Non-payment of Management fees in an apartment complex.

Cupra280 · 16-03-2016 3:53pm #1

What are people's views on the non-payment of fees?

When I bought my apartment, I was advised by my solicitor about the fees, and what they covered. I was then happy to pay, as it saved me having to worry about insurance, refuse, and all the rest.

However, shortly afterwards, our Management Agent stated that in their experience, 25% of people pay in full, 25% quarterly, 25% monthly, and 25% not at all. (This would eventually be paid to the Company when the ownership of the particular apartment changes).

I do have a problem with non-payment. Especially if people go out of their way to avoid paying.

I would be interested to here others views on the matter. In particular, it would be interesting to here what initiatives others took in order to secure payment by defaulters.

gerarda · 16-03-2016 3:57pm

We paid them in our old house for the best part of 10 years. Or old neighbour never paid a cent and got numerous phone calls and letters about being threatened with court action. That was 3 years ago, still waiting to hear. He laughed in my face when I said I paid them. Each house had two parking spaces which were clearly painted on the ground with the house number. Over time this faded and could be repainted by the mgmt co if you asked for it. He called them to repaint his and couldn't understand why they wouldn't do it!

MarkAnthony · 16-03-2016 4:09pm

If it's a minority of people it's a not an issue. We have a one or two, a couple that are working with the OMC to pay others that just say feck it. At the end of the day it's them that will be saddled with a huge bill when they go to sell. We don't bother with court action, however where it's a large number there can be issues.

Mrs OBumble · 16-03-2016 4:50pm

Not paying is theft, pure and simple. For which you will - eventually - get caught.

Lux23 · 16-03-2016 4:54pm

If I can pay, I will pay. No matter what the bill is, and how much I don't like, I hate the feeling of owing money to someone. The type of people who don't pay bin charges or whatever always astound me, they will spend €100 on a night out but won't pay ten euro for some bin bags. So if I knew my neighbours were doing this, I would probably go out of my way to embarrass them into paying.

lawred2 · 16-03-2016 5:05pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Not paying is theft, pure and simple. For which you will - eventually - get caught.

In some cases it's the management fees that are theft pure and simple

A previous estate I lived in had management fees - supposedly for a whole raft of maintenance and bin collections reasons etc

Maintenance was minimal, irregular and haphazard. Issues and defects could often go months after notifying the management company without remedy..

common grounds (grass etc) - was lucky if it saw a lawnmower once every 4 - 6 weeks even in the middle of summer

They started cost cutting with regards to refuse collection and reduced in half overnight the available number of refuse tips.. end result badly overflowing bin sheds that became health hazards..

Did the management company deliver reductions in fees? Pfft

Who was robbing who?

P. Breathnach · 16-03-2016 5:31pm

lawred2 wrote: »

In some cases it's the management fees that are theft pure and simple

A previous estate I lived in had management fees - supposedly for a whole raft of maintenance and bin collections reasons etc

Maintenance was minimal, irregular and haphazard. Issues and defects could often go months after notifying the management company without remedy..

common grounds (grass etc) - was lucky if it saw a lawnmower once every 4 - 6 weeks even in the middle of summer

They started cost cutting with regards to refuse collection and reduced in half overnight the available number of refuse tips.. end result badly overflowing bin sheds that became health hazards..

Did the management company deliver reductions in fees? Pfft

Who was robbing who?

Management companies are not profit-making bodies. All the revenue should be applied to the benefit of the development.

Where services are curtailed as you describe, it is almost certainly because the company does not have the funds to do the work. It might be that the fees are set at too low a level, but it is more likely because many of the members are not paying their fees.

There may be cases where management companies are run inefficiently or even dishonestly, but they are very much the exception.

lawred2 · 16-03-2016 5:40pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Management companies are not profit-making bodies. All the revenue should be applied to the benefit of the development.

Where services are curtailed as you describe, it is almost certainly because the company does not have the funds to do the work. It might be that the fees are set at too low a level, but it is more likely because many of the members are not paying their fees.

There may be cases where management companies are run inefficiently or even dishonestly, but they are very much the exception.

Who on earth told you that?

