Property Management Companies

DerryRed

I bought a house about 4 months in a courtyard development with a variety of Duplexes and Apartments. Part of the deal was that we have had to pay an annual maintenance fee of €1000.

The builders are now gone the Management company has taken over the running of the development. However it seems to me like they are not pulling their finger out. For example access gates to the underground parking remain broken for 2 weeks and their are loads of issues with parking that need to be resolved - people parking in the wrong places and most annoyingly using up visitor spots.

Now I know that after 1 year we have the right to form our own residents committee and either keep the same maintenance company or get in a new one. My questions is - who does the buck stop with if the current maintenance company are not doing their job? If we have issues with them who do we complain to. Anyone on the boards had a similar experience?

Sarsfield

Depends on your setup to some extent.

The management company is in charge. The property owners own the management company and should have elected directors from amongst it's own. The original property developer may still have directors on the board too.

The management company usually selects a managing agent (such as Wyse or KPM) to do the day-to-day running of the property. If the job is not being done, the directors of the management company should be taking the issues up with the agent.

A problem may occur if the property developers are still on the board as they may not be bothered with the hassle of changing agents.

It's important to get the property developers off the board as soon as possible as their interests aren't always compatible with the interests of the property owners (you).

Do you know who are the directors? They're ultmiately responsible. Get on to them.

MorningStar

THe property section might be the best place for this. Very common problem and I would expect to see your charges going up next year.

dahamsta

OT but do these gates /ever/ work for more than a few months at a time? The gates in my block are permanently open now because they kept going wonky, and the gates in a mate's development just had to be replaced because the old ones kept breaking. It's not rocket science like, it's just electric motors, how come these automation crowds can't get them right?

adam

Dub13

Its just crazy that there are no laws governing Property Management Companies in this country.

Its a scandal.

dahamsta

Dub13 wrote:

Its just crazy that there is no laws governing Property Management Companies in this country.

Surely there are other laws to cover what they do? If there aren't write one and give it to your TD. Seriously, that's how to get things done.

DerryRed

DerryRed wrote:

Now I know that after 1 year we have the right to form our own residents committee and either keep the same maintenance company or get in a new one. My questions is - who does the buck stop with if the current maintenance company are not doing their job? If we have issues with them who do we complain to. Anyone on the boards had a similar experience?

Management Companies are governed by their Memoradnum and Articles and by standard company law. Anyone who feels that the company is not being run properly or is negligent in its duties should use the standard channels available under the Companies Acts such as getting enough people together to call an EGM to address any issue. Your Solicitor will have a copy of the Memorandum and Articles and you should obtain this.

The members of the company, being the unit owners, are the people who control the company through the mechanism of the general meeting. However most contracts will contain a standard term that the initial developers remain on the board of directors until all the units are sold, and thereafter an AGM is held at which the developers resign and are replaced by a board elected by members who attend the meeting. Again, the requirements for all those meetings are as set down in the Companies Acts and the Articles and Memorandum of the management company. So it would also be important to establish whether the first AGM has taken place.

At a practical level of course, it is highly desirable that, after the developers resign, the people who become the directors actually reside in the apartments.

Dub13

Taken from Here

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1497608&issue_id=13207&eid=161346


A STEALTH tax which has forced thousands of homeowners to pay hundreds of euro every year is to be ended immediately.

Some local authorities are making it a condition of planning permission that management companies be formed to administer new private housing estates.

That means annual charges of up to €500 or more to every house, while local authorities skip responsibility for the maintenance of water, lighting, sewage, footpaths and roads.

It now appears that the practice may be unlawful, a position that could result in the forced repayment of millions of euro to the homeowners concerned.

And Environment Minister Dick Roche told the Irish Independent yesterday that the practice appeared to go beyond what was envisaged by the planning acts and could be illegal.

"It angers me that this is happening, and I intend to stamp out the practice," he said.

He said a number of cases had recently come to his attention involving private housing estates.

"It appears to be the local authorities sidestepping their responsibilities," he said. "I am not prepared to see it continue. I will not tolerate this happening."

Making it a condition of planning permission, as some had done, did not appear to be supported by the law.

"It is hard to see what the legal basis for it is," said the Minister, who is awaiting a report on the issue from the Law Reform Commission.

If the practice is found to be illegal, thousands of homeowners could be entitled to have millions of euro in contributions refunded. Mr Roche said this issue would have to be addressed once the legal position was clarified.

STUNNED

He has written to local authorities and asked to see grants of planning permission where the clause stipulating the requirement for a management company applied.

Many householders when buying new semi-detached homes thought the fee was a once-off, only to be stunned to receive a new demand each year. In Brayton Park, Kilcock, the cost to houses was €411 for last year. In Callenders Mill, Celbridge, the annual charge is €520, while Tyrrelstown in West Dublin is also seeing annual charges, albeit on a lower scale. The minister is to contact the County Managers' Association to stop what Independent TD Catherine Murphy insists is an illegal practice.

MorningStar

I love that article. First off I don't see how it is a "stealth tax" where you are sent a letter of notification and your lawyer had to expalin it to you in the sale.It is not exactley a new concept or practice. A lot of houses pay and padi ground rent in a similar vain but they were vastly smaller amounts. I have heard that there are companies going around investigating ground rent terms in Ireland.
Ultimately it is your local council who is doing this so don't vote them back in

bohsboy

Management Companies and management fees have crept into almost all new developments at the moment and are doing basically what they want unchecked.

