Residents' Association contributions

Mitchel44

My local residents association collects a fee each year to cover the cost of grass cutting for the public green space within the estate. This year the usual letter came out asking for the fee and was accompanied with a separate sheet giving the addresses of all those who paid.
Obviously informing all residents of those who didn't contribute. Is this legal?

godtabh

Did people consent to it?

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Mitchel44

No, no consent was asked for or given.

judeboy101

Fair played to them, too many 181/182 cars in the drives of some of my neighbours who refuse to contribute to our estates keep up.

ANXIOUS

Is an address on its own personal information? What is the identifying personal information?

Mrs OBumble

Mitchel44 wrote: »

No, no consent was asked for or given.

How do you know?

Mitchel44

I'm a resident of the estate! I was not asked if I consented to my address being published on the letter in question, so I am presuming (maybe wrongly) those who did not contribute also did not give consent.

judeboy101

Mitchel44 wrote: »

I'm a resident of the estate! I was not asked if I consented to my address being published on the letter in question, so I am presuming (maybe wrongly) those who did not contribute also did not give consent.

Why are you upset? Surely you should be knocking on your freeloading neighbours doors asking why they are making you pay for beautifying their estate

Mitchel44

I'm not upset in the slightest. I was merely inquiring as to the legality of the letter with the new laws introduced.
Further, I would never knock on a neighbours door, or anyone else's door for that matter begging for money as I do not know their financial status.

sexmag

If you didn't consent to your name and address (personal data) being published and distributed around your estate then this is a breach of the GDPR regulations.

I would make a complaint to the data comissioner and get them fined

sexmag

sexmag wrote: »

If you didn't consent to your name and address (personal data) being published and distributed around your estate then this is a breach of the GDPR regulations.

I would make a complaint to the data comissioner and get them fined

Only the address was published according to the OP- not the name.

Mitchel44

Mitchel44 wrote: »

I'm not upset in the slightest. I was merely inquiring as to the legality of the letter with the new laws introduced.
Further, I would never knock on a neighbours door, or anyone else's door for that matter begging for money as I do not know their financial status.

Well good luck then in terms of keeping your grass in your estate nice and tidy and keeping the estate known as a good estate which in turn, influences the price of the properties in your estate.

I'd be only delighted if some people took it upon themselves to rally the home owners to get the estate looking nice and tidy. I've experienced this in the past and it creates a lovely homely atmosphere where neighbours get to know each other a bit but also, keeps the place looking nice.

sexmag

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well good luck then in terms of keeping your grass in your estate nice and tidy and keeping the estate known as a good estate which in turn, influences the price of the properties in your estate.

I'd be only delighted if some people took it upon themselves to rally the home owners to get the estate looking nice and tidy. I've experienced this in the past and it creates a lovely homely atmosphere where neighbours get to know each other a bit but also, keeps the place looking nice.

As the op maybe some people can't afford the extra expense.

Op my advice is go out one day a month with your lawnmower if you have one and cut some grass in the estate, if not then do some weed cleaning and plant trimming and whatever else you can to keep the place nice and if anyone says anything again say you put your time in instead of your money

anewme

judeboy101 wrote: »

Fair played to them, too many 181/182 cars in the drives of some of my neighbours who refuse to contribute to our estates keep up.

182 won’t be coming till July but I get your point.

We get people trying to not pay for all types of reasons...oh I don’t face a green, no, but little Johnny plays football there at every hands turn.

They were also talking about publishing the address of those who paid, rather than those who didn’t, so there must be something in that.

One woman would not Pay and said she could not afford it but had a family holiday for 3 weeks in Florida.

Ours is 10 per month.

sexmag

anewme wrote: »

One woman would not Pay and said she could not afford it but had a family holiday for 3 weeks in Florida.

Ours is 10 per month.

Could have won it,her family paid for it or saved her ass off.

You can't assume about anything and your post is a bit snobby

sexmag

sexmag wrote: »

As the op maybe some people can't afford the extra expense.

If you're going to have estate cleaning, then the only way from an accounts perspective is be open and honest around what house numbers have paid and which ones didn't.

My past experience of living in a private estate is that people went around door to door and asked people first if they'd be interested and at what cost they would be prepared to contribute. If someone had an issue, I'm sure that could be worked through and an arrangement put in place. The OP hasn't stated that they're short of money.

judeboy101

sexmag wrote: »

anewme wrote: »

One woman would not Pay and said she could not afford it but had a family holiday for 3 weeks in Florida.

