The Mega **Management Company** thread

astrofool

jdivision wrote: »

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

Oh I know, but I won't be living in one

SimpleSam06

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.

SimpleSam06 wrote:

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!

Pain...

Paulw

Calina wrote: »

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.

Under the law of contract.

Until such time as the Irish govt pass a law stating that the clause in the lease contract is invalid, then it is still valid under Irish law.

If I was offered a job with only 5 days annual leave, I wouldn't accept the job in the first place.

I read my Lease Contract when I received it. I went through it with my solicitor. I was informed of all the important clauses. After this, I signed the contract because I agreed to abide by the contract.

If you didn't agree to abide by the Lease contract, when why did you sign your contract? Why didn't you look elsewhere? Why didn't you buy a unit that didn't have a no satellite dish in the contract?

Something you need to realise - the management company don't make the rules in the contract. These contracts are drawn up prior to the formation of the management company. The legal documents are drawn up by the solicitors of the land owner and the developer.

At our last two AGMs, there was 100% vote for removal of the erected dishes. Out of a development of over 110 units, there were about 10 dishes. Our management company has never been approached to erect a communal dish. The dishes that were erected were for units that were rented out.

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

Out of a development of over 110 units, there were about 10 dishes.

Well now, that is interesting. Would it be possible to share with us what expenses are incurred to cost that ~€110,000 per annum, and do the directors receive any salary from that?

Calina

You're missing the point Paul, I'm not a signatory to the management company related lease. I'm covered by a tenancy agreement because I rent from the property owner. I have stated clearly that I rent and that this is why I have not dealt with this aspect of the management company lease.

I've stated on several occasions that when it comes to purchasing, this will have a bearing on my valuation of properties.

You also need to remember that the rules can be changed by the MC - you have stated this yourself - so they are not set in stone per se. Talking about what was done before you got the lease is a cop out because the facility theoretically exists for you to strike out the relevant clause, except of course you need a unanimous vote on the subject.

uberwolf

Given a management company own the common land, is that company not entitled to dictate the use of that property?

That is to say, you can't erect that dish on that wall because you don't own the wall.

Without being facetious, whats the difference between that and the OP discovering his neighbours satellite dish attached to his kitchen table? (presuming he'd left the back door open)

markpb

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well now, that is interesting. Would it be possible to share with us what expenses are incurred to cost that ~€110,000 per annum, and do the directors receive any salary from that?

I don`t know any estate that pays directors fees. My estate costs about 500k to run, 60k for the ma, 30k for common insurance, 70k for landscaping, 80k for security, 5k for gate maintenance, 20k for upkeep and repairs, 7k for drains, the list is endless but every owner is given the entire breakdown every year.

Hagar

markpb wrote: »

60k for the ma

Yore Ma gets 60k? I just knew there was stroke being pulled.

SimpleSam06

markpb wrote: »

I don`t know any estate that pays directors fees. My estate costs about 500k to run, 60k for the ma, 30k for common insurance, 70k for landscaping, 80k for security, 5k for gate maintenance, 20k for upkeep and repairs, 7k for drains, the list is endless but every owner is given the entire breakdown every year.

Say what now? 70k for landscaping? Are you paying for some sort of evolving diorama or something? 80k for security, are the gardai not sufficient? Twenty thousand euros worth of upkeep and repairs? Seven thousand euros worth of drain work of some kind? Do you not ever sit down and think, whoa, I'm being had roughly from behind here on an annual basis?

astrofool

Just on point of debating, rather than highlight an example from the opposite position (Ballymun), try list some developments which support your position. There's no point giving a statement, without some factual examples behind it.

mick72

Paul,

yes I knew I was not allowed erect the dish before I bought the apartment. But I did not know there was not to be satellite signal via communal dish.

You said you wouldn't accept the job with 5 days annual leave. I wouldn't either, but given some circumstances such as huge unemployment would you take it then?

When I was buying the apartment 4 years ago, it was the matter of weeks whether you would be priced out of market or not, and that is why I bought the apartment. When I asked my solicitor to get 'no satellite dish rule' clause out, he said it was not to happen since the developer was in much stronger barganing position and I would probably have lost that apartment. He also said I could certainly argue my case later.

And I do argue today. I simply do not let anyone, but anyone come and take the dish down. They tried to take it down two times, and I said if they proceed with it, I will not hesitate using physical force. I would love them to bring me to court and measure up the clause against my human right. It is obviously not going to happen, but I would sincerely love to. Prior to this I put in my maximum efforts in terms of communal dish but fell on deaf ears.

