The Mega **Management Company** thread

Paulw

Just some things I'd like to clarify - I am a director of a management company (not management agent, but management company). We removed the developers as directors and elected our own directors. We also replace the management agent.

Since then, we removed all satellite dishes around our development (all apts, no houses).

Calina wrote: »

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.

To actually make such a change to the lease contract, you need a 100% vote in favour of such a change. It is actually very very hard to do. And even with that, it might not be enough, depending on the actual development (who owns the land, who the developer is, etc). It's very complex.

Ginger83

Had the same problem myself, foreign neighbours behind me did the same. Discuss it with them to see if it can be moved to another area out of sight. They can only be abrupt which is what my neighbours were but its nothing ten minutes after dark wont sort out.
I would suggest possibly asking them to lower the dish out of sight first.

lostexpectation

you had 100% not wanting satillite dishes, what fun lot your are

Del2005

SuzyS1972 wrote: »

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.

If it's a non management company and the dish is under 1.5m these is nothing you can do bar asking them to move it. If that doesn't work you could always plant a few flowers etc and accidently dig too deep and undermine the post;) Also if the dish is over your property can you use the overgrowing fauna rule, and cut the overhang off and place in their garden for their disposal:D

jimmycrackcorm

Paulw wrote: »

Since then, we removed all satellite dishes around our development (all apts, no houses).

Why would you do that to people, who, say want to watch sky sports?

Paulw

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why would you do that to people, who, say want to watch sky sports?

Since it's in breach of a clause in the Lease Contract. Nothing more than that. We enforce that clause the same as we enforce the clause that says you have to pay a management fee, same as we enforce the clause that says that refuse must be disposed of in the bins provided, etc. All clauses are enforced in the same way. We are NOT picking on satellite dishes, we are just enforcing the contract.

If someone wants Sky Sports, they can get that through NTL.

Elainemccormack

I moved into a house 2 years ago (not apartment of duplex so no building maintenance is included in management fees). We initially paid the management fees when we were signing over for the keys of our house - since then we have been advised by our residents committee not to pay any more fees - i live in county meath and as far as i can tell they are trying to get the Meath County council responsible for housing estates upkeep instead of the management companies that are not doing very much to be honest. Can anyone tell me if this is correct?

We have been getting bills now for the last 18 months which we havent paid - today they sent through a letter threatening legal action to recover the fees we owe them.

We didnt pay as we were advised not to - now i cant get in touch with anyone in relation to this and am getting worried that legally we may very well be required to pay these fees.
Can anyone help? do we pay or not?

markpb

You absolutely have to pay your fees. Just because the council might take your estate in charge doesn't change the legal situation right now. You have to keep paying them until the council inform you otherwise which could take years. Most councils will stipulate that estates have to be controlled by the developer for a period of time before they will even consider taking it in charge.

Surely if you moved in two years ago, you paid one year upfront so the only amount outstanding is for the current year?

Paulw

If it's in your contract that you must pay management fees, then by not paying them, the management company are well entitled to take you to court. This can even result in issues with your mortgage lender (since they have a vested interest in your property).

Being advised not to pay has to be one of the worst pieces of advice out there.

If in any doubt, contact your own solicitor to check.

My advice - pay up or be prepared to explain why you didn't in court.

connundrum

Paulw wrote: »

If it's in your contract that you must pay management fees, then by not paying them, the management company are well entitled to take you to court. This can even result in issues with your mortgage lender (since they have a vested interest in your property).

Being advised not to pay has to be one of the worst pieces of advice out there.

If in any doubt, contact your own solicitor to check.

My advice - pay up or be prepared to explain why you didn't in court.

Quoted for truth.

Think of what you'll say should the case actually go to court - 'Well my neighbour told me not to pay...'

You should continue to pay whilst inquiring about having Meath Co Co take over the site. Not paying and presuming that everything will be taken care of is a bit naive.