I bought a two bedroom apartment three years ago in Ongar, fee for year 1 - 400e, year 2 - 800, year 3 - 1200. It is unreal what these people are getting away with. They post up a load of rules on the walls of YOUR apartment block and tell you what you can and cannot do in YOUR home. All the time you are paying this fee. It made me wonder did I in fact actually own my place?

I had to sell my apartment as the thoughts of handing over another grand to useless feckers really pissed me off. I now have a nice front and back garden that I happily tend to for free.

Just my bit, once you hear "management fee" being touted, turn and run.

lomb

bohsboy wrote:

They post up a load of rules on the walls of YOUR apartment block and tell you what you can and cannot do in YOUR home. All the time you are paying this fee. It made me wonder did I in fact actually own my place?
.

no u did not own the place, u took a 900 year etc lease in it, therefore u were merely 'renting' it. this is described by people as taking an 'interest' in a property, u did not own the freehold of it.

lomb

DerryRed wrote:

. Anyone on the boards had a similar experience?

welcome to the land of leaseholds,EVERYONE who buys an apartment experiances what u are experiancing.

bohsboy

bohsboy wrote:

It is unreal what these people are getting away with. They post up a load of rules on the walls of YOUR apartment block and tell you what you can and cannot do in YOUR home. All the time you are paying this fee.

Um, if the management company had held its first AGM, 'these people' are actually you and the other apartment owners. You are the company, if you have a problem raise it at an AGM. If sufficient people have a problem, call an EGM.

bohsboy wrote:

It made me wonder did I in fact actually own my place?

Probably not. As noted above, most apartments are not freehold, but long leases.

bohsboy wrote:

Just my bit, once you hear "management fee" being touted, turn and run.

But there's the rub. If you want an apartment, you get a managment company. An apartment block without one is going to descend into anarchy - who is gonna paint the place, collect rubbish, pay for the lift to be fixed etc. etc.

In fact, very often serviced sites and housing schemes have management companies too, although the annual fee is typically less.

Dub13

I think most people agree they are a necessary evil in apartment blocks,its there fees people have a problem with.

What has people really wound up if they are starting to be applied to houses.Imagen owned your own house and paying a management company to run the estate...Thats what taxes are for.

Plankmonkey

I was forced to pay €900 to my management company when i bought my house. Yes house, not apartment. Since then they refunded me for the bin tax and cable TV as they decided they were not going to manage it after all. They still have about €500 of my money and I cannot see one thing that they have done to improve the estate. Street lights have been broken since i moved in, pot holes on pavements, plants dying etc. They have blocked NTL from coming into the estate because they obviously got a nice brown envelope from SKY. The only thing they do is squirt weed killer every 6 months and mow other peoples lawns (I don't have a lawn). It's infuriating! I have not gotten a bill since (2 years down the line) and they will get a very short reply if they even dare to ask for more money from me! I am a bit worried that I am legally obliged to pay them though. The way I see it is you pay for a service and I ain't getting the service. I'll squirt my own weed killer thank you very much.

Plankmonkey

Plankmonkey wrote:

They still have about €500 of my money and I cannot see one thing that they have done to improve the estate. Street lights have been broken since i moved in, pot holes on pavements, plants dying etc. They have blocked NTL from coming into the estate because they obviously got a nice brown envelope from SKY. The only thing they do is squirt weed killer every 6 months and mow other peoples lawns (I don't have a lawn). It's infuriating! I have not gotten a bill since (2 years down the line) and they will get a very short reply if they even dare to ask for more money from me! I am a bit worried that I am legally obliged to pay them though. The way I see it is you pay for a service and I ain't getting the service. I'll squirt my own weed killer thank you very much.

You're missing the biggest expense of all though. I presume they pay public liability insurance for the common areas, and presumably ESB bills for lighting along with accountants fees for making the annual company returns - thereby keeping the company in existence, enabling them to pay the public liability, and just ensuring that someone who breaks their leg on a common area won't be able to clean you out...

Oh, and if it's in your title you're obliged to pay. And believe me, paying is a lot less painful than not paying, allowing the company go bust, and then having a house with a defect on the title because the management company doesn't exist - not so easy to complete a sale of 'the house that should have had a management company but it was struck off' - although the High Court will reinstate it when all the houseowners pay up large fees for Solicitors and Barristers to do the paperwork...

bohsboy

UM.....There was never any AGM when I lived there. I was the first resident on site and was faced with a wall full of rules as I moved my stuff in. In the three years I lived there I never received any information regarding meetings, AGM's, etc.

Thank God I'm in a house now. As for Ongar? Be very wary.:(

dahamsta

bohsboy wrote:

UM.....There was never any AGM when I lived there.

€100 says there was.

I was the first resident on site and was faced with a wall full of rules as I moved my stuff in.

If there weren't, €100 says you'd be complaining even more about the washing hanging out people's windows, the bicycles scattered around the yard, the crap littering the place. People need rules or they turn into pigs.

In the three years I lived there I never received any information regarding meetings, AGM's, etc.