Very similar things in terms of no satellite dishes happened in the States few years ago and some changes took place after it went to court. No judge will ever deprive someone of their human right, they might not let you have you dish, but they will certainly find an adequate alternative.

markpb

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Say what now? 70k for landscaping? Are you paying for some sort of evolving diorama or something? 80k for security, are the gardai not sufficient? Twenty thousand euros worth of upkeep and repairs? Seven thousand euros worth of drain work of some kind? Do you not ever sit down and think, whoa, I'm being had roughly from behind here on an annual basis?

You're demonstrating your own complete lack of knowledge now. Why do you think 70k for landscaping is unreasonable? Could it be that without any information about my estate, it's size, composition, etc. that you make an absolute leap into the unknown and condemned it blindly? Do you think that there could be reasons why we have private security and why the owners vote year on year to keep that security?

For example, the council don't look after the drains in the estate by order of the planning department. Someone has to monitor them, come out day and night to clear, clear and maintain then. The last time there was a problem, they responded within two hours. Failure to do so could have had very nasty consequences for the people on the ground floor of my block.

Another example is window cleaning across three stories and three hundred units. Painting of almost one hundred common area lobbys and stairwells. Cleaning the underground car parks to remove graffiti. Removing a 56 foot tree that was damaged in a storm and is a property risk. I'm glad you think those things could be done for cheaper than we've found them. If you'd like to offer your services, you'll be hired tomorrow.

People have said it before, I'm going to say it again - Your posts demonstrate a completely ill-informed grudge on your shoulders about management companies. They combine an ideological dislike with the bad press they've received and show that you've made your mind up without actually knowing anything about them or without ever dealing with them.

SimpleSam06

markpb wrote: »

across three stories and three hundred units.

So, you've got three hundred units and at least three hundred people who can afford at least a grand and a half extra a year. These sound like a fine selection of solid taxpayers, who pay a hell of a lot of solid taxes. Has it ever occurred to you that you're paying at least that much towards the local authority anyway? What do you get for your money? You get the privelege of paying someone else to do what the council should be doing.

markpb wrote: »

I'm glad you think those things could be done for cheaper than we've found them. If you'd like to offer your services, you'll be hired tomorrow.

Done and done, in this very post in fact. You can email the cheque to sam@simpleadvicethatwillsaveyouafortune.com.

markpb wrote: »

People have said it before, I'm going to say it again - Your posts demonstrate a completely ill-informed grudge on your shoulders about management companies.

I have no grudge whatsoever towards management companies. I just see them as parasites with no business leeching off people already straining under the morass of fees and charges for every damn thing in this country, and I've backed up that position quite adequately, thank you, without the vitriol you are displaying.

Tell me, are you irked because you are in a MC or because you signed away forty years of your life to paying one?

SimpleSam06

astrofool wrote: »

Just on point of debating, rather than highlight an example from the opposite position (Ballymun), try list some developments which support your position. There's no point giving a statement, without some factual examples behind it.

Well lets just take my own region, Galway. Visualise if you will a map of the county, with green areas to cover the council run estates, and red to cover the MC run estates. See those few twinkling red dots in that sea of green?

Right.

astrofool

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well lets just take my own region, Galway. Visualise if you will a map of the county, with green areas to cover the council run estates, and red to cover the MC run estates. See those few twinkling red dots in that sea of green?

Right.

If this was a real debate, then you'd be the guy who's had to resort to TALKING VERY LOUDLY because he lost it long ago. What the hell does your statement show?

markpb

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So, you've got three hundred units and at least three hundred people who can afford at least a grand and a half extra a year. These sound like a fine selection of solid taxpayers, who pay a hell of a lot of solid taxes. Has it ever occurred to you that you're paying at least that much towards the local authority anyway? What do you get for your money? You get the privelege of paying someone else to do what the council should be doing.

I'm glad life is so simple where you live. The planning permission for my estate says:

As the Corporation will not be taking the development in charge [...] Such agreement shall cover the roads, footpaths, car park and all services, together with hard and soft landscaping excluding private areas, and shall make it clear that the Corporation shall not have responsibility in these areas.

I could gripe and moan about the inequities of it all like you do or I could set about doing the best for the other people living in the estate and keeping the costs as low as possible. Over time we're working towards getting the council to take over running some of the services but in the meantime we're being pragmatic and dealing with the situation.

Tell me, are you irked because you are in a MC or because you signed away forty years of your life to paying one?