Ours is 10 per month.

Could have won it,her family paid for it or saved her ass off.

You can't assume about anything and your post is a bit snobby

I've yet to see a competition for a Florida holiday that one enters without having purchased either a ticket or some form of goods/services. Please direct me to these free competitions immediately.

anewme

sexmag wrote: »

Could have won it,her family paid for it or saved her ass off.

You can't assume about anything and your post is a bit snobby

No she didn’t win it, she told the neighbors how much it was costing her and was boasting about having a private villa and the pool blah blah blah. That’s what pissed ppl off.

I’m not a snob, I work very hard for what I have and am not willing to subside others.

We do nt have a management company and he Residents assoc fees are 10 a Month. The committee are unpaid. I appreciate their work.

sexmag

judeboy101 wrote: »

I've yet to see a competition for a Florida holiday that one enters without having purchased either a ticket or some form of goods/services. Please direct me to these free competitions immediately.

https://competitions.independent.ie/win-two-flights-to-anywhere-on-the-turkish-airline-global-network.html

http://www.enjoyireland.ie/win

Not exactly Florida but it can happen and sure if you won flights to Florida and were cash strapped would you rather the money goes towards your estate fees or your holiday

My point is don't assume

sexmag

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you're going to have estate cleaning, then the only way from an accounts perspective is be open and honest around what house numbers have paid and which ones didn't.

My past experience of living in a private estate is that people went around door to door and asked people first if they'd be interested and at what cost they would be prepared to contribute. If someone had an issue, I'm sure that could be worked through and an arrangement put in place. The OP hasn't stated that they're short of money.

What's wrong with people putting their time on to do the work instead of paying fees?

sexmag

anewme wrote: »

No she didn’t win it, she told the neighbors how much it was costing her and was boasting about having a private villa and the pool blah blah blah. That’s what pissed ppl off.

I’m not a snob, I work very hard for what I have and am not willing to subside others.

We do nt have a management company and he Residents assoc fees are 10 a Month. The committee are unpaid. I appreciate their work.

Part 3 of my first sentence then. Again my other point still stands.

People can.be freeeloaders but not everyone who doesn't pay for something is

anewme

sexmag wrote: »

https://competitions.independent.ie/win-two-flights-to-anywhere-on-the-turkish-airline-global-network.html

http://www.enjoyireland.ie/win

Not exactly Florida but it can happen and sure if you won flights to Florida and were cash strapped would you rather the money goes towards your estate fees or your holiday

My point is don't assume

In this instance the person told her neighbor how much she was Paying.

It was not far short of 8k. But she could not afford 10 a month.

I suppose it’s about priorities.

anewme

sexmag wrote: »

Part 3 of my first sentence then. Again my other point still stands.

People can.be freeeloaders but not everyone who doesn't pay for something is

And of course that’s true.

Others have the same examples of the new car people who can’t afford it.

Our RA had a policy during the crash of not asking people who were out of work. No one minds paying if others can’t, but majority in our area are won’t pay rather than can’t pay.

Incidentally, one man who wasn’t working organized the clean up and gave his time. That’s more than fair enough.

sexmag

anewme wrote: »

In this instance the person told her neighbor how much she was Paying.

It was not far short of 8k. But she could not afford 10 a month.

I suppose it’s about priorities.

Your last sentence is right.

Could be her only holiday in years, still plenty of reasons, I don't know them or their circumstances so won't judge.

I know my experiences and there was a time that 10 euro was my weekly shop for Tesco value food after my mortgage and other expenses were paid. I made it go a long way.

godtabh

judeboy101 wrote: »

Fair played to them, too many 181/182 cars in the drives of some of my neighbours who refuse to contribute to our estates keep up.

Why is it their jobs to contribute to the estates upkeep? If they dont want to they dont have to.

Also bollox on the 182

anewme

godtabh wrote: »

Why is it their jobs to contribute to the estates upkeep? If they dont want to they dont have to.

Also bollox on the 182

Then it goes back to the original question I suppose.?

If you don’t want to pay pay, do you have any comeback legally about being omitted on on a list of house numbers of those who do pay.

sexmag

anewme wrote: »

Then it goes back to the original question I suppose.?

If you don’t pay, do you have any comeback legally about being omitted on on a list of those who do pay.

No provided it's only the address and not personal identifying details but ultimately at the end of the day is it really an issue that its published an address didn't a voluntary pay a fee?

