The Mega **Management Company** thread

cycling is fun

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.






Surely if you have a private security firm graffiti should not be an issue in an under groundcart park maybe you should ask how good the firm are if graggiti artists can get into the car park

lostexpectation

Paulw wrote: »

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.

was this because the estate had deal with a cable company?

Paulw

All the units were pre-wired with NTL. I've signed up to NTL, but I know a few around who haven't. Not sure what they use.

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

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

I have a rather natty bridge here, if you're looking for a solid ongoing investment? In any case, it doesn't matter. You are already paying for it via your taxes. Why are you paying more?

Paulw wrote: »

The unit owners are the shareholders in the management company.

Aaand when the unit owners are developers?

antoinolachtnai

But the taxes aren't going to the upkeep of his particular estate. The council said at the outset that they would provide for that.

For sure, his taxes are going towards the upkeep of other people's estates, but that's a different thing.

His dwelling would have cost more to purchase if it was serviced by the council. Effectively he got a discount for this.

Hagar

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

His dwelling would have cost more to purchase if it was serviced by the council. Effectively he got a discount for this.

How do you make that out?

antoinolachtnai

Well, why would you pay the same for a property that required making an annual payment as you would for one that didn't? That would make no sense.

SimpleSam06

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

His dwelling would have cost more to purchase if it was serviced by the council. Effectively he got a discount for this.

So I was right, house prices are in fact lower because of a management company?

Hagar

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Well, why would you pay the same for a property that required making an annual payment as you would for one that didn't? That would make no sense.

You are absolutely correct, it makes no sense, but that's exactly what happens.
Assuming that developers are benevolent and will discount property for any reason is naive.

Paulw

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I have a rather natty bridge here, if you're looking for a solid ongoing investment? In any case, it doesn't matter. You are already paying for it via your taxes. Why are you paying more?

Aaand when the unit owners are developers?

The developers don't make an ongoing investment from management companies. The developers only make from the initial sale.

Even if the developer owns units, they still don't make from the management company.

A situation like that (where not all units are sold) would really depend on the development, and the management company details. I don't know the details because our development has all it's units sold.

People really need to do some research and reading. Ignorance is rife when people talk about management companies. Most haven't a clue what they're talking about, and hence it leads to threads like this.

A management company is a legal entity formed to manage a development. It is comprised of shareholders (unit owners) from the development. They most hold an AGM once a year and elect a minimum of 2 directors. Most management companies are responsible for many things which normally comprise of - upkeep of common areas, cleaning, refuse, managed services (security, refuse, etc), they can also be responsible for block insurance and more. The management company owns all funds for the development. It is, in effect, a group bank account. The management fee is generally based on a calculation, based on the floor area of the unit. All fees must be accounted for, and audited accounts must be produced for each AGM.

The management agent is hired by the management company to run the development. Some developments don't hire a management agent, but run it themselves. This just takes time and effort from the shareholders.

People really need to understand what they are talking about, and need to stop spreading the false understanding of what a management company is and what it does.

antoinolachtnai

Discounting is not something the developer does. It is something the market does. Discounting has nothing to do with benevolence.

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

People really need to do some research and reading. Ignorance is rife when people talk about management companies.

People really need to understand what they are talking about, and need to stop spreading the false understanding of what a management company is and what it does.

Yeah. Listen instead of flapping on about the ignorance of others, you might try to understand what others are actually saying. Yes you can employ a third party to clip your hedges, trim your verges, and apply a new coat of paint daily. However you pay taxes to the local authority for general maintenance and upkeep on the property. This is part of the social contract and one of the reasons you pay taxes.

If the local authority refuses to do its job, you should either pay less taxes or put pressure on them to do their job. You should not suck it up and keep paying them for sitting on their arses. Its not some faceless monolithic bloc, the local authority is comprised of individuals just the same as you and I.

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Discounting is not something the developer does. It is something the market does. Discounting has nothing to do with benevolence.

Exactly! So management companies will reduce the value of property, as I have been saying. They don't yet, but once people get the bigger picture, they will.

Paulw

Can you give an example of a local authority run development, including apartments, that is well run and maintained?