SimpleSam06

Elainemccormack wrote: »

as far as i can tell they are trying to get the Meath County council responsible for housing estates upkeep instead of the management companies that are not doing very much to be honest.

Haha, thats great, I was waiting for that. Whatever the legal situation, I fully support the position of the residents in this case. I predict we will be seeing a lot more of these sorts of actions in the future.

connundrum

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Haha, thats great, I was waiting for that. Whatever the legal situation, I fully support the position of the residents in this case. I predict we will be seeing a lot more of these sorts of actions in the future.

Either way you'll be paying for the service - be it through your tax or a management fee.

I know of this one development looked after by an agent near Clonee, which is back to back with an estate managed by Fingal CoCo.

Although everyone gives out about the managing agent, the grass is cut roughly once every two weeks (Fingal CoCo arrive once every two - three months) and where the outside lighting is looked after i.e. it may take a week to get a bulb changed compared to Fingal CoCo's month.

If you don't pay your management fee for a year your bins will still prob get collected, whereas if you don't pay the council or a private collector - you're likely to get cut off after 2-3 months.

I understand why people are looking for the CoCo's to take over their sites, but the councils don't want to take them over as they are stretched as it is. Besides, when you bought your house - you signed up to be part of a management company - no one forced you to sign.

As I stated earlier, which the OP confirmed, the managing agent can do very little when the funding isn't in place.

redspider

A related question ...

connundrum wrote: »

What you should do is ask what stage your managing agent is at with regards to collecting outstanding fees i.e. have people been sent to debt collection etc.

What is the best way to follow-up on debt collection?
Are Solicitors the best approach?
If so, does anyone know any soliticitors that specialise in this area? (feel free to PM me).

Thanks,

redspider

SimpleSam06

connundrum wrote: »

Either way you'll be paying for the service - be it through your tax or a management fee.

Do you pay less tax if you have a management company?

connundrum

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Do you pay less tax if you have a management company?

Will you pay more tax if everyone decides that their local county council is to take over the running of their estate?

Maybe your direct tax won't go up by 400 - 600 quid a year, but the money will have to come from somewhere.

SimpleSam06

connundrum wrote: »

Will you pay more tax if everyone decides that their local county council is to take over the running of their estate?

The local authorities run many, dare I say most estates in Ireland as it is. Why would their expenses to look after other estates not be offset by the taxes paid by the fine taxpayers in the estates? As it is the people living in areas run by management companies are paying full taxes for a much reduced service.

connundrum wrote: »

Maybe your direct tax won't go up by 400 - 600 quid a year, but the money will have to come from somewhere.

Yes, the taxes paid by the taxpayers in the estates, same as any estate with no management company.

connundrum

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The local authorities run many, dare I say most estates in Ireland as it is. Why would their expenses to look after other estates not be offset by the taxes paid by the fine taxpayers in the estates? As it is the people living in areas run by management companies are paying full taxes for a much reduced service.


Yes, the taxes paid by the taxpayers in the estates, same as any estate with no management company.

If it were that simple, then the local authorities would have no problem in taking over any new estate.

As I stated earlier, local authority services are stretched as it is, which is one of the reasons for them being reluctant to take over new estates.

I don't doubt that the good people in the estates pay their taxes as the rest of us do, what I suggested is that a general rise in taxation for all of us would have to be introduced to accomodate the expense of running each new estate.

Maybe it won't be much of an increase to each individual tax payer, but I'd rather see any increase in my taxation go on something more important i.e. education, green issues, health etc.

You don't need a local authority to take over your estate, you need to take a healthy interest in where you live and what you can do do help improve things i.e. join a residents committee, attend AGM's, query income and expenditure with your managing agent, join a neighbourhood watch scheme.

Basically you should take responsibility for your decision to sign a contract binding you to a management company.

SimpleSam06

connundrum wrote: »

If it were that simple, then the local authorities would have no problem in taking over any new estate.

