Management company demanding 13k

Addle · 20-03-2019 12:39pm

The council wasn't the purchaser, the OP was. Why is the purchasers responsibility diminished because they had the opportunity to avail of a beneficial scheme?

FishOnABike · 20-03-2019 1:00pm

ted1 wrote: »

You should have got your own surveyor

Unfortunately the nature of some defects means that they can only be inspected for during construction. Once the building is complete the defects are well hidden. Without opening up the structure the defects are only identified after a problem occurs.

Most survey reports contain so many boilerplate caveats as to render them next to worthless for identifying all but the obvious defects.

A pre purchase survey on a new build would not likely have helped the OP.

Large bottle small glass · 20-03-2019 1:20pm

ted1 wrote: »

You should have got your own surveyor

How would that show up missing fire protection in the cavity?

Given how widespread the issue is there must be 1000's of surveys carried out which didn't flag it.

AAAAAAAAA · 20-03-2019 2:40pm

ted1 wrote: »

You should have got your own surveyor

and what should the surveyor have done? lick his finger and wave it around in the air in the hopes of sensing that internal fixings were constructed improperly?

SozBbz · 20-03-2019 2:58pm

People are being very unfair on the OP here. The fact it was bought under affordable housing is irrelevant.

For context, I'm on the OMC of a development that uncovered fire stopping issues in the last few years, having being built in 1999. This happened when one of the owners was getting a Stira fitted, having previously had the property surveyed before purchasing. I also had mine surveyed also and nothing was detected, even though they definitely went up into my roof space.

You won't have heard of our development as we took the decision to deal with it ourselves and the members all paid towards the cost, with some also coming from the sinking fund. Nobody was pleased wtih the situation but collectivly we took the decision that the representational damage of becoming the next Priory Hall/Longboat Quay/Beacon etc wasnt worth it.

That said, we got off lightly, it was a very low sum compared to the OP and certainly compared to numbers at other developments who've gone public.

Classic story, developer had gone bust etc so we took the call that we needed to act fast so that we could get our fire cert back in place to renew our block insurance, as that was of paramount importance. The advise we got is that this is happening left and right, up and down the country and being dealt with quietly by owners.

While in my case it wasn't too bad (money wise) I do feel let down by the government for failure to effectively regulate. I'm sure they happily took the VAT on the new build, and my STAMP duty on my subsequent purchase, but totally let me down as a citizen and ordinary home owner.

JJJackal · 20-03-2019 3:04pm

SozBbz wrote: »

People are being very unfair on the OP here. The fact it was bought under affordable housing is irrelevant.

For context, I'm on the OMC of a development that uncovered fire stopping issues in the last few years, having being built in 1999. This happened when one of the owners was getting a Stira fitted, having previously had the property surveyed before purchasing. I also had mine surveyed also and nothing was detected, even though they definitely went up into my roof space.

You won't have heard of our development as we took the decision to deal with it ourselves and the members all paid towards the cost, with some also coming from the sinking fund. Nobody was pleased wtih the situation but collectivly we took the decision that the representational damage of becoming the next Priory Hall/Longboat Quay/Beacon etc wasnt worth it.

That said, we got off lightly, it was a very low sum compared to the OP and certainly compared to numbers at other developments who've gone public.

Classic story, developer had gone bust etc so we took the call that we needed to act fast so that we could get our fire cert back in place to renew our block insurance, as that was of paramount importance. The advise we got is that this is happening left and right, up and down the country and being dealt with quietly by owners.

While in my case it wasn't too bad (money wise) I do feel let down by the government for failure to effectively regulate. I'm sure they happily took the VAT on the new build, and my STAMP duty on my subsequent purchase, but totally let me down as a citizen and ordinary home owner.

Perhaps the issue that posters have with the OP is he asked if the council should pay something - whereas in your case you paid out of your pocket

Either way its very disappointing to have to pay for fire safety works years after purchase. You are right to have dealt with it quietly. It must be outrageously hard to sell apartments in some of the developments you mentioned. If the government gave the VAT back on these repair works it would help (as as you said you paid VAT and Stamp Duty at purchase)

20-03-2019 3:04pm

Addle wrote: »

The council wasn't the purchaser, the OP was. Why is the purchasers responsibility diminished because they had the opportunity to avail of a beneficial scheme?

Because the council approved the property for said scheme.

Graham · 20-03-2019 3:07pm

In the same way a bank might approve a mortgage. I wouldn't take that as any kind of warranty.

