The Mega **Management Company** thread

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

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

Eh in my view, this would be the case. I would certainly use it as a bargaining chip when buying a house, €2,000 per year of extra charges x say 40 years, drop the price by €80,000 and we can start talking. I do however think that a great deal more people will come to hold the same position before too long.

connundrum wrote: »

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.

Unbelievable. Are those few posters vigorously defending MCs here so insulated from reality that they simply can't accept that most people in this country don't pay fees to a MC, and never have (and likely never will)?

SimpleSam06

mick72 wrote: »

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.

Hope ye remembered that severance clause lads.

markpb

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Eh in my view, this would be the case. I would certainly use it as a bargaining chip when buying a house, €2,000 per year of extra charges x say 40 years, drop the price by €80,000 and we can start talking. I do however think that a great deal more people will come to hold the same position before too long.

You would use it, but you never have. Not exactly conclusive proof, is it?

Unbelievable. Are those few posters vigorously defending MCs here so insulated from reality that they simply can't accept that most people in this country don't pay fees to a MC, and never have (and likely never will)?

Who said anything like that? Are you that blinkered against management companies that you're reading a thread of your own. What they said was that management companies are here to stay as long as councils think they don't have enough money to take charge of the new estates. There are good companies, and bad companies, just like there are good councils and bad councils.

SuzyS1972

It's gone - I don't know if the recent winds knocked it over but the pole is still there ?

SimpleSam06

markpb wrote: »

You would use it, but you never have. Not exactly conclusive proof, is it?

I won't be in the market for a few years.

markpb wrote: »

What they said was that management companies are here to stay as long as councils think they don't have enough money to take charge of the new estates. There are good companies, and bad companies, just like there are good councils and bad councils.

You might want to re-read the thread. If you have a reasonable response to the points I raised on those issues, feel free to pop them up here. If they are good enough, I might even change my mind! Doubt it though.

markpb

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I won't be in the market for a few years.

Ah well, without recourse to explaining the market to you, if the market is in a reasonably healthy state and you ask a buyer to knock 80k off the price, they'll just wait for someone else to come along and offer more. Your ideas don't mean anything unless the market backs you up.

You could be right though, maybe the market will demand that the councils take over the estates and management companies will be abolished but unfortunately I can't see that happening any time soon. The financial pressures on councils would increase hugely, the political pressures about making all the people in management agency's redundant would be unpopular (with them), the level of service to estates and apartments would drop while the councils try to cope with the increased workload. Anyway, ignoring all that, management companies (in one form or another) exist all over the world and haven't been disbanded like you said. What makes us different?

You might want to re-read the thread. If you have a reasonable response to the points I raised on those issues, feel free to pop them up here. If they are good enough, I might even change my mind! Doubt it though.

I do think you have some good points and I'm not trying to change your mind. You accused other posters of being "so insulated from reality that they simply can't accept that most people in this country don't pay fees to a MC, and never have (and likely never will)?". No-one ever said that, I was questioning what post you saw that said that?

Paulw

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Eh in my view, this would be the case. I would certainly use it as a bargaining chip when buying a house, €2,000 per year of extra charges x say 40 years, drop the price by €80,000 and we can start talking. I do however think that a great deal more people will come to hold the same position before too long.

Ah .... in your view. That explains a lot.

Knocking 80k off the asking price? Let us know when you do buy. It should make interesting reading.

Mind you, I certainly don't pay €2,000 per year in management fees.

Paulw

mick72 wrote: »

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.

Your right to use a dish is not being restricted, only your right to erect it.

And until it goes to court and the law is changed in Ireland, management companies are well within their legal rights to enforce this clause in the lease contract.

Calina

The value is placed by the buyer so if someone wants to sell, and SimpleSam is the only available buyer, either they are knocking the 80K off or they are not selling, that's what it amounts to.

Of course, you could say that SimpleSam isn't the only purchaser but .... The property market is a mess at the moment, and it's not going to get any better soon.

