Introduction of clamping in Charlesland Crescent and Wood

matt-dublin

Jimjay wrote: »

Thanks for the clarifaction matt, maybe that should have been posted earlier to avoid the confusion.

Why were the courts no use? Is it because there is no legal obligation to pay management fees? Or another reason?
Thanks

I did post this earlier, you should have read the whole thread.

The courts were useless because we couldn't afford to chase judgement as we didn't have the funds.

matt-dublin

2011 wrote: »

Matt, thanks for the clarification. It sounds to me that you have exhausted all other avenues and clamping for nonpayment of fees will only apply in exceptional circumstances.
Is that the case ?

I am very glad to hear that this will not be imposed on people that are making a genuine effort to pay.

Absolutely, clamping will also take place for people who use crescent spaces that don't have passes and for people who use the txt system too much.

I counted 8 cars last night for the court that had parked outside my block/bin shed alone

Considering we've only about 50/60 spaces for 48 apartments.

We're not trying to alienate people by introducing it but trying to keep the company afloat. People not paying fees will eventually end up in us going bust and will result in the insurance not being paid. Then we'll have the banks looking to repossess 48 apartments overnight!

Jimjay

matt-dublin wrote: »

I did post this earlier, you should have read the whole thread.

The courts were useless because we couldn't afford to chase judgement as we didn't have the funds.

Sorry thought I had read the whole thread, I must have missed a page as I can't remember reading that you had two owners who owed 10k and the courts didn't help and that cars from other estates were taking your spaces.

Also thanks for the heads up. I will never buy an appartment now, knowing that if the management company goes bust that the bank could repossess it.

Wicklowandy

How successful someone appears can be very different from the reality in the case of the landlord.

But what about an owner occupier with small income, mortgage arrears and management fee arrears? Even if the person engages with the management, the fact they have no money to give is unlikely to stop their car being clamped unless the agreement is carefully written between management agent and clamping company.

How do you differentiate between the can pays and wont pays. Having a look and saying thats a nice car and that business appears successful just doesnt cut it.

Id love to know the percentage levels of representation on the residents association, believing myself that a sizable number of apartments would be rented out, and landlords are unlikely to participate, and tenants not allowed to do so. If the figures are as I would believe, how widely supported would this initiative be? Or is it the represented minority pushing for something they haven't examined the consequences for?

I can understand the position the company is in and appreciate the time you've taken to explain your point well, but hope you've explored every other avenue before taking this step. It wont be as simple as clamp a few cars / problem solved.

matt-dublin

Wicklowandy wrote: »

How successful someone appears can be very different from the reality in the case of the landlord.

But what about an owner occupier with small income, mortgage arrears and management fee arrears? Even if the person engages with the management, the fact they have no money to give is unlikely to stop their car being clamped unless the agreement is carefully written between management agent and clamping company.

How do you differentiate between the can pays and wont pays. Having a look and saying thats a nice car and that business appears successful just doesnt cut it.

Id love to know the percentage levels of representation on the residents association, believing myself that a sizable number of apartments would be rented out, and landlords are unlikely to participate, and tenants not allowed to do so. If the figures are as I would believe, how widely supported would this initiative be? Or is it the represented minority pushing for something they haven't examined the consequences for?

I can understand the position the company is in and appreciate the time you've taken to explain your point well, but hope you've explored every other avenue before taking this step. It wont be as simple as clamp a few cars / problem solved.

I think you need to read all the previous posts in the threads, after an egm with majority of owners there they were in agreement with the plan.

Would you prefer we did nothing, became insolvent and failed on insurance payments resulting on people potentially losing their homes because a few people decided they didn't want to pay their management fees.

How would you like a phone call from your mortgage company tomorrow saying they're repossessing your apartment because you have no insurance. And because its block insurance in order to pay for it to keep your abode you're lookin at a 10k bill immediately between 48 apartments.

If the 10 apartments paid what they were supposed to have paid that problem would't exist.

