Introduction of clamping in Charlesland Crescent and Wood

Oldlegs

Stall The Ball 101 wrote: »

Written Answers - Multi-unit Management Companies
Tuesday, 6 March 2012, Dáil Éireann Debate Vol. 758 No. 1
...
Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): The Multi-Unit Developments Act 2011 ....
..
As regards the recovery of unpaid service charges, section 22 provides that unpaid service charges may be recovered by the owners’ management company concerned as a simple contract debt in a court of competent jurisdiction, i.e normally the District Court.

The way I see the 'case' being presented so as to work within the legal framework ...

1) Parking management/Clamping has been introduced in Charlesland.
2) Residents are entitled to parking disc and can apply for visitor disc.
3) To avail of disc entitlement management fees must be up-to-date.

The immediate result of the Clamping is expected to be better use/control/policing of parking facilities within Charlesland. An ancilliary benefit is a strong encouragement for owners to ensure that their management fees are up to-date.

So clamping has been introduced across the whole development for ALL residents and NOT as a specific penalty for non-payment of management fees.

Stall The Ball 101

Oldlegs wrote: »

The way I see the 'case' being presented so as to work within the legal framework ...

1) Parking management/Clamping has been introduced in Charlesland.
2) Residents are entitled to parking disc and can apply for visitor disc.
3) To avail of disc entitlement management fees must be up-to-date.

The immediate result of the Clamping is expected to be better use/control/policing of parking facilities within Charlesland. An ancilliary benefit is a strong encouragement for owners to ensure that their management fees are up to-date.

So clamping has been introduced across the whole development for ALL residents and NOT as a specific penalty for non-payment of management fees.

All of Charlesland development how do you know this ?

Oldlegs

Stall The Ball 101 wrote: »

All of Charlesland development how do you know this ?

Because of what I am reading in the thread. If it is on Boards, it must be true !

OK - better to rephrase, Clamping is being introduced in designated areas in Charlesland, NOT as specific action on target residents.

{{ Aarrgh - I have now been sucked into the vortex of the thread. Can't I just click my heels and say "There is no place like the sidelines, there is no place like the sidelines"}}

matt-dublin

no not all of charlesland, the crescent and one other estate I think.

there was another estate who originally had clamping.

Stall The Ball 101

matt-dublin wrote: »

no not all of charlesland, the crescent and one other estate I think.

there was another estate who originally had clamping.

So parking must be an issue in certain parts of the development then and not others

matt-dublin

absolutely, in the crescent I think we've like 60 odd spaces for 48 apartments

Stall The Ball 101

matt-dublin wrote: »

absolutely, in the crescent I think we've like 60 odd spaces for 48 apartments

Well I can assure in the last 9 years in the environs of Charlesland wood I have never seen any real parking problems

Yes on the spine roads maybe but these areas are out of our companies control anyway

So why this was introduced at an egm I do not know I thought the egm was called because of the companies funds not the problems of parking in the environs of the estate

Would it possible to get a copy of the minutes of that meeting do you think

Charlie-Bravo

The first part of Charlesland Wood has an exceptional amount of cars parked. It might not look too bad as everyone finds a place to park in the evenings, but there is a number of people who park immediately on corners and obstruct pedestrian crossing points. While there are no double-yellows, there are solid white lines in the centre of the road - not many people would notice this when parking but it is something drivers should know about and adhere to refraining from parking at such locations. It will be interesting to see if anyone gets clamped when parking opposite a solid white line - disc or no disc.

Stall The Ball 101

astrofluff wrote: »

The first part of Charlesland Wood has an exceptional amount of cars parked. It might not look too bad as everyone finds a place to park in the evenings, but there is a number of people who park immediately on corners and obstruct pedestrian crossing points. While there are no double-yellows, there are solid white lines in the centre of the road - not many people would notice this when parking but it is something drivers should know about and adhere to refraining from parking at such locations. It will be interesting to see if anyone gets clamped when parking opposite a solid white line - disc or no disc.

It's one way, so are you saying there will be no parking along the greens because that would cause total mayhem

I don't think the entrance into the estate can be controlled I could be wrong but if I am right that type of parking won't change in fact this policy might exasperate it

Finally we could argue this for the next 100 years and still not agree

It is my opinion that this was introduced for the wrong reasons

Ill leave everyone else to make up there own minds

birdwatcher

Wait until the council take over managing the spine road - you'll see a serious amount of clamping for the reasons outlined by Astrofluff.

