The Mega **Management Company** thread

The_Conductor

what2do wrote:

however I have seen some signs inside windows and I'm guessing that is outside the management cos control.

Not necessarily- it depends on how the lease is worded. We're definitely not allowed have anything in our windows here

adam.number2

smccarrick wrote: »

Not necessarily- it depends on how the lease is worded. We're definitely not allowed have anything in our windows here

Good lord, what part of 1930s Germany do you live in!

Time to get rid of that management company imho. If I couldnt put my wham posters in the window I don't know what i'd do!

The_Conductor

adam.number2 wrote: »

Time to get rid of that management company imho. If I couldnt put my wham posters in the window I don't know what i'd do!

Its not the management company- its actually written in the 900 year leases that we all own.

Paulw

adam.number2 wrote: »

Time to get rid of that management company imho.

You can't get rid of a management company. You're confusing management agent with management company.

In our development you're not permitted erect for-sale signs (detailed in the 999 year Lease Contract), and we're now strictly enforcing it. By we, I mean the management company (through the management agent). Many signs previously were put up by drilling holes in the walls and mounting them that way. So, it's not acceptable.

Mind you, I haven't seen a for-sale sign around here for a number of months.

Calina

I think what discussions of this nature tend to demonstrate is how many people do not understand the ramifications of leasehold interests in properties and how certain freedoms are curtailed by those leases.

johnnyskeleton

Calina wrote: »

I think what discussions of this nature tend to demonstrate is how many people do not understand the ramifications of leasehold interests in properties and how certain freedoms are curtailed by those leases.

This is it. Always try to get fee simple, and if the title being sold is not fee simple, ask your solicitor if it is possible to buy out the fee simple under the ground rents act. Although the idea that you could own the fee simple to an apartment has been suggested (although legally uncertain) apartments are usually sold as leasehold, which is a bit of a bum deal. Some older leasehold interests still allow the landlord hunting rights and the like.

However your lease is worded, I doubt it allows the landlord to enter your premises to enforce the covenants. Therefore, if they entered onto someone's land to take down the signs, they would be trespassing. Sue them I say.

The fact that it was the management company makes it all the more invidious - the management company should be working for the people who live there, not working at the behest of the developer.

Paulw

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

However your lease is worded, I doubt it allows the landlord to enter your premises to enforce the covenants. Therefore, if they entered onto someone's land to take down the signs, they would be trespassing. Sue them I say.

Actually, you'll probably find that it does have a clause to permit access to inspect the premises. It will probably have words like "reasonablle time", so during regular working hours or early evening.

And ours also has a clause that says that if you do not carry out works detailed by the management company (such as removal of for-sale signs or satellite dishes), then the management company has the right to enter the premises, carry out the work, and that such work will be at the expense of the owner, which will be added to their management fee.

So, no case for trespassing and no case for theft. All well within the rights of the management company.

Our policy is to write to the unit owner, inform them that they are in breach of specific clauses, give them 7 days to correct this. If this does not happen, a workman is sent to the premises, they give a verbal warning that the person resident has 24hrs to remove the offending item. Failing that, they gain entry the following day and remove the items, and an invoice for work is sent to the unit owner. Of course, some people re-offend. In that case, they get another written warning and then the item is removed.

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

You can't get rid of a management company.

Sure you can, there was a thread here a while ago where residents had successfully removed their management company, and others were attempting to do the same.

Paulw wrote: »

then the management company has the right to enter the premises, carry out the work, and that such work will be at the expense of the owner, which will be added to their management fee.

So, no case for trespassing and no case for theft. All well within the rights of the management company.

Failing that, they gain entry the following day

Wow. So how does this work with the following:

Your landlord is only allowed to enter your home with your permission. If the landlord needs to carry out repairs or inspect the premises, it should be by prior arrangement, except in an emergency.

Leases or other tenancy agreements cannot take away from your rights under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.

