Fines for hanging of laundry in the balcony

Yawns

cookie1977 wrote: »

Why do you keep saying out of the blue? If it's voted on and is brought in at an AGM as some sort of levy/penalty/charge then why cant it be levied on the annual fee for those that break the rules?

Because as it was pointed out already, you can't be held bound to a contract that was agreed by 2 other parties. You would need to agree to the new terms of contract yourself. If you simply ignore, you can be deemed accepting the new terms. If you refuse, then you refuse and you can't be forced to accept the new terms.

cookie1977

Yawns wrote: »

Not to take anything away from the points you are making cookie, but house rules don't supersede laws. Whilst a house rule might be no noise from 9pm - 9am, a MC would have a hard time punishing a resident who breaks it regularly. They can't issue a fine and it would be silly to remove other residential services as it generally leads to non payment of fees.

I'm not saying fines, I'm saying charges. I'm saying that a MC could charge for using the balcony to dry clothes. Only those that use it will have the charge (Photo evidence would be enough to validate the charge). Like i said earlier about how those who own carpark space (in our complex anyway) are charges extra on maintenance as opposed to those that do not.

So as a slight aside. When people put signs up on railings around the city about "bikes being removed". Are they illegal?

Yawns

Nope a sign does not give legal authority unless it was placed there by a council. Charges can only be done when agreed to, so if it was included in the start of a lease and both parties agreed, then charges can be applied. Collecting them is another matter. However a MC can't simply bring in a charge and expect everyone to pay it. It can be refused and the MC can do nothing legally if the refusal is in writing and presented to them.

Your carpark example would have been included in the original lease / contract. Both parties would have agreed to be bound by those conditions. They accept the charges.

Yawns

On a point about the signs you see. If a sign says management accept no responsibility for the damage to vehicles, they are not get out clauses for the MC either. If you pursue it you can generally get a payment from the MC's insurance if it supposed to be a secure parkign area. The sign does not absolve them of anything and likewise a sign cannot give them permission to do anything. This is why the whole private clamping is a gray area. Clampers rely on signs and people who don't know better. A private company cannot clamp you and legally expect you to pay. You can remove it without damaging it and hand it back to them and drive away.

cookie1977

Yawns wrote: »

Nope a sign does not give legal authority unless it was placed there by a council. Charges can only be done when agreed to, so if it was included in the start of a lease and both parties agreed, then charges can be applied. Collecting them is another matter. However a MC can't simply bring in a charge and expect everyone to pay it. It can be refused and the MC can do nothing legally if the refusal is in writing and presented to them.

Your carpark example would have been included in the original lease / contract. Both parties would have agreed to be bound by those conditions. They accept the charges.

So nothing can change at all and there's nothing a MC can do to change anything after the initial sale has gone through? What about raising charges? Management companies have the right to lower or raise annual charges so why can this be ok and the charge for clothes not covered under this agreement? That's very strange. Honest question here, have you any link/evidence of this. I honestly dont think you're correct on this although I too have no precise evidence.

Yawns

Generally there would be a clause for rising and falling prices of services. If bin charges increase along with contractors prices for gardening etc, then the fees might need to be increased and more money to paid from the apartment owners. However a management company must show how much is being paid for these services. They can't simply add a new charge in and say you have to pay it. It is expected that prices can rise and fall for services so once the MC can show where the money is going it's no harm.

Pretty much once the initial sale is done and contracts signed, then any amendment needs to be agreed by all parties involved. This is why most if not all MC have the no laundry etc list of rules in place from the beginning, even if they don't enforce them. It's in case they ever want to. Introducing a charge later on is the hard part. Even if you included a clause that rule breaking leads to no renewal permit, the resident may not pay any part of the fee which makes it worse on everyone in the long run.

It's contract law that would apply here. I can go take a look to come up with a few laws that state it exactly about not being able to change a contract or adding a charge in without both party agreeing. Hell the law forum might even be able to help as it is in fact a hypothetical situation.

cookie1977

Yawns wrote: »

It's contract law that would apply here. I can go take a look to come up with a few laws that state it exactly about not being able to change a contract or adding a charge in without both party agreeing. Hell the law forum might even be able to help as it is in fact a hypothetical situation.

But would it not be the case that you agree to abide by the rules of the management company when you take ownership of the apartment?

Yawns

I know what you mean but I believe it wouldn't matter unless the charges / penalty for breaking them is in the contract as well at the beginning. You can agree to obey at the beginning, but then they may introduce some more. Rules again can't supercede law either. Plus then what are the legalities of house rules?

Again a 9pm - 9am no noise means nothing really. The guards won't be interested in getting a call at 9:30pm for example and no grounds for a civil complaint. Unless there is a charge in the beginning for breaking the rule.

