Management company demanding 13k

dubrov · 30-01-2020 11:02am

Service charges are normally billed based on apartment size or number of bedrooms.
The bigger it is, the more services are likely to be used.

I would definitely query the even split.

loyatemu · 30-01-2020 12:17pm

dubrov wrote: »

Service charges are normally billed based on apartment size or number of bedrooms.
The bigger it is, the more services are likely to be used.

I would definitely query the even split.

yeah, your ownership of the development is in proportion to the size of your apartment, as is your potential loss if the defects aren't fixed. Equal split doesn't seem right.

30-01-2020 12:54pm

loyatemu wrote: »

yeah, your ownership of the development is in proportion to the size of your apartment, as is your potential loss if the defects aren't fixed. Equal split doesn't seem right.

Nonsense. Every unit owner has an equal share in the OMC and everyone only gets one vote. The works affect each and every unit, as without a proper Fire Cert it could be deemed uninhabitable and everyone gets booted out.

Saying the penthouse guys should pay more is a slippery slope to go down. What happens when the lift breaks down and the ground floor lads start refusing to pay for it? Or the carpark gates need replacing and the lads without a car say "not my problem?"

dubrov · 30-01-2020 4:16pm

I've never seen a development that splits service charges evenly among units (although it is always one vote per unit).

Do you think a 3 bed unit should be paying the same as a 1 bed to cover bin charges even though it is likely they create three times the rubbish?

The lease should cover all this anyway and should specify the proportion of service charge applicable to each unit.

The_Conductor · 30-01-2020 4:20pm

dubrov wrote: »

I've never seen a development that splits service charges evenly among units (although it is always one vote per unit).

Do you think a 3 bed unit should be paying the same as a 1 bed to cover bin charges even though it is likely they create three times the rubbish?

The lease should cover all this anyway and should specify the proportion of service charge applicable to each unit.

I live in a 33 unit development- comprised of a mixture of 3 bed town houses with 2 bed apartments underneath them (and two commercial units). The commercial units pay 40% of all applicable assessed costs- the remaining 60% is split evenly between all 33 units and a 200 Euro surcharge is tagged on for the sink fund contribution per unit.

So- even when there are a mixture of dwelling types- there are some developments out there where all the dwellings pay the same fee regardless of size.

dubrov · 30-01-2020 4:28pm

I am sure it happens but is usually down to laziness on the original solicitor's part.
In that example, it isn't clear cut as the houses have higher occupancy but reduced common area costs.
Still 200 Euro from townhouses for a sinking fund is huge.

The_Conductor · 30-01-2020 4:38pm

dubrov wrote: »

I am sure it happens but is usually down to laziness on the original solicitor's part.
In that example, it isn't clear cut as the houses have higher occupancy but reduced common area costs.
Still 200 Euro from townhouses for a sinking fund is huge.

Theres no lifts in the place- the apartments are all underneath the townhouses, and most of the expenses are equally attributed to all units (such as automatic gates and car park barriers etc). If anything the apartments are getting a rum deal.

loyatemu · 30-01-2020 5:32pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Nonsense. Every unit owner has an equal share in the OMC and everyone only gets one vote. The works affect each and every unit, as without a proper Fire Cert it could be deemed uninhabitable and everyone gets booted out.

Saying the penthouse guys should pay more is a slippery slope to go down. What happens when the lift breaks down and the ground floor lads start refusing to pay for it? Or the carpark gates need replacing and the lads without a car say "not my problem?"

fixing the lift would be covered by the sinking fund, which is covered by the annual charge, which is proportional.

You could argue the fire safety issue is an exceptional charge (clearly there's no provision set aside for it) but I still don't see why it shouldn't be proportional.

kravmaga · 30-01-2020 5:36pm

todolist wrote: »

Our management company are looking for 13 thousand euro to fix defects in our complex.
We bought our apartment under the affordable housing scheme from Dublin City Council.
Are we liable to pay this or should the council pay something.?

I would follow up with DCC and a Solicitor, there is no way the owner occupiers/tenants should have to pay up 13k for defective workmanship by the original builder.

Are you not covered by the block policy insurance ? Contents insurance is seperate and up to you to pay for with an Insurance provider.

Is it a retro fit for fire safety purposes?

lawred2 · 30-01-2020 5:42pm

dubrov wrote: »

I've never seen a development that splits service charges evenly among units (although it is always one vote per unit).

