The Mega **Management Company** thread

How Strange

gazzer...it's unprofessional carry on like that which tarnishes every management company and management agents. There are lots of good ones out there but people only complain about the bad ones.

The sooner the better that this industry is regulated and the cowboys are weeded out.

fricatus

A friend of mine has just bought an apartment in a new development in the Dublin area, and she's going to rent out one room. Now as you'd expect, there's a hefty management fee, but in fairness, that includes the use of quite a nice gym, which the tenant will be entitled to use. The tenant will also have a parking space underground.

This being Ireland, she's never lived in an apartment before (nor have I) and doesn't know whether she should factor the management fee into the rent, or else split it 50-50 with her tenant, just like the gas and ESB bills.

What's the accepted protocol in this situation, does anyone know?

jdivision

fricatus wrote: »

A friend of mine has just bought an apartment in a new development in the Dublin area, and she's going to rent out one room. Now as you'd expect, there's a hefty management fee, but in fairness, that includes the use of quite a nice gym, which the tenant will be entitled to use. The tenant will also have a parking space underground.

This being Ireland, she's never lived in an apartment before (nor have I) and doesn't know whether she should factor the management fee into the rent, or else split it 50-50 with her tenant, just like the gas and ESB bills.

What's the accepted protocol in this situation, does anyone know?

This is an interesting one because it's unusual for there to be a gym. usually the management fee is the responsibility of the apartment owner and they usually factor in the availability of parking into the rent but don't add in the rest. In apt block I lived in with a gym there was a membership fee so I didn't have to pay it to landlord. If tenant is to use gym,best thing is probably get a breakdown of the management fee and see how much of it is subsidising the gym. Then divide by two if there's two people in the apartment and then by 12 and add it to the montly rent. Makes it easier for tenant to pay. Victor's usually the best at this kind of thing though

Victor

You friend needs to explain to the prospective tenants exactly what they will be paying for.

It would be highly unusual for tenants to pay management fees separately - it should be included in the rent. It is fixed for the year and doesn't vary like electricity or gas.

Also not the Rent-a-Room scheme.

How Strange

I agree with Victor. The owner needs to be very careful and explain it very clearly. The tenant should only be paying for half the charge for the gym and not for the refuse, building maintenance etc.

It's up to the owner to pay for those. For transparency maybe show perspective tenants how much it costs for the gym per year. The tenant may decide that they will never use it in which case they are entitled to refuse to pay for it.

Paulw

Of course, it could be just factored in to the rent, rather than getting them to pay a portion of the management fee.

Either way, it should be made clear what the tenant is paying for.

markpb

I don't think there's a set way to do it. Some landlords pay it themselves and absorb the cost, others expect their tennants to pay it all themselves.

The big thing to keep in mind is that if she expects her tenants to pay it, will it be paid to the MC directly or through her? If it's paid directly, she'll have to monitor it because ultimately she's legally responsible for paying it and any repercussions will fall to her.

Also, if they move out (or in) half way through the MC's financial year, will they be refunded the remainder?

The_Conductor

fricatus wrote: »

A friend of mine has just bought an apartment in a new development in the Dublin area, and she's going to rent out one room. Now as you'd expect, there's a hefty management fee, but in fairness, that includes the use of quite a nice gym, which the tenant will be entitled to use. The tenant will also have a parking space underground.

This being Ireland, she's never lived in an apartment before (nor have I) and doesn't know whether she should factor the management fee into the rent, or else split it 50-50 with her tenant, just like the gas and ESB bills.

What's the accepted protocol in this situation, does anyone know?

First of all- I take it that your friend is availing of the Rent-a-room scheme, whereby he/she can get up to 10k in rental income per annum providing the house is there place of permanent residence. In which case your friend should first and foremost be made aware that all of the income- including billshares etc- all counts towards this 10k limit. If you go over the 10k limit- you pay tax on the entire amount- not just on that portion over the 10k.