Ultimately, I have to say that I personally would put a far lower value on property - be they apartments or houses - that are subject to the vagaries of management company rules including the sat dish and various and assorted washing lines. I find it quite snobbish as a position. If I'm the person doing the buying, then yeah, the value of the management co operated property is lower than it would be if it were not management company operated.

There are a number of reasons for this 1) the rules as outlined regarding sat dishes and washing and 2) the fact that I hear far more people complaining about their management agencies than I hear praising them. Where people have fewer problems, it appears they have had to fight like hell to take control of the management company in order to sort out issues. From what I can see the whole system is extremely poorly regulated and down the line that always causes difficulties.

SimpleSam06

markpb wrote: »

Ah well, without recourse to explaining the market to you, if the market is in a reasonably healthy state

Its not.

markpb wrote: »

and you ask a buyer to knock 80k off the price, they'll just wait for someone else to come along and offer more. Your ideas don't mean anything unless the market backs you up.

Interestingly the market is not a fixed thing, and when people get an idea in their heads, that gets factored into the equation. Not so long ago, no bank would accept double incomes on a mortgage for example.

So once the idea gets around that management companies add an unneccessary overhead, it won't be long before MC=reduced property prices. A bit like better insulation means you can save more on fuel and electricity, so the house is worth more.

As you can see, its already started.

markpb wrote: »

The financial pressures on councils would increase hugely,

I dealt with that in an earlier post.

markpb wrote: »

the political pressures about making all the people in management agency's redundant would be

Effectively nil.

markpb wrote: »

the level of service to estates and apartments would drop while the councils try to cope with the increased workload.

Since they should have been doing it all along anyway, I would expect the transition to be brief. Perhaps they could knock down a few five figure bonuses or stop spending staggering amounts of money on overpriced houses to help expediate the process.

markpb wrote: »

Anyway, ignoring all that, management companies (in one form or another) exist all over the world and haven't been disbanded like you said.

No, they don't. In most countries they are called local authorities of one form or another. In fact, thats what we have here too, ironically enough.

markpb wrote: »

You accused other posters of being "so insulated from reality that they simply can't accept that most people in this country don't pay fees to a MC, and never have (and likely never will)?". No-one ever said that, I was questioning what post you saw that said that?

I was responding to a poster who appeared to be unable to grasp the possibility that residences exist outside MCs, in that my attitude towards MCs was obviously due to a bad experience with them, rather than by the reason and logic with which I back up all of my comments. I have personally had no bad experiences with MCs, its the very reason for their existence that I debate.

Paulw wrote:

Ah .... in your view. That explains a lot.

Any reasonable, thought out comments to the contrary would be more than welcome. Smarmy backhanded comments will not.

Paulw wrote:

Mind you, I certainly don't pay €2,000 per year in management fees.

How much do you pay?

markpb

Calina wrote: »

The value is placed by the buyer so if someone wants to sell, and SimpleSam is the only available buyer, either they are knocking the 80K off or they are not selling, that's what it amounts to. Of course, you could say that SimpleSam isn't the only purchaser but .... The property market is a mess at the moment, and it's not going to get any better soon.

It's possible that Sam may be the only buyer but unless the market is in a very poor condition or the seller is desperate for a quickie, they'll hold out. 80k is a lot to ask to be removed.

Ultimately, I have to say that I personally would put a far lower value on property - be they apartments or houses - that are subject to the vagaries of management company rules including the sat dish and various and assorted washing lines. I find it quite snobbish as a position.

There are just as many people who would (and do) place a higher value on an estate which doesn't have satellite dishes and washing lines on the balconies.

the fact that I hear far more people complaining about their management agencies than I hear praising them.

People are notorious for not praising good service. If a management company does what it says on the tin, you'll never hear from the owners. Judging an entire sector based on the complaints it receives in the press is a poor way of making a decision.

From what I can see the whole system is extremely poorly regulated and down the line that always causes difficulties.

And this I completely agree on.

markpb wrote:

if the market is in a reasonably healthy state

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Its not.

But you're not in the market now so what it is right now doesn't affect you. In a few years, when you're ready to buy, the market could be a much better state.

Since they should have been doing it all along anyway, I would expect the transition to be brief. Perhaps they could knock down a few five figure bonuses or stop spending staggering amounts of money on overpriced houses to help expediate the process.