Do you think a 3 bed unit should be paying the same as a 1 bed to cover bin charges even though it is likely they create three times the rubbish?

The lease should cover all this anyway and should specify the proportion of service charge applicable to each unit.

is it?

30-01-2020 5:51pm

dubrov wrote: »

I've never seen a development that splits service charges evenly among units (although it is always one vote per unit).

Do you think a 3 bed unit should be paying the same as a 1 bed to cover bin charges even though it is likely they create three times the rubbish?

The lease should cover all this anyway and should specify the proportion of service charge applicable to each unit.

Who are you addressing this post to?............me?

For the record, I never mentioned service charges. I'm talking solely about the previous comment regarding "ownership of the development". You don't own more of it because your apartment is bigger than mine. We both own [number of units] divided by [100] of the entire development. If there are ten apartments, each apartment owner owns 10% of the development. You can't turn around and say "Your apartment is twice the size of mine, so I only pay 5% while you're responsible for 15%". It doesn't work that way.

dubrov · 30-01-2020 6:22pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Who are you addressing this post to?............me?

For the record, I never mentioned service charges. I'm talking solely about the previous comment regarding "ownership of the development". You don't own more of it because your apartment is bigger than mine. We both own [number of units] divided by [100] of the entire development. If there are ten apartments, each apartment owner owns 10% of the development. You can't turn around and say "Your apartment is twice the size of mine, so I only pay 5% while you're responsible for 15%". It doesn't work that way.

I had read it as service charges as that was what the discussion was about.

Even your post above is conflating ownership, voting rights and responsibility. They are all separate things. 10% of the vote does not equal 10% ownership of common areas or 10% liability for service charges.

At the end of the day, the responsibility for paying service charges will be specified in the lease and fairness does not come into it.

lawred2 · 30-01-2020 6:24pm

dubrov wrote: »

I had read it as service charges as that was what the discussion was about.

Even your post above is conflating ownership, voting rights and responsibility. They are all separate things. 10% of the vote does not equal 10% ownership of common areas or 10% liability for service charges.

At the end of the day, the responsibility for paying service charges will be specified in the lease and fairness does not come into it.

The thread is about paying towards necessary remedial works on a block is it not?

todolist · 30-01-2020 8:02pm

lawred2 wrote: »

The thread is about paying towards necessary remedial works on a block is it not?

Yes it is.

todolist · 30-01-2020 8:05pm

kravmaga wrote: »

I would follow up with DCC and a Solicitor, there is no way the owner occupiers/tenants should have to pay up 13k for defective workmanship by the original builder.

Are you not covered by the block policy insurance ? Contents insurance is seperate and up to you to pay for with an Insurance provider.

Is it a retro fit for fire safety purposes?

They are looking for the money for fire safety purposes.

The_Conductor · 30-01-2020 8:10pm

Honestly- you're throwing good money after bad by trying to argue that you're not liable.
If the builder has gone bankrupt/bust- which they have- you have no come back on this.
Its one of those things- as a property owner sometimes things happen- you're not going to get bailed out- its a cost you are going to have to pay.
Best bet is to see if you can organise a payment schedule with the Management Company- or whether they need the money up front.

STB. · 30-01-2020 10:25pm

loyatemu wrote: »

You could argue the fire safety issue is an exceptional charge (clearly there's no provision set aside for it) but I still don't see why it shouldn't be proportional.

Exceptional issue. Its a safety issue that could end up with everyone moved out as the whole place isn't safe. Proportional my backside.

The problem here is that people who have bought houses at full whack (and not just the OP who got a discount, funded by the taxpayer) have been left with the remnants of shoddy building standards that were self certified. Most of this stuff ends up in the courts, usually involving MC's and insurance bond holders who try to walk away. Between this and MC's chasing people who fail to pay their share of annual charges, members who do pay end up seeing their contributions dwindled and the whole development suffer. And in this case, the legal advice has obviously been negative.

SozBbz · 31-01-2020 10:27am

kravmaga wrote: »

I would follow up with DCC and a Solicitor, there is no way the owner occupiers/tenants should have to pay up 13k for defective workmanship by the original builder.

Are you not covered by the block policy insurance ? Contents insurance is seperate and up to you to pay for with an Insurance provider.

Is it a retro fit for fire safety purposes?

Having been down this road myself, this post is naive.