SarahMollie · 16-03-2016 5:48pm

Any profit made should go into the sinking fund to cover any unexpected costs that may arise in the future.

OP, if you really want to make a difference, put yourself forward to be on the board of directors.

I'm a (new) director of my management company, and from what I've seen so far, the managing agent is extremely thorough about dealing with non payment so its not really an issue for us. If there is ever an issue, the agent instructs that legal letters be sent straight away. Currently our creditors owe less than €1k and there is due to be paid by the end of the month.

P. Breathnach · 16-03-2016 6:06pm

lawred2 wrote: »

Who on earth told you that?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/2/enacted/en/html

Cupra280 · 16-03-2016 6:10pm

lawred2 wrote: »

In some cases it's the management fees that are theft pure and simple

A previous estate I lived in had management fees - supposedly for a whole raft of maintenance and bin collections reasons etc

Maintenance was minimal, irregular and haphazard. Issues and defects could often go months after notifying the management company without remedy..

common grounds (grass etc) - was lucky if it saw a lawnmower once every 4 - 6 weeks even in the middle of summer

They started cost cutting with regards to refuse collection and reduced in half overnight the available number of refuse tips.. end result badly overflowing bin sheds that became health hazards..

Did the management company deliver reductions in fees? Pfft

Who was robbing who?

This is exactly the reason that I started this thread.
The reason that services could not have been provided is because of people not paying, therefore there is no cash in the bank to pay for the provision of these services.

I wholeheartedly agree, non-payment is theft.

I could type for hours about my Company, and the core group of non-payers, but I do not want to get too caught up in that. Besides, I could be here for days!

I am thinking about approaching my TDs and lobby for the Multi-Unit Development Act to be amended about making the fees more enforceable.

selous · 16-03-2016 6:12pm

I'm in an estate where 50% are vacant and of the other 50%, 30% are rented out, The management agent resigned last Christmas as there was no money in the account because according to him, only 25% of people paid the fees, the agent couldn't enforce payment as the common areas hadn't been taken over by the management company, due to substantial infrastructure defects,

As a result, there is now no bin collection and hasn't been since 2nd week in Jan, but people are still contributing to the mountain of rubbish that's there, block insurance has lapsed and with spring coming, there will be no gardening done or lawns mowed,

The receiver/NAMA was paying for all the vacant units, but they were sold on to a "vulture fund" company either late last year or early this year, so it's now a waiting game to see what happens, Council or T.D's are not interested at all, haven't replied to anyone's calls or emails to date.

Arbiter of Good Taste · 16-03-2016 6:40pm

lawred2 wrote: »

In some cases it's the management fees that are theft pure and simple

A previous estate I lived in had management fees - supposedly for a whole raft of maintenance and bin collections reasons etc

Maintenance was minimal, irregular and haphazard. Issues and defects could often go months after notifying the management company without remedy..

common grounds (grass etc) - was lucky if it saw a lawnmower once every 4 - 6 weeks even in the middle of summer

They started cost cutting with regards to refuse collection and reduced in half overnight the available number of refuse tips.. end result badly overflowing bin sheds that became health hazards..

Did the management company deliver reductions in fees? Pfft

Who was robbing who?

As an owner you are the "management company". If there is a third party managing the estate on your behalf, they are your "agent". If you are unhappy with the level of service, then vote to change the agent - or better yet arrange with the other owners to run the estate yourself.

Or is it just easier to come onto boards and whinge about being "robbed"? :rolleyes:

cloneslad · 16-03-2016 6:43pm

I'm renting in an apartment complex that has had issues with non payment of management fees for years. So much so that about two years ago there was no electricity in the common areas for two days and the agent employed by the management company resigned.

We have an underground car park that allowed you to park wherever you liked, they decided to change this and now you have to have a sticker to park in the car park, if not you get clamped.

The only way you can get a sticker is to have your management fees fully paid.

This has worked well in that it inconveniences the non payers, however they have taken to parking on the footpaths and double yellows outside the complex so it's a bit of a pain in the ar$e at times with all the parked cars blocking the view of any oncoming traffic when coming out of the car park.