I'm not even gonna mention what could happen if they bring in a one-way system around that Green......God help us all

Charlie-Bravo

Stall The Ball 101 wrote: »

It's one way, so are you saying there will be no parking along the greens because that would cause total mayhem..

There will be parking along greens, just not at the junctions or anywhere adjacent centre-road solid white lines.

On the spine road there would not be clamping unless the Council gets a contract with a clamping company. There will only be tickets issued by the gardai.

In relation to data protection, would each member of the mgmt company not be entitled to informed of what house unit has not discharged their fee? This info doesn't include any names, just house numbers and amount outstanding.

matt-dublin

@astro I think names may have been given out but not sure but even if they weren't they shouldn't have been handed via door drop. THey should have been published as a set of accounts at an AGM.

Rosina1969

Is there actually any problem with parking in the clamping areas - I've never noticed any problems. Seems like a very heavy handed approach for something that isnt a problem? Would suspect it's not really to do with parking at all.

yoshiktk

Rosina1969 wrote: »

Is there actually any problem with parking in the clamping areas - I've never noticed any problems. Seems like a very heavy handed approach for something that isnt a problem? Would suspect it's not really to do with parking at all.

Yes and no. As for me in Crescent corner if i come to late i have to park on opposite side of building. After a hard day/night at work walking this few extra meters with injured back is kinda pain in the ****.

jd

matt-dublin wrote: »

@astro I think names may have been given out but not sure but even if they weren't they shouldn't have been handed via door drop. THey should have been published as a set of accounts at an AGM.

OMCs should be careful.

http://www.dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=1245

9.1 Can Management Companies disclose to all members details of those property owners/members that have not paid service charges ?


In general, no. This is personal data of the members concerned and should not be disclosed without their consent or unless such disclosure is explicitly provided for in the memorandum and articles of association of the company as a condition of membership.

If services are withdrawn from an apartment, you can't tell the tenant (if not an owner occupier) that his landlord hasn't paid his charges. An OMC can only refer the tenat back to his/her landlord.

banbam

All tenants should ask if their landlords have paid their apartment management fees(if not, then parking, bins, etc, will become an issue for the tenant). Landlords should take responsibility for their apartments and not put the tenant in the position of being clamped, by not having a parling disc.

LEIN

banbam wrote: »

All tenants should ask if their landlords have paid their apartment management fees(if not, then parking, bins, etc, will become an issue for the tenant). Landlords should take responsibility for their apartments and not put the tenant in the position of being clamped, by not having a parling disc.

This is where there will be trouble in my opinion.

My landlord has paid thankfully, however, if he didn't I would not be held hostage in the middle and would have gone to court for the criminal damage or whatnot just to see the judge laugh it out of court.

The agreement or contract of fees are between the agent and landlord, so therefor I am an innocent person caught in the middle.

Contract = agent and landlord not me.

Stall The Ball 101

DD9090 wrote: »

This is where there will be trouble in my opinion.

My landlord has paid thankfully, however, if he didn't I would not be held hostage in the middle and would have gone to court for the criminal damage or whatnot just to see the judge laugh it out of court.

The agreement or contract of fees are between the agent and landlord, so therefor I am an innocent person caught in the middle.

Contract = agent and landlord not me.

But your contract is between you and your landlord and he doesn't own the land outside the property that is rented, so I don't think he is obliged to provide parking for his tenant on someone else's land.

I have come around to the idea of disc parking if it means keeping the company afloat, i have a large investment in this estate and I don't want to be left in limbo if the management company fails.

LEIN

Stall The Ball 101 wrote: »

But your contract is between you and your landlord and he doesn't own the land outside the property that is rented, so I don't think he is obliged to provide parking for his tenant on someone else's land.

You're clutching at straws here.....

I pay my FULL rent each month, what he does with it is his business and none of mine.

As I said, it would be a fun day in a courtroom and if anyone ends up going please give me a shout.

Stall The Ball 101

DD9090 wrote: »

You're clutching at straws here.....

I pay my FULL rent each month, what he does with it is his business and none of mine.

As I said, it would be a fun day in a courtroom and if anyone ends up going please give me a shout.