I am aware that its not exactly a landlord-tenant situation, but I have to say I'm staggered that anyone would put up with behaviour like that, and it just reinforces the fact that management companies will substantially reduce the value of your property. I mean any situation where random strangers can "gain entry" to your home and remove items is completely unbelievable. Where would I hang my electric pink polka dot curtains? What if my eccentric wallpaper can be seen from outside the house and doesn't match the neighbourhood colour scheme?

BendiBus

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Sure you can, there was a thread here a while ago where residents had successfully removed their management company, and others were attempting to do the same.

If you're an owner you're a shareholder in the management company. You can change the directors of the company, you vote to have the directors change the agent, but you can't just change the management company.

SimpleSam06

BendiBus wrote: »

If you're an owner you're a shareholder in the management company. You can change the directors of the company, you vote to have the directors change the agent, but you can't just change the management company.

I didn't say change, I said remove.

The_Conductor

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Sure you can, there was a thread here a while ago where residents had successfully removed their management company, and others were attempting to do the same.

They (the shareholders- who in this case were owner occupiers) removed nominated directors from the management company (who had been installed by the developer and were acting solely in the developer's interests) and installed their own directors at a legally constituted EGM, and then fired the Management Agent. You can't actually remove the Management Company- its a legal entity, and all of the property in the estate/complex is vested in the company. If you dissolved the company, without transferring its assets and obligations elsewhere, you would not legally be entitled to trade property in the complex (though I am perfectly aware of one case in Dublin where people allowed their Management Company be stricken off at the CRO and have apparently still been buying and selling property- which does make a mockery of the law).

Further- residents have no standing or rights regarding the management company- these rights reside with the shareholders (the owners of the units). Residents are perfectly within their rights to found a residents association to lobby on their behalf, but the Management Company will not even have to recognise this association (normally they do though, in the interests of an easy life).

Shane

Jamar

In my previous address (near Hampton Wood), the tenants replaced the Management Agent.

We had lived there for 18mths without an AGM, and some residents had been there 2+ yrs. We were tired of the M. Agent doing a very poor job.

However, I think you will find that the property developer owns a number of units, and therefore a significant block of votes. This might even include those that are being launched. Therefore, removing the management agent might be very difficult.

On the lease, you will probably find that signs are not allowed. However, they should have asked to remove the signs first, by letter, (in my opinion). Therefore, you could have a case. My guess is that they are acting in the interests of the developers (are they the same people?) and are hoping no one will bother to take them on.

SimpleSam06

smccarrick wrote: »

If you dissolved the company, without transferring its assets and obligations elsewhere,

And therein lies the rub. It should be fairly simple to devolve the obligations and assets to the same people who are responsible for same in 98% of the country, the local authority. I mean what are they going to do, ask for extra payments for particular estates? The people in these estates are already paying taxes.

smccarrick wrote: »

Further- residents have no standing or rights regarding the management company- these rights reside with the shareholders (the owners of the units).

Which would make residents, if not shareholders, the tenants. Its entirely possible that residents within property management run companies have no rights at all, of course, the backward state of the legal situation in this country has more than enough scope for abuse.

However, I still cannot fathom how anyone would willingly live in a situation where employees or agents of a private company can "gain entry" to their home without their permission.

johnnyskeleton

Paulw wrote: »

Actually, you'll probably find that it does have a clause to permit access to inspect the premises. It will probably have words like "reasonablle time", so during regular working hours or early evening.

As sam points out, a landlord cannot claim a right to enter the tenant's premises (outside of an easement or profit a prendre, or for default) because to do so would mean that the tenant does not have a right to exclusive possession of the property. A right to enter the premises can only arise where there is a fundamental breach of the lease such as would allow forfeiture of the lease to the landlord if there was non-compliance. In any event, if the right to enter the premises was contested by the tenant, the landlord would need a court order before entering the premises or else it would be trespass.

Paulw wrote: »

And ours also has a clause that says that if you do not carry out works detailed by the management company (such as removal of for-sale signs or satellite dishes), then the management company has the right to enter the premises, carry out the work, and that such work will be at the expense of the owner, which will be added to their management fee.

