Management company threatens to clamp car

No Pants

Paulw wrote: »

It's only "nonsense" if you don't pay your debts, such as your management fee. Those who pay don't have these hassles. :rolleyes:

Nonsense was probably the wrong word to use there. A better and more careful statement from me would have said "I'm glad I don't have them" or something like that. I'm well aware of bills and the need to pay them. Trust me, my house generates plenty, but there's also plenty that I can do myself, such as gardening, cleaning, painting etc. which is not possible for an apartment owner.

anncoates

I'm a director of a management company that voted in clamping only as a compete last resort to recover persistent arrears. And I mean seriously last resort. Nobody likes it, including us.

For our agent (employed by us) to be so intransigent on a payback deal, there would have to be pretty large arrears (as in a history of not paying) and that the owner had offered a tiny amount in payment (as in not even covering the current years fees).

anncoates

No Pants wrote: »

The OP doesn't seem to know what his fees are even being used for, so I doubt that clearing his arrears are a top priority. Still, he has a couple of alternatives.

Fees are not used for clamping, apart from maybe the signs. They clampers make money from clamping. Not nice but that's what they're supposed to do unfortunately.

Personally speaking, nearly all the people revoked permits are serial defaulters not people that have always paid and when they hit reduced circumstances, immediately organize a payment scheme until they get on their feet.

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

He says he needs it for work, however I agree. Especially if one of the directors drivers a worser car than the op.

I know you're joking but the some of the top debtors (as in the 1000s) in our development have really nice cars: far nicer than mugs like me.

tinkerbell

Naux wrote: »

OP - Who runs your management company?? Run by residents committee or run by third party property management company?

If it's run by a third party management company then you can be sure that they are charging a hefty fee each year to do so. Why don't you see if you can become involved in the resident committee(I assume that there is one) and give some of your free time(no financial cost to you) to help run the place?? Maybe ye the residents could take over the running of the place altogether and therefore reduce the fees for everyone? No idea of size or scope of your complex but maybe this would be feasible?

Have you actually ever been a director of a management company? I suspect you haven't because you are confusing a residents committee with running a management company. A residents committee is completely different to being a director - it's just a small group of residents to organise small things for the estate such as acting as a sound board if the Management Company wants input into X, Y, Z, or organising fun days for the estate, but in no way do they have any control over the estate, eg a residents committee might form if the builder is still the only director on the Board for the Management Company.

Your suggestion of getting rid of a Management Agent and for residents to take over the running of the Management Company is not feasible UNLESS the estate is VERY small. Running a medium / large estate is a full time job! And even at that, the OP would need to become a director of the Management Company in order to run it and there are probably directors there already who have decided to hire an Agent. And the OP may have a hard time finding other property owners who are willing to give up significant amounts of their free time to manage the estate without getting compensation for doing so. Being a director is a thankless job. Those that pay fees are categorised as those who appreciate the work the directors do on their own dime and then the majority who don't have a clue what a director is and couldn't give a crap. And then those who don't pay fees are a pain in the ass to deal with because you spend a ton of time chasing them for fees owed.

The OP said he is working so presumably wouldn't have the time to commit to such a role. it's not about committing a few hours a week / month. You have to liaise with all property owners, chase people for non payment of fees, organise contractors to carry out work on estate, manage accounts, sign cheques, sort out insurance, get legal advice, the list goes on. That's why most Management Companies hire a Management Agent to do the day to day stuff. If it's a medium / large estate, the management fees wouldn't involve a significant reduction to their fees anyway because overall it'd be a small proportion of costs. And even at that, you can't decide to appoint 20 or 30 directors to the Management Company in order to run it yourselves because that would be a logistical nightmare to deal with.

tinkerbell

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

He says he needs it for work, however I agree. Especially if one of the directors drivers a worser car than the op.

LOL!!!! I assume you're joking because what car a director of the OP's Management Company drives is completely irrelevant to the OP. If another property owner in the estate is a director of the Management Company, they are there in a voluntary capacity- they are not paid for being a director, they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart in order to create a nicer estate for everyone. Being a director is a thankless job!

OP, clearly you are not contributing enough in order to cover current fees and your arrears. So your only options are either pay more or else park elsewhere because you have no right to park there if you aren't paying a sensible amount each month. You say you agreed to pay 150 per month in October to cover the clamping costs - can you not continue to pay that? What are you paying now? What is the amount that you owe?

sparksfly wrote: »

In our complex we had issues with some people in short term arrears due to job losses etc, but engaged in an agreed payment schedule, this is fine.

We also had some not paying at all with very aggressive attitudes as well..