Owners are literally left up sh1t creek. Trying to chase others legals just costs more money. Builders will have gone bust and insurance doesnt cover against construction defects. The council never certified anything and therefore can't be held liable.

The Student · 31-01-2020 11:10am

The_Conductor wrote: »

Honestly- you're throwing good money after bad by trying to argue that you're not liable.
If the builder has gone bankrupt/bust- which they have- you have no come back on this.
Its one of those things- as a property owner sometimes things happen- you're not going to get bailed out- its a cost you are going to have to pay.
Best bet is to see if you can organise a payment schedule with the Management Company- or whether they need the money up front.

I would have to agree with you on this. I have briefly read all previous posts and forgive me if I am wrong on this. if the remedial work is solely related to the wiring then the costs should not be charged on square footage of property.

Chasing wiring in an apartment compared to a house is the same cost ie a bedroom might have a single light and four sockets but one bedroom could be twice the size of the other.

For what its worth I would suggest (again assuming it is just the wiring issue) that the common area work is shared on a per unit basis (eg each apartment pays the same for the costs associated with the common areas and that the costs per property is based on the actual work involved.

Simply basing the charges on a size basis for wiring in my view is unfair, if there are other fire issues that require fireboarding etc then this is different as floors have to be taken up, kitchens removed replastering etc but if the issue is solely wiring then I think the above is fairer.

dubrov · 31-01-2020 12:58pm

The Student wrote: »

I would have to agree with you on this. I have briefly read all previous posts and forgive me if I am wrong on this. if the remedial work is solely related to the wiring then the costs should not be charged on square footage of property.

Chasing wiring in an apartment compared to a house is the same cost ie a bedroom might have a single light and four sockets but one bedroom could be twice the size of the other.

For what its worth I would suggest (again assuming it is just the wiring issue) that the common area work is shared on a per unit basis (eg each apartment pays the same for the costs associated with the common areas and that the costs per property is based on the actual work involved.

Simply basing the charges on a size basis for wiring in my view is unfair, if there are other fire issues that require fireboarding etc then this is different as floors have to be taken up, kitchens removed replastering etc but if the issue is solely wiring then I think the above is fairer.

You are getting bogged down in what is fair. Your lease will specify what proportion of the costs you will bear.
If it says a 1 bed pays 5 times what a 3 bed pays, then that is the contractual obligation

lawred2 · 31-01-2020 1:01pm

dubrov wrote: »

You are getting bogged down in what is fair. Your lease will specify what proportion of the costs you will bear.
If it says a 1 bed pays 5 times what a 3 bed pays, then that is the contractual obligation

There is no lease here. The OP is an owner occupier.

dubrov · 31-01-2020 1:03pm

lawred2 wrote: »

There is no lease here. The OP is an owner occupier.

You still sign a lease if it is a managed development.
It is basically a contract that outlines your obligations in the development as a member of the management company

CIARAN_BOYLE · 31-01-2020 1:03pm

lawred2 wrote: »

There is no lease here. The OP is an owner occupier.

Owner is a leaseholder who owns an apartment in a managed development.

L1011 · 31-01-2020 1:04pm

lawred2 wrote: »

There is no lease here. The OP is an owner occupier.

They're a leaseholder on an apartment. They have a likely 999 year lease on it.

lawred2 · 31-01-2020 1:05pm

L1011 wrote: »

They're a leaseholder on an apartment. They have a likely 999 year lease on it.

stand corrected then

is that a standard process? I know I wouldn't touch anything with a leasehold.

Blackjack · 31-01-2020 1:05pm

OP how did you get on with getting the council to pay for the Boiler repairs you had 18 months after you bought the place?

CIARAN_BOYLE · 31-01-2020 1:22pm

lawred2 wrote: »

stand corrected then

is that a standard process? I know I wouldn't touch anything with a leasehold.

Almost every single apartment is a leasehold because you cant all own the land the apartment is standing on.

Ownership of the building and land sits in a management company (the owners own the management company and have long term leases on their apartment).

SozBbz · 31-01-2020 2:33pm

lawred2 wrote: »

stand corrected then

is that a standard process? I know I wouldn't touch anything with a leasehold.

Absolutely standard.

I guess you'll never be buying an apartment then.

lawred2 · 31-01-2020 4:09pm

SozBbz wrote: »

Absolutely standard.

I guess you'll never be buying an apartment then.

correct...