I'm irked because the council dodged their work but I'm also irked because you give out about things you don't understand. You think if you live in an estate, the council do all your work free of charge. The truth is that if/when they take them over, the money has to come from somewhere so either taxes will go up or service levels will fall. Ignoring that, things like cutting lawns, cleaning windows, repainting the walls, clearing the drains still happen in non-managed estates and the council won't do them. Those are costs that have to be paid one way or another.

markpb

When people talk about Ballymun as an example of a bad council-managed estate, they're talking about the apartment/flat type, not the estate type. Can you provide an apartment/flat block which is council managed and run well?

Paulw

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well now, that is interesting. Would it be possible to share with us what expenses are incurred to cost that ~€110,000 per annum, and do the directors receive any salary from that?

I'm not at liberty to discuss our company finances, but all shareholders get a copy of our audited accounts. The funds don't amount to that. The price I pay if for a 3 bed apt. We have many 2 bed and even 1 bed units, so they obviously pay a lot less.

No, directors get no payments at all.

Paulw

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I have no grudge whatsoever towards management companies. I just see them as parasites with no business leeching off people already straining under the morass of fees and charges for every damn thing in this country, and I've backed up that position quite adequately, thank you, without the vitriol you are displaying.

The management company doesn't leech off anyone, because the management company is owned and run by the shareholder, who own the properties. They can decide what the money is and isn't spent on.

Too many people blame management companies. Too few people actually get involved and help run the management company. It's easy to sit back and moan about things being done, things not being done etc. Some of us are actually concerned and interested, so we get involved.

You then have a lot more control, and you dictate where the money is spent.

Paulw

Calina wrote: »

You also need to remember that the rules can be changed by the MC - you have stated this yourself - so they are not set in stone per se. Talking about what was done before you got the lease is a cop out because the facility theoretically exists for you to strike out the relevant clause, except of course you need a unanimous vote on the subject.

Totally true. The rules could be changed, however, our development won't be changing these rules any time soon. In a previous post I stated that for the last two years we have had 100% of attending owners insist that the management company enforces the no satellite clause and have the dishes removed.

There were no objections and no abstentions to those votes.

The management agent and the directors are simply following the instructions of the shareholders.

SimpleSam06

markpb wrote: »

I'm glad life is so simple where you live. The planning permission for my estate says:

And who was it who put that together? The local authority, thats right. So they agreed to do less work, knock me over with a feather. It would be a trivial matter to reverse that legally and make sure they do cover their responsibilities. Just because its in a contract, doesn't mean its binding.

markpb wrote: »

Over time we're working towards getting the council to take over running some of the services but in the meantime we're being pragmatic and dealing with the situation.

Well thats the best way to deal with it as it stands.

markpb wrote: »

I'm irked because the council dodged their work but I'm also irked because you give out about things you don't understand. You think if you live in an estate, the council do all your work free of charge.

Oh, and after such an optimisitic start. I'm not sure whether you can't or won't read what I'm writing repeatedly. The council isn't doing it free of charge, they are already being paid by your taxes.

markpb wrote: »

The truth is that if/when they take them over, the money has to come from somewhere

YES. YOUR TAX MONEY. Which you are paying them at the moment for zero service. How is this not getting through.

markpb wrote: »

Those are costs that have to be paid one way or another.

Yeah but most of them are not highly recurrent, and don't need a fixed annual fee to cover.

Paulw wrote: »

The management company doesn't leech off anyone, because the management company is owned and run by the shareholder, who own the properties. They can decide what the money is and isn't spent on.

Doesn't matter a damn who owns it (and it was originally set up by the developers to ensure an ongoing income, since you had to throw them out, am I right?), its still fulfilling a need that should be looked after by your tax money. Maybe you feel like paying on the double, I don't.

Paulw wrote: »

You then have a lot more control, and you dictate where the money is spent.

The money was already spent. Now you're spending it again. And audited accounts? I guess you can add accountants fees to the list of neccessary maintenance charges.

SimpleSam06

astrofool wrote: »

If this was a real debate, then you'd be the guy who's had to resort to TALKING VERY LOUDLY because he lost it long ago. What the hell does your statement show?

There really does seem to be some sort of reality distortion field around MC proponents. What didn't you get?

Paulw

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Doesn't matter a damn who owns it (and it was originally set up by the developers to ensure an ongoing income, since you had to throw them out, am I right?), its still fulfilling a need that should be looked after by your tax money. Maybe you feel like paying on the double, I don't.


The money was already spent. Now you're spending it again. And audited accounts? I guess you can add accountants fees to the list of neccessary maintenance charges.

The more you post, the more you show how little you actually know about management companies and their running.

The developer makes NO MONEY from a management company. Developers don't get any ongoing income.

You're really showing your ignorance of the whole situation.

Hagar

Paulw wrote: »

100% of attending owners insist that the management company enforces the no satellite clause and have the dishes removed.