Paulw · 16-03-2016 6:56pm

cloneslad wrote: »

This has worked well in that it inconveniences the non payers, however they have taken to parking on the footpaths and double yellows outside the complex so it's a bit of a pain in the ar$e at times with all the parked cars blocking the view of any oncoming traffic when coming out of the car park.

Illegal parking like that should be reported to the council parking unit and/or the Gardai. It quickly stops when they get parking tickets.

Paulw · 16-03-2016 7:01pm

lawred2 wrote: »

In some cases it's the management fees that are theft pure and simple

Did the management company deliver reductions in fees? Pfft

Who was robbing who?

But, YOU ARE the management company. Every unit owner is part of the management company. You have the responsibility to review the accounts each year and attend the company AGM, where you can raise issues. Of course, if you haven't paid your fees, you may not be entitled to vote at an AGM and your lack of payment may be seen by others.

No one is robbing anyone.

It is your legal responsibility to pay your fees, as per the contracts you signed.

We have had a few people who won't pay, but we do take it all the way to court, and have won judgements. We have a very high rate of payment, with people on standing orders. Anyone over a year in arrears is asked to go on to a payment plan, and anyone with arrears over 5 years (2 units) is taken to court. In general, we have a 95%+ payment rate for the development. We do what we can to keep fees down, while keeping services up.

When unit owners taken an active role - attending AGMs, paying fees, asking questions, etc, then it can make the place run very well.

MarkAnthony · 16-03-2016 7:08pm

I think Lawred, and possibly others, are confusing a management company/agent with the OMC. The OMC (Owners Management Company). At the end of the day every owner is a member of the OMC and needs to being the directors to task if they believe that things are not being run properly. Every owner should be aware of the company accounts, not being so informed is just as bad as not knowing whether you have a few quid to fix your house if something happens.

endacl · 16-03-2016 7:12pm

Lux23 wrote: »

If I can pay, I will pay. No matter what the bill is, and how much I don't like, I hate the feeling of owing money to someone. The type of people who don't pay bin charges or whatever always astound me, they will spend €100 on a night out but won't pay ten euro for some bin bags. So if I knew my neighbours were doing this, I would probably go out of my way to embarrass them into paying.

It's comical in some parts of town on bin day. Visit at the right time to see hordes of <mod edit> people <mod edit> run out and chuck their bin bags into the back of the truck...

cloneslad · 16-03-2016 7:27pm

Paulw wrote: »

Illegal parking like that should be reported to the council parking unit and/or the Gardai. It quickly stops when they get parking tickets.

It's a private road but not covered by the clampers. It's not an issue I get worked up about so I wouldn't bother getting involved in it.

lawred2 · 16-03-2016 8:20pm

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

As an owner you are the "management company". If there is a third party managing the estate on your behalf, they are your "agent". If you are unhappy with the level of service, then vote to change the agent - or better yet arrange with the other owners to run the estate yourself.

Or is it just easier to come onto boards and whinge about being "robbed"? :rolleyes:

Not living there anymore thankfully.

lawred2 · 16-03-2016 8:22pm

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I think Lawred, and possibly others, are confusing a management company/agent with the OMC. The OMC (Owners Management Company). At the end of the day every owner is a member of the OMC and needs to being the directors to task if they believe that things are not being run properly. Every owner should be aware of the company accounts, not being so informed is just as bad as not knowing whether you have a few quid to fix your house if something happens.

Erm I think that's very possible. What's the difference?

I think I might have misspoken.

April 73 · 16-03-2016 9:19pm

I spent 5years as a director of an OMC. It was a steep learning curve and an eye-opener regarding human nature.

In my experience there were two types of non-payers - those who were genuinely in difficult circumstances (these were often the people who would try to keep up with payment plans) and those who just wouldn't pay. They believe their neighbours should be the ones to pay to look after the development while they eat out in local restaurants & head off on holidays & buy iPhone 6s for their kids for Christmas.

Then there are the handful of owners who turn up at the AGM who care about the development, while the vast majority don't care or just moan.

To keep any management company running I think you need to be getting payments from about 75-80% of people. Otherwise you are going to run into difficulties. You might have another 5-10% on payment schemes or making haphazard payments. The rest you won't get to pay until you either get a judgement against them or they sell the property.