And you were too lazy to ask about them. Sorry, but that's your fault. Sure, your management company was probably crap, but it's up to YOU to do something about it.

That's why society is gone to sh*t in Ireland. Because people won't get up off their arses and do something about it. All they'll do is whine about everyone else.

adam

bohsboy

Well you obviously have never paid a fee to a management company or else work for one of these establishments.

As for me being too lazy and not getting up of my arse, which you so eloquently put it, my efforts to get any information from my management company from our non existent residents committee proved fruitless as we had none and never had any resident representation. There was never an AGM in three years. Any time I called up regarding fees, charges etc., I was given the "sinking fund" reason.

So, at the end of the day, due to no communication from anyone, I "got up of my arse" and sold the kip. Got a nice profit of 75k and bought a house with my "lazy" earnings.

Yeah, society is gone to ****e with posts like yours.

Plankmonkey

Deleted User wrote:

You're missing the biggest expense of all though. I presume they pay public liability insurance for the common areas, and presumably ESB bills for lighting along with accountants fees for making the annual company returns - thereby keeping the company in existence, enabling them to pay the public liability, and just ensuring that someone who breaks their leg on a common area won't be able to clean you out...

Oh, and if it's in your title you're obliged to pay. And believe me, paying is a lot less painful than not paying, allowing the company go bust, and then having a house with a defect on the title because the management company doesn't exist - not so easy to complete a sale of 'the house that should have had a management company but it was struck off' - although the High Court will reinstate it when all the houseowners pay up large fees for Solicitors and Barristers to do the paperwork...

I found the original letter from the management company. I am indeed paying for ESB to lighting, maintenance of the common area (what common area??), AGM meeting and stationery. Since when do we have to pay the ESB for public lighting? That's the councils job. As for being sued, if someone falls on the pavement whats that got to do with me? They can make a claim with the personal injuy claims (thats probably not what its called, can't think of its name!).

I don't think I'll have any problem selling the house if the management company was struck off, I'm sure it'd be the complete opposite.

What my point is if you take out what is supposed to be the councils job (I use my family home as a reference which doesn't have a management company, they don't pay for the esb or mowing the field at the top of the estate, that's the county councils job) then what exactly is the point of a management company for a house? I can understand why an apartment needs it, they don't own the building and have to pay to maintain it.

Sponge Bob

Plankmonkey wrote:

What my point is if you take out what is supposed to be the councils job (I use my family home as a reference which doesn't have a management company, they don't pay for the esb or mowing the field at the top of the estate, that's the county councils job) then what exactly is the point of a management company for a house? I can understand why an apartment needs it, they don't own the building and have to pay to maintain it.

A new housing estate goes into limbo for 5-10 years . During that time a management company is the best way to deal with the issues involved.

After 5-10 years, assuming all is well and that the estate is in good nick the Council will 'take it in charge' . Once taken in charge the council maintains footpaths and lights and mowing the grass

If it is pothole heaven they expect the developer / management company to fix it first .

HTH

dahamsta

It's private property. It has nothing to do with the council. (Until, as SB has rightly pointed out, it passes over to the council. Is it really only five years SB? I thought it was until contracts expire / ten years minimum.)

adam

Plankmonkey

Ken Shabby wrote:

It's private property. It has nothing to do with the council. (Until, as SB has rightly pointed out, it passes over to the council. Is it really only five years SB? I thought it was until contracts expire / ten years minimum.)

adam

The article posted earlier disagrees with this. It's the local authorities job to look after sewage, water, electricity, roads, pavements. In my case this leaves nothing for the manangement company to do. They don't even look after our bins or cable TV (although they still have the cheek to block NTL from coming in).

A new housing estate goes into limbo for 5-10 years . During that time a management company is the best way to deal with the issues involved.

After 5-10 years, assuming all is well and that the estate is in good nick the Council will 'take it in charge' . Once taken in charge the council maintains footpaths and lights and mowing the grass

If it is pothole heaven they expect the developer / management company to fix it first

Thats fair enough, but again whats it got to do with me. If the estate is in bad nick I agree the development company should fix it up, the same way they do a snag list for the houses. But I still fail to see why I should pay €500 for this.

MorningStar

Plankmonkey wrote:

Thats fair enough, but again whats it got to do with me. If the estate is in bad nick I agree the development company should fix it up, the same way they do a snag list for the houses. But I still fail to see why I should pay

dahamsta

It's like this Plankmonkey: If you didn't want to pay management fees, you shouldn't have moved into a development that has them. You'll find it very difficult to find one that doesn't these days, but no doubt they exist. However, as MorningStar said, you signed the contract, if you weren't aware of it, that's your own fault for not reading it properly.

Sorry, what people are saying might sound harsh, but that's the be all and end all to it.

adam

Plankmonkey

Ken Shabby wrote:

It's like this Plankmonkey: If you didn't want to pay management fees, you shouldn't have moved into a development that has them. You'll find it very difficult to find one that doesn't these days, but no doubt they exist. However, as MorningStar said, you signed the contract, if you weren't aware of it, that's your own fault for not reading it properly.

Sorry, what people are saying might sound harsh, but that's the be all and end all to it.

adam

I knew exactly what I was sigining and voiced my concerns to the solicitor. His answer was if you don't sign you don't get the house, simple as that. I don't know if you've read the artice earlier in this post from the Irish Independent but it points out that this is actually illegal and people could be entitled to their money back.