We ( the management co in agreement with the residents/landlords) put swipe cards on the entrance doors to the blocks, the lifts, the waste bin shed and the entrance gate and we excluded the latter group from getting a card.

It was such fun watching them locked out of these areas.

Those in arrears now have a monthly card which is deactivated once the agreed payment is missed.

Everyone is now paying maintenance fees.

This is genius! I'd imagine it'd be very costly however so it wouldn't work on a lot of estates But it's a sure way of getting people to pay up.

Turkish1

tinkerbell wrote: »

LOL!!!! I assume you're joking because what car a director of the OP's Management Company drives is completely irrelevant to the OP. If another property owner in the estate is a director of the Management Company, they are there in a voluntary capacity- they are not paid for being a director, they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart in order to create a nicer estate for everyone. Being a director is a thankless job!

OP, clearly you are not contributing enough in order to cover current fees and your arrears. So your only options are either pay more or else park elsewhere because you have no right to park there if you aren't paying a sensible amount each month. You say you agreed to pay 150 per month in October to cover the clamping costs - can you not continue to pay that? What are you paying now? What is the amount that you owe?



This is genius! I'd imagine it'd be very costly however so it wouldn't work on a lot of estates But it's a sure way of getting people to pay up.

It would be only fantastic if people acutally read his posts before commenting. He has stated that on the current payment schedule (€150pm) that his management fees and arrears would be cleared inside of a year.

So for a management company to agree to a payment schedule, which will clear his fees and arrears inside 12 months, only to then change the goalposts with the threat of clamping his car is ridiculous.

If he was un-responsive, or not paying enough to cover his fees then I could understand their actions but in this particular case (assuming all the OP's details are correct) it is very silly behaviour from the man co.

Michael D Not Higgins

Turkish1 wrote: »

It would be only fantastic if people acutally read his posts before commenting. He has stated that on the current payment schedule (€150pm) that his management fees and arrears would be cleared inside of a year.

So for a management company to agree to a payment schedule, which will clear his fees and arrears inside 12 months, only to then change the goalposts with the threat of clamping his car is ridiculous.

If he was un-responsive, or not paying enough to cover his fees then I could understand their actions but in this particular case (assuming all the OP's details are correct) it is very silly behaviour from the man co.

I thought the 150 was to clear the cost of the clamp?

Naux

tinkerbell wrote: »

Have you actually ever been a director of a management company? I suspect you haven't because you are confusing a residents committee with running a management company. A residents committee is completely different to being a director - it's just a small group of residents to organise small things for the estate such as acting as a sound board if the Management Company wants input into X, Y, Z, or organising fun days for the estate, but in no way do they have any control over the estate, eg a residents committee might form if the builder is still the only director on the Board for the Management Company.

Yes I have. If you read my comment I said I did not know the size of the OPs development as to whether it would be feasible or not. If the residents have any sense(financial & other) they will act as more than a "sound board" for the management company.

tinkerbell wrote: »

Your suggestion of getting rid of a Management Agent and for residents to take over the running of the Management Company is not feasible UNLESS the estate is VERY small. Running a medium / large estate is a full time job! And even at that, the OP would need to become a director of the Management Company in order to run it and there are probably directors there already who have decided to hire an Agent. And the OP may have a hard time finding other property owners who are willing to give up significant amounts of their free time to manage the estate without getting compensation for doing so. Being a director is a thankless job. Those that pay fees are categorised as those who appreciate the work the directors do on their own dime and then the majority who don't have a clue what a director is and couldn't give a crap. And then those who don't pay fees are a pain in the ass to deal with because you spend a ton of time chasing them for fees owed.

Agree with most of this, being a director is a thankless job, as you say a lot of time given to the job with no pay.

tinkerbell wrote: »

The OP said he is working so presumably wouldn't have the time to commit to such a role. it's not about committing a few hours a week / month. You have to liaise with all property owners, chase people for non payment of fees, organise contractors to carry out work on estate, manage accounts, sign cheques, sort out insurance, get legal advice, the list goes on. That's why most Management Companies hire a Management Agent to do the day to day stuff. If it's a medium / large estate, the management fees wouldn't involve a significant reduction to their fees anyway because overall it'd be a small proportion of costs. And even at that, you can't decide to appoint 20 or 30 directors to the Management Company in order to run it yourselves because that would be a logistical nightmare to deal with.

You can appoint as many directors as you like. I'd be surprised if you had 20 to 30 volunteers:). In any case how is this relevant to my earlier comment?