The OP has exactly the same rights/protections (and limitations) as any other purchaser.

pinkypinky · 20-03-2019 3:09pm

Also agree people are hard on the OP. Regardless of circumstances, no one wants a bill for something that should have been done before they lived in a development and was signed off on.

OP is right to inform Council because this may prompt them to survey other developments where they also had affordable housing, which might lead to saving people's lives.

SozBbz · 20-03-2019 3:15pm

JJJackal wrote: »

Perhaps the issue that posters have with the OP is he asked if the council should pay something - whereas in your case you paid out of your pocket

Either way its very disappointing to have to pay for fire safety works years after purchase. You are right to have dealt with it quietly. It must be outrageously hard to sell apartments in some of the developments you mentioned. If the government gave the VAT back on these repair works it would help (as as you said you paid VAT and Stamp Duty at purchase)

Well I think the government/council whoever - basically the state under whatever guise has a lot to answer for in terms of failing to properly regulate the construction sector, despite massively profiting from it.

We took the decision that the sum of money in question in our specific case was such that it wasnt worth the notoriety of going public and all that that brings. We also had a small window to get our insurance renewed, and we needed the fire cert. We took the pragmatic approach that it would have cost us more to fight it with no guarantee of success.

I wouldn't criticize any other owner for seeking redress from central govt for their failings. Its morally not right that owners such as myself and the OP have been left on the hook. However, ultimately yes it will fall back on the tax payer. People ought to remember the politicians etc who stood over the boom and never reelect them. The state should be responsible for a robust system of building inspection and certification, and should force developers to contribute as standard to a pool of funds for scenarios where things go wrong, like now exists in the insurance sector.

The state did come to the rescue ultimately in Priory Hall but only after the situation got extremely bad, and we weren't prepared to go there. Myself and my fellow owners did what we felt we had to do, not what we felt was right.

20-03-2019 3:16pm

Graham wrote: »

In the same way a bank might approve a mortgage. I wouldn't take that as any kind of warranty.

The OP has exactly the same rights/protections (and limitations) as any other purchaser.

There is a difference in Affordable. The council expects a claw back if you sell (time limited) they have skin in the game there. They also do not let you just put in on any old property, it has to be one on their approved list.
The council should have been much more diligent on these scheme builds, than they were. They shoulder some of the blame IMHO.

No matter this; the government has a massive responsibility, to the public here, in relation to allowing developers to raise firetraps, declare "bankrupt", no comeback. The government allowed laws to be broken yet still happily took Stamp duty, land registry, and Solicitor VAT from the purchaser.

SozBbz · 20-03-2019 3:27pm

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a difference in Affordable. The council expects a claw back if you sell (time limited) they have skin in the game there. They also do not let you just put in on any old property, it has to be one on their approved list.
The council should have been much more diligent on these scheme builds, than they were. They shoulder some of the blame IMHO.

No matter this; the government has a massive responsibility, to the public here, in relation to allowing developers to raise firetraps, declare "bankrupt", no comeback. The government allowed laws to be broken yet still happily took Stamp duty, land registry, and Solicitor VAT from the purchaser.

I don't personally think the affordable scheme is relevant here. Its the council, but not the building regs department. Qualifying a building for the affordable housing scheme shouldn't be some quality mark. All building should be built to the same high standards.

The Government has a responsibility in my mind to ensure this, and to put in place a scheme (ideally industry funded) to cater for people where a failure in the regulations has happened.

Also, its a crying shame that there is no provision in Irish law for class action law suits. The amount of home owners who have suffered because of this is untrue. Yes, as a tax payer the idea of people suing the state isnt ideal, but it would be one way to make the government pay attention and put in place proper regulation to ensure this doesn't happen again.

I'd also be in favour of somehow preventing developers who go out of business completely disassociating themselves from their previous projects, when in many cases, their new companies are very much viable/profitable.

Ray Palmer · 20-03-2019 4:18pm

A lot of people are saying how things should be or should have been the. All irrelevant as the government changed the system 20+ years. It is certified by a surveyor during construction and they have limited liability as the builder could do anything when the surveyor isn't there. No recourse if the developer goes bankrupt.
That is the reality and you can't "should" the system now. When the civil servants in these departments were be done away with people didn't complain or listen to warnings of what would happen. Now people complain but it is too late and have to live with it.
Council aided purchase is of no relevance in anyway.

20-03-2019 4:42pm

SozBbz wrote: »

I'd also be in favour of somehow preventing developers who go out of business completely disassociating themselves from their previous projects, when in many cases, their new companies are very much viable/profitable.