I know the harsh reality and it's not the be all and end all.

MorningStar

Plankmonkey wrote:

I knew exactly what I was sigining and voiced my concerns to the solicitor. His answer was if you don't sign you don't get the house, simple as that. I don't know if you've read the artice earlier in this post from the Irish Independent but it points out that this is actually illegal and people could be entitled to their money back.

I know the harsh reality and it's not the be all and end all.

THe point is as part of buying your house you had additional conditions. They came together it wasn't you would loose the house if you didn't sign but the house came that way plain and simple.
The article only suggests it may be illegal from a certain prospective. It will probably be prevented in the future but right now it is your problem.
The reality of what you did is the be all and end all. It is a bit like complaining about and intrest rate on credit card after you have a debt on it.

Plankmonkey

MorningStar wrote:

THe point is as part of buying your house you had additional conditions. They came together it wasn't you would loose the house if you didn't sign but the house came that way plain and simple.

Yes and I signed it. These conditions may be illegal. In no way is it the be all and end all. I certainly won't be paying anymore money, and neither will my neighbours and the management company know they have a fight on their hands already.

MorningStar wrote:

It will probably be prevented in the future but right now it is your problem.

If it is indeed deemed to be illegal I will be getting my money back. Are you saying lets let them away wirth what they've done so far and from now on we'll stop them? That's not how the law works. If its illegal, its illegal for everyone who matches the criteria, past, present and future.[/QUOTE]

MorningStar wrote:

The reality of what you did is the be all and end all. It is a bit like complaining about and intrest rate on credit card after you have a debt on it.

There's a bit of a difference in sigining up for a credit card and buying a house! If i'm not happy with my credit card I'll cancel it. I'm not going to miss out on owning my dream house because of €500 but I am going to stand my ground and fight any additional charges or yearly charges.

The "if you're not happy then don't sign it" is not a very strong argument. If its illegal then its illegal, that is the be all and end all as far as I'm concerned.

MorningStar

Plankmonkey wrote:

Yes and I signed it. These conditions may be illegal. In no way is it the be all and end all. I certainly won't be paying anymore money, and neither will my neighbours and the management company know they have a fight on their hands already.

Well that would be an extremely stupid action. THe management company are managing your property. If your property (paths,park,lights etc...) is bankrupt you are liable and can't seel your house. If somebody crashes because your street lights aren't on they can sue you as group. No solicitor would tell you not to pay. THere are appartment blocks without any insurance and if there was a fire there is no recourse.

Plankmonkey wrote:

If it is indeed deemed to be illegal I will be getting my money back. Are you saying lets let them away wirth what they've done so far and from now on we'll stop them? That's not how the law works. If its illegal, its illegal for everyone who matches the criteria, past, present and future.

The illegal acts are not the management companies but the local councils. The management company are still paying for insurance and maintenance on your behalf. The likely hood of the local council paying back this money is very remote.

Plankmonkey wrote:

There's a bit of a difference in sigining up for a credit card and buying a house! If i'm not happy with my credit card I'll cancel it. I'm not going to miss out on owning my dream house because of €500 but I am going to stand my ground and fight any additional charges or yearly charges.

The "if you're not happy then don't sign it" is not a very strong argument. If its illegal then its illegal, that is the be all and end all as far as I'm concerned.

The point is it isn't and wasn't €500 and you were told that and if you weren't your solicitor was at fault.
You are blaming the problem on the wrong people and not dealing with the correct people. Not paying the money is the absolute worst idea.

Plankmonkey

MorningStar wrote:

Not paying the money is the absolute worst idea.

I'm not liable for someone triping on the footpath that's a ridiculous statement. And If they trip in my driveway then I have my own insurance to cover that, I don't need to pay a management company to take care of it. The fecking lights don't work anyway so they certainly haven't been putting my money to good use.

How am I blaming the wrong people? Sure, its not the managements company's fault that the council won't pay for electricity etc but its the management company demanding money and its the management company that I have the problem with. If the council are supposed to be paying the esb etc then someone needs to sort them out, don't come knocking on my door looking for money and calling it a solution and my legal obligation....I don't give a monkeys what I've signed.

MorningStar

Plankmonkey wrote:

I'm not liable for someone triping on the footpath that's a ridiculous statement. And If they trip in my driveway then I have my own insurance to cover that, I don't need to pay a management company to take care of it. The fecking lights don't work anyway so they certainly haven't been putting my money to good use.

How am I blaming the wrong people? Sure, its not the managements company's fault that the council won't pay for electricity etc but its the management company demanding money and its the management company that I have the problem with. If the council are supposed to be paying the esb etc then someone needs to sort them out, don't come knocking on my door looking for money and calling it a solution and my legal obligation....I don't give a monkeys what I've signed.

I can completely understand you don't believe me but have you checked it out with a solicitor? There was a radio show all about the legal problems with people not paying the maintenace charges. You are liable according to the experts there. A broken bottle on your road and a kid cuts their hand on it you are liable as a group.
You can't sell your house if you haven't paid the outstanding debt owed to the maintainece company.
Leaglly the council may in the future have to provide this service but right now legally you as a group are liable for all expenses.
You may not think or care you are legally liable one way or the other you are, you don't get to choose

Sponge Bob

Ken Shabby wrote:

You'll find it very difficult to find one that doesn't these days, but no doubt they exist.