Actually it is that simple. What you are underestimating is the laziness of your average local authority. I mean what, they agreed to do less work, what a shock. It would be the fondest dream of every single local authority in the country to have private companies take over everything, once they don't have to take any reduction in taxes.

connundrum wrote: »

As I stated earlier, local authority services are stretched as it is, which is one of the reasons for them being reluctant to take over new estates.

Over stretched my arse. The whole public sector is weeping about being overstretched at the moment, despite being one of the largest and best paid beaurocracies in the world (per capita) and having been greatly increased in numbers over the last six years, which the population has not.

And lets not forget the tens of millions of euros they are spending on buying overpriced properties at market value for "affordable housing", a little dig out for the lads.

connundrum wrote: »

I don't doubt that the good people in the estates pay their taxes as the rest of us do, what I suggested is that a general rise in taxation for all of us would have to be introduced to accomodate the expense of running each new estate.

Nonsense, the taxes in each estate already pay for the services of the council. Most estates already have this arrangement. What you have now is a load of people paying taxes for no service.

connundrum wrote: »

Basically you should take responsibility for your decision to sign a contract binding you to a management company.

I didn't sign a thing, nor would I. As far as I am concerned, management companies drastically reduce the value of property they manage, by adding large overheads on an ongoing basis. I live quite happily at the moment in a not-very-salubrious estate which the council looks after perfectly well. Maybe if those people in that run down estate you mentioned earlier put pressure on the council they might get better service.

Paulw

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

As far as I am concerned, management companies drastically reduce the value of property they manage, by adding large overheads on an ongoing basis.

I live in a nice development. We run the management company (I am a director of the company). We are improving the area and cutting costs in the process. We have replaced the county council refuse collection (because they are way too expensive). People seem to forget that councils need tax to fund all they do. The more developments they have to take over and manage, the more funds they require. Like it or not, your taxes WILL increase.

I'd prefer to pay to have the place properly run and managed, rather than not paying (ie have the council run it), and see the place go downhill. But hey, that's just me.

Paulw

redspider wrote: »

What is the best way to follow-up on debt collection?
Are Solicitors the best approach?

There are actually many ways to chase up debt collection. It really depends on the development and the circumstances.

Solicitors should be a very last resort. I'm not sure about specialists, but there are bound to be some who deal with this area.

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

I live in a nice development. We run the management company (I am a director of the company).

I know, you mentioned it before.

Paulw wrote: »

We are improving the area and cutting costs in the process. We have replaced the county council refuse collection (because they are way too expensive).

That is an extra, not covered by taxes. Private companies are springing up all over to do the same. Notably, however, they are only waste management companies, not management companies.

Paulw wrote: »

People seem to forget that councils need tax to fund all they do. The more developments they have to take over and manage, the more funds they require. Like it or not, your taxes WILL increase.

People also seem to forget basic mathematics. More estates = more people paying taxes = no council shortfall. Or how did you think they were paying for the estates they already cover?

Management companies are a crock, you are paying taxes + management fees, when the local authority should be fulfilling your requirements for the price of your taxes. Basically, you are paying taxes for no service, as I mentioned before, and further paying a third party to do what your taxes should be doing.

I'll say one more thing. Although the presence of management companies are not yet generally seen as devaluing a property, they will be before too long. Once that happens, they will be consigned to the dusty annals of history.

Paulw wrote: »

I'd prefer to pay to have the place properly run and managed, rather than not paying (ie have the council run it), and see the place go downhill. But hey, that's just me.

Indeed it is. Maybe you should have a chat with your representative, or make sure the council is fulfilling its responsbilities. Thats why taxes are paid, after all.

Paulw

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Indeed it is. Maybe you should have a chat with your representative, or make sure the council is fulfilling its responsbilities. Thats why taxes are paid, after all.

Our local Resident's Association, who deal with all the developments in the area, have regular meetings with the local councillors and TDs. At the moment there are some issues since some of the developers haven't completed their work and handed it over to the council. My development is not fully finished either, but there is nothing to hand over to the council since it's a closed/gated development.