Easy, make it a criminal offence for whomever signs off on it (the CEO or some such).
They are not going to sign off on dodgy work then

SozBbz · 20-03-2019 5:13pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Easy, make it a criminal offence for whomever signs off on it (the CEO or some such).
They are not going to sign off on dodgy work then

No issue from me! People signing off on the roofs over peoples heads and all the risks that encompasses ought to have some skin in the game. Now all we need is a government strong enough to stand up to the Construction Industry Federation and legislate as such.

SozBbz · 20-03-2019 5:19pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

A lot of people are saying how things should be or should have been the. All irrelevant as the government changed the system 20+ years. It is certified by a surveyor during construction and they have limited liability as the builder could do anything when the surveyor isn't there. No recourse if the developer goes bankrupt.
That is the reality and you can't "should" the system now. When the civil servants in these departments were be done away with people didn't complain or listen to warnings of what would happen. Now people complain but it is too late and have to live with it.
Council aided purchase is of no relevance in anyway.

I know (more than most, having paid myself) that theres no point fighting it, unless like the residents of priory hall etc, you've no choice as the costs involved there were so high that they'd likely have bankrupted most owners anyway, so you may as well go public and fight the good fight.

There is nothing wrong with suggesting how things ought to be done in the future. Why should we always have to live with such inadequacy? I know i'm guilty of it myself, but by dealing wtih things quietly, we're really letting an awful lot of cowboys off scott free. At minimum they should have the adverse publicity, but no one wants their development associated with this shambles.

Ray Palmer · 20-03-2019 6:07pm

SozBbz wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with suggesting how things ought to be done in the future.

It is simply utterly pointless. Like asking some body for directions and them saying " I wouldn't start from here" You are where you are and when these properties were built we had legislation the way it was and can't change that.

SozBbz · 21-03-2019 10:33am

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It is simply utterly pointless. Like asking some body for directions and them saying " I wouldn't start from here" You are where you are and when these properties were built we had legislation the way it was and can't change that.

Nope, absolutely not. If you read what I said correctly, you'll see that I paid and have accepted my lot. I'm arguing that just because we've been all taken for fools once, that we should not let it happen again.

Apathy like what you're displaying, is going to lead to repetition of past mistakes. Why do we as Irish people accept things that are so substandard, and that other countries seem perfectly able to deal with? Sure maybe we should just shrug our shoulders and accept it and keep paying like suckers.

There are plenty of steps that could be taken to protect consumers in future and its all of our responsibility to lobby our local representatives to ensure this is seen as a significant issue.

AndrewJRenko · 22-03-2019 10:43pm

SozBbz wrote: »

.

There are plenty of steps that could be taken to protect consumers in future and its all of our responsibility to lobby our local representatives to ensure this is seen as a significant issue.

Have you gone back and asked your solicitor and your survey why they failed to protect your interests?

Marcusm · 23-03-2019 12:32am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you gone back and asked your solicitor and your survey why they failed to protect your interests?

Have you ever bought a new build? Especially an apartment? Practically no one gets a survey as they got a structural guarantee on completion from Homebond or similar. Even if the purchaser instructed a surveyor, they could not establish that there was insufficient fire protection when it was complete - they’d have to open up the envelope of the common areas. Likewise the solicitor will have exercised a reasonable duty of care in ensuring that completion certificates and structural guarantees were in place.

The construction company were at fault, likely complicit and fully aware but it sounds as if they have disappeared. Priory Hall was the start and the local authorityvtenants were rehoused whilevthe private owners were excluded from their properties, required to rehouse themselves and pay the original mortgage. This was the cause of the suicide(s). Longboat Quay had a state agency as the freeholder and co-developer which is why additional funds were found to keep it open.

Make no mistake this is s scandal similar to pyrite except it involves decanting rather than just defects. State agencies failed to provide an appropriate regulatory framework but are likely technically not on the hook. The OP cannot be blamed for this. Buyers in the boom are responsible for overpaying but they could not have identified or avoided these defects. A proper system of building control would have.

AndrewJRenko · 23-03-2019 10:20am

Marcusm wrote: »

Have you ever bought a new build? Especially an apartment? Practically no one gets a survey as they got a structural guarantee on completion from Homebond or similar. Even if the purchaser instructed a surveyor, they could not establish that there was insufficient fire protection when it was complete - they’d have to open up the envelope of the common areas. Likewise the solicitor will have exercised a reasonable duty of care in ensuring that completion certificates and structural guarantees were in place.

