The Mega **Management Company** thread

SimpleSam06

smccarrick wrote: »

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.

Well assuming that a landlord-tenant relationship exists in these cases (quite likely since it is a lease which has been signed), the law is very clear. You can't enter someones house without their permission or a court order (barring the exceptions mentioned by johnnyskeleton earlier), and you can't sign away that right. To "gain entry" to an abode without fulfilling these conditions leaves you open to all sorts of legal liabilities, and possibly criminal charges.

The_Conductor

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Well assuming that a landlord-tenant relationship exists

Nope- its not a landlord/tenant relationship. Thats the foundation of the misunderstanding about Management Companies. You (as an owner) are a shareholder in the Managment Company- which is obliged to act on your (and every owner's) behalf. The relationship between you and the company is spelt out in a series of rights and obligations as dictated by your lease. You do not own the property- you own a right associated with that property. The Management Company own the property. Its not yours- it belongs to them, and they have a legal right to inspect it at will (normally by pre-arrangement- but depending on the nature of the inspection, without any warning whatsoever).

Its a social community, with all the property held in commonage, under the umbrella of the Management Company- who are the nominal owners.

Shane

SimpleSam06

smccarrick wrote: »

they have a legal right to inspect it at will ... without any warning whatsoever).

Eh that just makes my skin crawl. So say I forked over a quarter of a million euros and probably a lot more for a house / apartment, the agents of a private company can come in any time they like (with whatever excuses they wanted) and rifle through my belongings? Whatever shortcomings council management of common areas might have, I'd much rather reside in a council managed area than in the above situation.

Paulw

I honestly doubt that ever happens, or would happen.

Many people live in very well run areas under the control of management companies. It is a matter of getting involved and being an active part of your management company, to help run the development. The more people that get involved, the less issues there generally are.

People just need to understand their obligations and that of the management company. The unit owners ARE the management company, and it is in everyone's interest to make it that way.

In our development, we have few issues that need much attention. Many of these relate to third party issues (refuse collection, landscaping, general repair/maintenance, etc). I am always more than happy when residents contact me and ask questions.

There will always be a number of people who don't care. They pay their fees and mind their own business. That's fine. The management company is there to manage and maintain the development, for everyone. Everyone has a vote on who are the directors. Everyone has the ability to raise issues and concerns.

What control have people over council run areas? Very very little.

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

I honestly doubt that ever happens, or would happen.

The bare fact that it could happen overrides any advantages for me, and no doubt for many others. And the advantages aren't all that advantageous, tbh.

adam.number2

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The bare fact that it could happen overrides any advantages for me, and no doubt for many others. And the advantages aren't all that advantageous, tbh.

+1

avantarklu

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Eh that just makes my skin crawl. So say I forked over a quarter of a million euros and probably a lot more for a house / apartment, the agents of a private company can come in any time they like (with whatever excuses they wanted) and rifle through my belongings? Whatever shortcomings council management of common areas might have, I'd much rather reside in a council managed area than in the above situation.

1. As a resident, you are a part-owner or shareholder in the "private company"
2. As a shareholder, the "agents of a private company" are directly or indirectly appointed by you
3. The terms of your lease should state specific instances whereby you give permission or consent to the "agents" of the Management Company to enter your premises in order to correct a breach ot the lease which you signed up to
4. The terms of your lease should not have given permission or consent for anyone to rifle through your belongings - perhaps you could confirm?

What does seem to be conveniently overlooked by most in these discussions is that you are talking about the removal of personal property (eg satelite dish) from someone elses property (eg external wall\balcony). I would fully expect a property owner to be a bit miffed if I decided to afix a satelite dish or 'for sale' sign to his property without permission.

Paulw

avantarklu wrote: »

1. As a resident, you are a part-owner or shareholder in the "private company"
2. As a shareholder, the "agents of a private company" are directly or indirectly appointed by you
3. The terms of your lease should state specific instances whereby you give permission or consent to the "agents" of the Management Company to enter your premises in order to correct a breach ot the lease which you signed up to
4. The terms of your lease should not have given permission or consent for anyone to rifle through your belongings - perhaps you could confirm?