Secondly- while I accept that there is gym membership included in living in the apartment- it would be extremely unusual for someone with a room under the rent-a-room scheme to be expected to pay towards the annual Management Charge. I would agree with what has been said above- a small contribution towards the use of the gym might be included in the rent- aside from the Management Charge- as the Management Charge includes a lot of obligations on the owners part which are not necessarily transferrable to others.

Re: car space etc- this would be quite normally included with an apartment/townhouse and the use of this would be by arrangement with the owner- not a transaction between the person renting the room and the Management Company.

One thing to keep in mind is the Rent-a-room scheme is an arrangement whereby the homeowner can earn a little extra money tax free. The person staying in the room- is not a tenant, they are simply staying there under licence and do not have any of the rights normally attributable to a tenant- and you cannot expect them to have the same obligations as a tenant would have.

When a house is being let out- in full- the Management Charge is a deductable cost against rental income before determination of tax due. Given that the above scheme is specifically designed to remove your income from the tax bracket altogether- you do not have income which you can offset this against. This does not however entitle you to try to recover this cost elsewhere (as you did purchase the property in full knowledge that there were management charges which needed to be paid annually).

I highlighted this to Shane Ross when the recent bill was up for going through the Houses of the Oireachtas and he undertook to try to get a credit of some sort, for homeowners to offset against Management Charges, as it could be argued that it is a form of double taxation (if you purchased a house down the road all your landscaping etc would be done by the council- whereas in Managed Complexes you have to pay to get it done previously). I haven't heard back from Senator Ross on this- but I think I may just drop him a line.

S.

lafors

How Strange wrote: »

I agree with Victor. The owner needs to be very careful and explain it very clearly. The tenant should only be paying for half the charge for the gym and not for the refuse, building maintenance etc.

Just wondering as I'll be renting my apt soon and was interested in the mgt fee side of it.

Surely as the tenant is the one producing the "refuse" they should absorb the cost of that part of the fee? Building maintenance I can understand wouldn't be included.

The_Conductor

lafors wrote:

Just wondering as I'll be renting my apt soon and was interested in the mgt fee side of it.

Surely as the tenant is the one producing the "refuse" they should absorb the cost of that part of the fee? Building maintenance I can understand wouldn't be included.

Legally it is the duty of the Landlord to ensure that a refuse collection service is provided. In most cases the portion of the Management Charge specifically related to Refuse Collection is not specified. If you do specify it, and charge the tenant accordingly- be aware that the tenant is entitled to claim a tax credit of up to E400 per annum to reflect this (and as the charge is no longer part of your Management Charge- it is not a deductable expense on your part, prior to determination of taxable rental income). The underlying principle behind the current refuse collection schemes is the "polluter pays"- however this is not reflected in the tax treatment of monies collected to pay for this service.

SuzyS1972

Neighbours have gone and put their satellite dish on the back fence that separates my garden from theirs.

The gardens are separated by fencing which has concrete posts to hold it.
The dish is screwed to one of these posts on their side as high up as it could go.
It's huge and the only thing I can see now when I look out the back.
Apart from that the dogs are barking at it

Fingal County Council don't think it is against any planning regulation so I suppose there isn't anything I can do about it is there ?

Anyone know if they are in breach of any regulations or that .

Suppose I will just get a nice high wooden trellis and grow some climbing plant on it - just think it's very inconsiderate.

jdivision

Might be against the management company rules. Satellite dishes are illegal in my estate.

Paulw

Not a nice situation. There is probably very little you can do. :mad:

the_syco

SuzyS1972 wrote: »

Suppose I will just get a nice high wooden trellis and grow some climbing plant on it - just think it's very inconsiderate.

Which way is it pointing? If pointing over your garden, doing the above would have a negative effect on the satellite, I dare say:D

Arcadian

the_syco wrote: »

Which way is it pointing? If pointing over your garden, doing the above would have a negative effect on the satellite, I dare say:D

Good point, if it's pointing into your garden you could attempt to go out of your way to block it so that they have to move it.

loyatemu

is it actually overhanging (ie protruding into) your garden?

