Claiming off apartment management company.

Brego888

I had my bicycle stolen today from my "secure" apartment carpark.
I don't have any contents insurance as a tenant here.
Do the management company have any responsibility to keep my bicycle safe in a looked carpark and therefore can i claim off them?
They sent a letter around last year stating that no bicycles should be stored in apartments and that we should use the carpark.
The carpark has no cctv and my bicycle was double locked.

Sickened.

djimi

Unless you can somehow prove that negligence on their part led to the theft I dont think you are going to be able to claim from them Im afraid.

whomitconcerns

you don't have contents insurance in the apartment you rent? I pay 8€ a month and they pay'd out when my bike was robbed from an outside "secure" bike shed.

I am a renting tenant also.

Paulw

Brego888 wrote: »

Do the management company have any responsibility to keep my bicycle safe in a looked carpark and therefore can i claim off them?

Highly unlikely that they would be liable. Even then, the excess on a block insurance policy is very high (can be anything from €1,000 up to €10,000), per claim.

You should have your own insurance.

djimi

whomitconcerns wrote: »

you don't have contents insurance in the apartment you rent? I pay 8€ a month and they pay'd out when my bike was robbed from an outside "secure" bike shed.

Exactly. Contents insurances costs next to nothing; in my case it costs a fraction of the cost of replacing any one of a large number of items that it covers.

ted1

Brego888 wrote: »

I had my bicycle stolen today from my "secure" apartment carpark.

And the Titanic was unsinkable.

what type of lock did you have? what was it secured to?

Brego888

Yeah I know I should have my own insurance and hindsight is great, it just has never been a priority for me. Clearly it is worth investing in.

Would the landlord have contents insurance? Any point going down the route?
Otherwise I'll be splashing out for a new bike which was pretty expensive. Something I can't really afford right now.

Brego888

ted1 wrote: »

And the Titanic was unsinkable.

what type of lock did you have? what was it secured to?

I had a decent u lock and a secondary chain lock also. Both locked it to a bicycle rack.
Looks like they used bolt cutters to go through them as both locks were left lying there.

whomitconcerns

as regards LL, nope he would only have buildings. Contents is on you.

and yes i sympathise..bikes are gone damn expensive.....but i think your on your own unfortunately...

get some contents insurance asap..

Ray Palmer

I really wonder why people think they can make these claims.

djimi

Brego888 wrote: »

Would the landlord have contents insurance? Any point going down the route?
Otherwise I'll be splashing out for a new bike which was pretty expensive. Something I can't really afford right now.

No, only you can insure your property; landlord cannot hold an insurance policy on items which they do not own.

djimi

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I really wonder why people think they can make these claims.

Not everyone is an expert in how everything works, and there is no harm in asking the question; thats what this forum is here for after all.

Brego888

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I really wonder why people think they can make these claims.

It's hardly any harm asking the question mate. If I leave my bike unlocked and out in the open then I've no complaint. But when management company ask you to lock and store it in their pin only access car park it's slightly unpalatable to be coughing up for a new one.

djimi

Brego888 wrote: »

It's hardly any harm asking the question mate. If I leave my bike unlocked and out in the open then I've no complaint. But when management company ask you to lock and store it in their pin only access car park it's slightly unpalatable to be coughing up for a new one.

I actually agree with you on this, and if Im being perfectly honest I would have kicked up a fuss if I was asked to keep by bike outdoors. Its not worth a fortune but its worth more than I can afford to replace, and bike security is weak at best. I prefer to keep my bike where I know its safe, and I wouldnt appreciate being told that I couldnt keep it in my own property.

Santa Cruz

You probably will find that there is some clause somewhere that says property is left at owners risk otherwise management companies would be open for every claim about stuff being taken from cars, dents in cars etc.

Brego888

Santa Cruz wrote: »

You probably will find that there is some clause somewhere that says property is left at owners risk otherwise management companies would be open for every claim about stuff being taken from cars, dents in cars etc.

Yeah fair point.
I suppose I already know I'm gonna have too look after this myself.
I am going too be writing to the management company though let them know I think it's unacceptable they've no cctv and should I get another bike I'll be keeping it in my apartment despite what they say about bikes being taken inside. The mess in the communal area of bikes being wheeled in isn't my concern anymore if they can't keep them safe in the underground car park.

And id I'll like to point out I'm not expecting something for nothing here and despise the claim culture that exists in Ireland. I suppose I'm just pissed off that this has happened and want to know what I'm up against in relation to having any comeback.

athtrasna

Brego888 wrote: »

Yeah fair point.
I suppose I already know I'm gonna have too look after this myself.
I am going too be writing to the management company though let them know I think it's unacceptable they've no cctv and should I get another bike I'll be keeping it in my apartment despite what they say about bikes being taken inside. The mess in the communal area of bikes being wheeled in isn't my concern anymore if they can't keep them safe in the underground car park.

And id I'll like to point out I'm not expecting something for nothing here and despise the claim culture that exists in Ireland. I suppose I'm just pissed off that this has happened and want to know what I'm up against in relation to having any comeback.