And you agreed to this? I doubt it's enforceable by the management company, because if you do not have the right to exclusive possession(other than as above) of the premises, it's more like a licence than a lease.

Paulw wrote: »

So, no case for trespassing and no case for theft. All well within the rights of the management company.

I don't think a management company can have these rights over leasehold, and in any event I don't think they should be given up so easily by tenants if that's the case.

Paulw wrote: »

Our policy is to write to the unit owner, inform them that they are in breach of specific clauses, give them 7 days to correct this. If this does not happen, a workman is sent to the premises, they give a verbal warning that the person resident has 24hrs to remove the offending item. Failing that, they gain entry the following day and remove the items, and an invoice for work is sent to the unit owner. Of course, some people re-offend. In that case, they get another written warning and then the item is removed.

Ah, I see you are speaking from the point of view of a managment company. Well of course then you would claim unto yourself an unfettered right to enter the tenants property for any minor breach of a covenant, but the courts don't look at it that way. If you write to the tenant and they agree to take it down or agree to let you in that's one thing, but by forcing your way onto the premises you are either trespassing or reclaiming the property, neither of which is, IMO, justified.

The way your management company should deal with tenants who don't remove these items is to ask them first, and if they refuse, obtain a court order allowing you to enter onto the premises for that purpose.

Paulw

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Ah, I see you are speaking from the point of view of a managment company. Well of course then you would claim unto yourself an unfettered right to enter the tenants property for any minor breach of a covenant, but the courts don't look at it that way. If you write to the tenant and they agree to take it down or agree to let you in that's one thing, but by forcing your way onto the premises you are either trespassing or reclaiming the property, neither of which is, IMO, justified.

The way your management company should deal with tenants who don't remove these items is to ask them first, and if they refuse, obtain a court order allowing you to enter onto the premises for that purpose.

I am a resident in our development. We took control from the developer, so we are fully in control of the management company. I was then elected as a director of the management company. We then sacked the previous management agent and employed a new one. At two AGMs, it was voted by unanimous vote to enforce the rules of the lease contract, especially relating to satellite dishes. The management company, and management agent are simply enforcing the wishes of the shareholders.

As I said, we give plenty of notice (in writing and in person) to those who are in breach of contract clauses. We have never had an issue with people refusing access.

We have never felt the need to obtain a court order. No one has ever needed to gain access without the unit owner's permission to enter. In fact, I don't think we've ever had to enter a premises, since these breaches of contract have all been external to the premises.

Putting a ladder against the building to remove a satellite dish, or removing a for-sale sign in no way infringes on a resident's sole use of the premises.

connundrum

Paulw wrote: »

Putting a ladder against the building to remove a satellite dish, or removing a for-sale sign in no way infringes on a resident's sole use of the premises.

I remember a neighbour kicking up a fuss because the managing agent sent in work men to remove a satellite dish from his balcony (following two warning letters).

The workmen just put up a ladder, climbed over the balcony railing and removed the dish, leaving it on the balcony floor.

He called the guards and accused the agent of breaking & entering, but the agent was in the clear because they were enforcing mgt co rules. My neighbour has exclusive access to his balcony, but the actual physical ownership (and maintenance) of the balcony falls under the mgt co's name - so they'd the right to go in and do these works.

I've yet to see the mgt co enforce the 'no washing line' rule, maybe that is to follow soon!

Victor

The correct balance I think is for there to be a designated spot for For Sale signs, e.g. "between the pillar at the main gate and the next pillar and only one sign per company".

This allows people to advertise without it looking like there is a fire sale on.

JupiterKid

This is a very interesting but slightly depressing thread. To me, it signifies that apartment developments were snapped up in recent years by people desperate to get on the "property ladder" at any cost only to find them selves not only unable to seel their property in today's deteriorating market, but also having to contend with overly restrictive management comapanies and lease stipulations that they had little concept of when they purchased.