I'm not too sure what a MC could do to a person refusing the new rules / contract. If it was a server provider like a phone company for example, if you didn't agree you could opt out of the service altogether without penalty if they change the contract. With a house it's hard to suddenly opt out. I don't know where that would leave the MC or the resident tbh. Someone on the legal may know more about that.

cookie1977

Yawns wrote: »

I know what you mean but I believe it wouldn't matter unless the charges / penalty for breaking them is in the contract as well at the beginning. You can agree to obey at the beginning, but then they may introduce some more. Rules again can't supercede law either. Plus then what are the legalities of house rules?

Again a 9pm - 9am no noise means nothing really. The guards won't be interested in getting a call at 9:30pm for example and no grounds for a civil complaint. Unless there is a charge in the beginning for breaking the rule.

I'm not too sure what a MC could do to a person refusing the new rules / contract. If it was a server provider like a phone company for example, if you didn't agree you could opt out of the service altogether without penalty if they change the contract. With a house it's hard to suddenly opt out. I don't know where that would leave the MC or the resident tbh. Someone on the legal may know more about that.

Re noise I think you'd have to get the dept of the environment involved and it would probably end up being a civil case of you versus them unfortunately.

Tis interesting all the same. I should go back and read through MUD again

Yawns

I agree with you re the Dept. of Environment. But what's the law regarding noise at night? Think it's about 11pm. A house rule can't breach a law act so if it was someone being a bit noisey saying hoovering at 9.30pm there is not a lot the MC can do other than asking them to keep it down and to be considerate for the neighbours etc.

Yawns

Unfortunately in any situation with the MC trying to impose a charge or rule, they can find it hard going and a bit of an up hill battle. Heck trying to get money from anybody that owes it to you is a fecking hard and tiresome thing to be doing even before the recession.

cookie1977

Yawns wrote: »

I agree with you re the Dept. of Environment. But what's the law regarding noise at night? Think it's about 11pm. A house rule can't breach a law act so if it was someone being a bit noisey saying hoovering at 9.30pm there is not a lot the MC can do other than asking them to keep it down and to be considerate for the neighbours etc.

Not sure of the specific times but
http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Noise/

Private Rented Tenants

In the case of noise nuisance being caused by individuals in private rented accommodation, the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 imposes minimum statutory obligations on landlords and tenants of private residential tenancies. Tenant obligations under the Act include an obligation not to engage, or allow visitors to engage, in anti-social behaviour which is defined as including persistent noise that interferes with the peaceful occupation of other dwellings in the neighbourhood. The Act also imposes an obligation on landlords to enforce the tenant obligations.

There is provision in the Act for third parties who are adversely affected by a failure on the part of a landlord to enforce tenant obligations to refer a complaint to the Private Residential Tenancies Board (external link) in accordance with the procedures in the Act. If an alternative legal remedy, such as the remedy provided for under the Noise Regulations (see below) is being pursued then the PRTB cannot intervene.
Since December 2004 all privately-rented properties must be registered with the PRTB. You can check if a property is registered by contacting the PRTB.

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Miscellaneous/FileDownLoad,1319,en.pdf

cookie1977

Yawns wrote: »

Unfortunately in any situation with the MC trying to impose a charge or rule, they can find it hard going and a bit of an up hill battle. Heck trying to get money from anybody that owes it to you is a fecking hard and tiresome thing to be doing even before the recession.

Well our complex seems to be very luck with almost complete payment despite the tough recession. We have one judgement against a single apartment which hasn't paid so that will remain there until they try to sell

Yawns

the Residential Tenancies Act 2004 imposes minimum statutory obligations on landlords and tenants of private residential tenancies.

Would that not mean basically no excessive noise after 11pm or w/e the law currently has it at? You can watch tv etc and have a nice night in watching a movie but not parties every weekend until 2 in the morning. That would be my understanding. I think the rules, whilst it's good to have rules, can only get you so far. Trying to impose penalties for rules broken is extremely hard.

athtrasna

I was at an Apartment Owners Network meeting where the issue was discussed and the legal advice received was that monetary sanctions could be imposed but the word fine could not be used.

The ban on hanging out washing is not just in our development rules it's in the lease we signed at purchase of the apartment. The Management Company is legally bound to seek to enforce lease conditions and so has the right to take action where necessary. I don't recall hearing of any fines in our development but I know a solicitor's letter was issued to one repeat offending unit and the problem ceased.

cookie1977

athtrasna wrote: »

I was at an Apartment Owners Network meeting where the issue was discussed and the legal advice received was that monetary sanctions could be imposed but the word fine could not be used.

The ban on hanging out washing is not just in our development rules it's in the lease we signed at purchase of the apartment. The Management Company is legally bound to seek to enforce lease conditions and so has the right to take action where necessary.

The question here seemed to be that could you impose "charges" on offenders (which was probably not specified in the original documentation) since most blocks would have that wording (no clothes on balconies) in the original documentation.

athtrasna wrote: »

I don't recall hearing of any fines in our development but I know a solicitor's letter was issued to one repeat offending unit and the problem ceased.

I'd imagine this would be the outcome of most of these situations. Hence there being no serious news or evidence of lawsuits/charges and hence why it's probably not much of an issue.