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

Help: New Development with Mgt Company? (Newcastle,Co Dublin)

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    SwimClub wrote: »
    Or you are in a development with mixed apartments and houses and are subsidising the fees for their lifts etc.

    It is common for houses and apartments to have different management fees precisely for that reason.


  • Options
    #63
    DaveyDave
    Registered Users Posts: 6,196 ✭✭✭DaveyDave


    Personally I don't agree with management companies. I live in West Dublin, SDCC have planning requirements where 40% of houses aren't allowed have private driveways, so no gardens and parking spaces require planting between every 5 parking spaces or 3 parallel spaces, they're forcing estates to be built with shrubs and trees that will 100% require serious upkeep and I'm not a fan. It seems they're being designed to not be taken over. We even have to pay to rent the equipment for electric car charging, that the council required in 10% of all parking.

    If you're buying a house in a small development it shouldn't be too bad as there shouldn't be many issues in the future. My estate is large and has several apartment blocks, we had to get parking enforcement because apartments kept taking housing private parking spaces. Smaller developments shouldn't have these issues other than general upkeep.
    Graham wrote: »
    It is common for houses and apartments to have different management fees precisely for that reason.

    Exactly and it should be clearly laid out in the budget. My estate has blocks of apartments and duplexes, they both pay additional fees for insurance, maintenance, lifts, cleaning etc then there's a common fee that everyone pays for landscaping, bins etc.


  • Options
    #64
    Cyrus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,713 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    SwimClub wrote: »
    So what has changed versus the majority of older houses that don't have a service charge?
    You get to live in an area with generic tidy landscaping policed by busybody neighbours with too much time on their hands and pay over 1k per annum for the privilege. No thank you!

    It’s been established that you don’t know what you are talking about so why continue with it ?


  • Options
    #65
    SwimClub
    Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    Cyrus wrote: »
    It’s been established that you don’t know what you are talking about so why continue with it ?


    What is clear is that a lot of people are on here defending maintenance fees.

    A recent poster points out that the council are implementing planning laws that impact on them. So the `follow the money approach' is leading to some answers now.



    They are clearly not something the majority of people want, people want houses with gardens not shared common areas that require maintenance.

    They are forced into these maintenance fees, another bill for life for which you get very little over someone in a house that doesn't have to pay them.


    They seem to be a result of these high density setups. You're in your living room with someone arriving into the shared parking space outside the front of your house with full beam lights on late at night.


    How many builders are living in houses like these I wonder.


  • Options
    #66
    Cyrus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,713 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    SwimClub wrote: »
    What is clear is that a lot of people are on here defending maintenance fees.

    A recent poster points out that the council are implementing planning laws that impact on them. So the `follow the money approach' is leading to some answers now.



    They are clearly not something the majority of people want, people want houses with gardens not shared common areas that require maintenance.

    They are forced into these maintenance fees, another bill for life for which you get very little over someone in a house that doesn't have to pay them.


    They seem to be a result of these high density setups. You're in your living room with someone arriving into the shared parking space outside the front of your house with full beam lights on late at night.


    How many builders are living in houses like these I wonder.

    take off your tin foil hat, the responses you are getting are from people who know what they are talking about.

    and no one is forced is buy a house in a new estate.

    builders get nothing out of these OMCs, its the council that is saving money on maintaining the common areas.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    SwimClub
    Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    Cyrus wrote: »
    take off your tin foil hat, the responses you are getting are from people who know what they are talking about.

    and no one is forced is buy a house in a new estate.

    builders get nothing out of these OMCs, its the council that is saving money on maintaining the common areas.




    And the builders that profit from squeezing 10 houses and and apartment block into a site where before there would be 10 houses with gardens.


  • Options
    #68
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,555 ✭✭✭dubrov


    You are both partially right.
    Councils are using it as a means to save money. Not only do they load taxes onto new homes but then they welch on providing services to these new homes. It seems completely unfair that the council will look after insurance/street lighting etc. in one estate but not another.

    There is definitely a lot of waste with management fees, even in well run developments. The paperwork and organising insurance/bills etc all takes time and costs money. In poorly run developments managing agents can take over and fees skyrocket. I have seen north of 3k fees for a 2 bed apartment with a lift but no outside common areas in Dublin city centre.

    In addition to the above, there are stories of where builders have retained large numbers of units within developments. As each unit has a vote, they effectively retain control of the management company and can appoint whoever they want to run it. Obviously other members can take the builder to court if they think they are using it as a personal piggy bank but this can be costly and difficult to prove.

    Personally I would avoid management fees if I could. New builds have a lot going for them though (A-rated, young families in area) but you have to trade that off against mgt fees, tiny gardens and more expensive


  • Options
    #69
    Cyrus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,713 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    dubrov wrote: »
    You are both partially right.
    Councils are using it as a means to save money. Not only do they load taxes onto new homes but then they welch on providing services to these new homes. It seems completely unfair that the council will look after insurance/street lighting etc. in one estate but not another.

    There is definitely a lot of waste with management fees, even in well run developments. The paperwork and organising insurance/bills etc all takes time and costs money. In poorly run developments managing agents can take over and fees skyrocket. I have seen north of 3k fees for a 2 bed apartment with a lift but no outside common areas in Dublin city centre.

    In addition to the above, there are stories of where builders have retained large numbers of units within developments. As each unit has a vote, they effectively retain control of the management company and can appoint whoever they want to run it. Obviously other members can take the builder to court if they think they are using it as a personal piggy bank but this can be costly and difficult to prove.

    Personally I would avoid management fees if I could. New builds have a lot going for them though (A-rated, young families in area) but you have to trade that off against mgt fees, tiny gardens and more expensive

    not all new builds have tiny gardens. my new build has a decent sized garden, no apartments and only 20 houses, its a configuration that works for me, and comparing what i paid for the house against what i had bid on other older houses in the area that needed extensive refurbishment and extending it was a better financial choice. sure i dont have a 90m long back garden but i dont really need one either.

    the OMC here is run very well but you are right there are costs associated such as the appt of a management agent which will cost 3.5k a year and insurances but on the flip side we get to maintain the place as wish, the landscaping is excellent and its brings the neighbours together, generally anyway.

    thats not always the case but people dont have to buy anywhere, they can weigh up all the factors and make a decision that suits them.


  • Options
    #70
    Cyrus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,713 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    SwimClub wrote: »
    And the builders that profit from squeezing 10 houses and and apartment block into a site where before there would be 10 houses with gardens.

    again the councils have minimum density requirements now, im sure the builders dont mind either but the day of builders building houses with massive back gardens is gone for now, you wont get planning.


  • Options
    #71
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,025 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    It took 10 years for the council to take over the roads and lights in my estate there is still a management company for cutting grass etc


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Mod Note

    SwimClub, housing densities are not relevant to this thread. If you wish to discuss housing densities for new development please start a new thread.

    Thanks

    Do not reply to this post.


Advertisement