Coil Tire, Doughuisce Clamping

mathepac

Deleted User wrote: »

...
If the landlord is struggling I don't see how it is the management company or other resident's problem.

The landlords have made it the problem of the owner-occupiers by not paying the contracted management fees.

The estate now looks grubby and unkempt compared to how it was a couple of years ago because the basic clean-up jobs aren't being done, devaluing property from owner-occupiers who might want to sell up and move out.

The latest move appears to be that the landlord(s) have got together and taken out an injunction preventing the clamping-company operating in the estate, thus allegedly usurping the role of the management company and the managing agent. So no money to pay legitimate contracted management fees, but lots of money to lawyer up and seek High Court injunctions. An exemplary bunch, allegedly of course.

Coill Tire

Deleted User wrote: »

I would imagine that the management contract was part of the original sale agreement.

If the landlord is struggling I don't see how it is the management company or other resident's problem.

Exactly, it is no one's problem. Ask them to produce the management contract.

Mrs OBumble

Deleted User wrote: »

I would imagine that the management contract was part of the original sale agreement.

If the landlord is struggling I don't see how it is the management company or other resident's problem.

Don't know how true it is, but I've been told that in a number of estates here, the management contract is not part of the contract. There is no legal way to enforce the payment, so this is why some mgmt companies are looking for more creative approaches like this.

Personally I'd never buy in an estate that hadn't been taken in charge by the council.

Coill Tire

mathepac wrote: »

The landlords have made it the problem of the owner-occupiers by not paying the contracted management fees.

The estate now looks grubby and unkempt compared to how it was a couple of years ago because the basic clean-up jobs aren't being done, devaluing property from owner-occupiers who might want to sell up and move out.

The latest move appears to be that the landlord(s) have got together and taken out an injunction preventing the clamping-company operating in the estate, thus allegedly usurping the role of the management company and the managing agent. So no money to pay legitimate contracted management fees, but lots of money to lawyer up and seek High Court injunctions. An exemplary bunch, allegedly of course.

Devaluation of properties is a license to devalue people's worth and liberties. Maybe another property manager can do a better job for a "devalued rate".

And, it is a good thing that landlord(s) have got together. Maybe they will now have better control of what goes on in their estate rather than allow a private, for fat-profit-only entity to start making decisions and laws without consulting residence.

Coill Tire

mathepac wrote: »

The landlords have made it the problem of the owner-occupiers by not paying the contracted management fees.

The estate now looks grubby and unkempt compared to how it was a couple of years ago because the basic clean-up jobs aren't being done, devaluing property from owner-occupiers who might want to sell up and move out.

The latest move appears to be that the landlord(s) have got together and taken out an injunction preventing the clamping-company operating in the estate, thus allegedly usurping the role of the management company and the managing agent. So no money to pay legitimate contracted management fees, but lots of money to lawyer up and seek High Court injunctions. An exemplary bunch, allegedly of course.

Mathepac! You claim it is a legitimate contracted management fees? Can you produce this so called legitimate contract? A contract made by two companies registered to the same address, ha!

Coill Tire

yfaykya wrote: »

How would this stop it being a dumping spot then? If you were dumping a car would you care if it was clamped?

I am an owner in Coill Tire (semi d with parking outside my door) and first I heard of this was about 3 weeks ago. I think it is a disgrace. If people are using it for parking (which I don't believe - there are loads of spaces) why not just do An Fiodan then? Coill Tire is in the back further from bus stop etc.

Can a visitors car be clamped outside my house? I wonder how far in front of house I own?

Also cars that park along side the road on on the bends when there is parking should be towed and not clamped.

yfaykya, it all about money. I agree with you, it is a disgrace. Because some residents can't pay their property management fees, they want to turn the place into a fortress. They claim all parking space in Coill Tire are communal. So you are not entitled to a parking space if the property managers say so. Anyone with a parking disc is entitled to park right in front of your house, you can not do anything about that. You have to seek permission before a guest can come over, you are now in a concentration camp.

Zzippy

I don't know what the situation is in Coill Tire, but is it not normally the case that a management agent is contracted by the management company, which is made up of residents? In that case, should you not be asking who is on the management company, and why the decision was taken?
As for communal parking, that's normal in most estates, anyone can park outside my door if they want to, but thankfully there's enough parking in my estate and its not an issue.

Coill Tire

Zzippy wrote: »

I don't know what the situation is in Coill Tire, but is it not normally the case that a management agent is contracted by the management company, which is made up of residents? In that case, should you not be asking who is on the management company, and why the decision was taken?
As for communal parking, that's normal in most estates, anyone can park outside my door if they want to, but thankfully there's enough parking in my estate and its not an issue.

