Ending the Management Company Monopoly

silliegillie

Thanks for that. Anyone else on here that own an apartment as uninformed as I am with all this. So if the developers set up the Management company what is the usualy way they hand it over to the residence to run ?

Paulw

Before I bought my apt, I did a lot of reading on management companies and how they work.

Normally, a development is handed over from the developer to the unit owners when the last unit is sold, and the development snag is completed. There can be exceptions to this (we're one for sure). It will really depend on the Articles of association for the management company. There should be a clause in there which states how/when the development is handed over.

This is normally done at an AGM.

silliegillie

I'm in the complex over a year and a half and not all the apartments are sold. So therefore the company is still the developers. Also there are houses in the same estate which still have not been completely sold.

The_Conductor

silliegillie wrote: »

Who sets up the Management company ?

With the every smaller amounts allocated by local authorities for the upkeep of estates and the advent of 'closed' or gated communities, it became popular for councils to specify in planning permissions that the developer set up a Management Company to take charge of the development- negligating the need for Councils to take developments 'in charge' and minimising their ongoing costs. While there is a legitimate rationale for doing this in the case of Apartment Developments, the same is not the case for housing estates- yet it is whats happening.

People have to accept though- if they want the councils to take all recent developments in charge that there is a cost associated with this. The proposal on the table at the moment is a tiered property tax, with private owners treated in a different manner to lease holders- on the understanding that private property benefits from council cleaners, lawn cutting, tree cutting etc- whereas leased property doesn't. In all probability- the tax would be as a percentage of the value of the property (say start at .75%) and of this private owners would pay 100%, lease holders 80% and social welfare recipients could apply to have the charge waived in its entirety.

Its just one idea being knocked around at the moment.

cls

smccarrick wrote: »

With the every smaller amounts allocated by local authorities for the upkeep of estates and the advent of 'closed' or gated communities, it became popular for councils to specify in planning permissions that the developer set up a Management Company to take charge of the development- negligating the need for Councils to take developments 'in charge' and minimising their ongoing costs. While there is a legitimate rationale for doing this in the case of Apartment Developments, the same is not the case for housing estates- yet it is whats happening.

People have to accept though- if they want the councils to take all recent developments in charge that there is a cost associated with this. The proposal on the table at the moment is a tiered property tax, with private owners treated in a different manner to lease holders- on the understanding that private property benefits from council cleaners, lawn cutting, tree cutting etc- whereas leased property doesn't. In all probability- the tax would be as a percentage of the value of the property (say start at .75%) and of this private owners would pay 100%, lease holders 80% and social welfare recipients could apply to have the charge waived in its entirety.

Its just one idea being knocked around at the moment.

Sounds like the UK council tax. To be honest, I'd much rather have a management company than pay the council to take care of things. My parents estate is under the councils management and its in shocking order. To the point where the residents have to actually do everything themselves on a voluntary basis (even simple things like mowing the grass).

Residents having control over their own estate is a much better method, provided the developers are not involved and leeching money. The only thing that gets on my nerves is paying the electricity bills for public lighting in the estates and also public liability insurance. The lighting is already paid for in our taxes and public liability insurance is a total rip off.

bobbysands81

silliegillie wrote: »

I'm in the complex over a year and a half and not all the apartments are sold. So therefore the company is still the developers. Also there are houses in the same estate which still have not been completely sold.

I linked to a website earlier in this thread that if you read all the info on it ALL your questions should be answered.

EDIT: Here's the link http://www.consumerproperty.ie

Theoretically the developer can retain control of the Management Co indefinitely if they don't sell one of the units. However, there are not many benefits to them in doing so (though they can and do ensure that their "buddies" get overpaid to provide services in estates). Many try to hand over the running of the Management Co at an early enough stage as it is hassle for them and they are legally obliged to do many things as long as they are in control of the Management Co.

That link I provided will also give you invaluable info on becomming a Director, it is not a decision to be taken lightly by the way.

Any other questions you have then ask away on here, the knowledge that some posters have on the topic of Management Co's is fantastic.

bobbysands81

cls wrote: »

The only thing that gets on my nerves is paying the electricity bills for public lighting in the estates and also public liability insurance. The lighting is already paid for in our taxes and public liability insurance is a total rip off.

If the lighting is public lighting that is outdoors (as in street lighting) and you are not in a gated development then your Local Authority should be paying for it.

The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government issue planning guidance on the taking in charge of residential estates by local authorities.

The guidelines state that local authorities must set out their procedures for prompt taking in charge on foot of a request by the majority of the residents in the development or by the developer, as appropriate.

Protocols, including time frames, must be set out by to respond to requests for taking in charge.

The most recent policy guidance issued by the Department in February 2008, provides for the taking in charge of the core facilities of public roads and footpaths, public lighting, public water supply, foul and storm water drainage, public open spaces and unallocated surface parking areas etc. by the local authority.

silliegillie

The amount of knowledge I have picked up in the last day from this thread is amazing. thank you every one who is contributing. Bobby, I will have a good look at that link

pinkypinky

No one seems to have mentioned Robert Gogan's book on apartment living which is well worth the €15 it costs.

bobbysands81

pinkypinky wrote: »

No one seems to have mentioned Robert Gogan's book on apartment living which is well worth the €15 it costs.

Gogan's book is an absolute must read for anyone who has any interest in Multi-Unit Development living in this State. It's a fantastic book which is easy to read and easy to understand.

Carawaystick

I've read through this thread, and when we were buying was ony ever gonna buy a freehold as I had an inkling leasehold was hassle, I have a question regarding 'buying' a leasehold.

When we bought there was a section in the contract to buy the land of builderCompanyLand.ltd and get builderCompanyBuilder.ltd to build the house. This was tax efficient for the builder who owned both companies. this was pointed out to me by our solicitor as fairly standard practice.
Do people buying leaseholds not get to see the lease contract at the same time as they are buying it and do solicitors not go through the contract with them before they sign and give over their deposits?
?

Do people actually spend a quarter of a million and not give a fig about what they are actually spending it on?

Am I wrong in thinking the solicitor who conveys the deal is giving you paid legal advice? Surely your solicitor is there to advise you on the non-obvious issues with the contract before you sign it and give them a wad of money to hand over to the developer/vendor?

Buying a first property is probably the first time most people need to take legal advice in their lives, possibly the only time if they die intestate. Any transaction with lawyers involved isn't a "consumer" issue, it's a business decision and should be treated as such.

Victor

silliegillie wrote: »

Ok. Whoever is supplying the Electricity for the common area can bill each apartment seperately.

What happens when a few people don't pay the bill. Who gets cut off?

What if the people on floords 2-4 don't pay their bills and get cut off and the people on floor 5 have to walk up several storeys with no light?

What of the administrative overhead of the electricity company sending many, many, more bills than are necessary.

Will the lights outside each apartment be connected to a separate meter, each meter costing several hundred euros?