Publish names of those who have paid?

Le_Dieux

Hi

Apologies if this is not in the right category.

I am heavily involved in our local Residents Association. What is the LEGAL standing on publishing the names of those who have paid this year? I am aware that those who haven't must remain anonymous, but I have heard that we can still publish the names, or house numbers, of those who have paid. Personally, I feel its wrong that recognition for those who have paid can't be acknowledged say on our website.

Can anyone advise, please?

Many thanks.

Aprilmay

In theory if you post who has paid you're outing those who haven't and to be honest there are a lot of people who are feeling the pinch at the moment and the last thing they need is their neighbours knowing that they can't afford their fees. I heard a text being read out on Ryan Tubridy's show this morning where a woman had to rob her child's piggy bank to afford milk for her baby and didn't think she'd have enough until Thursday -numerous people rang in with similar stories. This people could be your residents and may have enough on their plate without being outed

parsi

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Hi

Apologies if this is not in the right category.

I am heavily involved in our local Residents Association. What is the LEGAL standing on publishing the names of those who have paid this year? I am aware that those who haven't must remain anonymous, but I have heard that we can still publish the names, or house numbers, of those who have paid. Personally, I feel its wrong that recognition for those who have paid can't be acknowledged say on our website.

Can anyone advise, please?

Many thanks.

You're suggesting publishing your membership list (if membership = payment). As long as those who have paid have no problem with it then fire ahead.

Aprilmay

Drumpot wrote: »

Or they might be prioritising other things (like new decking) over management fees they dont feel they should pay. Even monthly DD options were provided (with only €16 a month cost) and the non payers (for over 4 years) couldnt be bothered.

When a person signed up for a house/apartment they knew they would be paying management fees. As part of a residents committee I find that MOST people who do not pay fees simply couldnt be arsed and are basically giving the two fingers to their neighbours. As such, I dont see a problem with the names of those who paid being released. I dont have a problem with people who genuinley struggle, but its funny how most people find money to go out or on holidays when they really want to! What goes around comes around.

I agree with you that some people can't be arsed but I was a treasurer in our own scheme in the past and I know where their are genuine cases that people have fallen on hard times and I do think some people need a break and not everyone should be tarred with the one brush.What about people who have been able to pay in the past but are no longer in the position????

Paulw

Drumpot wrote: »

Or they might be prioritising other things (like new decking) over management fees they dont feel they should pay.

The OP is talking about a resident's association, not a management company fee.

A resident's association is just a group of likeminded residents. They have no power, no authority and no ability to demand payment.

A management company is totally different, as a member is contractually obliged to pay their management fees.

Please don't confuse the two.

Aprilmay

Paulw wrote: »

The OP is talking about a resident's association, not a management company fee.

A resident's association is just a group of likeminded residents. They have no power, no authority and no ability to demand payment.

A management company is totally different, as a member is contractually obliged to pay their management fees.

Please don't confuse the two.

Exactly that's what I was talking about , my own personal experience was of our housing estate and if you get to know your neighbours you will know that there are people who have been hit really hard.We used to collect the resident fees and if you had the money well and good but if you hadn't you weren't exposed to the humiliation of your other neighbours knowing

Paulw

Aprilmay wrote: »

Exactly that's what I was talking about , my own personal experience was of our housing estate and if you get to know your neighbours you will know that there are people who have been hit really hard.

But, also, no one has an obligation to pay. People should never feel pressured to pay, even if they can afford it.

A resident's association should be 100% voluntary, including any donation.

Icepick

What does your Residents Association do and why should they pay?

amdublin

Whether it's a list of paid members or not paid I believe there could be Data Protection issues. I'd suggest you check it with the Data Protection Commission.

Le_Dieux

Paulw wrote: »

The OP is talking about a resident's association, not a management company fee.

A resident's association is just a group of likeminded residents. They have no power, no authority and no ability to demand payment.

A management company is totally different, as a member is contractually obliged to pay their management fees.

Please don't confuse the two.

Thanks Paul. I was beginning to wonder did my mail get crossed with some other thread along the way.

Le_Dieux

Icepick wrote: »

What does your Residents Association do and why should they pay?

Without wanting to get into an argument, may I ask what Your question has to do with the thread's question? I NEVER said anyone should pay. All I am asking is this: Is it ok to publish those names or house numbers of people who subscribe to the upkeep of the Estate?