That's a wonderfully naive way of looking at things. Just because they should have been doing it (and I agree, they should), does not mean the change will go well. I'd love to see any example of a major change in the way a government body works go smoothly.

I was responding to a poster who appeared to be unable to grasp the possibility that residences exist outside MCs

So for the third time, I can't see anyone saying that. Perhaps I missed that, a link would be useful.

Any reasonable, thought out comments to the contrary would be more than welcome. Smarmy backhanded comments will not. How much do you pay?

I'll tell you when you learn to quote properly, I didn't say that.

SimpleSam06

markpb wrote: »

But you're not in the market now so what it is right now doesn't affect you. In a few years, when you're ready to buy, the market could be a much better state.

Yes, it could be. Its not looking that way though.

markpb wrote: »

That's a wonderfully naive way of looking at things. Just because they should have been doing it (and I agree, they should), does not mean the change will go well. I'd love to see any example of a major change in the way a government body works go smoothly.

We're into the realm of what ifs now, and the relative preparedness of local authorities in different areas of the country. Its a bit too broad a question for anyone to give a definitive statement on. You think they would take months, I'd say weeks, given the proper motivation. Either way property usually deals in years.

markpb wrote: »

So for the third time, I can't see anyone saying that. Perhaps I missed that, a link would be useful.

Responding to implications is as valid a course as responding to direct statements. Saying otherwise is more or less sophistry.

markpb wrote: »

I'll tell you when you learn to quote properly, I didn't say that.

Yup, I edited that before you posted, apologies for the confusion.

Paulw

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

How much do you pay?

Last year, it was €1,200. We've a budget meeting in a few weeks time, but already looks like we can drop the price by nearly 200 per unit for this year, with a drop again next year.

Management companies are all about who manages them. We've been very active and pro-active about the running of ours. We've done a hell of a lot of work, and very much improved the development, as well as reducing our overall cost base. This has been done with an increase in our sinking fund.

Our previous management agent was very bad. But, our new management agent is brilliant. Regular communication with the company directors. Gladly accepts input from the residents, and acts in the best interest of everyone.

If anyone ever needs a new management agent, then I'll certainly recommend ours.

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

Last year, it was €1,200. We've a budget meeting in a few weeks time, but already looks like we can drop the price by nearly 200 per unit for this year, with a drop again next year.

Well if I ever move in beside you, it will be for 40k less than asking...

astrofool

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well if I ever move in beside you, it will be for 40k less than asking...

Just out of interest, how much per year would you expect to spend on refuse collection and on keeping the front lawn in good nick. Would you deduct that cost as well from a non MC property?

You definitely seem to have an axe to grind against management companies, but given the alternatives, especially within apartment blocks, they are, at worst, a necessary evil. What PaulW appears to have set up looks to be far more efficient than anything the county council could ever do.

SimpleSam06

astrofool wrote: »

Just out of interest, how much per year would you expect to spend on refuse collection and on keeping the front lawn in good nick.

I can tell you to the cent how much I spend on refuse collection (and it ain't much, from a private company), and the lawnmower costs whatever the electricity charges are, a few euros a year.

astrofool wrote: »

Would you deduct that cost as well from a non MC property?

If I had to sign a contract to pay someone to "manage" these services for me, then yes.

astrofool wrote: »

You definitely seem to have an axe to grind against management companies,

Funny, what you call an axe to grind I call a logical conclusion, and I haven't heard one single reasonable argument in this entire discussion to justify their existence.

Lets put it in another context. The revenue commissioners allow a third party to shoehorn their way into doing up the taxes for sections of the community, for which they charge a fee, although the revenue commissioners are well capable of doing it themselves. If you are in a certain type of business, you go with this third party, like it or not, because revenue has abdicated its responsibility for the craic of it. You don't pay any less taxes by the way, but you do get lavender scented forms to fill out. Would you not find that roundly worthy of condemnation?

astrofool wrote: »

but given the alternatives, especially within apartment blocks, they are, at worst, a necessary evil. What PaulW appears to have set up looks to be far more efficient than anything the county council could ever do.

