Mgmt fees - why? what?

Maudi

dancerfidget wrote: »

I think as a reaction to the newly introduced disc parking more people will attend the meetings and become more actively involved. This can only be a good thing:)

Is there any truth in the rumour that a fence and gate is to be installed around the green areas/play areas and children of those who havnt paid will not be allowed in?i.d will be required..

dancerfidget

Maudi wrote: »

Is there any truth in the rumour that a fence and gate is to be installed around the green areas/play areas and children of those who havnt paid will not be allowed in?i.d will be required..

Surely that can't be true that would be horrible and unfair on kids

kippy

dancerfidget wrote: »

Surely that can't be true that would be horrible and unfair on kids

Indeed, perhaps their parents will feel the brunt of their anger....
I believe the poster is winding.....

Annasopra

Maudi wrote: »

Is there any truth in the rumour that a fence and gate is to be installed around the green areas/play areas and children of those who havnt paid will not be allowed in?i.d will be required..

Quit the trolling

tp25

loyatemu wrote: »

no - I was in a 3-bed terraced. the bank would have been aware it was block-insurance when they issued the mortgage, as to whether they get a copy of the policy each year, I don't know. Does the management agency have a list of mortgages?

The only way to get rid of the fees is to get the council to take the entire estate in charge, but you'd still need mgmt companies for the apartments and duplexes, and it would probably be legally complex disentangling the whole structure.

Where I am now we pay €30 a year for someone to cut the grass (the council only does it once or twice a year) but I have to pay building insurance as well so I'm not that much better off than in Charlesland. Personally, with the local property charge coming in, I think the council should be obliged to take new estates in charge if the residents request it. The concept of putting management companies into housing estates came about because local authorities didn't want the extra drain on their resources with no additional income - LPT should redress that.

I'm aware that I quoted this post for the second time, however very important indirect suggestion has been made in the post.

Since the mortgaging banks are pushing for the mandatory house insurance (fire & rebuild), most mortgagees were left with no choice and have purchased such policies.

If the building insurance is in fact present in the overall policy signed by Management companies, then I suggest the copies of such policies should be handed to each respectful owners (landlords) of the properties involved in such policy.

This will allow landlords to provide the copies of such doc's to their present insurance companies and request the refunds.
If the refunds are not possible, owners could at least cancel the current house insurance polices (I wonder how the contents insurance would be affected as surely the general policy wouldn't cover that part)

Going forward the monies put towards building insurances could be used to
repay the management fees (since the mandatory insurances are included in the general policy as Loyatemu suggests).

Can anyone confirm that this is in fact the case?

matt-dublin

tp25 wrote: »

I'm aware that I quoted this post for the second time, however very important indirect suggestion has been made in the post.

Since the mortgaging banks are pushing for the mandatory house insurance (fire & rebuild), most mortgagees were left with no choice and have purchased such policies.

If the building insurance is in fact present in the overall policy signed by Management companies, then I suggest the copies of such policies should be handed to each respectful owners (landlords) of the properties involved in such policy.

This will allow landlords to provide the copies of such doc's to their present insurance companies and request the refunds.
If the refunds are not possible, owners could at least cancel the current house insurance polices (I wonder how the contents insurance would be affected as surely the general policy wouldn't cover that part)

Going forward the monies put towards building insurances could be used to
repay the management fees (since the mandatory insurances are included in the general policy as Loyatemu suggests).

Can anyone confirm that this is in fact the case?

Hi,

On apartments the mortgaging bank would need to request the block policies from the management agent via the tenants. Banks know that a separate policy is not required and shouldn't press for one as its only a sales tactic. This insurance really only covers building damage, leaks etc.

But if your apartment was broken into and the door smashed I don't think this would be covered by policy. Contents also definitely require a separate policy.

The block policy is generally to cover common area issues and public liability. I think also it would cover a leak from one unit to another.

Stall The Ball 101

matt-dublin wrote: »

Hi,

On apartments the mortgaging bank would need to request the block policies from the management agent via the tenants. Banks know that a separate policy is not required and shouldn't press for one as its only a sales tactic. This insurance really only covers building damage, leaks etc.

But if your apartment was broken into and the door smashed I don't think this would be covered by policy. Contents also definitely require a separate policy.

The block policy is generally to cover common area issues and public liability. I think also it would cover a leak from one unit to another.

Ok thats on an apartment but does a house need insurance or is that covered by block insurance as well ?

JanneG

Stall The Ball 101 wrote: »

Ok thats on an apartment but does a house need insurance or is that covered by block insurance as well ?

The Wood houses need individual insurances as these are not timber framed. AFAIK all the other (started after the Wood) went for timber frames (faster to build?) and therefore need the block insurances. This is based on what I have heard since we moved in in '04...

Stall The Ball 101

JanneG wrote: »

The Wood houses need individual insurances as these are not timber framed. AFAIK all the other (started after the Wood) went for timber frames (faster to build?) and therefore need the block insurances. This is based on what I have heard since we moved in in '04...

Thanks Janne G ... looks like the woods house owners get hit with everything:(

tp25

matt-dublin wrote: »

Hi,

On apartments the mortgaging bank would need to request the block policies from the management agent via the tenants. Banks know that a separate policy is not required and shouldn't press for one as its only a sales tactic. This insurance really only covers building damage, leaks etc.

But if your apartment was broken into and the door smashed I don't think this would be covered by policy. Contents also definitely require a separate policy.

The block policy is generally to cover common area issues and public liability. I think also it would cover a leak from one unit to another.

does it cover rebuild in case of fire or severe flood? Public liability is a completely separate cover to the structural rebuild.

matt-dublin

tp25 wrote: »

does it cover rebuild in case of fire or severe flood? Public liability is a completely separate cover to the structural rebuild.

Yeah it covers rebuild

tp25

matt-dublin wrote: »

Yeah it covers rebuild

I recall mentioned that these are sent to mortgaging units, does it mean that management agency has details of each mortgage or there is one mortgage on these units and individual leases to owners?

Interesting if each owner knows about it.

matt-dublin

tp25 wrote: »

I recall mentioned that these are sent to mortgaging units, does it mean that management agency has details of each mortgage or there is one mortgage on these units and individual leases to owners?

Interesting if each owner knows about it.

I think each mortgaging bank contacts the owners/agents for a copy of the policy.

The agents don't have details on the mortgages.

But in terms of the leasehold, basically each owner has a 99 year lease on their apartment and the owner is the management company from what I understand from my own contracts.

Basically apartment owners have an indefinite lease on their unit from the management company.

tp25

Still seems that there may be owners of other parts of CL (the houses build with timber frame), those may still pay for duplicated insurance policies. If this is true, perhaps the management companies involved in these parts of CL could print cheaply on the copier paper some information and distribute to owners to make them aware and cancel own building insurance policies.

This will free up some monies towards management fees (if owners decide to pay it from saved monies).

matt-dublin

tp25 wrote: »

Still seems that there may be owners of other parts of CL (the houses build with timber frame), those may still pay for duplicated insurance policies. If this is true, perhaps the management companies involved in these parts of CL could print cheaply on the copier paper some information and distribute to owners to make them aware and cancel own building insurance policies.

This will free up some monies towards management fees (if owners decide to pay it from saved monies).

Yeah, possibly. It would be up to the board of directors to push that with each respective estate.

tp25

matt-dublin wrote: »

Yeah, possibly. It would be up to the board of directors to push that with each respective estate.

Are the boards of directors of each respective estates in contact with each other?

matt-dublin

via the overall committee to an extent, but not as much as they used to be.