Am Dublin is right, we also feel there might be data protection issues here. That is until we were told that while it is ILlegal to publish those names that haven't paid, somehow there is a loophole whereby those who have paid their names or house numbers can be published.

ALL i am asking is is the information we got right?

amdublin

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Without wanting to get into an argument, may I ask what Your question has to do with the thread's question? I NEVER said anyone should pay. All I am asking is this: Is it ok to publish those names or house numbers of people who subscribe to the upkeep of the Estate?

Am Dublin is right, we also feel there might be data protection issues here. That is until we were told that while it is ILlegal to publish those names that haven't paid, somehow there is a loophole whereby those who have paid their names or house numbers can be published.

ALL i am asking is is the information we got right?

Hmmm. I don't think so.

Doesn't matter that it is "positive" information, you are still releasing an individual's private data.

.....IMO anyway!

Le_Dieux

Thanks AmDublin for Your honest answer. I just feel its not fair that the people who have paid since our RA was set up, cannot be recognised, while the people who cannot be arsed to pay are painted in the same brush - just doesnt seem fair.

I guess I'll have to go the Data Protection Commission route to get clarity one way or the other.

athtrasna

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Thanks AmDublin for Your honest answer. I just feel its not fair that the people who have paid since our RA was set up, cannot be recognised, while the people who cannot be arsed to pay are painted in the same brush - just doesnt seem fair.

I guess I'll have to go the Data Protection Commission route to get clarity one way or the other.

People have NO obligation to be part of a residents association, it's a voluntary thing and the very thought of some people deciding that everyone should pay and then effectively outing those who don't, is downright wrong IMO.

I say that as someone who lives in a managed development, and pays my fees. We legally signed up to do that - and knew about it before we signed on the dotted line.

I know RAs do a lot of good work in maintaining areas in many developments, but without any legal accountability basis. Bear in mind that any publication could be construed as libel so even beyond the data protection issue...you're leaving yourself open to legal action.

convert

I'd strongly advise you to contact a solicitor and seek their advice before publishing anything. The last thing you want is to find legal action being taken against you and/or the RA.

Bob Z

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Thanks AmDublin for Your honest answer. I just feel its not fair that the people who have paid since our RA was set up, cannot be recognised, while the people who cannot be arsed to pay are painted in the same brush - just doesnt seem fair.

I guess I'll have to go the Data Protection Commission route to get clarity one way or the other.

the people who DID pay might not want their names and addresses published

Paulw

convert wrote: »

The last thing you want is to find legal action being taken against you and/or the RA.

And since the RA isn't a legal entity, the action would be taken against every individual who considers themselves a member of the RA. If you did publish a list of those who paid, every single one of them could also be liable for legal action against them.

Printing a list of names and addresses would be a very dangerous thing to do, on so many levels.

murphym7

Le_Dieux wrote: »

Thanks AmDublin for Your honest answer. I just feel its not fair that the people who have paid since our RA was set up, cannot be recognised, while the people who cannot be arsed to pay are painted in the same brush - just doesnt seem fair.

I guess I'll have to go the Data Protection Commission route to get clarity one way or the other.

I feel you are a lot more interested in outing people who have not paid rather than giving recognition for the people who have, you are looking for a way to seperate the payers from the non payers in order to expose those who do not want or can not pay.

Not a nice thing to do, very nosey neigbourish. If a nosey neighbour did it to my household, they would know all about it. They would be paying out an awful lot more to a solicitor than they would ever have gotten from me from my grass cutting money.

I would tread carefully with the publication of any list of names.

spurious

You could get some small stickers made - along the lines of 'I help support my local residents' association' and if they wanted to, people who have paid could put them in a window or door - like the old neighbourhood watch things.

Drumpot

Paulw wrote: »

The OP is talking about a resident's association, not a management company fee.

A resident's association is just a group of likeminded residents. They have no power, no authority and no ability to demand payment.

A management company is totally different, as a member is contractually obliged to pay their management fees.

Please don't confuse the two.

Fair enough, but a residents committee is usually setup by a management company to run the estate. That was the impression I got from their post!