This issue is going to get very messy in coming years. It may indeed leave a serious and permenent scar on many recent high density housing dvelopments. Legislation covering the management of housing developments is urgently needed at this stage.

Whatever happened to the Law Reform Commission's Report in this regard?

Paulw

JupiterKid wrote: »

To me, it signifies that apartment developments were snapped up in recent years by people desperate to get on the "property ladder" at any cost only to find them selves not only unable to seel their property in today's deteriorating market, but also having to contend with overly restrictive management comapanies and lease stipulations that they had little concept of when they purchased.

If people didn't read their lease contract before signing then they have only themselves to blame. Thankfully, when I bought, I had a brilliant solicitor, and I made a point to read every clause of the agreement. Personally, I had no issue with any of the clauses. I don't know how people could claim they had no choice. There were so many developments going up all over the country and they all have different contracts, some a lot more strict than others.

JupiterKid wrote: »

This issue is going to get very messy in coming years. It may indeed leave a serious and permenent scar on many recent high density housing dvelopments. Legislation covering the management of housing developments is urgently needed at this stage.

I think the largest problem with management companies is down to those management companies that are still under the control of the developer, and have poor management agents running the development.

For nearly two years the developer was in charge of our development, and the management agent would do very little and charge too much for the work done. The place was going down hill and fast. So, we took control.

I very much agree that regulation is needed. But, more importantly, I think people/govt and such need to understand the large difference between management company and management agent. I've yet to have any shareholders/owners complain about clauses in their lease contract or ask for any to be altered/removed.

Victor

I think what the contrcts are trying to stop is stuff like this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/graphics/2006/12/19/pprices19.jpg

---

I think the solution to oppressive developers controlling management companies is to stop them from charging management fees until there is an independent board.

Paulw

Thankfully, even when sales were booming, it was never like that in our development. But, a nearby one for a while, looked like every 4th unit was for sale.

I did see for sale signs on entrance gates to courtyard area. So, Joe Public couldn't see the premises, nor get to it (through secure gate), so having a for sale sign up served no real purpose.

johnnyskeleton

Paulw wrote: »

I am a resident in our development. We took control from the developer, so we are fully in control of the management company. I was then elected as a director of the management company. We then sacked the previous management agent and employed a new one. At two AGMs, it was voted by unanimous vote to enforce the rules of the lease contract, especially relating to satellite dishes. The management company, and management agent are simply enforcing the wishes of the shareholders.

As I said, we give plenty of notice (in writing and in person) to those who are in breach of contract clauses. We have never had an issue with people refusing access.

We have never felt the need to obtain a court order. No one has ever needed to gain access without the unit owner's permission to enter. In fact, I don't think we've ever had to enter a premises, since these breaches of contract have all been external to the premises.

Do you not see though that when it is done with the owner's permission it is not a problem, but when done unilaterally and without permission it is a very different thing. To give a more extreme example, is there any difference between consensual and non-consensual sex?

Paulw wrote: »

Putting a ladder against the building to remove a satellite dish, or removing a for-sale sign in no way infringes on a resident's sole use of the premises.

It is a violation of their right to exclusive possession if the wall forms part of their lease. It is also trespass to goods if they unlawfully deprive their possessor of possession.

johnnyskeleton

connundrum wrote: »

He called the guards and accused the agent of breaking & entering, but the agent was in the clear because they were enforcing mgt co rules. My neighbour has exclusive access to his balcony, but the actual physical ownership (and maintenance) of the balcony falls under the mgt co's name - so they'd the right to go in and do these works.

A gard would only be concerned with criminal offences and public order, and "breaking and entering" is not a criminal offence in Ireland. To be convicted of burglary or criminal tresspass, you must intend to commit another offence (e.g. steal something, arson etc) or threaten someone.

With the greatest of respect to members of an garda siochana, I don't think they are qualified to pronounce on the nuances of landlord and tenant law, and in any event, the garda would have to carefully peruse the lease agreement before coming to any sort of reasoned decision.