Caranica · 31-01-2020 10:50pm

dubrov wrote: »

You are getting bogged down in what is fair. Your lease will specify what proportion of the costs you will bear.
If it says a 1 bed pays 5 times what a 3 bed pays, then that is the contractual obligation

Not necessarily. My lease says I pay a percentage of the development budget as management fees.

Nowhere does it mention any apportionment of emergency levies, these are in addition to the development budget.

People are fixating on who benefits from the works rather than looking at it as a member of a management company. That company owns all the buildings. My block (A) might not need emergency works but that doesn't mean that I don't have a responsible interest in block C that might. You are liable as a member of the management company.

cryptocurrency · 12-03-2024 7:40pm

This looks like a gold rush since the annonuced the redress scheme. Going around looking for issues so they can fatten up a claim. You are fighting a losing battle if you live in the block as the landlords will want to get their head into the trough to enhance their investments and pass their contributions to the accountant to make go away.

This is why I would never recomend buying an apartment. Most of the owner mangament companies are made up of landlords and those who have a totally differetn agenda to living lives.

"Majority Rules is how they will hide when confronted, we are just following the multi unit act"

My advise is look at selling and never buy an apartment again. It attracts the wrong sorts.

13-03-2024 8:19am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121884836#Comment_121884836

Thread is 4 yrs old,

kozak · 16-03-2024 1:19pm

Similar situation - management company requires 8-9 K levy for Fire remedial work. Apparently work doesn't fall under remit of recently announced government remedial scheme, not sure why. Any advice or experience?

Estate is big, few hundred apartments built around 2001-2005. Original developer still in business, but fire protection issues are related to stricter POST-completion fire regulations.

Thanks

Allinall · 16-03-2024 1:26pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121900792#Comment_121900792

Is there no sinking fund? That’s what should be paying for the works.

You should enquire if there ever was one, and if there was, what happened to it.

mickdw · 16-03-2024 1:30pm

Apartments are a disaster from start to finish.

You buy it yet you have little to no control over it.

Roof repairs needed in your house, you decide when and how it gets sorted.

Same needed in apartment and you get a demand.

Wouldn't touch one at any price.

16-03-2024 2:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121900830#Comment_121900830

It cuts the other way as well, costs are shared in a MUD and if council takes charge of the estate, they look after their parts. If you can’t afford to fix your roof, you have to put up with it until you can. There are advantages to both individual and shared ownership.

I lived in my own apartment for 5 yrs, outside of management fees and utilities, I had no costs, when I bought my first house, the costs seemed to be never ending until I got it the way I wanted it which took years.

kozak · 16-03-2024 6:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121900830#Comment_121900830

If memory serves mica issue impacted mainly houses

kozak · 16-03-2024 6:34pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121900815#Comment_121900815

Recently AGM decided to change management company. New management reckons that old management neglected sinking fund in order to avoid management fee increase. Audit confirmed this so unfortunately sinking fund is not a solution

16-03-2024 6:45pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121902162#Comment_121902162

Changed managing agent, owners are the management company. The sinking fund is a legal obligation, even if it was ignored, owners are required to pay it. It would seem you are now having to pay what you would have had to pay into that sinking fund in order to pay for repairs.

You should discuss the lack of sinking fund with the BOD, they are also responsible if it wasn’t kept up to date, and, the owners must take some responsibility for not questioning this at the AGM’s.

kozak · 18-03-2024 4:32pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121902235#Comment_121902235

Surely sinking fund must be maintained. My question though about responsibility of the developer - construction company is still in business so probably could contribute to fire remedial work. Any views or experiences on this?

18-03-2024 4:46pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121909198#Comment_121909198

If the build met regulations at the time of construction, it’s hard to see how developer could be retrospectively responsible for property meeting new regulations. I suspect they will argue that they met specifications required at the time the property was built.

Yes, the sinking fund must be maintained. You should contact the Board of Directors of your OMC and find out why it wasn’t. But that will not change the fact that you will still be obligated to pay whatever should be in that sinking fund as a member of the OMC. If you recently bought the property and the sinking fund wasn’t being paid into by the previous owner of your unit, you should discuss with your solicitor about why this wasn’t brought to your attention when the info was received from the OMC during the purchase. If you have owned the property since the MUD Act was enacted in 2011, then it should have been clear at the AGMs that the sinking fund payment was not being included in your yearly management fees.

Management company demanding 13k

Comments