Ste.phen

Pics or it didn't happen!

Seriously though, it's hard to tell from the post what exactly you mean.

SuzyS1972

I appreciate that it's hard to picture- will try to post one later

gibo_ie

jdivision wrote: »

Might be against the management company rules. Satellite dishes are illegal in my estate.

Just so people know, even though management companies say you cannot have a satellite dish, according to some european laws which are quite easy to find in google, you cannot be denied the right to recieve channels from your home country regardless of which country you live in. This in effect gives you the right to put up a dish.
I have spoken with numerous agents (including the bigger ones) who agree that this is true but they dont point this out to people but if the people mention it to them they immediately drop the issue.

Paulw

gibo_ie wrote: »

Just so people know, even though management companies say you cannot have a satellite dish, according to some european laws which are quite easy to find in google, you cannot be denied the right to recieve channels from your home country regardless of which country you live in. This in effect gives you the right to put up a dish.
I have spoken with numerous agents (including the bigger ones) who agree that this is true but they dont point this out to people but if the people mention it to them they immediately drop the issue.

That is not totally accurate. 1st it's an EU communication, not a law. 2nd, it's never been taken properly through the courts, and in fact the two case that have gone to court, the person taking the case lost. 3rd, the communication only gives you the right to own/use a dish (which management companies don't forbid). The lease contract or management rules don't allow you to mount a dish, which is legally very different. You can put a dish inside your home and use it that way (yes, there are technical ways of doing it).

So, management companies are well within the law to forbid mounting of satellite dishes. If you're in any doubt about that, please consult a solicitor.

Moonbeam

Management companies have little no legal standing in enforcing their no satellite dish rule.

Paulw

Moonbeam wrote: »

Management companies have little no legal standing in enforcing their no satellite dish rule.

According to whom? Can you show some case law to back this up?

In most cases, it is not a management company rule, but rather a legally binding clause in your Lease Contract, which was agreed to when you bought your premises.

Ste.phen

This argument came up here recently as well. Essentially, someone was insisting that the leases weren't valid because they contained a clause that inconvenienced them personally...

Paulw

LOL ... yeah, never nice when something inconveniences you and you just don't agree with it. Shame we all can't just say a legal contract is invalid when you don't agree with a clause.

I've read all the EU documentation and communications about this satellite dish issue and spoken to a solicitor. Some interesting reading indeed, but the bottom line is that management companies, and local authorities are well within their rights to forbid, remove and fine people who erect satellite dishes without the proper authorisation. If there is a clause in your Lease Contract that forbids the erection of satellite dishes, then you simply cannot erect a dish.

Until some time as someone takes something like this to court and wins, then there is no legal basis at all to say that the lease contract is invalid, or that there is no legal standing for management companies to enforce those rules.

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

According to whom? Can you show some case law to back this up?

Irish and European courts don't usually operate on case law, but deal with each case on its individual merits.

Paulw wrote: »

In most cases, it is not a management company rule, but rather a legally binding clause in your Lease Contract, which was agreed to when you bought your premises.

Just because a clause is in a contract, doesn't mean its legally binding. Thats why professional contracts (of which I have signed many, and had many drawn up for me by solicitors) usually include a section to the effect that "if any part of this contract should be found to be in contravention of existing law, that section can be severed with no prejuidice to the whole".

Paulw

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Just because a clause is in a contract, doesn't mean its legally binding. Thats why professional contracts (of which I have signed many, and had many drawn up for me by solicitors) usually include a section to the effect that "if any part of this contract should be found to be in contravention of existing law, that section can be severed with no prejuidice to the whole".

That is correct. Now, what law is not allowing a satellite dish contravening?

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

That is correct. Now, what law is not allowing a satellite dish contravening?

Well lets turn it on its head. What gives management companies the legal right to block the erection of a satellite dish? Or more to the point, whats to stop someone putting up a dish when there is no management company? The last I heard, that fell into the realm of the local authority, county council or what have you.

