Residents Associations

anotherlostie

I live in an apartment development that consists of three separate buildings within the one campus, totalling about 400 apartments. As the development was built in a phased manner, residents in the first building set up their own RA initially. I live in the second building, and one owner did sterling work in getting a separate RA set up for our building. Here's where the problem starts.

The committee was formed at the first meeting, even though the building was not fully occupied. A committee of about 15 people was formed. There was one committee meeting, and that was it. When the next residents meeting was called, I suggested having a pre-meeting of the committee and offered to host it. Not one member of the 'committee' even bothered to reply to my suggestion. The initiator of the RA is unable to give time to it now, and it has basically fallen apart.

On the other hand, the committee in the first building appears very dynamic (as evidenced from neighbours.ie), and they now intend that the residents will take over the Management Company after their upcoming AGM.

The third building is only being occupied at the moment, so there is no RA or committee there yet AFAIK.

So I wondered if there was any need for the three buildings to have separate committees etc., and could there not just be one committee, with adequate representation from each building to ensure specific issues would be dealt with. However the initiator of the second building committee left me in no doubt but that separate committee were required for each building.

But is he right? I think one committee would work better at sharing issues, would increase the chances of having the useful professions on the team and give better focus with the agent managing the development.

godtabh

I would have thought that the development as a whole would have one RA. Thats we are trying to do with my complex (probably only half the size though)

connundrum

I've come across this problem where 1 building takes it upon themselves to set up an RA, thereby excluding the other buildings because of lack of interest from other buildings, the other buildings being unoccupied or residents in different buildings not getting along.

What generally happens is that an estate wide RA will be elected come AGM time, and they will generally carry the torch for all buildings equally. In one estate I know of, there are 3 buildings with 2 representatives from each building sitting on the committee.

anotherlostie wrote:

However the initiator of the second building committee left me in no doubt but that separate committee were required for each building.

But is he right? I think one committee would work better at sharing issues, would increase the chances of having the useful professions on the team and give better focus with the agent managing the development.

Unless each building has its own magagement company name and cro number, then there will have to be one committee. Push your managing agent to call a meeting of the RA that you can attend.

Actually your managing agent should be able to explain this all to you, and should leave everyone in no doubt as to what will happen with the RA in the future.

If an AGM hasn't been held then the RA is ad-hoc, and you should be able to sit in on meetings regardless of whether you're welcome or not.

jdivision

The estate can't really be taken into charge until all buildings are completed and work carried out to terms of planning permission afaik

anotherlostie

jdivision wrote:

The estate can't really be taken into charge until all buildings are completed and work carried out to terms of planning permission afaik

Yeah, this confuses me too. At the moment, there are plans to add further small buildings over the coming years, subject to completion of some infrastructural work, and therefore if this was to be the case, the estate couldn't be taken in charge for a long time to come.

connundrum

The residents can't just decide to take over the common areas, they have to be handed over by the developer during a process that can take a couple of months and a few solicitors to boot.

This handover period should take place within a couple of months of all work being completed, but I've heard of this process going on for as long as 11 years!

The_Conductor

I'm sorry to be the bringer of bad news- but I have never heard of a council agreeing to take apartment complexes in charge. From discussions I have had with South Dublin Co. Co. on this matter- they stated that all they would ever do is ensure the provision of sewage and drinking water in apartment complexes, it is up the Management Company and/or its agents to maintain and keep the complex in good order. I pointed out at the time that this was unfair- as older estates which had been taken in charge were effectively kept in good order by councils, paid from tax payer- whereas the residents and owners of units in new complexes were effectively double paying by being forced to pay for these services themselves. I was told to complain to my local councilors and TDs (in the full knowledge that this would not mean anything whatsoever).

If you do have better news in dealing with your county council- please post it in this forum- as it will be very helpful to lots of people.

Kind regards,

Shane

anotherlostie

smccarrick wrote:

I'm sorry to be the bringer of bad news- but I have never heard of a council agreeing to take apartment complexes in charge. From discussions I have had with South Dublin Co. Co. on this matter- they stated that all they would ever do is ensure the provision of sewage and drinking water in apartment complexes, it is up the Management Company and/or its agents to maintain and keep the complex in good order. I pointed out at the time that this was unfair- as older estates which had been taken in charge were effectively kept in good order by councils, paid from tax payer- whereas the residents and owners of units in new complexes were effectively double paying by being forced to pay for these services themselves. I was told to complain to my local councilors and TDs (in the full knowledge that this would not mean anything whatsoever).

If you do have better news in dealing with your county council- please post it in this forum- as it will be very helpful to lots of people.

Kind regards,

Shane

I think the use of the phrase taken in charge may have been used incorrectly. If you look at the original thread, I said that the residents association of the first building wanted to take charge of the management company, but as the thread proceeds we begin to speak about 'taking in charge', which I would usually associate with councils taking over looking after estates (I used to live in Naas, and it was a contentious issue there!).

