool would pay for repair work on their own home that wasn't done yet the op is having money he paid towards his management fee stolen and paid towards repairs that haven't been completed.

If I was the op I would not be letting this drop and not another cent would I pay towards management fees or anything else for that matter until it's all sorted out.

It was an enhanced contribution to a sink fund to pay for essential reparatory work. The OP said it didn't relate to their specific unit- it related to other units on the property- however, obviously as the developer had gone bankrupt and through an artificially low management charge the management company had no or an insufficient sink fund- there was a decision taken to apply a 1,400 charge on all owners to pay for the work in question.

If the work was not undertaken- it is probably because other owners, akin to the OP- either only partially paid it- or more likely didn't pay it at all.

It is a leasehold property in a managed complex- and the OP is paying an artificially low fee- I strongly suspect the management company is illiquid or running at a loss- given the level of fees they're charging- which could be problematic for the Directors, if the company was found to be trading while insolvent.

Moral outrage that the work wasn't done?
The OP, by their own admission, only paid half their share- god only knows how much the other owners paid. I'm sorry- but of course the work wasn't done- if people didn't pay for it to be done.

Normal practice is the Management Company will coral payments due until such time as they have sufficient to do the work, cognisant of the day-to-day running costs of the company.

It would appear, to me, that the outrage should be at all those owners who declined to pay their due fees, alongside the artificially low service charge which hasn't enabled the management company to build up a sufficient sink fund to pay for periodic events such as this.

OP- sink funds, alongside suggested payment levels into them- are dealt with in the MUD Act- it would be appropriate to google it and spend a little time reading it.

The whole idea of being outraged because the work wasn't done? Of course it bloody wasn't done- people didn't pay their due fees- how is the management company supposed to fund activities if/when people decide paying their fees is an optional activity?

Victor

Devin Kind Market wrote: »

The work wasn't even done, what fool would pay for repair work on their own home that wasn't done yet

Ahem.

Shaungoater wrote: »

There were some structural problems, facade and roof problems with quite a few properties, (not mine),

The_Conductor

The_Conductor wrote: »

The whole idea of being outraged because the work wasn't done? Of course it bloody wasn't done- people didn't pay their due fees- how is the management company supposed to fund activities if/when people decide paying their fees is an optional activity?

I'd be looking to the work to be done before I'd pay tbh, same as if it was work on my own house.

The_Conductor

Devin Kind Market wrote: »

I'd be looking to the work to be done before I'd pay tbh, same as if it was work on my own house.

??
The Management Company have to pay to get the work done- when they have the money corralled to do the work. They can't get companies in to do the work- if they can't pay them.

You wouldn't get workers in to do work on your house- if you couldn't afford to pay them- would you?

There is some disconnect here. The Management Company are not some nameless entity- the OP is a member of the management company- and has obligations towards the management company- including, but not limited to, paying any fees or charges the company agree on, from time to time.

It is 100% definitely- not the same as you getting guys in to do work on your house- and paying them when they're done.

This is not how a management company functions. They are managing the development- not just the OP's duplex- and they cannot deal with the OP's duplex in isolation of the development in general.

Shaungoater

While I understand what you are saying conductor, an important point that you are missing I feel is that at the egm we were promised that as soon as x amount was in we would do the first bit of work, then the next batch in the next part completed. None has been completed. If I had seen work being completed I would have no problem. There was not enough money in the sinking fund.

I am also giving rounded figures btw, the maintenance fee per unit is 742 and the fee for work was 1384.

I am annoyed at the fact that money has been distributed elsewhere. Also I found this out last week despite getting confirmation my first payment earlier in the year was received for maintenance and they would expect the second payment later. Suddenly they have received nothing. I don't know any other owners or landlords so don't know have they paid in full.

The_Conductor

I do hear what you're saying- and sympathise to a certain extent- however, as a director of a Management Company- I can virtually guarantee that you were far from the only person to have only partially paid their fee- indeed, if you've been paying the artificially low fee for a few years- loads of people probably didn't pay the sink fund contribution towards the work that needs to be done.

Vis-a-vis the scheduling of the works- this wouldn't be nailed down until a few tenders have been received and the board have entered discussions with the preferred tenderer (who is not necessarily the one who submitted the lowest tender!!!) I.e. a theoretical schedule could be agreed at the AGM- however, the actual implementation will always be subject to agreement with the contractor.

I get what you're saying- you didn't want your annual management charge offset against your agreed sink fund contribution. However- and despite this- please check your lease- you are not a member in good standing, unless you have satisfactorily paid, or entered into an agreement to pay, any monies due- as per the schedule in which they are due.

Vis-a-vis your annual management charge going into your sink fund contribution- this is simply a scheduling- the older debt got satisfied first.