If it is part of a signed contract or lease that the dish can't be put up, then its up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis whether or not the management company has exceeded its authority by such a prohibition, and whether or not more correct channels could be found to deal with the complaint.

To be honest I'm more than a little dubious about the very existence of "management companies".

markpb

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

What gives management companies the legal right to block the erection of a satellite dish?

They own the property.

If it is part of a signed contract or lease that the dish can't be put up, then its up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis whether or not the management company has exceeded its authority by such a prohibition, and whether or not more correct channels could be found to deal with the complaint.

Absolutely. And like others have said, this has not been done yet.

To be honest I'm more than a little dubious about the very existence of "management companies".

You can be as dubious as you like but someone has to own the common grounds and walls of an apartment block. Many councils stipulated management companies during planning permission as the means to achieve this so there's no escaping them.

Management companies (in one form or another) are quite common all across the world but they're a relatively new thing here and they've got some bad press (who complains on the news about their quiet, unobtrusive mc?) so people think they're evil.

SimpleSam06

markpb wrote: »

They own the property.

Funnily enough many areas have been working away just fine without the intervention of management companies.

markpb wrote: »

You can be as dubious as you like but someone has to own the common grounds and walls of an apartment block. Many councils stipulated management companies during planning permission as the means to achieve this so there's no escaping them.

The OP isn't talking about an apartment block. Again, I'd have issue with councils effectively abdicating responsibilities which were traditionally theirs, especially on estates rather than apartments, and I feel its an issue which is going to raise its head again and again until it is resolved. I mean the council agreed to do less work, what a surprise. That doesn't mean they won't ultimately have to do it.

For example, I live in a large suburban estate which has muddled along perfectly well without a management company, and will continue to do so.

Many "management companies" still have the original developer in charge of them - it seems like a handy way for developers to ensure a continuous income from their once off builds.

markpb wrote: »

Management companies (in one form or another) are quite common all across the world but they're a relatively new thing here and they've got some bad press (who complains on the news about their quiet, unobtrusive mc?) so people think they're evil.

Many things are quite common across the world, including malaria. That doesn't mean we need them here.

Calina

Couple of points to raise here.

Regarding management companies. These are collectively owned by the owners of the properties governed by said management company. Presumably during the course of meetings and normal business, if enough owners of properties were inconvenienced by the no sat dish rule, they have some mechanism by which they can strike it out of their leases if there is scope for voting on that in their articles of association.

Depending on the property in question, the management company does not necessarily own the property - yes they do own common areas in apartment blocks for example, but there is some scope for interpretation when it comes to houses with gardens and the location of said sat dish. I believe this has come up before.

The key issue with the right to put up a sat dish usually relates to planning permission. Each local authority has its own rules but I believe that depending on the dimensions and location of the dish, planning permission may or may not be required and this needs to be checked with your local authority.

What gets on my nerves is the usual complaint about them, and about clothes lines is "they don't look nice" or "they bring down the value of my property". Both are essentially subjective view points and could be construed as being equally or more selfish than the position of someone who actually gains some utility out of the dish.

For the record I would be very reluctant to move to a location where there is a ban on sat dishes so it could be argued that such a ban also reduces the value of a property in my eyes because it becomes less attractive.

OP, I would be of the opinion that your neighbour should, perhaps, have consulted with you before erecting the dish so that perhaps you could have come to some arrangement and agreement about it.

_____________________________

On the subject of the concept of management companies in general, it is my understanding that they are a) largely unregulated and b) many of the owners concerned fail to understand how the system works and c) frequently trading recklessly because of a and b and d) not necessarily released to the control of the majority of the owners owing to a loophole in the articles of association.

If - and that is one big IF - they were adequately provided for in legislation and more accountable and IF people owning property which comes under the regulation of a management company were more au fait with the ramifications of that situation, there is a chance they might be okay. However, this country being as it is, the situation with management companies is far from ideal and there is far from adequate regulation of management agencies.