How Strange

SimpleSam06 Quote: I'll say one more thing. Although the presence of management companies are not yet generally seen as devaluing a property, they will be before too long. Once that happens, they will be consigned to the dusty annals of history.

Do you have some evidence to substantiate your theory?

I would in fact disagree with you. A bad management company will devalue your property i.e. a MC that does not carry out regular building maintenance, refurbishes the common areas every 5-10years, doesn't have an adequate sinking fund and lets bad debts accumulate. I've seen first hand proof of this.

A good MC will in fact be an advantage for any owner selling an apt/property. The development in general will look well maintained, there is a sinking fund available for contingencies, bad debts are pursued so are minimal and anti-social behaviour is kept in check. That's the kind of place I would like to live in and I would be asking all these questions before buying an apt. In fact I would ask any residents I met while viewing what the development is like to live in but regardless you will get an idea from the general appearance i.e. cleanliness, upkeep.

MC's are here to stay and it is the antiquated, begruding 'everyone is out to rip me off' theory of some Irish people who think 'my property is my kingdom therefore I can do what I like' that will be consigned to the dusty annals of history as you put it.

Communual living has been a part of most other cities across Europe for decades if not centuries and they are used to it and so, for the most part, they have a respect for their neighbours and everyone's right to live in a high density development. Therefore, paying service charges is regarded as a necessary tax and not something to simply moan about.

SimpleSam06

How Strange wrote: »

Do you have some evidence to substantiate your theory?

Yup. No management company means lower ongoing costs. How much do they charge per year, a couple of grand? That comes to a hell of a lot of money over the lifetime of a house or apartment, so it should reduce the value by at least that much. And you are still paying the same taxes as everyone else.

How Strange wrote: »

A good MC will in fact be an advantage for any owner selling an apt/property. The development in general will look well maintained,

Blah. I and many, even most other people live in lovely areas well maintained by the council, so there goes that particular platform, hopefully permanently. This idea of areas with no management companies being trolley-peppered crime ridden urban ghettoes is utter bollocks, propagated by those trying to drain a final drop of milk from the dying celtic tiger.

How Strange wrote: »

MC's are here to stay

Hahah... well, we'll see. But I really wouldn't bet on it.

How Strange wrote: »

and it is the antiquated, begruding 'everyone is out to rip me off' theory of some Irish people who think 'my property is my kingdom therefore I can do what I like' that will be consigned to the dusty annals of history as you put it.

Oh you mean refusing to line other people's pockets when their taxes should cover it? Sounds like I'm hitting a few nerves here. Thats what happens when someone tries to shoehorn a business into somewhere its not wanted.

How Strange wrote: »

Therefore, paying service charges is regarded as a necessary tax and not something to simply moan about.

Yes, it is a neccessary tax. Thats why it is a tax, not a business.

I have yet to encounter one reasonable argument in favour of management companies, and there are many reasonable arguments against them. There seem to be a lot of noble sounding "cleaner streets safer homes" sentiments warbling around, but calls to emotion are the last refuge of those with nothing else to back them up.

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

Our local Resident's Association, who deal with all the developments in the area, have regular meetings with the local councillors and TDs.

Do you need a management company to do that? If the residents in your area are happy to keep paying, thats their business, I'm delighted for them. Generally speaking, however, I still feel MCs are a bad idea, for all of the reasons I have been outlining.

How Strange

SimpleSam06 Quote:
Yup. No management company means lower ongoing costs. How much do they charge per year, a couple of grand? That comes to a hell of a lot of money over the lifetime of a house or apartment, so it should reduce the value by at least that much. And you are still paying the same taxes as everyone else.

Who pays for the lift maintenance, the building insurance, the lighting, the gate maintenance, the internal lighting, the external lighting, the maintenance of gates, the pump maintenance, the boiler maintenance, the repainting of the buildings, the internal cleaning? Who contributes to the sinking fund?