The management company and the management agent are two companies registered to the same address, managed by the same people. The scenario is simply Mr. John Joe's companies A and B awarding contracts to each other.

They claim that all residence of the estate are members of the management company. How? If a company is being registered, all directors or members should be aware of such development and consent to it. This is not the case with Coill Tire. If the management company is legitimate with a contractual agreement with the residents, then they can use debt collectors or court proceedings to collect any money a residence might owe them. As it stands, nobody in the estate officially owe them a cent. There is nothing statutory or contractual about their engagement with the estate. That is why they are now harassing residents with clamping. The houses were built and sold by McInerney and they've gone underground now.

The management agent has been asked to provide the name of a contact person from the management company but they've failed to come up with a name, they simply say all residence are members. How can people be members of a company that they do not know anything about?

Sponge Bob

Do you mean residence or residents?? I am finding this impossible to follow even I I infer residents for each iteration of residence.

Residents have no legal status, only owners do.

Zzippy

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Residents have no legal status, only owners do.

This. Coill tire, if you are an owner you should receive correspondence from the management company every year, with notice of an AGM. That is your chance to raise these issues. If you're not an owner, take it up with your landlord.

Coill Tire

Zzippy wrote: »

This. Coill tire, if you are an owner you should receive correspondence from the management company every year, with notice of an AGM. That is your chance to raise these issues. If you're not an owner, take it up with your landlord.

Zzippy, did you attend the last AGM? It sounds like you know what when on at the meeting.

Not everyone will be available for the AGM. People work unsociable hours you know?. If they had posted the agenda to every house before the AGM in the manner they sent notice of parking enforcement, maybe people would have sent in their concerns.

Coill Tire

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Do you mean residence or residents?? I am finding this impossible to follow even I I infer residents for each iteration of residence.

Residents have no legal status, only owners do.

Sponge Bob, thank you for the observation, it was a typographic error. The story is all about residents and they do have rights. Every individual, irrespective of economic or social status have the right to respect for private and family life.

The moment you have to seek permission from or pay someone before friends and relatives can visit you, then your right to respect for private and family life is being violated.

What is the point in residing in an estate where only 2 car owners can visit you in a week for free be it tenant or landlord? Crazy crazy crazy.

mathepac

Coill Tire wrote: »

... be it tenant or landlord? ...

or owner occupier even ...

Coill Tire

mathepac wrote: »

or owner occupier even ...

No discrimination in this case.

Coill Tire

JustMary wrote: »

Don't know how true it is, but I've been told that in a number of estates here, the management contract is not part of the contract. There is no legal way to enforce the payment, so this is why some mgmt companies are looking for more creative approaches like this.

Personally I'd never buy in an estate that hadn't been taken in charge by the council.

That says a lot about "devaluation". The property management agent claim they want to maintain their "quality service" to keep the value of properties high. As such, they have to implementing parking enforcement so that residents with service charge arrears will pay up.

The reverse is the case. People will be put off renting or buying from Coill Tire when they learn that residents are treated like school kids with a big brother management company that controls the number of visitors residents can host and watching every move the residents make.

Mrs OBumble

Coill Tire wrote: »

The reverse is the case. People will be put off renting or buying from Coill Tire when they learn that residents are treated like school kids with a big brother management company that controls the number of visitors residents can host and watching every move the residents make.

I have a lot of sympathy for this view.

There are a of reasons why people might have a lot of motorist visitors (old people getting meals-on-wheels, people with disabled kids who have therapists, home helps etc, people who are sick and getting district nurse visits, people with twins etc who have home help etc, etc). Limiting this is making their life difficult, as well as being small-minded and petty.

.. and even without this sort of thing, why shouldn't a women a home with a new baby get visited by her mother, friends etc.

IMHO, if you signed a tenancy agreement in the estate and there were no parking management restrictions in place, and now they've been imposed, you should not be held to the term of the tenancy.

Zzippy

Coill Tire wrote: »

Zzippy, did you attend the last AGM? It sounds like you know what when on at the meeting.

Not everyone will be available for the AGM. People work unsociable hours you know?. If they had posted the agenda to every house before the AGM in the manner they sent notice of parking enforcement, maybe people would have sent in their concerns.

No, I don't live in Coill Tire, but I'm an owner occupier in another estate, and we get notice of the AGM of the management company every year, with an agenda included, as well as a statement of the accounts of the management company detailing income and expenditure for the year. This should also be the case in Coill Tire if the management company is operating as it should.