Wicklowandy

I can accept that a majority voted, but were they aware of the knock on effect of such a scheme?

You're in a difficult position I know, but when someones family legitimately visit them daily using different or the same vehicle and end up clamped, ncps policy would be to charge a release fee and let the person appeal. If you plan to have a different arrangement (ie payed up owners should be allowed to park and their visitors should be allowed to park), to ensure the harmony and success of your scheme, make sure that its possible to release someone genuine for free without them having to resort to ncps unregulated appeals process.

I do hope it works, and within a week everyone parks legally and there is no need to clamp people. But that week, if the scheme is introduced without proper oversight, and without having a member of the residents association contactable and with access to the database on a 24 hour basis, you will end up with headaches and a lot of bad feeling amongst a community. Most importantly I wouldn't trust ncps to implement the scheme in a fair or equitable manner, and would hope you retain as much control over it, if only for a period yourself.

I haven't meant my posts to be negative, and read the thread carefully before I posted, but a scheme such as this has to accept criticism, and explore pitfalls before implementation if it to be a success. Good luck.

lakeroad

I think Charlesland Wood are also planning on introducing clamping in the near future. The way things are going with all of the Owners Management Companies within Charlesland clamping maybe the only way to recover fees from Owners who will not pay.

mirekb

lakeroad wrote: »

I think Charlesland Wood are also planning on introducing clamping in the near future. The way things are going with all of the Owners Management Companies within Charlesland clamping maybe the only way to recover fees from Owners who will not pay.

Where did you hear this?

It would brings me back to my questions earlier on the thread, then! It's one thing in apartment blocks with communal car parks. It's another clamping people on their own driveways.

matt-dublin

mirekb wrote: »

Where did you hear this?

It would brings me back to my questions earlier on the thread, then! It's one thing in apartment blocks with communal car parks. It's another clamping people on their own driveways.

I don't think they will be able to clamp in driveways. Only on the roadside or footpaths

lakeroad

A director on one of the Owners Management Companies mentioned it.

mirekb

matt-dublin wrote: »

I don't think they will be able to clamp in driveways. Only on the roadside or footpaths

You already know my views on this, so I won't go on about it:D

lakeroad

I'm not in favour of this either but if all other options are exhausted trying to recover fee's what options are left to the Management Companies?

LEIN

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the part I fear is that this is a private clamping company with an aim of maximising its profits.

I am a tenant in the Wood and if I find my car clamped for no other reason than dodgy parking (which I don't do) I will remove the clamp from my car myself.

I am not responsible for the fees here, my landlord is and I will not be punished if they fail to pay.

The fees are a matter between the landlord and agent, I pay my rent in full every month and I will not be held hostage in the middle.

Wicklowandy

lakeroad wrote: »

I'm not in favour of this either but if all other options are exhausted trying to recover fee's what options are left to the Management Companies?

The concept of differentiating between the cant pays and wont pays is not being considered here

lakeroad

I agree with you but I think the Management Companies see the non payment of fee's esclating to a point where the companies will no longer have enough funds to operate. What happens then?

I've been told a percentage of non payment of fee's is from units which are rented out and the landlords have failed to pay their management fees. The OMC in a lot of cases do not have the landlords new address and their tenants will not give the landlords contact details.

mirekb

DD9090 wrote: »

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the part I fear is that this is a private clamping company with an aim of maximising its profits.

I am a tenant in the Wood and if I find my car clamped for no other reason than dodgy parking (which I don't do) I will remove the clamp from my car myself.

I am not responsible for the fees here, my landlord is and I will not be punished if they fail to pay.

The fees are a matter between the landlord and agent, I pay my rent in full every month and I will not be held hostage in the middle.