The problem is that you need to be forceful enough with non-payers so that the people who pay see that there are enforcement measures. Otherwise the numbers of payers will decrease year on year.

My best advice -
Offer discounts for early prompt payments.
Allow monthly & quarterly payments to make it easier. If people have difficulties allow reduced payments but keep them paying something regularly.
Threaten legal action & follow through on the big defaulters.
Don't provide Requisition 37 documents at sale until accounts are cleared.

davo10 · 16-03-2016 9:31pm

A lean is applied to all properties with outstanding management fees before they can be sold. Eventually the money is recovered. Our management company applies for a court order one year and six months after the fee is due, no exceptions.

SarahMollie · 17-03-2016 11:16am

The OMC is made up of all the owners - typically, one unit, one vote. In my place, we have 82 units, and then 6 of the members are elected to the board of directors who ultimately make the decisions.

In most cases, to make life easier, Boards of Directors will engage the services of a Management Agent, to actually handle the day to day running of the development. Obviously they are paid to provide this service. They collect the fees, organised our insurance, bins, gardening and other maintenance. They also peruse any non payers (of which we have very few - legal proceeding always started straight away) and retain a number of experts should they be required, like auditors, solicitors, planning experts (theres a site adjacent to us that may some day be developed). They also provide a 24 hour emergency service, so if a leak occurs in an apartment, the owner/tenant can call for repair. If a big bit of work needs doing, like replacing our gates or something substantial like that, they'll put it out to tender and the Board just needs to decide between the submissions.

I think they provide a pretty good service.

The Board just meet a few times a year in order to ratify decisions, and maybe also on an exceptional basis is something unusual crops up.

Edit: in the interest of full transparency, I'm a recently appointed member of our Board of Directors

Also, you'd be amazed how few owners show up to the AGM. About 10-15% attendance is typical for us apparently, and our managing agent told me that thats actually quite good compared to other OMC's she works with!

MarkAnthony · 17-03-2016 11:21am

lawred2 wrote: »

Erm I think that's very possible. What's the difference?

I think I might have misspoken.

The OMC is the company (limited by guaratee - although I think it's changed with the New Companies Act) that all the owners are members of. That company employs (in almost every case) a managing agent (known by most as a management company) to do the day to day running of the complex.

You're absolutely right that the company employed by the OMC is out to make a profit!

Edit: Better explanation above by Sarah

/ beaten too it :pac:

P. Breathnach · 17-03-2016 11:58am

MarkAnthony wrote: »

...
You're absolutely right that the company employed by the OMC is out to make a profit!...

The managing agent works for an agreed fee (or schedule of fees). Cutting back on services such as grounds maintenance or refuse disposal is not a way for the managing agent to increase profits.

The directors of the OMC should be on top of the management contract, both in relation to ensuring that the fees are not excessive and in checking that the duties are performed to a satisfactory standard.

caviardreams · 17-03-2016 12:22pm

I don't understand non-payment myself, or people who oversell the negatives of them e.g. "I'd never buy an apartment or house with management fees, it costs a fortune". Apart from the auditor's fees and the fees to the managing agent, all the other fees typically relate to explicit, tangible services on your property e.g. bins, insurance, lighting, electricity etc. which you often get for cheaper than it might cost individually (I pay about €60 or so for bins I think when you apportion out the overall spend).

If it is a well run and managed development, where the agent gets several quotes for any contracts/services, it is likely that the fees are reasonable, and I can't see how anyone should have issue paying them. As others have said, if it is not well run and the accounts show that some services may be needlessly expensive (e.g. paying €300+ per unit for bins), then it is time for the OMC to get a new agent. It's an owner's responsibility to raise this if they feel it is an issue, and not to just stop paying fees.

MarkAnthony · 17-03-2016 1:13pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The managing agent works for an agreed fee (or schedule of fees). Cutting back on services such as grounds maintenance or refuse disposal is not a way for the managing agent to increase profits.

The directors of the OMC should be on top of the management contract, both in relation to ensuring that the fees are not excessive and in checking that the duties are performed to a satisfactory standard.