Edit: sorry you said omitted, no you can't argue you weren't put on a list of people who paid when you didn't but again who really cares about being omitted. Anyone who goes through a list to see who didn't pay is a busy body anyway and it won't really have an effect on anyone

Mitchel44

Mitchel44 wrote: »

My local residents association collects a fee each year to cover the cost of grass cutting for the public green space within the estate. This year the usual letter came out asking for the fee and was accompanied with a separate sheet giving the addresses of all those who paid.
Obviously informing all residents of those who didn't contribute. Is this legal?

I like the sound of your residence association, no BS.

Keep it real

anewme

sexmag wrote: »

No provided it's only the address and not personal identifying details but ultimately at the end of the day is it really an issue that its published an address didn't a voluntary pay a fee?

Edit: sorry you said omitted, no you can't argue you weren't put on a list of people who paid when you didn't but again who really cares about being omitted

That’s my point.

I remember our estate did not do this in the end for fear that a genuine case could be included.

Those with brass necks who did not want to pay would not give a crap where they were or were not published, but if there was someone who could not pay, they would be upset have have added necessary stress over it.

sexmag

sexmag wrote: »

What's wrong with people putting their time on to do the work instead of paying fees?

I never said there was anything wrong but you're obviously gunning for a fight here on this thread.

Victor

Interesting parallels to this thread: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=107126189

Publishing a list of those that have paid is safer than publishing a list of those that haven't.

by8auj6csd3ioq

Residents association have no right ot tell anyone how to spend money or label them freeloaders because they do not pay into their association. People are free to spend their money as they wish. Publishing names of thoses who paid indirectly identifies thoses who didn't

EU Data Protection Directive says"personal data" shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('Data Subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity. https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/What-is-Personal-Data-/210.htm

A lot of members of residents associations live in the estate and want it nice but also want money from renters who will move on. They are entitled to want their area nice but not entitled to demand money from people who have less committment to the area. Let them pay and take care of the area outside their own homes. No one is obliged to give to someone else's dream. This indirect publishing is an attempt to bully people into paying. I know of one who demand money but give no information as to how it is spent and

anewme

Clark Millions Flesh wrote: »

Residents association have no right ot tell anyone how to spend money or label them freeloaders because they do not pay into their association. People are free to spend their money as they wish. Publishing names of thoses who paid indirectly identifies thoses who didn't

EU Data Protection Directive says"personal data" shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ('Data Subject'); an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity. https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/What-is-Personal-Data-/210.htm

A lot of members of residents associations live in the estate and want it nice but also want money from renters who will move on. They are entitled to want their area nice but not entitled to demand money from people who have less committment to the area. Let them pay and take care of the area outside their own homes. No one is obliged to give to someone else's dream. This indirect publishing is an attempt to bully people into paying. I know of one who demand money but give no information as to how it is spent and

I think they publish house numbers not names.

Publishing numbers of houses that paid is simply stating a fact. It’s not identifying anyone. I think it’s worded thanks to house numbers ......blah blah blah for their contribution to upkeep of the estate. Now, you’d hardly expect people or house numbers who did not contribute to the upkeep to be thanked, would you. ?

Would it not be the landlord or house owner who pays, not the tenant. The tenant pays their rent to the landlord, it’s up to the landlord for the upkeep of the premises. House in nice well kept area is a better return for a landlord than a scruffy estate.

Lantus

Consent to publish such information which is a physical location and a financial status associated which by default also identifies all of the non payers is most certainly non compliant and I would report to dpo for a breach, especially if I was a non payer as this affects me more.

Name and shame is never a solution to a problem.

by8auj6csd3ioq

@anewme
Thanking those who paid is possibly indirect identification which is covered under data protection.an identifiable person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical, physiological, mental, economic, cultural or social identity. https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/What-is-Personal-Data-/210.htm

RE landlord paying, it is up to them. My point is no one is obliged to give money to an RA just because they ask. No one has the righ to demand money as some of these people do.No one is obliged to pay into a goal they do not share or have to be be insulted because they do not share it i.e saying they are freeloaders. To me a permanent resident demanding money from a renter is the freeloader

by8auj6csd3ioq

{quote]Consent to publish such information which is a physical location and a financial status associated which by default also identifies all of the non payers is most certainly non compliant and I would report to dpo for a breach, especially if I was a non payer as this affects me more.