Unfortunately- I strongly suspect the issue here is a significant cohort of the other shareholders in the management company- have been tardy in making their payments to the management company.

The fact that your management fees are set at an artificially low level- is probably the reason the need for a separate lumpsum payment into the sink fund became necessary in the first place. 700 quid is not a normal management charge for a duplex- anywhere in the country. I paid a bill of over 2,500 for a duplex in Galway last week- which was on the high side of normal- but not unusual- and my sis paid her management charge of over 4k in Smithfield at the start of June (also on the high side of normal- hers included parking, refuse and gardening).

If you had been making normal contributions to a sink fund- along with your fellow shareholders- you probably wouldn't have been in the position where the management company had to chase you (and others) for 1,400 for the roof repairs etc. It sounds like you've no sink fund there whatsoever to speak of.

I'm not sure how/why you all agreed to run the management company on a shoestring in the manner in which you've done- and you're running it contrary to the MUD Act- however, there is no penalty for doing so (save, the management company having to chase owners for lumpsums if/when anything actually goes wrong).

You need to implement a prudent sink fund provision in your annual budgets at AGMs- however, in this instance, it is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I understand you're upset- but the simple fact of the matter is- paying your management charges- and the 1,400 for the roof is a management charge- is not an optional activity for someone who buys a leasehold property. You have obligations towards the management company- one of which is to pay fees as agreed, when they come due. You haven't done so. Your neighbours also haven't.

If I were on the board of your Management Company- quite honestly, I'd either be firing off solicitors letters to you and your neighbours, as a first step towards taking legal action- or I'd be officially stepping down- and to be brutally honest, probably the latter.

Del2005

Just to point out to people that €700 isn't an artificially low fee. My complex is well run and has had several major jobs covered by the sinking fund. I live in an apartment above a duplex and my fee is a good bit less while IIRC the duplexs are also less than the OP is paying, I get the accounts but don't pay much attention to how much the other properties are paying. My complexe is all own front door and bins no lifts, electronic gates or underground car parks.

davo10

Shaungoater wrote: »

While I understand what you are saying conductor, an important point that you are missing I feel is that at the egm we were promised that as soon as x amount was in we would do the first bit of work, then the next batch in the next part completed. None has been completed. If I had seen work being completed I would have no problem. There was not enough money in the sinking fund.

I am also giving rounded figures btw, the maintenance fee per unit is 742 and the fee for work was 1384.

I am annoyed at the fact that money has been distributed elsewhere. Also I found this out last week despite getting confirmation my first payment earlier in the year was received for maintenance and they would expect the second payment later. Suddenly they have received nothing. I don't know any other owners or landlords so don't know have they paid in full.

It always amazes me when people who own properties in developments don't understand that they ARE the management company.

If there are structural issues, this effects all properties, not just the ones that have it on the outside of their units. If trying to sell, a good surveyor will spot it and deduce that if it happens on that wall over there, it can happen to this one here.

As others have pointed out, work of any type cannot commence until it can be paid for, no builder would do it, no responsible MC would commission it. You along with others who have not paid, most likely are holding up the job.

Sinking funds for issues like this are not voluntary, under the MUD Act they are a legal requirement.

Shaungoater

davo10 wrote:

If there are structural issues, this effects all properties, not just the ones that have it on the outside of their units. If trying to sell, a good surveyor will spot it and deduce that if it happens on that wall over there, it can happen to this one here.

The structural issues refer to water from the stairs seeping into the apartments underneath

davo10 wrote:

It always amazes me when people who own properties in developments don't understand that they ARE the management company.

I am well aware of this. While talking of the management company I am referring to the outside agency who are looking after the properties

davo10 wrote:

As others have pointed out, work of any type cannot commence until it can be paid for, no builder would do it, no responsible MC would commission it. You along with others who have not paid, most likely are holding up the job.

As previously stated, we were promised the facades would be done first (the quote in was 1500) and this was never completed

davo10 wrote:

Sinking funds for issues like this are not voluntary, under the MUD Act they are a legal requirement.

Okay I know ow this but there wasn't enough in the sinking fund

davo10

Shaungoater wrote: »

The structural issues refer to water from the stairs seeping into the apartments underneath



I am well aware of this. While talking of the management company I am referring to the outside agency who are looking after the properties



As previously stated, we were promised the facades would be done first (the quote in was 1500) and this was never completed



Okay I know ow this but there wasn't enough in the sinking fund

The agency are employed by the company, ie you.

I'm just guessing here, but the reason there isn't enough money in the sinking fund is because certain owners won't pay their dues, happens in every development and it just means that the following year the subs increase to make up the shortfall.

I'd suggest you read your contract, you are required to pay MC fees, your property cannot be sold on without all fees being paid and a lien can be attached to it by the MC.