As a tenant you have no right to communicate with the management company. If you have a complaint you should take it through your landlord who is a member of the management company.

CCTV is horrendously expensive, as a tenant you are not party to management company accounts or financial information so you have no idea why there isn't CCTV in the development.

Finally, development rules are rules, you have no right to breach them. If you do and there are sanctions you are liable.

You have my sympathies as a victim of theft but really should insure your property. It's an expensive lesson to learn.

djimi

athtrasna wrote: »

As a tenant you have no right to communicate with the management company.

I hate owner occupiers who have this attitude. Horrible elitest bull****. Thankfully we have several neighbours on the management company who are more than happy to talk to us when it comes to issues in the complex. Shame not everyone feels the same.

Marcusm

athtrasna wrote: »

As a tenant you have no right to communicate with the management company. If you have a complaint you should take it through your landlord who is a member of the management company.

CCTV is horrendously expensive, as a tenant you are not party to management company accounts or financial information so you have no idea why there isn't CCTV in the development.

Finally, development rules are rules, you have no right to breach them. If you do and there are sanctions you are liable.

You have my sympathies as a victim of theft but really should insure your property. It's an expensive lesson to learn.

I think you're wrong here; it is entirely correct that a subtenant cannot vote at AGMs etc but to the extent that a management company (acting through the managing agent) expects a subtenant to accept and accord with house rules, they have a legitimate expectation of communicating with the managing agent to a similar extent as an owner occupier.

With respect to liability, I would imagine that the managing agent would have a similar liability to subtenants in occupation as they would have for owner occupiers. That may be a very limited liability.

Paulw

djimi wrote: »

I hate owner occupiers who have this attitude. Horrible elitest bull****.

No, it's just a legal situation. Nothing about an attitude nor elitest. There is no legal contract between management company and the tenant. There is a legal contract between tenant and landlord, and a contract between unit owner and management company.

So, the legal situation is that the management company have no obligation towards the tenant, and the tenant has no right of address towards the management company.

Paulw

Marcusm wrote: »

I think you're wrong here; it is entirely correct that a subtenant cannot vote at AGMs etc but to the extent that a management company (acting through the managing agent) expects a subtenant to accept and accord with house rules, they have a legitimate expectation of communicating with the managing agent to a similar extent as an owner occupier.

Incorrect.

The house rules are legally binding clauses in contract between the management company and the unit owner. If the unit owner then lets out the place, it is a requirement of that owner/landlord to make sure that the tenant has the same clauses in their rental contract. There is a legal obligation on the unit owner to enforce these clauses on their tenant.

While the tenant may expect communication, there is no legal obligation on the management company to communicate directly with the tenant, but it is the obligation of the landlord to communicate to their tenant.

djimi

Paulw wrote: »

No, it's just a legal situation. Nothing about an attitude nor elitest. There is no legal contract between management company and the tenant. There is a legal contract between tenant and landlord, and a contract between unit owner and management company.

So, the legal situation is that the management company have no obligation towards the tenant, and the tenant has no right of address towards the management company.

I just hate this "us vs them" attitude that too many owners seem to have when it comes to tenants. Yes the tenant has no right to attent management company meetings etc, but the bottom line is that the management company is made up of neighbours, and as such Id like to think that if any resident in the complex has an issue their neighbours would at least have the common decency to hear what it is. Im not saying that they have to entertain them or act on it, but to say that one neighbour does have the right to communicate with another neighbour is plain cold as far as Im concerned, and shows what is wrong with the attitude of a lot of managed complexes.

Marcusm

Paulw wrote: »

Incorrect.

The house rules are legally binding clauses in contract between the management company and the unit owner. If the unit owner then lets out the place, it is a requirement of that owner/landlord to make sure that the tenant has the same clauses in their rental contract. There is a legal obligation on the unit owner to enforce these clauses on their tenant.

While the tenant may expect communication, there is no legal obligation on the management company to communicate directly with the tenant, but it is the obligation of the landlord to communicate to their tenant.

You're construing this too narrowly. Not only may the sublease involve a devloution of rights as against the mangment company and an assumption of responsbilities byt he subtenant, such matters as the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 mean that a management company/managing agent who failed to communicate with a subtenant (known to be in occupation) would expose themselves to potential liabilities in the event of a problem.

Further the MUD Act makes the house rules binding on subtenants, requires the management companies to provide copies not only to the owners but to the unit itself and permits the management company to recover costs of remediating damage arising from breach of the house rules from subtenants. In such circumstances, I doubt that anyone seriously considers that the mangement companies should not enter into communications with sub tenants.

It seems to be a feature of many Irish apartment houses that a them v us culture develops; much of which may be attributable to non resident owners failing to pay service charges or to subtenants failing to observe rules. Neither of these issues would be assisted by managing agents failing to communicate with or listen to communications from sub tenants.

Paulw

djimi wrote: »

I just hate this "us vs them" attitude that too many owners seem to have when it comes to tenants. Yes the tenant has no right to attent management company meetings etc, but the bottom line is that the management company is made up of neighbours, and as such Id like to think that if any resident in the complex has an issue their neighbours would at least have the common decency to hear what it is. Im not saying that they have to entertain them or act on it, but to say that one neighbour does have the right to communicate with another neighbour is plain cold as far as Im concerned, and shows what is wrong with the attitude of a lot of managed complexes.