I and many, even most other people live in lovely areas well maintained by the council,

Do you live in the Ballymun towers? There is a prime example of an apt development 'maintained' by the council.

This idea of areas with no management companies being trolley-peppered crime ridden urban ghettoes is utter bollocks, propagated by those trying to drain a final drop of milk from the dying celtic tiger.

As I said, Ballymun is a perfect example of how ill considered and ill informed your argument is.

That is my last contribution to your argument. There are multiple threads on here with the same argument going around in circles so I'm leaving it there.

Back to the OP's original question, yes there are lots of solicitors dealing with debt collection for unpaid charges. Look up the golden pages and ring a few of them. To give you an idea a legal letter should cost €10-15, this can be charged back to the owner. After that, a certain proportion of legal fees can be applied to the owners accounts whether or not the case goes to court. The solicitor should tell you how much can be charged on.

The MC should make a provision for legal fees in the budget. Once the owners see you are getting tough on service charges 60-70% will pay up straight away, some will tough it out for a while longer and then 10% will take their chances in court.

But the courts take a dim view of unpaid charges so as long as you follow each of the steps properly to get to court you will have absolutely no problem getting your money. Just be careful that you follow each step because if the owners solicitor can prove otherwise the case will be thrown out and you will have to start all over again and this could cost you a few €k.

SimpleSam06

How Strange wrote: »

Do you live in the Ballymun towers? There is a prime example of an apt development 'maintained' by the council...As I said, Ballymun is a perfect example of how ill considered and ill informed your argument is.

First off, the person I was responding to originally was living in an estate, not an apartment. Secondly is Ballymun the only council-run apartment complex in the country? Because its all you seem to have to offer. Thirdly, as I keep pointing out, the vast majority of the country gets by perfectly well without management companies, a point which you refuse to acknowledge.

Management companies equate to lower property values any way you slice it.

How Strange wrote: »

That is my last contribution to your argument.

Thanks for that, but you really weren't telling us anything new in any case.

Paulw

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

First off, the person I was responding to originally was living in an estate, not an apartment.

Management companies equate to lower property values any way you slice it.

There are many developments that have both houses and apartments.

Have you any facts/statistics that say that management companies equate to lower property values?

connundrum

Paulw wrote: »

Have you any facts/statistics that say that management companies equate to lower property values?

I would suggest no. It appears that simplesam06 has been stung by a crowd of bad managing agents, and is unwilling to accept the fact that there may be good ones out there.

For every bad management company story I'm told, I can match it with a story where residents feel totally let down by the council.

mick72

Hi all,


Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the principle of the free movement of services and the freedom to receive radio and television broadcasts (Article 49 of the EC Treaty) guarantees the right to use the satellite dish.

The Court of justice itself stated in a decision against Belgian city regulations, that the free provision of services prevents the application of a tax on satellite dishes, as such a tax is liable to dissuade the recipients of the television broadcasting services seeking access to television programmes broadcast from other Member States, since the reception of such programmes is subject to a charge which does not apply to the reception of programmes coming from broadcasters established in Belgium (decision De Coster of 29 November 2001, case C-17/00).


http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62000J0017:EN:HTML


The exercise of this right may not be obstructed either by rules for installation and use which are too onerous and which would restrict the ability of an individual to receive all the broadcasts of his or her choice, or – even more so – by a general ban, an unjustified refusal, or a refusal on aesthetic grounds.

Paulw, you are right in saying that satellite dish erection is a breach of the Lease. At the same time, that very clause in the Lease itself is in a clear breach of European convention of human rights unless an alternative source of satellite reception has been provided. In regards to the voting, there is no voting when it comes to fundamental human rights. You obviously do not see this as a human right and that is the real issue.

In regards to common property, how many security alarms have been placed onto the exterior walls??? Do they not damage the common property?

Satellite dishes are ugly, that is true; but you cannot ban something because it looks ugly. My neighbours car is very old and ugly too!

This issue with satellite dishes will eventually end up in court.