What does seem to be conveniently overlooked by most in these discussions is that you are talking about the removal of personal property (eg satelite dish) from someone elses property (eg external wall\balcony). I would fully expect a property owner to be a bit miffed if I decided to afix a satelite dish or 'for sale' sign to his property without permission.

Some people are just point blank against management companies, without proper experience of how they run (or should be run). SimpleSam frequently posts against management companies, on just about every topic, without seeing any benefit at all. That's his view, and if he doesn't want to live in a managed development, then that is his choice.

In many developments, a management company is a very good and powerful way of properly running a development. Organised and run by residents, it has direct control over things and those elected are directly accountable.

I'm very happy with how our place is run. I've had other residents email, phone or even call to my door to ask questions or raise issues. Can you get that sort of response and accountability from a council? I think not.

Our AGM is coming up soon, and I'm looking forward to it. Some other people can become directors and help run the place for a while ... of course, if they want to elect me again, I'll probably accept the nomination. Either way, I know that we have direct control over what fees we pay, how those fees are used and how the place is fun.

Of course, in many cases here, people post extreme things that they think are related to the topic/posts. No one would ever have a right to enter your premises and go through your personal belongings. SimpleSam refers to "agents of a private company" .. they are actually agents of YOUR company if you own the unit, since you ARE the company.

Just my view, of course.

SimpleSam06

Paulw wrote: »

Some people are just point blank against management companies, without proper experience of how they run (or should be run). SimpleSam frequently posts against management companies, on just about every topic, without seeing any benefit at all. That's his view, and if he doesn't want to live in a managed development, then that is his choice.

Mine and no doubt many others. My main gripe with management companies is that they are wedging themselves in where the local council should be looking after affairs BUT you don't get any reduction in taxes, although you are using much reduced services. Also they are mostly unregulated.

If you could write off MC charges against your taxes on a one for one basis I'd be much happier. Until then I'll continue to see it for what it is, the abrogation of local councils of their responsibilites (no shock there), and the profitable operation of private companies in lieu.

Paulw wrote: »

SimpleSam refers to "agents of a private company" .. they are actually agents of YOUR company if you own the unit, since you ARE the company.

Of course if you get in a feud with the neighbours you might be badly out of luck. One of the advantages of a council estate is that you aren't at the mercy of the very local majority.

Victor

Note the Management Company has a separate legal existence from its shareholders.

The_Conductor

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Mine and no doubt many others. My main gripe with management companies is that they are wedging themselves in where the local council should be looking after affairs BUT you don't get any reduction in taxes, although you are using much reduced services. Also they are mostly unregulated.

I agree with you 100%.
Instead of bitching about Management Companies here though- why not take the proactive step of lobbying our politicians to try and have some change made? Shane Ross is very much of a similar mind, and has tried to introdauce a number of amendments at committee stage recently. If you have specific information of use- forward it to him (and of course your local TDs) so that your experiences can influence future legislation and policy formulation.

Shane

SimpleSam06

smccarrick wrote: »

I agree with you 100%.
Instead of bitching about Management Companies here though- why not take the proactive step of lobbying our politicians to try and have some change made?

Eh in my opinion the situation will resolve itself, as most unwanted middlemen or 100% lethal diseases have a habit of doing. Meanwhile I'll feel free to express my opinion here, regardless of how many posters are involved with or have interests in maintaining mcs, thankyaverymuch!

Anyway I'm too busy pursuing my FOIA request for property sale prices from the Revenue Commissioners.

johnnyskeleton

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.

In contract law, a term of a contract is unenforceable where it purports to defeat the main purpose of the contract. So if you purchase a lease (the main purpose of which is to give the tenant exclusive possession of the premises) subject to the landlord's right to wander on in whenever they like the term would appear to be invalid.

Paulw wrote: »

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.