I bought a semi to live in on a new estate in 1995, we (residents) all chipped in (initially) £50 a year to mow the lawns/landscape and make it look nice , this was in an ad hoc fund . The builder fixed drains and lights as and when .

Nowadays there is a rather expensive company to do all of this kinda stuff. The council took it in charge about 2001 and never called in the completion bond either ...the completion bond is there in case the builder legs it and the council has to finish the estate off and repair it as it takes it in charge.

dahamsta

Out of curiousity, are there any plain english guides out there on this kind of stuff, notably handoffs to councils?

adam

Sponge Bob

Ken Shabby wrote:

Out of curiousity, are there any plain english guides out there on this kind of stuff, notably handoffs to councils?

No , you chat to people in 3-5 year old estates and find out that way, you can also talk to the local councillors who do know what the local norms are...some councils will wait 5 years ...others 10.

Council does everything after they "Take In Charge" which is a legalish administrative term. "Handoff" is a sort of ..ummmm ..techie term innit. I assume the bond length indicates it, if its a 10 year completion bond they will wait that long I would say...your solicitor should be able to tell you that or see the original planning file.

Plankmonkey

Plankmonkey wrote:

I am indeed paying for ESB to lighting, maintenance of the common area (what common area??), AGM meeting and stationery. Since when do we have to pay the ESB for public lighting? That's the councils job. As for being sued, if someone falls on the pavement whats that got to do with me? They can make a claim with the personal injuy claims (thats probably not what its called, can't think of its name!).

Where do I start.

You say there is no common areas? So do you all have your own individual roads in and out? You mean, you really cannot think of one area that's used in common with other owners?

The ESB must get paid for the service full stop. It's only up to the Council when they take something in charge. If you weren't advised that when you signed up, that's your problem, not the ESB's or the Council's. It's the real world, bills must get paid, and incorrectly assuming that it's the Council's responsibility was your own error.

If someone falls on land that's owned by another, they can sue that other person for negligence - whether they are successful or not of course depends on the facts. Just be glad that the common areas are not in the names of you and the other house owners, and that a management company exists to protect you from liability.

Plankmonkey wrote:

I don't think I'll have any problem selling the house if the management company was struck off, I'm sure it'd be the complete opposite.

You think wrong. You might have no problems, but the Solicitor for any Purchaser most certainly will, and that kinda puts a dampener on things, especially if he insists on your Solicitor withholding funds pending reinstatement of the management company.

Plankmonkey wrote:

What my point is if you take out what is supposed to be the councils job

It is only the 'council's job' when they take over responsibility for it. I don't think they have responsibliity to pick up the pieces for every developer and simply stretch their budget to cover yet another estate or development. And it takes years for the Council to take something over. They can hardly pay for the existing roads as it is. Would you rather pay rates or higher taxes then, because I would object to paying either to fund people's incorrect assumptions about what they were buying...

Plankmonkey

Deleted User wrote:

I would object to paying either to fund people's incorrect assumptions about what they were buying...

Firstly, I'm not assuming anything. Secondly, my "management" company are not managing anything, unless you call spraying weed killer every six months management.

OK I get you on the being sued bit but are you telling me I must pay €500+ a year just in case someone hurts themselves on the estate? Do I get my money back once it is handed over to the council and nobody has been sued? Fat chance. Is my money going into a collective kitty that is used to pay towards a ridiculously monstrous insurance premium? No it's not.

You say I have signed up for a management company and I must live with it, I'm saying I want something for my money. Your (plural I don't just mean Conor74) attitude is typically Irish, there's a thread somewhere here about how Irish people never complain. I think I'll go join that I'm done here....

dahamsta

You /have/ to have a management company. The only exception is if you and the rest of the residents decide to manage these operations yourselves, in which case - unless you and they are silly enough not to incorporate - you and the residents become the management company. It's a Catch 22: You /have/ to have a management company.

Either way, the management company is employed by the residents. If the management company isn't doing their job, someone has to organise the residents to either get them to live up to their contract, or replace them. Perhaps I'm reading you wrong but what you're doing here looks suspiciously like the behaviour you're pointing to: Complaining to everyone but the people that matter; complaining but not doing.

adam

Plankmonkey

Ken Shabby wrote:

Perhaps I'm reading you wrong but what you're doing here looks suspiciously like the behaviour you're pointing to: Complaining to everyone but the people that matter; complaining but not doing.

I complain to the people that matter. This is a discussion board, I'm trying to argue a point I'm not complaining to everyone.

You don't /Have/ to pay a yearly fee to a management company. I have wandered a bit in responding to other people but this is my argument.

I'll post the original link posted by Dub13 for those of you who have clearly not read it:

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independe...207&eid=161346

You all seem to know better than the minister himself. My original argument, which is still my argument even though I may have wandered a bit, is that these charges may indeed be illegal. But hey you all seem to know better.

Plankmonkey

Plankmonkey wrote:

Secondly, my "management" company are not managing anything, unless you call spraying weed killer every six months management.