Of course not, but at the same time if it's thier fee or mowing the lawns which do you suppose it going to get paid for first?

Cupra280 · 18-03-2016 10:19am

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Of course not, but at the same time if it's thier fee or mowing the lawns which do you suppose it going to get paid for first?

But, that goes back to the original point, the Agent is not getting anything over and beyond the fee that would be agreed in the Budget at the AGM of the Company.

If they are paying themselves before services, that would indicate that there is a problem with people not paying fees, if there is not enough cash to pay both bills when they become due.

seamus · 18-03-2016 10:49am

caviardreams wrote: »

I don't understand non-payment myself, or people who oversell the negatives of them e.g. "I'd never buy an apartment or house with management fees, it costs a fortune". Apart from the auditor's fees and the fees to the managing agent, all the other fees typically relate to explicit, tangible services on your property e.g. bins, insurance, lighting, electricity etc. which you often get for cheaper than it might cost individually (I pay about €60 or so for bins I think when you apportion out the overall spend).

People just don't really get it. They think it's like a tax, you pay it and it disappears into the ether. When a kerb gets cracked by a truck reversing into it and isn't fixed within a week, they wonder where the hell their money has gone.

The place we lived in had relatively expensive fees. At the AGMs, it was explained why the fees were high* and why they were going up*. Every year the management agent sent out a full set of accounts and budgets with very clear details about how much money was collected, how much was spent/will be spent on various services, and how the fee was calculated per unit. It all added up, it all made sense, even if the fees were high.

Yet 90% of the neighbours at one point or another would say, "Like, where is our money going, what are we paying for?"

The management agent couldn't have made it clearer, but people don't pay attention, they don't understand what their fees are for. And the fact that all communications came from the management agent rather than the OMC probably muddied the waters a bit.

*Our fees were high because the developer built the place with no locks on bin sheds or bin areas. When the OMC put locks in place, people just broke them off (someone actually rammed the door with their car to open it) or dumped their rubbish outside. Monitored CCTV is expensive, so it was decided in the medium-term that simply paying the bin company a special rate to just take everything away, whether in a bin or not, was the best option, but expensive.
They were increasing because the developer didn't build a sinking fund while in charge. So there were ten years of backpayments that had to be made to rebuild a sinking fund

P. Breathnach · 18-03-2016 11:09am

Cupra280 wrote: »

But, that goes back to the original point, the Agent is not getting anything over and beyond the fee that would be agreed in the Budget at the AGM of the Company.

If they are paying themselves before services, that would indicate that there is a problem with people not paying fees, if there is not enough cash to pay both bills when they become due.

Non-payment of fees is a problem for every MUD. I looked at the accounts for a number of complexes, all of them in areas where you might expect relatively few low-income households. Unpaid fees ranged from about 10% to about 25%. I suspect it might be higher in areas where incomes are low.

The most important - and usually the largest - item in the budget is block insurance. Probably next is refuse disposal.

I think that even the most grasping managing agent would not let the insurance lapse, even if that meant not getting paid. I suspect that no agent would entirely eliminate refuse disposal services.

I'd have some sympathy for an agent who took the position that his/her fees be paid before anything is spent on repainting the common areas.

foxatron · 18-03-2016 11:29am

Im in a development with about 150 apartments....at our agm each year we get a whooping turnout, usually about 8 people and thats including the directors!

seamus · 18-03-2016 11:41am

foxatron wrote: »

Im in a development with about 150 apartments....at our agm each year we get a whooping turnout, usually about 8 people and thats including the directors!

And then people wonder why the chairman and the directors always seem to be able to do whatever the hell they want around the complex.

My sister-in-law lives in a block where a guy living in the penthouse apartment - which was the only apartment on the top floor - was basically in control of of the OMC for years. Like something out of a Mafia film, "his" floor was painted an entirely different colour to the rest of the floors and had furniture and paintings hung in the common area leading to his door. All he missing was marble floors and orchestral music

He consistently got things that he wanted like having trees chopped down that were spoiling his view and getting parking spaces moved around/renumbered to suit where he wanted to park. The other directors just let him at it because they didn't want to deal with his whinging and nonsense when he didn't get his way.