So, knowing nothing of the ups and downs of Paulw's setup, not spoken to any of the residents in his area (and don't forget, he's the director), and taken the word of an anonymous person on the internet as solid fact, you feel capable of making the very same mistake as everyone else trying to defend MCs in the debate and assume everywhere with no MC is a windblown wasteland.

This is not the case by a long, long stretch, as I keep pointing out over and over again.

You know what this is like, this is like a rerun of the property boom. YULL BE LIVIN WITH TEH KANCKERS IN BALYMUN WITH NO MC!11!

mick72

Your right to use a dish is not being restricted, only your right to erect it.


Paulw,

do not be the smart ar.e!

Tell me where I can put my dish if my right to use is not being restricted?!

As far as I know there is no law in Ireland prohibiting use of satellite dishes, therefore what management companies do is illegal so long as there is no alternative source of satellite reception. Please note that he developer is in much stronger bargaining position when selling apartments.

What you said is like telling disabled person that they can use the train, and yet no ramps are provided. I will never take down my dish, and would actually like to see who is going to enforce it and how!

Paulw

Mick, I am not being smart, I am stating legal fact, that would be held up in court. Simple as that.

There are ways of using a satellite dish indoors, without mounting it. Yeah, it kinda takes up a room, but hey, that's your choice.

I am only stating facts, and under current Irish law, the developer/management company/local authority still have the legal right to forbid you from erecting a dish.

Paulw

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So, knowing nothing of the ups and downs of Paulw's setup, not spoken to any of the residents in his area (and don't forget, he's the director)

I'm a resident and apt owner. I didn't want others (developers) running the management company, setting the fees and wasting our money. So, myself and 7 others formed our first resident's association committee at a meeting attended by over 30 unit owners. From that we started an action plan to investigate all spending of the management company, and the laws and regulations. When we had the proper information, we searched for alternate management agents.

At that point, we called an EGM, and removed the developers as the sitting directors. Directors were then elected from the floor, and as part of that, I was nominated and seconded. We elected 3 directors on the night, and at that time, we replaced the management agent.

We then began to see how poorly the development was managed (financially). The development was taken care of quite well, but our fees were too high. So, we have started to fine tune our spending and have already reduced costs. There is more work to do, and in this year and next we should be able to reduce our costs while maintaining the high level of service we want.

If anyone is actually bothered, feel free to PM me. I can give plenty of details, and if you do want to speak to residents then I will certainly inform you where I live, and leave the rest to you.

astrofool

From my point of view, I'll never directly pay a management fee, renting an apartment at the moment, but when/if I buy it'll be a house. However, seeing the upkeep that goes on where I am at the moment, there's no way the county council would be able to keep it up.

Calina

Paulw wrote: »

I am only stating facts, and under current Irish law, the developer/management company/local authority still have the legal right to forbid you from erecting a dish.

Under what statute? As far as I know the only legal restrictions on sat dishes relate to planning permission issues so I'd like clearer information from you.

Ste.phen

Say, for example, you signed a lease agreement saying you wouldn't. That might impact it somewhat.

SimpleSam06

astrofool wrote: »

However, seeing the upkeep that goes on where I am at the moment, there's no way the county council would be able to keep it up.

If you start from the basic premise that the council don't really want to do any work, there are numerous ways to put pressure on them. A bit of community co-operation doesn't hurt either, but you don't need to pay a management company for that.

SimpleSam06

Igy wrote: »

Say, for example, you signed a lease agreement saying you wouldn't. That might impact it somewhat.

Not so much as you might think. Heres a sample clause from one of my own contracts:

18 Invalidity and severability
18.1 If any provision of this agreement shall be found by any court or administrative body of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable the invalidity or unenforceability of such provision shall not affect the other provisions of this agreement and all provisions not affected by such invalidity or unenforceability shall remain in full force and effect. The parties hereby agree to attempt to substitute for any invalid or unenforceable provision a valid or enforceable provision which achieves to the greatest extent possible the economic legal and commercial objectives of the invalid or unenforceable provision.