No I'm not trying to say that the tenant has done anything wrong but your landlord provides property to you for a payment

The management company provide your landlord with common area for a payment

It's a free market and if a tenant is not happy with the property that they rent ie no outside parking because the landlord has not paid for it well then that is something they will have to take up with the landlord

If you didn't pay your fee ie rent for 2 years would he let you live there

If he did could I get his details :-)

Maudi

The tennants are more than happy with where they live..the tennants are p...ed of with your thinly veiled threats at clamping and being used as a pawn between the likes of you and your desperate grab at money and the landlords...your very obvious post makes it very clear you have no interest in any sort of community spirit..its all about leverage against landlords using parking as your latest threat to extort money..what next?? Hypothetical question..Please
.dont reply..

matt-dublin

Maudi wrote: »

The tennants are more than happy with where they live..the tennants are p...ed of with your thinly veiled threats at clamping and being used as a pawn between the likes of you and your desperate grab at money and the landlords...your very obvious post makes it very clear you have no interest in any sort of community spirit..its all about leverage against landlords using parking as your latest threat to extort money..what next?? Hypothetical question..Please
.dont reply..

If the landlords don't pay for their services then quite simply his tenants should not be able to avail of them.

Clamping should stir tenants to ensure their landlords have the service they're renting and if not a case should be taken with the PTRB against the landlord.

youknowwho

DD9090 wrote: »

You're clutching at straws here.....

I pay my FULL rent each month, what he does with it is his business and none of mine.

As I said, it would be a fun day in a courtroom and if anyone ends up going please give me a shout.

If your landlord agreed to cover your electricity in your rent but then fail to pay any electricity bills, do you think the supplier would hesitate in disconnecting you.

Your landlord can't provide you with a service which he/she is not entitled to, no more than I can sell you something I don't own.

By not paying his/her fees he /she is refusing to pay for rubbish collection, insurance and his/her parking space - the parking spaces do not belong to the property, rather your landlord has a licence for it. If your landlord loses their licence they cannot pass a benefit to you - regardless of what your agreement says.

A judge wouldn't laugh at the case given the seriousness of the matter across the state. He may probe the lawfulness of the clamping but he will most certainly tell you that your claim and any action lie under your rental agreement - sue your landlord.

LEIN

youknowwho wrote: »

If your landlord agreed to cover your electricity in your rent but then fail to pay any electricity bills, do you think the supplier would hesitate in disconnecting you.

Your landlord can't provide you with a service which he/she is not entitled to, no more than I can sell you something I don't own.

By not paying his/her fees he /she is refusing to pay for rubbish collection, insurance and his/her parking space - the parking spaces do not belong to the property, rather your landlord has a licence for it. If your landlord loses their licence they cannot pass a benefit to you - regardless of what your agreement says.

A judge wouldn't laugh at the case given the seriousness of the matter across the state. He may probe the lawfulness of the clamping but he will most certainly tell you that your claim and any action lie under your rental agreement - sue your landlord.

Lads and ladies,

You can can try jazz it up as much as you like but a third party interfering with my private property because someone else didn't pay a bill won't have a leg to stand on in a courtroom.

Was there legal advice given on this?

Stall The Ball 101

DD9090 wrote: »

Lads and ladies,

You can can try jazz it up as much as you like but a third party interfering with my private property because someone else didn't pay a bill won't have a leg to stand on in a courtroom.

Was there legal advice given on this?

Look I think this whole thing highlights how the model of estates being run by management companies could fall flat on its face.

However the way i see it, the common areas inside and out are owned by the company which is made up by the shareholders, so the common areas are not your private land they are kinda all our land as long as we pay for the upkeep. If you parked in the carpark in the pub down the road and he clamped you, you dont have a leg to stand on

Im no legal wiz and I hope the board of director take stock that policies they make can have big repercussions on people lives on the development regardless if they rent or own.

But I do think they have made every effort to accommodate people who are struggling to pay. Disc parking I would hope could alway be a measure that could be reversed if revenue improved

matt-dublin

DD9090 wrote: »

Lads and ladies,

You can can try jazz it up as much as you like but a third party interfering with my private property because someone else didn't pay a bill won't have a leg to stand on in a courtroom.

Was there legal advice given on this?

Yes

LEIN

matt-dublin wrote: »

Yes

In that case I'd seek a refund.

matt-dublin

DD9090 wrote: »

In that case I'd seek a refund.

Why, it's sound legal advice. If it was illegal we and many management companies around the country wouldn't be doing it

LEIN

matt-dublin wrote: »

Why, it's sound legal advice. If it was illegal we and many management companies around the country wouldn't be doing it

No matt it's not, it's far from sound, it has never been challenged as far as I can see?

matt-dublin

DD9090 wrote: »

No matt it's not, it's far from sound, it has never been challenged as far as I can see?

Because there's no real legal basis for a challenge until there is any legislation.