Coill Tire

Zzippy wrote: »

No, I don't live in Coill Tire, but I'm an owner occupier in another estate, and we get notice of the AGM of the management company every year, with an agenda included, as well as a statement of the accounts of the management company detailing income and expenditure for the year. This should also be the case in Coill Tire if the management company is operating as it should.

I agree with you. If they operate as they should, things would not be as messy as it is now. As you wrote, you get notice of the AGM of the management company every year, with an agenda included, as well as a statement of the accounts of the management company. That is not the case in Coill Tire.

When the management company and the management agent are two companies operating from the same address, it shows that a lot is being compromised.

Coill Tire

JustMary wrote: »

I have a lot of sympathy for this view.

There are a of reasons why people might have a lot of motorist visitors (old people getting meals-on-wheels, people with disabled kids who have therapists, home helps etc, people who are sick and getting district nurse visits, people with twins etc who have home help etc, etc). Limiting this is making their life difficult, as well as being small-minded and petty.

.. and even without this sort of thing, why shouldn't a women a home with a new baby get visited by her mother, friends etc.

IMHO, if you signed a tenancy agreement in the estate and there were no parking management restrictions in place, and now they've been imposed, you should not be held to the term of the tenancy.

There're many estates in Doughuisce (Doughiska), e.g. Roscam, Tur Uisce, An Fiodan, etc,. There is no parking enforcement in any of these estates mentioned. You actually have to drive through An Fiodan to get to Coill Tire.

Definitely, not all residents in these estates are up to date with their service charge payments. It is only in Coill Tire that it is OK for residents to face sanctions without detailed consideration for the effects it will have apart from the fact that a private company needs to be paid and paid fast.

Residents are consumers of the services being provided by the management company. This bulldozer manner of dealing with customers by a service provider will not help the situation, it will only create more resistance.

The management company does not represent any authority and as such can not make by-laws that serves punishment for non display of a non statutory parking disc.

jd

Coill Tire wrote: »

.. it will have apart from the fact that a private company needs to be paid and paid fast.

Owners are members of this company. Did you not review all the legal documents when you bought your house?
Who are the directors of Coill Tire Management Company? Are they owners?

Coill Tire

jd wrote: »

Owners are members of this company. Did you not review all the legal documents when you bought your house?

I will love to see the document that is legally binding as you proclaimed.
If one is a member of a company, at least s/he should know who the company officials are (e.g. company secretary) and how to contact them. I've requested and I am still waiting for someone to give me such information.

Robbo

Coill Tire wrote: »

I will love to see the document that is legally binding as you proclaimed.
If one is a member of a company, at least s/he should know who the company officials are (e.g. company secretary) and how to contact them. I've requested and I am still waiting for someone to give me such information.

The Companies Registration Office. Cost you €3.50 online, you'll have the information straight away.

I'll even get you started: it's Company Number 408719.

I see a form B69 was filed at the end of January. If you're off on a crusade, I'd suggest first checking if the board is properly constituted. Then pick up a copy of Tom Courtney's "The Law of Private Companies" and knock yourself out. You'll find the Companies Acts far more helpful here than superficial readings of the Constitution.

Coill Tire

Robbo wrote: »

The Companies Registration Office. Cost you €3.50 online, you'll have the information straight away.

I'll even get you started: it's Company Number 408719.

I see a form B69 was filed at the end of January. If you're off on a crusade, I'd suggest first checking if the board is properly constituted. Then pick up a copy of Tom Courtney's "The Law of Private Companies" and knock yourself out. You'll find the Companies Acts far more helpful here than superficial readings of the Constitution.

Thanks Bobbo! I've check the basics on www.cro.ie and I have written (and delivered by hand) the company to the registered address which is also the office of the agent. I'll wait for their response.

I'll see how far I can knock myself out with the links you supplied. As for a crusade? NO! How on earth will I know who to crusade for? It's not my style. I am a libertarian, I just like to protect my rights as an individual within the frame work of the law, and I respect everyone's rights and believes.

Damie

Coill Tire wrote: »

There're many estates in Doughuisce (Doughiska), e.g. Roscam, Tur Uisce, An Fiodan, etc,. There is no parking enforcement in any of these estates mentioned. You actually have to drive through An Fiodan to get to Coill Tire.

I'm open to correction but I thought Tur Uisce had house numbers assigned to parking spaces and some 'open' spaces available?

Zzippy

Damie wrote: »

I'm open to correction but I thought Tur Uisce had house numbers assigned to parking spaces and some 'open' spaces available?

Only for some of the houses towards the front of the estate, throughout the rest of the estate parking is unrestricted and available for residents or visitors.

Coill Tire

Robbo wrote: »

The Companies Registration Office. Cost you €3.50 online, you'll have the information straight away.