Any neighbour can talk, and should talk, to their neighbours. But, there is no relationship between tenant and management company. Any complaints or issues should be addressed to their landlord, and from landlord/unit owner to management company.

I am a unit owner, live in, and a director of our management company. I have 6 neighbour units adjacent to my unit. Three rented out and 3 with owners in residence. I speak to them all, and have good relationships with them. When someone new moves in, I like to say hello, welcome them and let them know that if they have any issues they can come and talk to me. I do not tell people that I am a director of the management company, but any unit owner has the information of who the directors are.

The management company is a legal entity with legal responsibilities towards it's members, and these members are the unit owners. The tenants are not part of that legal contract. That's just how it is.

djimi

Paulw wrote: »

Any neighbour can talk, and should talk, to their neighbours. But, there is no relationship between tenant and management company. Any complaints or issues should be addressed to their landlord, and from landlord/unit owner to management company.

I am a unit owner, live in, and a director of our management company. I have 6 neighbour units adjacent to my unit. Three rented out and 3 with owners in residence. I speak to them all, and have good relationships with them. When someone new moves in, I like to say hello, welcome them and let them know that if they have any issues they can come and talk to me. I do not tell people that I am a director of the management company, but any unit owner has the information of who the directors are.

The management company is a legal entity with legal responsibilities towards it's members, and these members are the unit owners. The tenants are not part of that legal contract. That's just how it is.

Thats pretty much all that I ask. Im not expecting a seat at the management company table, but in this instance in the case of the OP wouldnt it be nice if instead of having to jump through hoops or facing a wall of blank hostility that they could knock on their neighbours door and have a chat about the problem that they are having, and if nothing else be told face to face that there is nothing that can be done and no legal obligation on the part of the managment company to replace the bike or whatever? Its not a lot to ask and would go a long way towards a pleasant living environment.

Lantus

A management companies block insurance covers the buildings against fire, storm and other damage etc. It doesn't cover any contents with the exception of items in the common areas which are the companies property and an owners internal items IN the apartments which form part of the original build (like a fitted kitchen for example) and are damaged because of another risk like flood and the claim is for consequential loss.

As others have said the excess is often in the €1500-€4000 range and a claim can easily result in the annual premium going up by thousands if not tens of thousands because of it. The insurance premium can be anywhere from 5 to 40k so not something to be taken lightly.

The OMC is not liable for any loss like a bike. Contents insurance is quite cheap for tenants.

athtrasna

djimi wrote: »

I just hate this "us vs them" attitude that too many owners seem to have when it comes to tenants. Yes the tenant has no right to attent management company meetings etc, but the bottom line is that the management company is made up of neighbours, and as such Id like to think that if any resident in the complex has an issue their neighbours would at least have the common decency to hear what it is. Im not saying that they have to entertain them or act on it, but to say that one neighbour does have the right to communicate with another neighbour is plain cold as far as Im concerned, and shows what is wrong with the attitude of a lot of managed complexes.

Like PaulW I am an owner occupier and director of our management company. I also know my neighbours and take feedback from residents, owners and tenants alike, all as a volunteer! However, the OP is talking about financial issues, insurance, and management company policies. These are the business of the management company and it's members ie the owners. If tenants want information or influence it has to be through their landlord.

I never said that one neighbour doesn't have a right to communicate with another, I said they don't have a right to deal with the management company, I didn't mention management agent - though many agents won't deal with tenants as their relationship is with the owners not the tenants.

Ray Palmer

Brego888 wrote: »

It's hardly any harm asking the question mate. If I leave my bike unlocked and out in the open then I've no complaint. But when management company ask you to lock and store it in their pin only access car park it's slightly unpalatable to be coughing up for a new one.

No harm in asking but it just surprises me that people don't know the basics. I remember this being taught this in school. The world is full of signs telling people they park at their own risk, just strange this doesn't register.

No you can't make a claim no need to discuss it any more.

djimi

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No harm in asking but it just surprises me that people don't know the basics. I remember this being taught this in school. The world is full of signs telling people they park at their own risk, just strange this doesn't register.

No you can't make a claim no need to discuss it any more.

The world is also full of signs that try to give off the illusion that clamping is legal but thats not exactly the case. A sign does not equate to legality.

Im not sure what school you went to that though you the "basics" about management company block insurance, but its not something that most people learned! Like I said, no harm in asking the question.

Brego888

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No harm in asking but it just surprises me that people don't know the basics. I remember this being taught this in school. The world is full of signs telling people they park at their own risk, just strange this doesn't register.

No you can't make a claim no need to discuss it any more.

Nice school you went to.
And i'm glad you get to be the one who is allowed to definitively decide that the discussion is over.

Brego888

And thanks to everyone who took the time to reply.
Good to know some more about this as its the first time I've lived in an apartment complex.
Have been saving hard for a mortgage deposit recently so can now add more info to the pros and cons of apartment living!