My question to the OP is - was he aware what level of protection he had from his solicitor and surveyor?

Graham · 23-03-2019 11:23am

What varying levels of protection do you think solicitors offer during conveyancing?

The_Conductor · 23-03-2019 11:48am

Graham wrote: »

What varying levels of protection do you think solicitors offer during conveyancing?

Other than against professional malfeasance- I imagine the answer is none, precisely none. It is hardly in the remit even of a professional surveyor- to check the fire retardant in a structure- it would involve a far deeper survey (into the very fabric of the building)- to get any sort of grasp on its integrity (or even its presence).

The OP's bill- at 13k- is probably one of the lowest bills I've seen to bring units up to cert- I'd suggest whatever the remedy entails, its minor given the construction costs- hell, you wouldn't even do a rewiring for 13k.

I think the OP is annoyed- understandably- but whatever the defect is- is relatively minor, it could be a whole lot worse.

the_syco · 25-03-2019 8:58pm

Questions for the OP; was the entire apartment block bought by people on the affordable housing scheme from Dublin City Council, or did the OP just qualify for the scheme?

If the former, sure, you can claim that DCC may be liable, but if the latter, then DCC will probably ask why the OP didn't do checks.

Also, as has been asked; have you paid the annual MC sub? Or did you expect DCC to foot the cost of that?

todolist · 26-03-2019 11:02pm

STB. wrote: »

So you've been there since 2008. Presume you are paying your annual management fees/service charges ?

Yes.All paid.

todolist · 26-03-2019 11:07pm

mad m wrote: »

OP,

How many are living in the apartment complex?

Approx 90 apartments

todolist · 26-03-2019 11:31pm

the_syco wrote: »

Questions for the OP; was the entire apartment block bought by people on the affordable housing scheme from Dublin City Council, or did the OP just qualify for the scheme?

If the former, sure, you can claim that DCC may be liable, but if the latter, then DCC will probably ask why the OP didn't do checks.

Also, as has been asked; have you paid the annual MC sub? Or did you expect DCC to foot the cost of that?

I paid all my managemt fees.Only three apartments were sold as affordable housing.My apartment was given to Dublin City Council who sold it on to me.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 26-03-2019 11:34pm

Wesser wrote: »

Did you have a structural survey done before you bought it.
What checks did you do before you bought it.
Are you seriously suggesting that every property bought in the state should be inspected by a governmen t agency to make sure it is up to scratch.
Or if it just affordable ones bought from the council.

Of course all appartments should be inspected and all new builds too.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 26-03-2019 11:37pm

Ray Palmer wrote: »

A lot of people are saying how things should be or should have been the. All irrelevant as the government changed the system 20+ years. It is certified by a surveyor during construction and they have limited liability as the builder could do anything when the surveyor isn't there. No recourse if the developer goes bankrupt.
That is the reality and you can't "should" the system now. When the civil servants in these departments were be done away with people didn't complain or listen to warnings of what would happen. Now people complain but it is too late and have to live with it.
Council aided purchase is of no relevance in anyway.

Actually there is something that can be done. Make it a criminal offence to deliberately not meet fire standards.

27-03-2019 9:20am

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Actually there is something that can be done. Make it a criminal offence to deliberately not meet fire standards.

But if a building meets regulatory standards in place today when the property is built, are you advocating that builders could be prosecuted for not meeting higher standards brought in, in the future? How does that work?

Old diesel · 27-03-2019 10:34am

Dav010 wrote: »

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Actually there is something that can be done. Make it a criminal offence to deliberately not meet fire standards.

But if a building meets regulatory standards in place today when the property is built, are you advocating that builders could be prosecuted for not meeting higher standards brought in, in the future? How does that work?

He's clearly talking about someone deliberately choosing to flout the regulations at time of building.

So someone building apartments in 2020 deliberately ignores the 2020 fire safety regulations.

You can only ever prosecute based on the rules at time of alleged offence.

A developer cannot and never will be prosecuted for failing to meet a newer standard then what was in place at time of construction.

Deliberately flouting the regs means a developer knew (or should have known) what the rules were on the date he built a house or apartment but took a decision to not comply.

todolist · 02-04-2019 4:52pm

I have seen a lot of stories in the newspapers recently similar to mine.The 13k I'm being asked to fork out seems the highest
I've seen.