That's fair enough. I appreciate that there can always be issues with the quality of work being done, or lack of quality. But that's a problem with your management company, not a reason for suggesting there is an inherent flaw in the concept of management companies.

If the concept of management companies did not exist, conveyancing in Ireland would be a very different ballgame altogether.

Plankmonkey wrote:

OK I get you on the being sued bit but are you telling me I must pay €500+ a year just in case someone hurts themselves on the estate? Do I get my money back once it is handed over to the council and nobody has been sued? Fat chance. Is my money going into a collective kitty that is used to pay towards a ridiculously monstrous insurance premium? No it's not.

Well it should be. Frankly, if I found out that a management company failed to pay the public liability insurance I would be furious.

As for getting your money back, if you don't have a road traffic accident, does your insurance company reimburse you at the end of the year? And the suggestion that, not only should local authorities take over all roads but also pay the arrears of insurance premia is simply not reality.

Plankmonkey wrote:

You all seem to know better than the minister himself. My original argument, which is still my argument even though I may have wandered a bit, is that these charges may indeed be illegal. But hey you all seem to know better.

You are perfectly entitled to complain. Particularly about the quality of the work being done. But don't pretend the Minister was making some point he didn't. Nowhere did he remotely say there was anything wrong with management companies. He was making the point that it may be ultra vires the planning legislation to make conditions in this regard - one could form the opinion that the planning authorities should only be concerned with the quality of an application and should not use the planning acts to raise funds through bonds or alternatively to hide from their responsibilities to eventually take over the roads and services. If you or anyone has read Section 38 agreements (the contract between a management company and a local authority) you will know what I am talking about - I have seen them stretch to requiring the construction of sewage treatment plants. I suspect though the upshot will be that the legislation is changed to encompass this and validate the conditions, or else the local authorities will put extra emphasis on what the builders must do, and no doubt they will pass on that pice in increased building prices...

RainyDay

Those who are still interested in this important issue might like to read the transcripts of the Dail debate in November of Labour's private members motion to sort out the current mess. See links from Fergal Quinn's archive for the links to the debate. I picked up a few things that I didn't know from the debate as follows;

- Developers are abusing the rule that 'management company stays in the hands of developer until last apartment is sold' by holding onto 1-2 apartments in the block. This gives them ongoing control over the management company, and disenfranchises the other owners.

- Where the management company is not complying with its legal regulations (holding AGM's, publishing accounts), it is possible to take actions through the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement to replace the directors. This is no quick fix, but it can be done.

- Some local authorities are avoiding their responsibilities to manage common areas for new housing estates by a planning condition which gives responsibilities to the management company in perpituity. This leaves the householders to foot the bill directly.

- The Residential Tenancies Act 2004 gives tenants in apartment complexes only specific rights in relation to management companies for the first time - From http://www.lkshields.ie/htmdocs/publications/pub191a.htm;

The Act gives tenants certain rights in relation to management companies of apartment complexes. Management companies will be identified in tenancy registration details. Landlords are required to convey tenants' complaints to the management company, which must have regard to the complaint and furnish the landlord with a written statement which must be forwarded to the tenant, of steps to be taken to deal with the complaint. Tenants may request the management company to supply written particulars of service charges and how they were calculated and the company must comply to the extent that it would be obliged to comply with such a request from an apartment owner.

mire

moved into an aprtment scheme last year, and the scheme was 'managed' from july onwards so we paid for the remainder of the year (half). the management agents have written to request fees for 2006 and this includes a 300 increase - but this is accounted for by a 'one-off' fee for installing 3 satellite dishes and connecting each unit - is this not an element of the construction phase? surely it is not something that should be considered part of the management. is the management agent just trying to take the easy way out here instead of looking for the money from the builder/developer?

whippet

was the satelite dishes part of your contract with the 'builders' or is it an addition to the property that the agents have been proxied to provide?

Who requested the installation of the equipment?

armaghman23

hi i bought an apartment in castleforbes square in dublin last year. its just nearly ready for me to move into now. All of a sudden the developer has offered me the marketing suite if i will let them have the apartment i bought. I have paid my deposit already. I asked them why they want my apartment and they say that there is a problem and they cannot close for a long time, 24months??

what the hell is going on here?why do they want my aptmt so badly?
does anyone know any reasons for this?
the developer is danninger or aka zoe developments. the estate agents are hooke and macdonald.

I would be interested to hear any theroies

whippet

they probably have been made an offer they can't refuse on your apartment.

I have dealt with H&K before with leasing and to be honest I couldn't ever fault them.

Sounds like you are in a position to do a bit of haggling, don't accept their first offer!!

Dub13

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/02/28/story246941.html

Management fees ‘a scam to enrich greedy developers’
28/02/2006 - 14:03:15

Socialist Party TD Joe Higgins has launched a scathing attack on the local authorities in Dublin over the imposition of management fees on the residents of housing estates.

Speaking at a press conference in Dublin today, Mr Higgins said the councils were basically privatising public services by foisting management companies on thousands of householders.

Such companies are being established on new housing estates all over the city to maintain open spaces, roads, lighting and other services.



Residents are required to pay annual fees to these firms, which are often linked directly to the developers who built the estates in the first place.

A number of householders in the Tyrrelstown area of Dublin are being taken to court this Friday for refusing the pay the fees.