Hagar

Now that's fighting dirty Paulw.
Let's not confuse the discussion with the realities of life

markpb

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

If the local authority refuses to do its job, you should either pay less taxes or put pressure on them to do their job. You should not suck it up and keep paying them for sitting on their arses. Its not some faceless monolithic bloc, the local authority is comprised of individuals just the same as you and I.

I've always been a fan of paying less tax... can you tell me how to go about it?

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

Can you give an example of a local authority run development, including apartments, that is well run and maintained?

If the council didn't have the resources to maintain a development in a reasonably good state of repair, given the amount of taxpayers living in it, they should never have given planning permission for it in the first place.

And yet again we go back to the nonsense of every estate being a wasteland if run by the council. Seriously, save the rhetoric, it has been heard before during the property bubble, and it was as true then as it is now, which is to say not at all.

You're the one making the claim, so you can substantiate it with facts. Give us a rundown of the percentage of developments, estates or otherwise, in the country, which are operated by management companies. Less than 5%? Less than 3%? Certainly less than 10%.

So you're saying that at least 90% of the country is a run down ruin of an urban wasteland?

markpb wrote: »

I've always been a fan of paying less tax... can you tell me how to go about it?

Get elected.

Paulw

I'll try again, since you didn't answer the question -- Can you give an example of a local authority run development, including apartments, that is well run and maintained?


I'm not saying that I'm for management companies at all, just that when one is there, I plan to make sure that the money is well spent, and the development well run.

I'd certainly like to live in your world, where we pay less tax and everything is done properly, but unfortunately for me, I live in the real world.

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

I'll try again, since you didn't answer the question -- Can you give an example of a local authority run development, including apartments, that is well run and maintained?

You're the one making the statement, you back it up. Give us a rundown of the percentage of developments, estates or otherwise, in the country, which are operated by management companies.

Paulw wrote: »

I'm not saying that I'm for management companies at all, just that when one is there, I plan to make sure that the money is well spent, and the development well run.

Fair enough, you find yourself in a bad situation, and you're making the best of it. I wouldn't have signed up in the first place mind you, but thats neither here nor there...

Paulw wrote: »

I'd certainly like to live in your world, where we pay less tax and everything is done properly, but unfortunately for me, I live in the real world.

Oh please, it was a bad joke by Hagar and certainly not something to use in an argument.

tHE vAGGABOND

Its good to see the Socialist Workers Party are alive and well on boards

Paulw

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

You're the one making the statement, you back it up. Give us a rundown of the percentage of developments, estates or otherwise, in the country, which are operated by management companies.

Hold on, you are the one stating that we should not need management companies.

You seem to be the main poster saying that our taxes will cover all, but yet you can't show a development where taxes do cover everything needed.


From 09-01-2008, 18:07 - your third post to this whole thread -

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

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

Again, since you made the above statement, can you give an example of a local authority run development, including apartments, that is well run and maintained?

astrofool

It's obvious SimpleSam06 has nothing to back himself up with, there's a few threads now where he spouts nonsense in the face of a few facts.

But sure, why let a few facts and examples get in the way of a person on their high horse.

keyes

fascinating thread. i never realised a lot of what's been posted here.

just my 2 cents;

did anyone hear the guy on newstalk last week saying that one of the problems is that management companies often take a long term view, sinking funds to allow for future replacement of lifts, etc., but many tenants only see their flat as a short term, "stepping stone" property, so begrudge putting money away for repairs/maintenance?

before anyone has a go, i don't live in a flat, nor have i any interest in a management company! just something i heard the other day that seems loosely connected!

Paulw

We certainly budget for the long term. We have a sinking fund budget each year. There have been no complaints about this, and people do actually ask to make sure we are prepared for this.

We have a 5 year plan - ie roughly every 5 years the externals and common areas may need to be painted, and can use the sinking fund for serious emergency issues.

Because of the previous management agent, and their poor organisation, this year we have a nice surplus in budgeted funds, so can spend on extra projects (better security gates, improved CCTV, extra landscaping), and still plan to reduce our management fees. This will still leave a nice large sinking fund. I think we plan approx 8-10k per annum to be added to the sinking fund.