I'll even get you started: it's Company Number 408719.

I see a form B69 was filed at the end of January. If you're off on a crusade, I'd suggest first checking if the board is properly constituted. Then pick up a copy of Tom Courtney's "The Law of Private Companies" and knock yourself out. You'll find the Companies Acts far more helpful here than superficial readings of the Constitution.

The management companies below each have only one director (except Castan with 2) and are all registered to the same address as
WINTERS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT i.e., Unit 5A, Liosban Business Park, Tuam Road,

They are: -
COILL TIRE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (1 Director with an address in Limerick)
AN FIODAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (1 Director)
TUR UISCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (1 Director)
ROSCAM HOUSE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (1 Director)
FEARANN RI MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (1 Director)
CASTAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (2 Directors)

jd

Coill Tire wrote: »

The management companies below each have only one director (except Castan with 2) and are all registered to the same address as
WINTERS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT i.e., Unit 5A, Liosban Business Park, Tuam Road,

They are: -
COILL TIRE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (1 Director with an address in Limerick)
AN FIODAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (1 Director)
TUR UISCE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (1 Director)
ROSCAM HOUSE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (1 Director)
FEARANN RI MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (1 Director)
CASTAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED (2 Directors)

WINTERS are the Management Agents for each of the management companies. Is the director for Coill Tire associated with the original development company? If he is not an Owner you should ask him when he intends to hand over to the owners as per the MUD act. BTW OMCs often give their registered office as the address of the agent they employ.

You should have a look at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=38

Coill Tire

jd wrote: »

WINTERS are the Management Agents for each of the management companies. Is the director for Coill Tire associated with the original development company? If he is not an Owner you should ask him when he intends to hand over to the owners as per the MUD act. BTW OMCs often give their registered office as the address of the agent they employ.

You should have a look at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=38

It is ok that owners' management companies (OMCs) are hosted by the management agent they employ only if things are done professionally, not in situations where management agents have overriding influence on the OMCs.

OMCs have obligations according to the the Multi-Unit Development Act 2011 (MUD Act). One of the obligations is to make house rules. The MUD Act stipulates that house rules shall be made in a manner consistent with

(a) the objective of advancing the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the property by the unit owners and the occupiers,

and

(b) the objective of the fair and equitable balancing of the rights and obligations of the occupiers and the unit owners, in the development or part of the development concerned.

This blog is about parking enforcement in Coill Tire, a house rule that restricts the number of guests the residents can host to 2 per week and that is after they've seek permission from a clamping company. How does this advance the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the property or the fair and equitable balancing of the rights and obligations of the occupiers of Coill Tire?

jd

Looking back at this thread there was an AGM and this measure was approved by the owners. Were you at the AGM? If not, why not?
Also you are not limited to two visitors a week. You can buy additional permits for 15 euro each (presumably if you are not in arrears)
And nowhere have you demonstrated that the "management agents have overriding influence on the OMCs" in this case.
And this is not a blog -it's a thread in a forum.

Coill Tire wrote: »

It is ok that owners' management companies (OMCs) are hosted by the management agent they employ only if things are done professionally, not in situations where management agents have overriding influence on the OMCs.

OMCs have obligations according to the the Multi-Unit Development Act 2011 (MUD Act). One of the obligations is to make house rules. The MUD Act stipulates that house rules shall be made in a manner consistent with

(a) the objective of advancing the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the property by the unit owners and the occupiers,

and

(b) the objective of the fair and equitable balancing of the rights and obligations of the occupiers and the unit owners, in the development or part of the development concerned.

This blog is about parking enforcement in Coill Tire, a house rule that restricts the number of guests the residents can host to 2 per week and that is after they've seek permission from a clamping company. How does this advance the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the property or the fair and equitable balancing of the rights and obligations of the occupiers of Coill Tire?

Coill Tire

jd wrote: »

Looking back at this thread there was an AGM and this measure was approved by the owners. Were you at the AGM? If not, why not?
Also you are not limited to two visitors a week. You can buy additional permits for 15 euro each (presumably if you are not in arrears)
And nowhere have you demonstrated that the "management agents have overriding influence on the OMCs" in this case.
And this is not a blog -it's a thread in a forum.

I am not in arrears. If this is all about recovering charges, section 22 of the MUD Act considers charges as a simple contract debt which can be recovered in a court of competent jurisdiction. Whoever is in arrears will be liable for legal cost incurred in the process. I wasn't at the AGM because I work antisocial hours. The OMC is obliged to send the agenda to all occupiers but they didn't. Why should I buy permits before family and friends can visit? And thank you for the insight, blog/thread/forum.