Mr Higgins said today that the whole management company structure was a scam designed to enrich greedy developers and help local authorities avoid their responsibility to provide upkeep services.

lomb

what is the title on these houses where service charges are paid. i very seriously doubt they are freehold. probably some kind of leasehold with a service charge provision inserted into the title . i cant see how anyone can legally insert a service charge provision into a freehold title.

what it probably is is (if u are lucky) a 999 year lease with a ground rent of 1 cent a year with a service charge provision in the title and the freehold transfered to the management company and each resident owning one share in the management company.

every year u pay your service charge and ground rent to the management company and every year they pay out for public liability and maintainance, directors fees, accountancy fees, and administration/legal fees.

if the council takes over what happens then, does the management company dissolve? what happens to the ground rent payment? and the title? seems like a weird system, the council should take over immediately as far as im concerned after the builder has left.

hp

Im new to this apartment ownership game and am finding it tough ! Wonder if anyone has any advice ? I'm also in an ex Zoe/ Danninger block which they built more than 12 years ago and havent handed over to the management co. There are 36 apartments in our block, down on the quays and our management agent is Premier - we pay around € 1060 per year. The building is in an awful state - graffitti everywhere, broken bicycles and rubbish etc. We recently went without water (no flushing, drinking, washing etc) for almost a week and I got some prices for a water pump (can you believe that there is no pump - Danninger must have overlooked that ....:-) and sent them over to the Premier so that they could look into getting one. Anyway, I was told that there is only € 600 in the account (ie no money) for the year and that they had put our water issue to Danninger / the directors and of course we have heard nothing back. We have been warned by the city council that without a pump we run the risk of future water shortages, perhaps even permanently. Of course Im the only owner occupier (I think) and am facing an uphill battle ! Ive been given the name of the other 2 committee members and think my next step is to contact them.

However on another note - more recent apartment developments have had a condition of their planning permission grant saying that they have to hand over ro residents and form a management company with the residents. Those of you with the same problem - have a look at the planning permission that you should have copies of from the sale documents, and if there is a condition, then get onto your local enforcement officer at the city council and get them onto the developer who is in breach of their planning conditions. It carries a fine / jail term so maybe that could get their attention

eamo73

I was the guy putting the heat on the mgt co expert on Gerry Ryan.
Anyone got SMYTH mgt co in thier development?
love to hear from u
i hav an email address on the subject
U R NOT ALONE!!!
ill be in touch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

eamo73

here is a few pages of info i have put together on MANAGEMENT COMPANIES.
hope it helps!
its a copy of several emails i have previously sent
eamo73 aka EAMONN

Dear Councillors,
Deputies,
Minister,
following is a statement I read out at a press conference organised by Joe Higgins TD and Catherine Murphy TD on Feb 28th.
I respectfully submit this to you all, as we need all the help, support, advice we can get.
We are residents who are cught up in the PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY structure.
I will be in touch again, on behalf of our residents, and residents all across Balbriggan who are similarly affected.

My name is Eamonn Smith and I am the chairperson of a residents committee recently formed in Barons hall Balbriggan, representing
the concerns of residents affected by management companies
and campaigning for the abolition of the management company structure foisted upon us.

I speak to you as an affected homeowner, and representative of the comments and sentiments expressed by fellow residents in Barons hall.

Management companies in developments charge enormous fees for the maintenance of basic public services, which, elsewhere in Ireland, are funded from general taxation.

Fingal County Council, among other local authorities, has been very active in pushing management companies. These local authorities put the formation of management companies as a condition of giving planning permission.

This is a very clever, deceitful and downright dishonest way of privatising public services, services that the local authority should be responsible for maintaining, as in all previously built estates.

This means a new tax on homeowners in affected areas.

Local authorities explain this with the line
"the increase in housing density requires this".
I submit that this is totally false.

What IS clear is that with our rapidly expanding population and the property development therein, there is a massive increase in the number of residential units allowed per acre.

This now means that residents buying properties from these developments can expect to pay a direct AND an indirect tax.

New developers reap huge dividends from management companies.
In the past, the developer has always had to cover basic maintenance of their developments until the local authority takes charge. For the developer this could mean several years.
NOW, they can foist massive fees for basic maintenance onto residents, from whom they have already made massive profits.

Service charges themselves, or maintenance fees, usually cover the cost of general maintenance, building insurance, waste disposal, security.
The bulk of the service charge on residents is made up of two things;
1. Administrative fees
IE a management company charging a homeowner, for the very letters they send to the homeowner, detailing monies owed by the homeowner to the management company.

2. Paying the management company salaries.

While I appreciate that there needs to be legislation and proper regulation for property management with regard to apartments and their maintenance, insurance, etc, it is very important to remember that,
as service charges are set each year by management companies, it is impossible for buyers to determine how high their future maintenance costs will be.

A typical contract binds a potential buyer to pay the service charge that the management company
"In its sole discretion deems to be fair and reasonable payment in respect of the year then commencing".

I have numerous emails with me from residents in Barons Hall, stating that their fees have increased by anything up to 50% in the last year.

In our development, I can categorically state that residents feel they have been hoodwinked into having a management company.

Whatever about having a management company in place for apartments (and then not actually carrying out services),
where on earth are they allowed to sink their teeth into houses, where owners pay their own insurance and do not get any building maintenance or security.