Cupra280 · 18-03-2016 3:56pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Non-payment of fees is a problem for every MUD. I looked at the accounts for a number of complexes, all of them in areas where you might expect relatively few low-income households. Unpaid fees ranged from about 10% to about 25%. I suspect it might be higher in areas where incomes are low.

The most important - and usually the largest - item in the budget is block insurance. Probably next is refuse disposal.

I think that even the most grasping managing agent would not let the insurance lapse, even if that meant not getting paid. I suspect that no agent would entirely eliminate refuse disposal services.

I'd have some sympathy for an agent who took the position that his/her fees be paid before anything is spent on repainting the common areas.

My Agents actually did this a few years ago.

Cupra280 · 18-03-2016 6:56pm

<MOD SNIP >

Awarding contracts selectively only costs Directors as well. Remember, Director have to pay fees for their own apartments too.

I know in my complex, the Directors of the OMC work in conjunction with the agents every year, and that the agent has to provide at least 3 quotations for the Directors to consider for each service.

And as regards becoming a Director, the Multi-Unit Development Act states that there is a time limit that a Director can serve on the Committee. I have served as a Director for a number of years. And there is always someone willing to take over.

Paulw · 18-03-2016 9:50pm

Cupra280 wrote: »

And as regards becoming a Director, the Multi-Unit Development Act states that there is a time limit that a Director can serve on the Committee.

There is no committee, only a board of directors.

In the MUD, a director must step down after 3 years, however, that same director can be re-elected if nominated again to stand.

In our place, it is very hard to get people to stand up to be directors. I have been a director for 7 years (of the 8 years we have had control). I step down every year, but always seem to be nominated, seconded and approved by the floor. I would gladly step down. We usually have 3 directors elected to make the decisions.

We have 112 units, our AGM quorum is 7, but usually get about 10-12 people attending. I do wish we had more, but most years the place just ticks over. Our fees have only fluctuated a little over the years, going up and down a little, depending on the big items - insurance and refuse collection.

How Strange · 19-03-2016 8:55am

We've had a brilliant managing agent for the last 3 years and there's a big difference in our development. They aggressively pursued non payers and have been very successful. Their vans are always on the development doing maintenance, landscaping etc and if you complain about anti social behaviour they follow up on it. We've always paid our charges but it was very demoralising to hear at the AGM 3 years ago that we were on the point of bankruptcy due to large scale non payment and the insurance and bins may have to be cancelled.

crooked_feet · 19-03-2016 1:31pm

its hardly surprising that people question what they are getting , fees are in the majority of cases far too high , ive checked the past two years set of accounts for a development ive recently bought into , 1100 euro per anum for a development which doesnt even have a lift or electric gates ( mine is a ground floor two bed with a parking space )

claims of electricity costs having risen when energy costs have gone down , refuse charges which would be more expensive than in the wilds of leitrim

serious taking the proverbial and cosy arrangements between service providers and directors

athtrasna · 19-03-2016 2:27pm

crooked_feet wrote: »

its hardly surprising that people question what they are getting , fees are in the majority of cases far too high , ive checked the past two years set of accounts for a development ive recently bought into , 1100 euro per anum for a development which doesnt even have a lift or electric gates ( mine is a ground floor two bed with a parking space )

claims of electricity costs having risen when energy costs have gone down , refuse charges which would be more expensive than in the wilds of leitrim

serious taking the proverbial and cosy arrangements between service providers and directors

If you have a problem you should get involved! I've been a Director of our management company for 12 years and can assure you there's nothing untoward or cosy arrangements. I give upwards of 50 hours a year for free to make our development a better place. I pay full fees so any cost issues affect me too.

April 73 · 19-03-2016 3:34pm

crooked_feet wrote: »

well many situations occur where the directors get their fees waived , this increases the charges for everyone else

I have never seen this happen in any management company I've been a member of. I was also a management company director for 5 years and paid the same fees as everyone else. My services & time were donated for free.