It is a mistake to believe that someone can own property; all you can ever do is have title which is just a right to possess the property over someone with inferior title. If you hold the fee simple (the absolute right to possession) and you grant a lease to someone, you are signing away your right to possess that property. Put another way, if the management company still own the property, then what is all the purchase money for, the pleasure of kipping in one of their rooms for a few years, or so that you can actually live there to the exculsion of others(other than invited guests of course)?

Paulw wrote: »

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.

Necessary action is to bring a legal action for breach of a covenant, not to simply barge into the property. Think about it like this; if a person has a 1 year lease on an apartment and pays monthly rent, the landlord can't simply wander in whenever he wants without permission. So why should the managment company have this right over someone who is paying a hell of a lot more money?

Paulw wrote: »

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).

Rights which must be enforced through the proper channels.

Paulw wrote: »

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.

If there is consent it is not a problem, but where that consent is absent it is a big problem. I don't see how the fact that you have never had any complaints could justify the rights you claim for yourselves.

smccarrick wrote: »

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.

In addition to the era of negative equity, we may also be going into the era of the dodgy conveyance or people asking their solicitor "Why didn't you tell us?" Solicitor: "I did, but you wouldn't listen".

smccarrick wrote: »

Nope- its not a landlord/tenant relationship. Thats the foundation of the misunderstanding about Management Companies. You (as an owner) are a shareholder in the Managment Company- which is obliged to act on your (and every owner's) behalf. The relationship between you and the company is spelt out in a series of rights and obligations as dictated by your lease. You do not own the property- you own a right associated with that property. The Management Company own the property. Its not yours- it belongs to them, and they have a legal right to inspect it at will (normally by pre-arrangement- but depending on the nature of the inspection, without any warning whatsoever).

Its a social community, with all the property held in commonage, under the umbrella of the Management Company- who are the nominal owners.

Commonage? The necessity of feudal landowners to set aside 1/12 (or thereabouts) of their land for the peasants to graize their sheep?

The way you have described is called a condominium in America, I don't think they're common in Ireland. Usually, apartment owners will buy a 99 year (or more) lease and the fee simple (for want of a better term, the actual title to the land) is transferred to the management company in it's own right or in trust for the owners as co-tenants. Sometimes, the builders hang onto the fee simple themselves, and will make a killing in 99 years and a day when they will have a delapidated building in prime real estate for almost nothing. If you don't have a lease, you don't have exclusive possession of the apartment, you would only have a form of licence. A licence is not normally marketable title, so if people bought such a thing (invariably against legal advice) then they're in trouble.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The bare fact that it could happen overrides any advantages for me, and no doubt for many others. And the advantages aren't all that advantageous, tbh.

This is it - an Irishman's home is his castle.

The_Conductor

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Anyway I'm too busy pursuing my FOIA request for property sale prices from the Revenue Commissioners.

Let us know how that goes- I'd imagine the information would be very interesting......

SimpleSam06

smccarrick wrote: »

Let us know how that goes- I'd imagine the information would be very interesting......

Stonewalled at every turn so far, I'll get em though.

astrofool

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Stonewalled at every turn so far, I'll get em though.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/property/2008/0508/1210178032863.html

Did you read that yesterday? Looks like 2010 before anything like that happens.

Also, the sales results section was tiny, compared to what it usually is.

SimpleSam06

astrofool wrote: »

Looks like 2010 before anything like that happens.

I fear we'll be waiting a bit longer than that. Here is the exact text of my contact with the Revenue Commissioners, sent a while back. I don't expect any results for two months though, as covered under the act:


TO THE OFFICE OF THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

Hello, I would like to request, and further to my request yesterday (in clarification) under the Freedom of Information Act 1997, the following information:

Under the following section:
[SU6] 6.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person has a right to and shall, on request therefor, be offered access to any record held by a public body and the right so conferred is referred to in this Act as the right of access.