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

Hold on, you are the one stating that we should not need management companies.

I'm not sure how the one follows from the other. There is almost certainly a tiny percentage of MC-run estates throughout the country. Therefore, we don't need them.

Paulw wrote: »

You seem to be the main poster saying that our taxes will cover all, but yet you can't show a development where taxes do cover everything needed.

I didn't say taxes would roll out the red carpet for you every morning, but you are paying them for less return than anyone else.

Paulw wrote: »

Again, since you made the above statement, can you give an example of a local authority run development, including apartments, that is well run and maintained?

Quoting me isn't helping you any. You're the one saying that everywhere run by the council is a wasteland, you back it up. How many MC run estates are there, as opposed to how many estates in the entire country? And lets compare that to the quality of life in Ireland, which up until quite recently was the highest in the world, according to the economist.

Your position is not supportable. I'm quite enjoying this debate, its rarely so easy to cut an opponents arguments to ribbons as thoroughly as has been done here.

astrofool wrote: »

It's obvious SimpleSam06 has nothing to back himself up with, there's a few threads now where he spouts nonsense in the face of a few facts.

But sure, why let a few facts and examples get in the way of a person on their high horse.

Yet another valuable contribution from astrofool.

antoinolachtnai

Can we all practice being excellent to each other again?

Hagar

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Oh please, it was a bad joke by Hagar and certainly not something to use in an argument.

Not a bad joke by me, it's a bad joke by your local council and the joke is on you.

Paulw

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Quoting me isn't helping you any. You're the one saying that everywhere run by the council is a wasteland, you back it up.

Can you show me a single statement to that effect that I've made?

But seriously, you're giving us all a good laugh with your statements, and the fact that you can't show any facts or details to back your claims up.

Firetrap

Excuse my ignorance here but why do management companies stop people from erecting satellite dishes? What's the problem?

SimpleSam06

Hagar wrote: »

Not a bad joke by me, it's a bad joke by your local council and the joke is on you.

Actually with a couple of exceptions that would apply to the MC run estates as well, I'm fairly happy with the council's work around here and the city in general. Any time I have had a problem, it has been resolved within days. So save the soundbites Hagar.

And in any case, if you have a problem with your local authority, the solution is not to go and pay someone else to do it instead, its to get on to that local authority and get it fixed.

Paulw wrote: »

Can you show me a single statement to that effect that I've made?

Paulw wrote: »

Can you give an example of a local authority run development, including apartments, that is well run and maintained?

There you go. By implication, every non management-company run estate is poorly run in your opinion. Which is nonsense. Or am I mistaken, and you admit that local authorities can look after properties fairly well? Because its one or the other here.

You and the other MC proponents signed up for it, and now its starting to look like it wasn't the best idea, so you're defending your decision as best you can, which is understandable, of course.

What this discussion is clarifying for all to see is that MCs will lower the value of your property, so don't buy a dwelling in a place run by one.

Paulw wrote: »

But seriously, you're giving us all a good laugh with your statements, and the fact that you can't show any facts or details to back your claims up.

Actually most people seemed to see my point, and a few of them even arrived at the same conclusion almost independently. MCs lower property prices. Now I told you before about smarmy backhanded comments, they are the last resort of those with nowhere else to run. If you can't keep it on topic and civil, don't bother posting.

You make the claim, you back it up.

Hagar

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

And in any case, if you have a problem with your local authority, the solution is not to go and pay someone else to do it instead, its to get on to that local authority and get it fixed.

In the real world things don't always happen the way you think or expect.

Take county Meath for instance, unless things have changed in the last couple of years these "situations" still exist.
They do not do any domestic refuse collection, you have to employ Thornton Waste (or someone else) to do the work that other councils do.
They have no Parks & Gardens section, any public green spaces on your estate must be maintained at the residents' expense unlike other counties where such works are done as part of normal council services.

I can't comment on the services levels you claim to get from your local council, I doubt however that everyone is a happy with their public services as you are.

Sometimes the only way to get things done is to do it yourself, and that's not a soundbite, it's a fact.