If its a residents committee setup simply by residents then nobody has any obligation to pay and no other neighbours should be entitled to encroach on peoples privacy or even their choice not to pay into the committee coffers.

Paulw

Drumpot wrote: »

Fair enough, but a residents committee is usually setup by a management company to run the estate.

No, I've never come across a management company setting up a resident's association. Normally residents get together because they have issues with how a development is run. They don't need money, don't go asking for money, simply because the management company is funded. In such a situation, the residents want to get the management company to work properly and work for them.

Drumpot wrote: »

If its a residents committee setup simply by residents then nobody has any obligation to pay and no other neighbours should be entitled to encroach on peoples privacy or even their choice not to pay into the committee coffers.

That's what it seems like from the posts. I agree with what you say. They have no right to out people, and no one has any obligation to pay a cent.

Drumpot

Paulw wrote: »

No, I've never come across a management company setting up a resident's association. Normally residents get together because they have issues with how a development is run. They don't need money, don't go asking for money, simply because the management company is funded. In such a situation, the residents want to get the management company to work properly and work for them.
.

Your talking to a person who is in a committee asked to be setup by the management company!

But over the years , after some research and going to local politicians, we realised that our management company are a bit of a shoddy group.

They tried to intimidate the residents into signing over the ownership of communal land before the estate was finished (just aswell most of us felt less then compelled to do so without knowing implications first).

They also had us going around the estate dropping late fees letters in doors (which we subsequently learned was ridiculous and actually their job!).

While they were correct from the start (that their should be a residents committee), they way they went about manipulating us was awful! (now that I have written it down and reread it, Im sick!).

D3PO

Not sure of the legal standing but regadless of it, dont try and convince yourself that you are doing anything other than trying to embarass those that have not or refuse to pay.

You have as much right to money as somebody knocking on their door and begging. Seriously cop on to yourself and get off your power trip.

Your RA has no legal standing, if you want to acknowledge those that have paid which frankly I dont believe send them a nice thank you letter from the residents association.

Paulw

Drumpot wrote: »

Your talking to a person who is in a committee asked to be setup by the management company!

They tried to intimidate the residents into signing over the ownership of communal land before the estate was finished (just aswell most of us felt less then compelled to do so without knowing implications first).

While they were correct from the start (that their should be a residents committee), they way they went about manipulating us was awful!

I think there's major confusion there.

Management company - made up of unit owners (members) of units in the development.

Management agent - company employed by management company to run the development on a day to day basis.

Developer - company that builds the development, and is the one who transfers ownership and vested interest to the management company.

Your resident's committee is normally residents (unit owners here) who get together to eventually become the directors/secretary of the management company.

A resident's committee/resident's association have no power. They have no legal standing and are not a legal entity. They are just like minded people who work together for the common good (as they see it).

A developer, management company, management agent, are all legal entities are party to legally binding contracts.

Drumpot

Paulw wrote: »

I think there's major confusion there.

Management company - made up of unit owners (members) of units in the development.

Management agent - company employed by management company to run the development on a day to day basis.

Developer - company that builds the development, and is the one who transfers ownership and vested interest to the management company.

Your resident's committee is normally residents (unit owners here) who get together to eventually become the directors/secretary of the management company.

A resident's committee/resident's association have no power. They have no legal standing and are not a legal entity. They are just like minded people who work together for the common good (as they see it).

A developer, management company, management agent, are all legal entities are party to legally binding contracts.

Suppose we never differentiated between the agent and the company as in our case it seems the agent is making all the calls! (builder couldnt be arsed and no residents wants to be directors!)

Initially when the residents committee was setup, it was really setup by the Management agent who wanted us to do donkey work. It wasnt several resident getting together for a common goal, it was people bullied into taking "positions" on a resident committee to encourage a community spirit and encourage mgt fee payment.

We were lied to beyond belief, told that we HAD to take control of the estate (builder looking to get back bonds) and that the future potential to sell our houses could be in jeopardy (back when people bought and sold houses regularly).

Over the years we (residents) learned what you stated to be true, however the management agent was always pushing for the residents to take over ownership of the estate (by becoming directors).

Since I have been on a residents committee (that was really setup for management agent), I suppose I have always associated resident commitees with the job of chasing up sh*t a management company is supposed to do!

The more I write, the angrier I get thinking about our useless, lieing F**k management agent!!