(2) It shall be the duty of a public body to give reasonable assistance to a person who is seeking a record under this Act—

[SU7] 7.—(1) (b) containing sufficient particulars in relation to the information concerned to enable the record to be identified by the taking of reasonable steps, and

I would like to request the actual average, total and median actual sale prices of all private residential properties, whether apartment style or free standing/terraced residences in Ireland, dating from January 2000 to April 2008, as recorded by the Revenue Commissioners in the pursuance of their duties in collecting capital gains tax, income tax, and stamp duty. I would like to request that this information be supplied as aggregate information broken down by residence type, broken down by month and by year (for average, median and total) during the period noted, giving both actual figures and line graphs of this data.

It is not neccessary to supply prices of individual house sales.

And under the following section:
[SU7] 7.—(c) if the person requires such access to be given in a particular form or manner (being a form or manner referred to in section 12), specifying the form or manner of access.

I would like to request that this information be supplied in PDF, word document, excel spreadsheet, OR linked web page format.

The_Conductor

You do know that under the amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, that they can charge you for the time it takes to compile and research the information (not just for making copies). If they have not already compiled the information in the format you are requesting, it could be a sizeable job putting it together. You could be looking at a bill of thousands (its partly why most of the fishing expeditions from journalists have stopped)........ They are obliged to furnish you with an estimated bill before undertaking the work though..........

SimpleSam06

smccarrick wrote: »

You do know that under the amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, that they can charge you for the time it takes to compile and research the information (not just for making copies).

I am aware of this, yes. Until I hear from them in either direction we won't know for sure. It might be worth paying for it at that. Maybe I'll set up a fund at the propertypin!

johnnyskeleton

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I am aware of this, yes. Until I hear from them in either direction we won't know for sure. It might be worth paying for it at that. Maybe I'll set up a fund at the propertypin!

Why not ask Stargal if the Tribune will stump up for this?

It would be a world-beater of an article.

SimpleSam06

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why not ask Stargal if the Tribune will stump up for this?

It would be a world-beater of an article.

It would. And assuming theres a cost, I will.

The_Conductor

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

It would. And assuming theres a cost, I will.

Lol, last time I heard they were rather stumped for cash over there

johnnyskeleton

smccarrick wrote: »

Lol, last time I heard they were rather stumped for cash over there

Ah, that explains why they are doing their research on boards.ie.

SimpleSam06

Right, heres the scéal.

The Revenue Commissioners don't store that specific information, so there would only be patchy details returned at best, according to the man I was talking to. They record taxes for the year as a whole and would only for example in the case of an audit have details on how much tax was paid for a house for example.

Basically the upshot is that they can't supply information they don't have, or create new records under the FOIA.

Sigh...

Myself and the GF have owned & been living in our apartment for about 1.5 years. My GF was on the residents committee up until 3 months ago but she left because of the frustration of nothing being done by the management company (MC) or by them taking forever to do anything.

They (the MC) were already instated when we bought off the plans and there was talk about booting them out when the AGM came up because it transpired that one of the head honchos in the Builders, from whom we bought the apartment, is also one of the heads of the MC. He's basically running both companies and essentially crossing his own palm with silver by giving the tender to the MC of which he is a part. (We found this out through a neighbouring complex who booted them out and got a new MC to take over).

Anyway, to the matter at hand......Our complex isn't very well signposted. Up until a few months ago it wasn't signposted AT ALL, but they've since put up (at our expense) a kind of stone/granite sign that's about 5' tall x 3' wide x 2' deep with our complex's name on.

It's past the entrance (in the direction of where most traffic heads) so a lot of traffic misses it until they're past the turn....see attachment......but my main reason for posting is this:

It used to have just our complex's name on it, but last week we noticed that there was a metal stencil of the builder's company logo on the stone facade. A lot of people objected to it, but since then they've sandblasted the stencil and it is now permanently engrained in the sign. When we complained we were informed that it can be removed......get this....AT OUR EXPENSE!!

Do we, as tenants, have any right to have it removed? Surely, seeing as we paid for it, we get to decide whether or not they can advertise on it or not?
The residents' committee's official line is that they're requesting them to both remove the logo and place the sign in a more suitable and prominent location.

We have our own forum on neighbours.ie but just thought i'd see what my fellow Boardsies thought. Has anyone any similar experiences?

sorry, forgot the attachment...