L1011 · 02-04-2019 5:11pm

todolist wrote: »

I have seen a lot of stories in the newspapers recently similar to mine.The 13k I'm being asked to fork out seems the highest
I've seen.

It's definitely not high compared to others. In the news yesterday is that Verdemont in Blanchardstown is going to be 50k a unit

Ray Palmer · 02-04-2019 5:28pm

todolist wrote: »

I have seen a lot of stories in the newspapers recently similar to mine.The 13k I'm being asked to fork out seems the highest
I've seen.

You better keep an eye on the sinking fund afterwards too. I got a much larger bill when there wasn't enough in the fund for vital maintenance that should have been covered by sinking fund

Jaster Rogue · 02-04-2019 5:33pm

From hearing these stories, you would want your head checked for even considering to buy an apartment these days. I don't believe the apartments being completed today are immune from this either, when you see the speed they are flying up at due to demand. It takes about a decade to uncover problems, at which point builder has long since cashed out and declared insolvency/bankruptcy/etc.
Cowboys Ted.

Wildly Boaring · 02-04-2019 7:09pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

From hearing these stories, you would want your head checked for even considering to buy an apartment these days. I don't believe the apartments being completed today are immune from this either, when you see the speed they are flying up at due to demand. It takes about a decade to uncover problems, at which point builder has long since cashed out and declared insolvency/bankruptcy/etc.
Cowboys Ted.

Completely agree.
Posted similarly in this thread few weeks ago.

Lot of design and build projects.
Builder is paying the arch and engineer and they are supposed to hold him to account. (And need work from him again)

They do not have the resources to watch all and generally inspect a sample of the build. They also are very quick to just send graduates out to site.

I've had to get work fixed by subbies AFTER some of these guys are supposed to have inspected.

STB. · 02-04-2019 7:31pm

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

From hearing these stories, you would want your head checked for even considering to buy an apartment these days. I don't believe the apartments being completed today are immune from this either, when you see the speed they are flying up at due to demand. It takes about a decade to uncover problems, at which point builder has long since cashed out and declared insolvency/bankruptcy/etc.
Cowboys Ted.

There is a little difference these days under the new planning regime, and that is an actual Building Control mechanism, whereby the build is inspected by an independent party during the various construction stages, ie a Council Engineer.

The sad thing is that Architects were allowed to sign off on Fire Safety and compliance with a visual inspection during the Celtic Tiger era, having not actually been there during construction. Developers took short cuts, didn't install fire barriers etc and it was never picked up by the Architects who signed the compliance papers to get paid. The Council then signed off on the fire safety certificate based on plans submitted at planning stage and the architects piece of paper.

Then the Homebonds/Premier insurance crowds walked away when they discovered what was going on, as quick as you could say structural defect.

Many of the developers went bust.

Owners where left with the bills. Its still going on. Some of this legacy stuff is coming to light now through recent increase in Fire Inspections by the relevant authrorities who didnt see themselves as having a role previously. Many management companies (ie collection of owners) have had to fork out the money and done so on the sly so as not to devalue the price of their property further (oh and the fear of the whole place burning down).

We do light touch regulation in this country well. Politicians, self serving so called professionals and their organisations (where were they when the original planning legislation and regs were being drafted ) and greedy developers and inefficient, under resourced and incompetent planning authorities.

todolist · 05-04-2019 7:08pm

L1011 wrote: »

It's definitely not high compared to others. In the news yesterday is that Verdemont in Blanchardstown is going to be 50k a unit

50k per unit? Ireland really is a third rate bananna republic.

The_Conductor · 05-04-2019 7:54pm

todolist wrote: »

50k per unit? Ireland really is a third rate bananna republic.

It depends entirely on the nature of the remedial works necessary to bring units up to regulation. 50k- is the expensive side- 13k is remarkably cheap- aka the 50k ones need major work- the 13k ones- very very little.

todolist · 20-01-2020 6:18pm

They could be asking for 13k now to get everyone to pay up.Then later they come back for more saying they underestimated the amou t of remedial work needed.

dubrov · 20-01-2020 9:22pm

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.

wench · 20-01-2020 10:54pm

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

Hunchback · 20-01-2020 11:21pm

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

todolist · 29-01-2020 5:36pm

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?

Graham · 29-01-2020 6:15pm

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.

hmmm · 29-01-2020 6:34pm

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.

29-01-2020 6:46pm

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.

29-01-2020 6:55pm

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.

awec · 29-01-2020 7:01pm

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.

Caranica · 30-01-2020 1:41am

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!

Management company demanding 13k

Comments