With this management company in place, my fellow residents and I are enduring disgraceful graffiti not removed properly, rubbish strewn everywhere, abandoned cars simply left in residential parking areas, burned out cars, so called common areas, which , pictorial evidence will show are massive mounds of earth and rubble left unattended. Areas throughout the development have broken glass on the ground, where cars have been broken into. There appears to be no security in place. The glass in the resident car park behind my house has been on the ground since Jan 2004, that's two years. I myself made an attempt to clear some away.

In November, our management company presented a shambolic AGM, with no directors present, merely a Chairman and an accountant.
The was no structure to the meeting, no information handed out or presentations made, nothing whatsoever.
At this AGM, in one particular instance, the management company chairman undertook to investigate alternatives to each resident having their own wheelie bin, which the resident could leave out for collection when THEY chose.
A move to communal bins was suggested by the management company. This was unanimously rejected out of hand by residents who ventured their opinion,
as this would mean residents, in their annual invoice, basically being charged weekly, whether they put a bin out or not.
The management company chairman promised to research the matter further and get back to the residents. In act act of total deceit, the chairman forced through the introduction of the communal bin system, having consulted NOBODY from the residents. As chairperson of the Barons Hall group i can assure you that nobody was approached or consulted. The committee certainly was not. This serves as a total slap in the face to all residents, and underlining that residents are apparently tied into a contract over which they have no control, or opinion,
and the management has, it would seem, sole authority to do as they please and charge as they please.

On many occasions I have walked around Barons Hall and found many things amiss or broken, front doors to apartment complexes, which do not close,
broken intercom, broken buzzers, halls in total darkness,
houses with rubbish strewn all across their fronts and on paths and roads,
roads in absolutely desperate condition.
I personally fear for my children's safety on these roads with the speeds that cars are allowed drive through the development, as we have no yellow lines, speed ramps, 5mph speed limit signs etc. anywhere in Barons Hall.

Several times I put it directly to the management company chairman, who has simply said that this is not the case,they provide us good service,
and anyway we all signed up to this so it really doesn't matter what we think, we are tied into a management company through our contract.

This is absolutely disgraceful. The entire development is a disgrace and does not remotely suggest, to me anyway, that anybody is actually taking charge of maintenance.

I can categorically state that I personally have received NO service or maintenance whatsoever about my property, except perhaps for a little chipped bark outside my front door in 2003.
Why then am I expected to pay a bill for €492.00 for no services rendered.
Residents who have so far been in contact with the committee share these feelings.

Currently, NO legislation exists, and NO government department has ANY responsibility for the regulation of service charges and property management companies,
as these agreements are considered contractual. It does not seem to matter that no resident is made aware of this clause in their contract until long after they have signed it. That is certainly my own personal experience.

I thoroughly welcome initiatives such as this press conference, as residents nationwide are being duped out of millions of euros.

I call on all residents who share these views, to take action to protect their interests. From a personal standpoint, I would be very happy to establish links with similarly affected residents and their committees.

Our committee wishes to wholeheartedly praise the efforts of the residents of Tyrellstown Castlecurrah and Ongar, and the action group working on their behalf. Theirs is a similar tale,
a management company has ignored issues affecting these residents at every turn, and has provided these residents with no service that would justify the fees they demand.
I would call on all residents similarly affected, and their representative groups, to echo these sentiments, and follow the lead of the Tyrellstown campaign.

Our Barons Hall AGM took place in November. We demanded action from our management company. We were asked by them to give them a chance to deliver.
Today is the first of MARCH! Nothing has happened to make residents feel they are any better off.
The managemant company has simply reissued their invoices to us, charging in some cases up to €1400.00. They quickly followed this up with a reminder letter.
Yet, any correspondence or phone calls or emails to the management company are ignored, I am told by other residents, as well as experiencing it personally.
Residents are reluctant to pay a fee having received services that in no way justify the fee. How can they be asked to hand over money for nothing.
Lets not forget, taxpaying residents have ALREADY paid for a service, which the local authority should be providing, as is the case elsewhere.

In closing, I call for, and welcome the introduction of,
a Nationwide action group, to stand up to the bullying intimidatory nature of management companies and the extortionate demands meted out to us by them.

Thank you.
Eamonn Smith
Chairperson
Barons Hall Residents Committee

whippet

While I have no experience or knowledge of your Barron Hall situation I would urge you not to be too Gungho on a 'National Group' opposed to Management companies.

Personally I am living in a managed estate and am only delighted to pay the fees. I feel I get great value for money and would not like to see my estate being maintained by fingal co. co.

I have personally made my feelings known to Joe Higgans as I feel that the silent majority who are happy to pay the fees are being over looked by an agressive and active minority. And some of his socialist propaganda fell into my letter box, which I did not agree with and purported to be representing me.

Remember where you get your mandate from, only from the people who support your cause and who chose not to honour the contracts that you signed.

If you have a problem with your management company do not assume that every one does with their company. From personal experience I get timely responses to any of my queries.

eamo73

im genuinely pleased for you.
i also know for a fact from researching in my valuable spare time that you are in a tiny minority. i hope the situation continues for you and good luck.
i speak for the majority being ripped off and i have no political bias whatsoever i represent myself and my residents