With regard to the duties, insurances, employ contractors,cheque signing etc etc yes they are duties that need to be carried out. In my experience managing agents make a big deal of how difficult it is to manage a development because obviously they need business. It is perfectly feasible for residents committees (provided they have some committed people) to manage small developments.

Turkish1

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I thought the 150 was to clear the cost of the clamp?

duke916 wrote: »

Looking round the the development, one wpuld think that the money would be spent,on general upkeep, maintenance of communal areas, electricity, repairs,etc....im not that stupid to think that a complex runs on fresh air however,,im not thousands in arears here. The amount would br cleared in less than one year with the current arrangement. But my argument is that all of a sudden they've decided to just change their mind and ask for more which as said, i cannot afford. Regardless of what car i drive or whether it is or isnt better than what any of the directors have is laughable. Fact is, i understand money is needed, communication has been made and an agreement was put in place, suddenly to be told otherwise.

See above post (hopefully I have used the multiquote properly)

Naux

anncoates wrote: »

Fees are not used for clamping, apart from maybe the signs. They clampers make money from clamping. Not nice but that's what they're supposed to do unfortunately.

Personally speaking, nearly all the people revoked permits are serial defaulters not people that have always paid and when they hit reduced circumstances, immediately organize a payment scheme until they get on their feet.



I know you're joking but the some of the top debtors (as in the 1000s) in our development have really nice cars: far nicer than mugs like me.

OP says that the clamping fee was 265 euro per day!!! Surely the management company are taking some of that?

Agree it would be highly unusual for a management company to be as draconian as described by the OP unless there was some historical issue.

Michael D Not Higgins

Turkish1 wrote: »

See above post (hopefully I have used the multiquote properly)

I think we need the OP to clarify whether this is correct, i.e. is €150/month what he is currently paying and does this clear the arrears.

What reason they provided to increase this amount may also be important. If provided for in the lease, the management company can charge interest on unpaid fees. This is just one idea where the amount could increase from teh initial agreement.

athtrasna

Naux wrote: »

OP - Who runs your management company?? Run by residents committee or run by third party property management company?

If it's run by a third party management company then you can be sure that they are charging a hefty fee each year to do so. Why don't you see if you can become involved in the resident committee(I assume that there is one) and give some of your free time(no financial cost to you) to help run the place?? Maybe ye the residents could take over the running of the place altogether and therefore reduce the fees for everyone? No idea of size or scope of your complex but maybe this would be feasible?

The management company is the legal entity comprised of OWNERS not residents. There is a huge distinction. The management company will often/usually employ a management agent to administer the day to day running of the development.

Non resident owners are entitled to be directors of the management company if they so wish. A non fee compliant member should not be permitted to vote at an AGM or stand as a director, so the OP can't get involved even if they had the time.

As for the management company self-running the development..it has huge implications..registration as an employer, PRSI/PAYE/USC payment obligations, management of contractors etc...in our development we pay the agent approximately 10% of our annual budget for their services. It's money well spent, and less than we pay on landscaping!

Lantus

It seems that the OP was just possibly ignoring payment requests hoping they would go away (we only have their word as to how many letters were issued or what they said) and it took the clamping to get them to notice. However they do seem to of made a good effort in terms of making payment and that should go a long way in my book.

Make sure you speak to the directors regarding the situation and explain that you are doing your level best to make payment. Stick to the facts. You will make x payments on y dates for z period until you have paid in full.

Don't bother with a long story about how poor you are. The directors need to understand the facts not get to know you better.

At the end of the day they need to pay for insurance and other critical services like electricity, fire alarms etc. Insurers, ESB and other service providers don't just knock zeros of the bill for any reason or because the company's members don't pay. Its not their problem.

Totally understandable re financial constraints but if your block had no insurance and no fire alarms the local authority could force an evacuation. Your mortgage provider wont be too happy and you would lose your home and go into sheltered accommodation or similar. You would still be liable for your mortgage until the problems were addressed.

Now imagine you have paid every year and you are being forced to leave because other people didn't pay. Now THAT is unfair! in that sense you need the company to be able to act pro actively to prevent that. without enforcement no one would pay even they knew it would hurt them people have the opinion of 'sure its only me!' every one else will pay. Until everyone else doesn't pay and then they all knock on the directors door looking to blame them.

Its not a perfect system as it relies on personal responsibility from each member. In Ireland more than any other EU country there appears to be a stark lack of such a quality with a culture of blame and absolved responsibility being largely prevalent.

username123

Remove the clamps without damaging them. Until Leo Varadkars Bill comes into law next year it is just as legal for you to remove a clamp as it is for them to attach one.