Paulw

Check the articles of association for your management company. Each year at your AGM you should be able to elect new directors, and even force the removal of the current directors. Then you should have control. You will then be able to replace the current management agent, and employ your own.

At that point, you can have any sign you want.

We successfully removed the developer as directors from our management company and then removed the management agent they had employed. Since then, things with us have been a hell of a lot better.

Sizzler

Is there many people who have issues with their management company or frankly feel they are bent over a table and at the mercy (or should I say mercinary) of their management company to pay up each year ?

Guy at work has a royal pain with his management company and felt he was getting nothing for his €1500 a year so with the aid of a debt advice agency he got a letter sent to the management company saying he was skint and can only afford to pay them €20 a week. Check mate. Hes not refusing to pay and the management company dont want to be seen to harassing someone for a sum they dont have. He is sending them a chq for €20 a week.

Paulw

Sizzler wrote: »

Is there many people who have issues with their management company or frankly feel they are bent over a table and at the mercy (or should I say mercinary) of their management company to pay up each year ?

I think one of the biggest issues, by far, is a total lack of understanding of how a management company works. It causes more problems than anything else. People see the management company as being this entity that causes them hassle. They, more often than not, people confuse the management agent with the management company.

If the management company is run properly, then your management fees should be reasonable. Of course, everyone would like to pay less. It is a matter for the directors of the management company (elected by the unit owners at the AGM), with the management agent to provide services to the development.

We have had no complaints about the level of our fees, and in fact, I believe our fees are very reasonable for what we have and where we live. We have put in place some work this year which has cost us more than we expected, but even with that, we plan to reduce fees next year. We have invested in some areas that will cost us now, but save us money in the long run.

People really need to know, understand and feel that THEY are part of the management company. They are all shareholders in it, and it is in their interest to resolve issues. If people don't pay, then it increases the fees on everyone else. And, if someone can't pay, the simple solution is for the management company to take the appropriate action, and help the person find a place to live where they can afford.

Sizzler

Paulw wrote: »

I think one of the biggest issues, by far, is a total lack of understanding of how a management company works. It causes more problems than anything else. People see the management company as being this entity that causes them hassle. They, more often than not, people confuse the management agent with the management company.

If the management company is run properly, then your management fees should be reasonable. Of course, everyone would like to pay less. It is a matter for the directors of the management company (elected by the unit owners at the AGM), with the management agent to provide services to the development.

We have had no complaints about the level of our fees, and in fact, I believe our fees are very reasonable for what we have and where we live. We have put in place some work this year which has cost us more than we expected, but even with that, we plan to reduce fees next year. We have invested in some areas that will cost us now, but save us money in the long run.

People really need to know, understand and feel that THEY are part of the management company. They are all shareholders in it, and it is in their interest to resolve issues. If people don't pay, then it increases the fees on everyone else. And, if someone can't pay, the simple solution is for the management company to take the appropriate action, and help the person find a place to live where they can afford.

To be fair chief, the example you have set out above is how it should work, the nirvana, best practice etc. The distain and consternation from many residents that are tied into management agreements is due to the fact : a) The overall service is not value for money for the fee levied. b) Recourse is minimal as 99% of agreements mean a 1 year minimum tie in from the date of the last person moving into their property i.e. estate handover, which effectively means a 2 year commitment for residents before you can look to set up your own committee. c) Most management agreements cover generic basic maintenance like "looking after green areas" & refuse collection. Whoop de doo.(Granted some include building insurance )Are you telling me prices of c.€1500 represent value for money for the above? I neglected to mention the estates that have compulsory tie ins for 3 years and non-negotiable rate increases. For example, year 1 - €1,000 Year 2: Meh, we'll jack up the price to €1,500....you get my drift.

The above example was based on circumstances where the management company have failed to deliver on a number of issues and arent in anyway bothered about rectifying them I believe despite pleas from the majority of residents. So IMHO, fair play to someone for using their initiative. If a few other people do the same they may take notice.

Again, I think your post was based on best practice and a tad shortsighted with regard to what some other residents have to endure with their management companies.