What percentage of owners attended? I realize how democracy works, that only those who attend can vote etc etc. but I'm just curious.

Paulw wrote: »

The developer makes NO MONEY from a management company. Developers don't get any ongoing income.

You're really showing your ignorance of the whole situation.

Why would developers want to expend any effort into a project after it's completed if there is no payback? Why don't they just automatically hand over to a new committee at a certain point without having to be forced out?

It think "ignorance" is a bit harsh. We're discussing this in the interests of clarity and sharing knowledge aren't we?

Paulw

Hagar wrote: »

What percentage of owners attended? I realize how democracy works, that only those who attend can vote etc etc. but I'm just curious.

Our first AGM had a 40% attendance. This year it was 25%. This year is relatively normal for attendance at a company AGM (according to other management companies I've talked to). Some who couldn't attend did send a proxy.

Hagar wrote: »

Why would developers want to expend any effort into a project after it's completed if there is no payback? Why don't they just automatically hand over to a new committee at a certain point without having to be forced out?

Normally it's because they haven't handed over the whole development. Common areas, units they haven't sold etc. Also, I've spoken to the developer many times, and he says that in some developments it's actually hard to get people to step forward and take the responsibility of being a director.

In general, people have a very bad and poor perception of management companies. Most people are poorly informed, or don't seek the information. They always believe that the developer is in charge, or the management agent is the management company. They fail to realise that it's up to them to take charge, and make the decisions.

Our development isn't perfect by any means. We have a good number of issues to sort out. But, we have an active shareholder base. People care and want to know what is happening.

I will probably step down as director this year (3 years on the resident's association and 2 years as a director is enough for now), but we won't have problems electing new directors. We want to have the development run well, and through that we believe we can reduce our costs. At our last AGM people agreed that they have no problems paying a decent management fee if the place is run well. Through our work and planning, we can see that the place can be well run and we can also reduce fees.

Hagar

Where I live we have a Syndic. who run the place. The costs seem much lower than what is being paid in Ireland. I pay about €60 per month. This include general maintenance of public areas, car parks, garages, gardening, rubbish collection, maint. of two swimming pools, maint. of 2 tennis courts, lighting etc. This also includes communal Satellite TV ( French channels only) hence my battle for a sky dish. I believe this year they are going replace the satellite dish with digital terrestial tv (about 14/16 channels free of charge) there will be most likely a small levy to cover the extra work setting up the antenna. But all in all it's good value. I don't see the same value for Irish consumers from what I've read around here. That's possibly why people think there's money being made somehow by the Mgt Cos.

markpb

Hagar wrote: »

Where I live we have a Syndic. who run the place. The costs seem much lower than what is being paid in Ireland. I pay about €60 per month. This include general maintenance of public areas, car parks, garages, gardening, rubbish collection, maint. of two swimming pools, maint. of 2 tennis courts, lighting etc.

That's amazing. At a guess, would that be an apartment block with no exterior grounds? I find that most of costs in our estate goes into keeping the grounds safe, lit, insured, cleaned, etc. The next biggest cost is hiring an MA but there's (genuinely) so much involved that taking it on ourselves is a non-starter, especially with the current participation levels.

Paulw

Hagar wrote: »

That's possibly why people think there's money being made somehow by the Mgt Cos.

But, that's the thing ... the people ARE the management company. The unit owners are the shareholders in the management company. They control every cent that is spent and collected. They decide how much they need and what it's used for.

Until people actually realise this, and take charge themselves, there will always be this false perception that someone else is making money from it all.

astrofool

I'm not a proponent, in fact, as I've stated, I'll most likely never pay manangement fee's myself. However, your arguments against them are, at best, uninformed, and, most of the time, idiotic. There's no point in just saying MC's are bad, mmmk? without going into the reasoning behind it and a few examples.

Hagar

markpb wrote: »

That's amazing. At a guess, would that be an apartment block with no exterior grounds? I find that most of costs in our estate goes into keeping the grounds safe, lit, insured, cleaned, etc. The next biggest cost is hiring an MA but there's (genuinely) so much involved that taking it on ourselves is a non-starter, especially with the current participation levels.

No, it's not a large block at all. The highest block is a tiered 3 storey, we are on a hill overlooking the Med, about 1km away, after that its a mix of 2 storey semi and terraced. Max about 5 per terrace. From 1 bed studio to 3 bed with a parking space and a garage. And all combinations in between. Mine's a modest 2 bed with garage and a parking space. There's 2 pools because the is the place is so spread out you just go to the nearest one. About 40 metres in my case. Then there's the tennis courts. A huge amount of gardening goes on, can you imagine how fast stuff grows here?