Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Management company demanding 13k

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,546 ✭✭✭dubrov


    You need to contact the managing agent / director to find out the background and costings of the proposed works.

    The chances are they have already consulted a solicitor about pursuing the building company and associated professionals.Given the builder is bust, it is likely only the lawyers would get paid if it was pursued.

    This leaves the management company with two options
    1) Do not do the work and risk the building being shut down or even worse if there was a fire accident the directors could be deemed personally liable
    2) Bill the members for the cost and implement the works.

    So in reality you will need to pay but maybe a payment plan can be worked out.


  • Options
    #93
    wench
    Registered Users Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭wench


    It's been almost a year since you started this thread.
    Has there been no work undertaken or greater clarity provided in that time?


  • Options
    #94
    Hunchback
    Registered Users Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭Hunchback


    wench wrote: »
    It's been almost a year since you started this thread.
    Has there been no work undertaken or greater clarity provided in that time?

    Just re-read the whole thread on foot of this bump.

    Would be curious to learn what was discussed at the intervening AGM or EGM in terms of costings, levels of unit owners paying up etc


  • Options
    #95
    todolist
    Registered Users Posts: 811 ✭✭✭todolist


    They had an egm.Majority voted to go ahead with the work and bill everyone the same amount regardless of the size of your apartment.No paperwork was given out at the egm with what needed to be done.What's to stop them looking for more money later in the year?
    Management co board were called "dysfunctional " at the egm.They remained silent and refused to defend themselves.How could you have confidence in a set-up like that?


  • Options
    #96
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    How did they get the majority if that was the overall opinion was the board are dysfunctional?

    It's probably fair to say there's always 1 or 2 owners that won't be happy, whatever the proposal/discussion. Usually the 1 or 2 that wouldn't dream of volunteering to be on the board.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    hmmm
    Registered Users Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    todolist wrote: »
    Management co board were called "dysfunctional " at the egm.They remained silent and refused to defend themselves.How could you have confidence in a set-up like that?
    I presume you're talking about the OMC. Obviously the fact they got the motion through shows that the majority supported their views. I've been at OMC AGMs where you have a small cohort of people who don't seem to understand their responsibilities as owners shouting abuse at the volunteer directors.

    In that situation, better to keep your mouth shut than "defend" yourself, and hope that a majority of people present understand what's involved in helping to run a complex. In general, the vast majority of people in well-run complexes are on your side and understand the issues, even though they may not be brave enough to say it in public.


  • Options
    #98
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,003 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    hmmm wrote: »
    I presume you're talking about the OMC. Obviously the fact they got the motion through shows that the majority supported their views. I've been at OMC AGMs where you have a small cohort of people who don't seem to understand their responsibilities as owners shouting abuse at the volunteer directors.

    In that situation, better to keep your mouth shut than "defend" yourself, and hope that a majority of people present understand what's involved in helping to run a complex. In general, the vast majority of people in well-run complexes are on your side and understand the issues, even though they may not be brave enough to say it in public.

    Absolutely agree, as a former Director, we often just informed people of what works needed to be done and the tenders received and then put it to the floor for discussion, only answering questions when asked for further information so as to remain impartial.


  • Options
    #99
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,078 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    steamsey wrote: »
    OP - as the owner, you are responsible. You are joining a growing group of people who are getting these bills in apartment complexes all over Ireland. I've see people try to fight this, go to the media, politicians etc. Complete waste of time. My advise, having been through this, is to resign yourself to paying up. You must have some equity built up so keep that in mind - and with this you're adding to the value of the apartment.

    If you had a house, it'd be a driveway, new windows, new boiler, new roof etc. With apartments, it's going to be fire / building reg type stuff.

    Worst case scenario - no one pays and the Fire regulations require everyone to vacate until the place is fixed.

    At least with a house you can spread out the payments, have insurance, get someone to do the work or do it yourself etc. You are not at the mercy of a management company.

    If you own an apartment you'd be mad not to be on the board of the management.


  • Options
    #100
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,365 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    todolist wrote: »
    They had an egm.Majority voted to go ahead with the work and bill everyone the same amount regardless of the size of your apartment.No paperwork was given out at the egm with what needed to be done.What's to stop them looking for more money later in the year?
    Management co board were called "dysfunctional " at the egm.They remained silent and refused to defend themselves.How could you have confidence in a set-up like that?

    Next AGM those making these statements should be encouraged to put themselves forward for board positions.

    I have never been on a management co board but I have been on the board in other organisations and it's easy to shout from the sidelines when you're not the one making the unpopular decisions.


  • Options
    #101
    Caranica
    Registered Users Posts: 10,001 ✭✭✭✭Caranica


    todolist wrote: »
    They had an egm.Majority voted to go ahead with the work and bill everyone the same amount regardless of the size of your apartment.No paperwork was given out at the egm with what needed to be done.What's to stop them looking for more money later in the year?
    Management co board were called "dysfunctional " at the egm.They remained silent and refused to defend themselves.How could you have confidence in a set-up like that?

    Apartment size should have no relevance as the cost is split between the members of the management company as the management company owns the buildings.

    Re board, ask yourself a simple question "do you trust any of them to protect your investment"? That's precisely why I have been a director for many years!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,546 ✭✭✭dubrov


    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.


  • Options
    #103
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,736 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    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.


  • Options
    #104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?"


  • Options
    #105
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,546 ✭✭✭dubrov


    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.


  • Options
    #106
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    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.


  • Options
    #107
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,546 ✭✭✭dubrov


    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.


  • Options
    #108
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    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.


  • Options
    #109
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,736 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    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.


  • Options
    #110
    kravmaga
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭kravmaga


    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?


  • Options
    #111
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,268 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #113
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,546 ✭✭✭dubrov


    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.


  • Options
    #114
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,268 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    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?


  • Options
    #115
    todolist
    Registered Users Posts: 811 ✭✭✭todolist


    lawred2 wrote: »
    The thread is about paying towards necessary remedial works on a block is it not?

    Yes it is.


  • Options
    #116
    todolist
    Registered Users Posts: 811 ✭✭✭todolist


    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.


  • Options
    #117
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,278 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    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.


  • Options
    #118
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    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.


  • Options
    #119
    SozBbz
    Registered Users Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭SozBbz


    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.


  • Options
    #120
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,238 ✭✭✭The Student


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,546 ✭✭✭dubrov


    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


Advertisement