He (the gard) probably just wanted to get rid of the guy and get on with real police work.

Paulw

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Do you not see though that when it is done with the owner's permission it is not a problem, but when done unilaterally and without permission it is a very different thing. To give a more extreme example, is there any difference between consensual and non-consensual sex?

There is absolutely no comparison between removing a for sale sign or satellite dish, and non-consentual sex. Your comparison is disgraceful.

Owners are always given the option to remove the offending items themselves. They are made aware of their obligations in the Lease Contract and requested to remove the items (in writing and by verbal warning). Their failure to do so is why the management company, through the management agent, takes action.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It is a violation of their right to exclusive possession if the wall forms part of their lease. It is also trespass to goods if they unlawfully deprive their possessor of possession.

No actually, the external walls are always the possession of the management company.

Possession of a satellite dish/ for sale sign is certainly allowed. Erection on the premises (owned by the management company) is not allowed, and is expressly stated in the Lease Contract.

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

There is absolutely no comparison between removing a for sale sign or satellite dish, and non-consentual sex.

Thats a strong contender for my new sig, right there.

johnnyskeleton

Paulw wrote: »

There is absolutely no comparison between removing a for sale sign or satellite dish, and non-consentual sex. Your comparison is disgraceful.

I think it's apt. If two people consent to something (anything) and it doesn't harm anyone else, then let them away with it. But when one person takes action and violates another person's rights without their consent, that's where the problem comes. In the former case it is the right to inviability of the dwelling, in the latter it is the right to bodily integrity. Someone who interferes with either of these rights should fall foul of the law, but not if both parties agreed.

Paulw wrote: »

Owners are always given the option to remove the offending items themselves. They are made aware of their obligations in the Lease Contract and requested to remove the items (in writing and by verbal warning). Their failure to do so is why the management company, through the management agent, takes action.

In the same way that if you steal something from me I cannot just walk into your house and take it back (if you don't give it back to me I have to go to the gardas or to the courts), a management company cannot simply enter your premises and remove an item, they must go through the proper channels. Of course, most people will allow themselves to be bullied into this, and it's rarely worth the legal battle. That however does not justify the actions of such a management company.

Paulw wrote: »

No actually, the external walls are always the possession of the management company.

In apartments maybe, but it all depends on the lease.

Paulw wrote: »

Erection on the premises ... is not allowed, and is expressly stated in the Lease Contract.

Simple Sam, this is a much better sig tbh.

SimpleSam06

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Simple Sam, this is a much better sig tbh.

It was 50-50. If I can fit them both in, we have a winner.

Paulw

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think it's apt. If two people consent to something (anything) and it doesn't harm anyone else, then let them away with it.

Consent is given when they buy the premises and sign the Lease contract, which stipulates the rights of the unit owner and of the management company.

A management company CAN simply go on to the property and take action, since they legally own the property and they also have a legally binding Lease Contract signed by both parties.

The management company is run by the shareholders. They elect the directors each year at the AGM, and they can determine who the management agent is, who enforces the rules. If the management company (shareholders) at an AGM vote to enforce the contract on those breaking it, then the management company (through the management agent) have every right to take the necessary action.

Of course everything depends on the details in the Lease Contract, and what I have stated here is particular to our Lease Contract, but it's very common across others too. In our development, all external structures (walls, etc) are owned by the management company. Our contract gives the management company the right to inspect a premises, and the right to remove offending items (such as satellite dishes or for sale signs).

Again, I'll state that we have had no shareholder complaints about us enforcing the rules and removing offending items, and we have had support for such action at our AGMs.

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

Consent is given when they buy the premises and sign the Lease contract, which stipulates the rights of the unit owner and of the management company.

You can't sign away certain rights though, as mentioned earlier. Contracts are not a substitute for the law.

The_Conductor

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Contracts are not a substitute for the law.

No. They are an instrument of law.
A blunt instrument, that has not been properly tested, but may very well be in the not so distant future.