If directors were to have their fees waived this would have to be voted on at an AGM where all members have a vote.

ongarboy · 20-03-2016 1:42am

seamus wrote: »

And then people wonder why the chairman and the directors always seem to be able to do whatever the hell they want around the complex.

My sister-in-law lives in a block where a guy living in the penthouse apartment - which was the only apartment on the top floor - was basically in control of of the OMC for years. Like something out of a Mafia film, "his" floor was painted an entirely different colour to the rest of the floors and had furniture and paintings hung in the common area leading to his door. All he missing was marble floors and orchestral music

He consistently got things that he wanted like having trees chopped down that were spoiling his view and getting parking spaces moved around/renumbered to suit where he wanted to park. The other directors just let him at it because they didn't want to deal with his whinging and nonsense when he didn't get his way.

Ha ha...that sounds very familiar!!:D;)

Where I live, they also introduced parking permits that would only be issued to compliant management fee payers and those that didn't found their cars clamped. There was a lot of groaning about it and Socialist TDs running to the aid of the clamped car owners for cheap publicitiy (same TDs having zero regard for the compliant residents of their constituency who suffered for years due to their neighbours non compliance). As a result of the parking permit system, compliance rose from under 50% to almost 80% and the effects were visible as regards more frequent common area lawns cut, common walls painted, better landscaping and litter picking so it was a good idea. Oddly enough, the permit system has been scrapped this year so my concern is that non compliance will creep up again resulting in past deterioration of the area resuming. I support management fees in such developments as long as the costs are completely transparent and that it is clear that all legal route efforts are being used to chase non payers.

Fiona · 21-03-2016 11:58am

I have always paid my mgt fees in full and on time even when I had the property rented out.

Makes me sick people sense of entitlement in this country, I shouldn't have to pay because lark.....

I would however love my windows to be cleaned more, I live on the top floor and I am back in my apt 6 months and they have not been touched, so I just bought an extendable window washer thingy in Aldi for a tenner I gave up asking for them to be done.

I have no problem paying for a service when it's delivered, it annoys me paying and not getting the full value for money. But doesn't mean I will stop paying my fees.

andekwarhola · 21-03-2016 10:57pm

It beggars belief when you read that people that have paid hundreds of thousands of euro on a property in a managed developmrnt (and are therefore contractually part of the company and liable for fees) but they are so misinformed or disinterested as to not even grasp the difference between the agents and the company itself.

Our development now has about 90% payment rates (albeit some on pretty low repayments) but when we took over it was much lower with no sinking fund (now have one) and significant debts (now on track to be cleared in a year or so). That said, none of us have ever been thanked by anybody despite not being able to stand down because nobody else will do it.

Had to introduce permit parking /clamping (now stopped) and locked waste facilities to get people to pay up.

Nobody in their right mind wants to do this stuff but the amount of people that will brazenly use paid communal facilities without paying (despite being well able to) is staggering.

You can say it's not anybody's business if you pay your bills but it is when you're having your waste disposal, landscaping, lighting and block insurance paid for by other people.

If services are shoddy in a development, chances are there's no money in the company so not paying your fees just makes it worse.

/rant

SarahMollie · 22-03-2016 10:52am

Yeah have to say, I'm also surprised at ppl not knowing the difference, especially those who live/own in these types of developments.

My development has almost full compliance, but I've previously lived in places where that was not the case. Our MA offers quarterly direct debit options etc, and seem to be willing to work with people once they pay over time, but non payment is acted against aggressively.

Back when I was renting, my landlord wasnt paying his fees and I went to go to work one morning and my car was clamped as my parking permit had been revoked. Also when I would ring the MA to notify them of a safety/security issue (ie, door to the complex being broken and neighbourhood kids coming in and hanging out on our stairs/lift making strange noises etc) I had to pretend to be from another unit, or they would hang up on me.

Ultimately I started withholding €100 from my rent each month. Landlord (via his lettings agent) didnt even seem to notice, and I eventually moved out because I'd just had enough

pinkypinky · 22-03-2016 12:35pm

I became a director of my mngt company a year after I moved. We've changed agent twice in the intervening 8 years and at this stage have a good system with about 90% compliance. The remaining 10% all owed money when we started in 2007 and it has increased over the years. We've obtained judgments against them all but a problem with that system is that if a person pays a bit or owes more, we have to re-do the judgement. One person on that list defaulted and we got all his fees when the place was sold by the bank. It's a very long game. We currently have someone else sale agreed who owes us a fortune. All that money will go back into the development - either as upgrades or the sinking fund.