If that clause is not in a contract (lease or whatever), any semi competent solicitor can have the whole document thrown out, since it was obviously made without due regard to the relevant laws. It also means that the contract or agreement might have illegal clauses - such as for example the erection of a satellite dish. Just because you signed it, doesn't mean its binding.

mick72

Hang on there, Paulw.


Let's be clear on one thing. If smething is considered to be a human right by various international agreements and conventions, then there is no law that could restrict that. And of course, implementation of these rights or right must be in a reasonable way. If you begin with the understanding that it is a right, the onus is on the management company to ensure this right is not infringed upon by the rules it makes.

I have nothing against this rule which accomodates this right in a reasonable manner. If there is a communal dish, and the signal is provided, then all the dishes should come down immediately.

It is obvious that you do not see this as a right, therefore you will always go back to this management company clause.

What would you do if you had a job and there was a clause in your contract said you were entitled to only 5 days of annual leave? Would you not think that you were entitled to 20?
It's the same here.

Hagar

FWIW I have gone through this whole "fight the man" thing here in France with my management company. Trying doing this in French without a lawyer. Bottom line, I won they lost.

Under the 1974 Convention for Human Rights and some subsequent legislation my right to have and use a dish is enshrined in European law. I quoted the relevant legislation acts etc. and I told them I was prepared to be taken to court but if they did to be prepared for me to both win the case and seek punitive damages for my distress and inconvenience. They declined to take it any further.

If anyone is interested I will post up the content of my correspondence.

If suspect that there is a nice little earner for the developer to put in a TV cable system for a specific provider then try to put in a clause in the contract to tie everyone into that provider. Money has to be changing hands here. That to me smacks of a restrictive practice.

Management companies may be an necessary evil but they are evil nevertheless IMHO.

Calina

At building stage, my estate was divvied up between what was then two cable suppliers. When I moved in, I was a customer of one cable supplier in my previous residence. My new house was wired for the other cable supplier and I was told that I would have to switch to the new supplier.

I rent so I made a call between fighting to retain my previous supplier who, at the time, had a better service but would have to erect an aerial which was counter to one of the management contract rules to which I was not - in any case - a signatory and switching suppliers. It sounded like an awful lot of hassle I switched suppliers because I expected to be moving at the end of the lease and in any case, when I own I expect to get a dish because frankly all the cable suppliers in the country leave a certain amount to be desired. I don't need 10,000 80s music channels which my cable supplier gives me, but I could do with a couple of other foreign language channels which they don't give me, I'd prefer not to have British Eurosport but French Eurosport, for example.

The truth is the management contract as it exists here is anti-competitive. I can't erect a dish or I can't erect an alternative aerial. This means I'm tied into one service supplier not of my choosing. No matter how you dress it up, there's something inherently unfair about that. Saying "well them's the rules" doesn't change that. In the case of a management company, the owners could change the rules but if even one person doesn't want to change the rules then they don't get changed if Paul is to be believed. All of this paints a very negative picture of management companies to be honest.

While Hagar fought his case in France, the likelihood is that the same conditions prevail here. Ultimately, signing a contract of any description cannot prejudice your rights under prevailing legislation. This is why, for example, any clause in a tenancy agreement which signs away rights that you have under the 2004 Residential Tenancy Act is invalid. This tends to come up with notice periods for example.

There's been a lot of discussion on the subject of sat dishes which hides the necessity of what management companies are for, and the big issue in Ireland tends to be the lack of regulation of the management agencies.

astrofool

You're living in a fantasy land if you think the county council's are going to be bothered to do half the stuff a good management company will do. You also have to remember, a well maintained development will command a higher price than one that has been left derelict.

Calina

astrofool wrote: »

You're living in a fantasy land if you think the county council's are going to be bothered to do half the stuff a good management company will do. You also have to remember, a well maintained development will command a higher price than one that has been left derelict.

the problem seems to be the lack of good management companies, however.

jdivision

astrofool wrote: »

From my point of view, I'll never directly pay a management fee, renting an apartment at the moment, but when/if I buy it'll be a house.

Houses in new developments typically have to pay management fees too.