Name and shame is never a solution to a problem.[/quote] it is possibly indirect identification. It is name and sahme bullying too and i would never give money to anyone who would enage in that behaviour. I would make a complaint to DPC and let them decide

anewme

Lantus wrote: »

Consent to publish such information which is a physical location and a financial status associated which by default also identifies all of the non payers is most certainly non compliant and I would report to dpo for a breach, especially if I was a non payer as this affects me more.

Name and shame is never a solution to a problem.

I’m not sure it is anti compliant.

Thanking house numbers for the upkeep of the estate and not mentioning money is merely stating a fact. We often do it in work, thanks to team A for their contribution to project x. Team b can hardly be disgruntled if they did not contribute to the project and are not thanked. Would this not be similar.?

But it’s a good question. Know a couple of experts on GDPR and privacy so will ask them if I see them during the week.

Squatter

sexmag wrote: »

My point is don't assume

Could have won it,her family paid for it or saved her ass off.

Which is exactly what you did in your earlier reply!

Maybe practice what you preach!

Franz Von Peppercorn

Of course it has nothing to do with the GDPR. Saying who paid only reveals who didn’t pay if you already know who is in house 9, and house 9 wasn’t included. If you don’t know who is house 9, there’s no information about them.

A directive designed to stop Facebook etc. stop pooling advertising information about people is now being bandied about as a impediment to much smaller organisation doing fairly normal stuff.

by8auj6csd3ioq

Of course it has nothing to do with the GDPR.

it would be dpc who decides that if someone complained

anewme

Clark Millions Flesh wrote: »

it would be dpc who decides that if someone complained

What would the complaint be though- a newsletter thanked houses for keeping the estate well and your house was not thanked.

bill66

Does this RA have a registered data keeper, is all the information kept safely, who has access to the information. These are just some of the awkward questions that could arise if someone were to complain about the letter. No one wants this kind of hassle for arranging to cut grass. It could end up costing a lot of time, stress and money. Always err on the side of caution.

by8auj6csd3ioq

About indirect identification. And the DPC would decide. I am not saying it would be upheld, I don't know. The fact that it is thanking people for something they consider positive is of no consequence. It could easily say "we want to thank everyone who paid" but it is really a disguised attempt by freeloaders at bullying by embarrassing people into paying. Maybe the res ass should make a donation to the person with thje 181 car as that is what is important in the car owners world. Maybe the car owner should send around a news letter saying "All of us Smiths at 123 Any Drive, Any Estate wish to thank everyone at 123 Any Drive, Any Estate for paying into the car loan

Sleeper12

Mitchel44 wrote:

I'm a resident of the estate! I was not asked if I consented to my address being published on the letter in question, so I am presuming (maybe wrongly) those who did not contribute also did not give consent.

Are you a member of the association?

bill66

anewme wrote: »

What would the complaint be though- a newsletter thanked houses for keeping the estate well and your house was not thanked.

The complaint is simple. Personal financial information (the fact that I wasn't thanked tells everyone I didn't pay) is kept and was passed to others without my consent by the RA.

anewme

Clark Millions Flesh wrote: »

Maybe the res ass should make a donation to the person with thje 181 car as that is what is important in the car owners world. Maybe the car owner should send around a news letter saying "All of us Smiths at 123 Any Drive, Any Estate wish to thank everyone at 123 Any Drive, Any Estate for paying into the car loan

Just about sums up entitlement culture alright.

anewme

bill66 wrote: »

The complaint is simple. Personal financial information (the fact that I wasn't thanked tells everyone I didn't pay) is kept and was passed to others without my consent by the RA.

It does not mention money though.

You could have contributed by other means, running the bbq, doing the estate clean up etc.

So saying thanks to people for contributing to their community is not illegal.

Sleeper12

Clark Millions Flesh wrote:

{quote]Consent to publish such information which is a physical location and a financial status associated which by default also identifies all of the non payers is most certainly non compliant and I would report to dpo for a breach, especially if I was a non payer as this affects me more.

Providing a list of every address in the estate & marking everyone that pays is not in breach of the regulations.

Even if they named someone that in itself doesn't break the regulations. There is a list of things you have a right to privacy in the regulation. I don't have the list with me but it's views on sexuality, religion, politics etc. I don't think there is anything prohibiting names & addresses of tight wads. Def the address on its own is fine

Tigerandahalf

I find this is going to be a greater issue going forward since councils have pulled out from maintaining estates.

Out of interest who is paying for insurance for the green areas?

https://www.wexfordcoco.ie/planning/building-control/taking-in-charge/apply-to-have-your-estate-taken-in-charge

TheChizler

Does data protection legislation even apply to unincorporated groups like this?