So apologies for any confusion, and just to clarify, I am talking about the residents being the directors of the management company. My gripe with the TD's is having the management fee tax deductible for owner occupiers; when I win that one, I'll consider the above.:D

How Strange

anotherlostie think the use of the phrase taken in charge may have been used incorrectly. If you look at the original thread, I said that the residents association of the first building wanted to take charge of the management company....and just to clarify, I am talking about the residents being the directors of the management company.

OP, an RA committee cannot simply take charge of a management company and become directors. A management company is run like any other private company so an AGM will be called, all owners will be invited to attend and at the AGM where the control of the management company is being handed from the developers over to the owners, all owners will be invited to put themselve forward as a director. Then you will need to be seconded by another owner(s). Usually, there is a silence from the floor when this question is asked and all owners stare blankly into space hoping someone else will put themselves forward.

There are cases where the developers have not handed over the management company for years (usually if they see development potential in an adjacent site) and they will agree to bring new owners on as directors and the developers remain as silent directors on the board. Again this takes place at an AGM of the owners of apts/houses.

The RA in the first building are in for a rude awakening if they think they have somehow earned the right to automatically become directors. This cannot happen and when the time comes you should nominate yourself as a director and try to join the board. Ideally a management company should have even representation from all blocks and I have seen the results of a partisan management company where their block is sparkling, freshly painted etc and the other blocks are neglected.

Also, an RA has no legal standing and cannot make demands on the managing agent to do anything. The managing agent does have to consult the RA about financial, insurance or any other issues in relation to running the business of the management company. It would be the equivalent of the directors in a private company consulting all their staff or a forum everytime they have to make a business decision. However, a good managing agent will have an open dialogue with the RA because they are owners and they are showing a willingness to participate in the running of their estate and it makes way for a good working relationship in the future.

anotherlostie

How Strange wrote:

OP, an RA committee cannot simply take charge of a management company and become directors. A management company is run like any other private company so an AGM will be called, all owners will be invited to attend and at the AGM where the control of the management company is being handed from the developers over to the owners, all owners will be invited to put themselve forward as a director. Then you will need to be seconded by another owner(s). Usually, there is a silence from the floor when this question is asked and all owners stare blankly into space hoping someone else will put themselves forward.

There are cases where the developers have not handed over the management company for years (usually if they see development potential in an adjacent site) and they will agree to bring new owners on as directors and the developers remain as silent directors on the board. Again this takes place at an AGM of the owners of apts/houses.


The RA in the first building are in for a rude awakening if they think they have somehow earned the right to automatically become directors. This cannot happen and when the time comes you should nominate yourself as a director and try to join the board. Ideally a management company should have even representation from all blocks and I have seen the results of a partisan management company where their block is sparkling, freshly painted etc and the other blocks are neglected.

Also, an RA has no legal standing and cannot make demands on the managing agent to do anything. The managing agent does have to consult the RA about financial, insurance or any other issues in relation to running the business of the management company. It would be the equivalent of the directors in a private company consulting all their staff or a forum everytime they have to make a business decision. However, a good managing agent will have an open dialogue with the RA because they are owners and they are showing a willingness to participate in the running of their estate and it makes way for a good working relationship in the future.

Sorry but you're being awfully presumptuous here! The RA committee that plan to do this are fully aware of their obligations and the process; I didn't want to detract from the crux of my message (the perceived need for separate associations) by going into this at great length. Given some of the latter replies deflecting the thread from its initial intent, maybe I should have!

How Strange

So I wondered if there was any need for the three buildings to have separate committees etc., and could there not just be one committee, with adequate representation from each building to ensure specific issues would be dealt with. However the initiator of the second building committee left me in no doubt but that separate committee were required for each building.

But is he right? I think one committee would work better at sharing issues, would increase the chances of having the useful professions on the team and give better focus with the agent managing the development.

anotherlostie think the use of the phrase taken in charge may have been used incorrectly. If you look at the original thread, I said that the residents association of the first building wanted to take charge of the management company....and just to clarify, I am talking about the residents being the directors of the management company.

Sorry but you're being awfully presumptuous here!

OP, I answered your question re the RA taking charge of the management company. Not being presumtuous, just giving you some info on RA's.

You can having one RA in an apt complex or you can have fifty or even 100. But they are separate from the management company and its on the MC that has any influence over the managing agents. RA's are an adhoc committee that have no influence what so ever unless the MC decides to recognise them.

markpb

How Strange wrote:

Usually, there is a silence from the floor when this question is asked and all owners stare blankly into space hoping someone else will put themselves forward.

Never a truer word was said.

The same thing also happens when the PM asks if anyone has any questions. Stony silence for a few minutes, then one question is asked and all of a sudden *everyone* want to say their piece

Paulw

You don't actually need the developer to complete all buildings nor hand over the common areas for the residents to take charge of the management company. It totally depends on the articles of association for the management company.

In our development, we have removed the sitting directors (developers) and we have elected ourselves as directors at an AGM. We have since replaced management agent. The developer has still not completed and handed over the common areas.

It really depends on the development, the residents and the management company.

It's seldom as black and white as people say.