I give my time free - I'm protecting my own investment, and I know that my building is run well and better maintained than when I moved in. If I were moving, I'd try not to buy in a development with this setup again because I know I'd want to be involved!

SarahMollie · 22-03-2016 12:51pm

Actually, just while there are some fellow directors on here - quick question.

I was appointed as a director at our last AGM about a month ago. I notices that in the "Directors Report and Financial Statement" document, there is a subsection entitles Transactions with Directors" where each appears to be paid a sum of money (few hundred each). I'm assuming this is some sort of compensation for time and effort, as most owners don't even turn up to the AGM, let alone volunteer to take on the work of being a director.

Is this normal? I've not asked about it yet in my own case, but it would be nice to have our work rewarded and I could use it to offset some of my own costs.

dubrov · 22-03-2016 12:57pm

SarahMollie wrote:

I was appointed as a director at our last AGM about a month ago. I notices that in the "Directors Report and Financial Statement" document, there is a subsection entitles Transactions with Directors" where each appears to be paid a sum of money (few hundred each). I'm assuming this is some sort of compensation for time and effort, as most owners don't even turn up to the AGM, let alone volunteer to take on the work of being a director.

That's not normal at all.

The managing agent should do pretty much all the legwork. The directors should only have to make the odd decision here and there.

A few hundred might be fair pay for the work but I'm surprised it got approved

SarahMollie · 22-03-2016 1:03pm

From what I can tell, the MA does do most of the leg work. We might have a few once off repair issues to decide on this year which might mean increased number of board meetings I suppose, but most day to day things are handled by the MA, and we just ran through the expenditure and approved it.

It was my first ever AGM so I suppose it didnt necessarily strike me as strange that the few people who bother to take part get compensated for their time. Mostly the attendees were outgoing members of the board, with 2/3 others. Total of about 10 people in the room, out of 85ish owners.

We've another meeting coming up next week so I'll ask the MA about it then. I agreed to join the board before I copped on about the payment, but happy to take it if its going and above board!

foxatron · 22-03-2016 1:25pm

In my development we get very few at the agm. I think we have 4 or 5 directors and they get their management fees covered as a token for the work involved. I figured this was pretty standard. In fairness to the directors they do seem to have the best interests of the complex at heart.

SarahMollie · 22-03-2016 1:31pm

So its maybe more unusual than just unheard of?

In our case, the amount might cover the maybe cover the majority of the fees for the house owners (they've smaller fees as they don't contribute to the block insurance costs or other costs that are specific to the apartments), and for apartment owners, its about half of their annual fees.

Once its all above board, and the sinking fund is also being contributed to, then I don't see the harm in rewarding the few that take an interest.

andekwarhola · 22-03-2016 1:52pm

I've been told (by our agent) of directors being remunerated or getting expenses before.

I might be wrong (as we've never done it ourselves) but I presume there's nothing to stop a board of directors remunerating temselves as long as it above board, declared and approved and so on.

dubrov wrote: »

The managing agent should do pretty much all the legwork. The directors should only have to make the odd decision here and there.

True but not the full story.

Depends on the development.

The hours spent checking tenders, meeting the agent and generally keeping an eye on stuff adds up. When we tendered for a new agent, we had to do all the research and interviews ourselves.

I myself have went into town twice this month (on my own time) to sign legal documents related to sales and other things.

We also took legal action against the developer which although conducted on our behalf, still required a fair bit of input.

Overall as well, it's a big responsibility and the residents know who you are so will approach you about stuff you don't really have much control over.

Personally though, I think it's a bad idea to award yourself any type of remuneration. Not because it's that wrong but it gives the wrong impression to other residents (who are as ever quick to complain and slow to help) and no development is ever so flush with money that you couldn't find a way to spend money on it.

Non-payment of Management fees in an apartment complex.

Comments