Absolutely agree.

lakeroad

Wicklowandy wrote: »

The concept of differentiating between the cant pays and wont pays is not being considered here

It is being considered as Matt-Dublin said "If people can't pay their fees they can enter an agreement with the agents". The OMC and their Management Agent will work with Household's who are unable to pay. All they need to do is contact their Management Agent.

matt-dublin

lakeroad wrote: »

It is being considered as Matt-Dublin said "If people can't pay their fees they can enter an agreement with the agents". The OMC and their Management Agent will work with Household's who are unable to pay. All they need to do is contact their Management Agent.

Spot on Lakeroad, WicklowAndy is misinterpreting the posts, we're not out to get people who can't pay, its the people who won't pay, the people who refuse to interact with the management agents or set up a payment schedule.

As i've said we have several tenants in the crescent who owe multiple years worth of fees, and when you take it that each apartment is worth a little over 2% of the overall fund and then throw the back debt into it it makes the company difficult to run and keep solvent.

We also have owners who can't pay, who have engaged the agent, and who do keep in regular touch and make payments when they can or have set up some form of payment schedule, whether it be direct debit or post dated cheques. These people who have made the effort most certainly won't be clamped.

bido

Will not paying the fee affect anyone that tries to sell their apartment ?

2011

bido wrote: »

Will not paying the fee affect anyone that tries to sell their apartment ?

You can be sure of that.
When buying the apartment you sign a legal document stating thay you will pay.

desoc32

Clamp the cars that park on the zig zags at the new pedestrian crossings near playground. It's near impossible to see a person or small child step out to cross when view is blocked by a car.

LEIN

Guys, please remember the privacy part on the charter.

Forum Charter wrote:

Privacy:The vast majority of posters here prefer to do so anonymously. If they haven't made their identity or name widely known on the site themselves, you have no right to do so. Please respect the privacy also of your neighbours who might not use this forum. If you're not willing to say something to them directly, don't say it here. If you are willing to say it to them directly, perhaps think before you post it here anyway - see the sections on Trolling and Abuse.

Please keep in mind also that neighbourly disputes shouldn't be dragged onto the forum. For example, posting about dogs in general using common areas as their toilets or bad parking is okay. Identifying a specific dog or vehicle is not okay. If it's possible to recognise an individual as a result of something like this, we will deal with it.

matt-dublin

bido wrote: »

Will not paying the fee affect anyone that tries to sell their apartment ?

Yes, they won't be able to sell. The lawyers will need to contact the management agents for certification of the fees being up to date. If its a bank repossession the bank have to pay as its an outstanding debt on the property

Maudi

matt-dublin wrote: »

Yes, they won't be able to sell. The lawyers will need to contact the management agents for certification of the fees being up to date. If its a bank repossession the bank have to pay as its an outstanding debt on the property

whatever about the cresent apartments needing a management company..why does the rest of the estate (houses)need them..would a residents ass. not suffice?

Jimjay

Maudi wrote: »

whatever about the cresent apartments needing a management company..why does the rest of the estate (houses)need them..would a residents ass. not suffice?

I was thinking the same. Why cant the residents ass not do the job of a management company and how much does a management company charge per year for its services?

lakeroad

All Owners are members of the Owners Management Company. Directors are elected onto the Board at the annual AGM. The OMC employ a Management Agent to do the day to day work for the OMC. Read back through this thread for more info or go to the next AGM for your OMC.

matt-dublin

Because the way the estate was set up to manage the common areas.

mirekb

matt-dublin wrote: »

Because the way the estate was set up to manage the common areas.

Do the management companies publish their accounts?

Maudi

matt-dublin wrote: »

Because the way the estate was set up to manage the common areas.

i.e. cutting the grass?i didnt see them out gritting the roads during this years frost or last years snow..i have to say the estate is always tip top..but i think a res. ass.work very well too..

lakeroad

I'm really surprised with a lot of the questions on this thread. If only Home owners would attend their Annual general meetings they would see the amount of work that is done by the Directors of the OMC and their Management Agents. Theres a huge amount of personal time put in by Directors which goes unseen.