Re arrears on management fees. Have you engaged with MABS? Our mgt company accepts payment plans for people in arrears when they have engaged with MABS.

Ultimately you need to meet your financial responsibilities and it is wrong of you to expect everyone else to give you leeway when your lack of payment costs others money.

However, IMO, private clamping is currently unregulated and amounts to extortion so I would absolutely not pay a private clamper a penny and would remove any object attached to my car myself.

Naux

athtrasna wrote: »

The management company is the legal entity comprised of OWNERS not residents. There is a huge distinction. The management company will often/usually employ a management agent to administer the day to day running of the development.

Non resident owners are entitled to be directors of the management company if they so wish. A non fee compliant member should not be permitted to vote at an AGM or stand as a director, so the OP can't get involved even if they had the time.!

You are correct of course, but let me be clear when I refer to residents in my comments I refer to resident OWNERS. In my experience very few RENTER residents are overly bothered with what happens to the management company/management co fees etc. The OP must be a resident OWNER if he is behind on his fees.

athtrasna wrote: »

As for the management company self-running the development..it has huge implications..registration as an employer, PRSI/PAYE/USC payment obligations, management of contractors etc...in our development we pay the agent approximately 10% of our annual budget for their services. It's money well spent, and less than we pay on landscaping!

Here we go again "huge implications" etc etc

If you pay 10% to the managing agent then it's obviously a big development and as such as I said previously my comments apply to smaller developments.

If you pay > 10% for landscaping then again I'm assuming it is a large development...........or else it's like the botanical gardens:D.

The OP did not say what size/type his development was.

tinkerbell

Turkish1 wrote: »

It would be only fantastic if people acutally read his posts before commenting. He has stated that on the current payment schedule (€150pm) that his management fees and arrears would be cleared inside of a year.

So for a management company to agree to a payment schedule, which will clear his fees and arrears inside 12 months, only to then change the goalposts with the threat of clamping his car is ridiculous.

If he was un-responsive, or not paying enough to cover his fees then I could understand their actions but in this particular case (assuming all the OP's details are correct) it is very silly behaviour from the man co.

I did read it - the OP implied that the 150 was only for a few months in order to clear the cost of the clamp, it doesn't sound like they are still paying that as IMO that amount monthly is probably significant enough if they aren't in huge arrears as they claim they are.

Naux wrote: »

Yes I have. If you read my comment I said I did not know the size of the OPs development as to whether it would be feasible or not. If the residents have any sense(financial & other) they will act as more than a "sound board" for the management company.

Agree with most of this, being a director is a thankless job, as you say a lot of time given to the job with no pay.

You can appoint as many directors as you like. I'd be surprised if you had 20 to 30 volunteers:). In any case how is this relevant to my earlier comment?

With regard to the duties, insurances, employ contractors,cheque signing etc etc yes they are duties that need to be carried out. In my experience managing agents make a big deal of how difficult it is to manage a development because obviously they need business. It is perfectly feasible for residents committees (provided they have some committed people) to manage small developments.

But a residents committee is just that - a committee, made up of residents. They have no control over the estate. They can try and lobby the directors of he management company but at the end of the day, they have no input into decision making. The norm is that there's a residents committee (made up of owners) while the builder still has control of the estate, because they want to influence the running of the Management Company. Once the builder signs the estate over, then property owners put themselves forward as directors of the Management Company and are voted in by all other property owners at the AGM so the estate is now being run by people who have an interest in that it runs well (because they own property there). Therefore, there's no need to have a residents committee any longer, unless it is to do little things like being a sounding board for minor things or organising fun things for the estate.

I mentioned 20-30 directors because of the suggestion that they fire the Management Agent and instead take on the running of the estate themselves. Unless they can find 5 (say) people to volunteer to take on the huge job pretty much full time, they'd need a hell of a lot more people to do so part time and that's just not feasible as you have too many people invovled then. If it's a medium / large estate then it is a huge job, unless it's small then it's just not feasible. But again even small developments have problems - you could have a large portion in arrears. Chasing arrears takes a lot of time and it's something that a lot of people wouldn't be comfortable with volunteering to do so - ie you volunteer as director, turns out your neighbour ain't paying fees and you yourself have to hound them for their arrears. It's much better to get an Agent to do that rather than you personally, IMO.

athtrasna wrote: »

The management company is the legal entity comprised of OWNERS not residents. There is a huge distinction. The management company will often/usually employ a management agent to administer the day to day running of the development.

Non resident owners are entitled to be directors of the management company if they so wish. A non fee compliant member should not be permitted to vote at an AGM or stand as a director, so the OP can't get involved even if they had the time.

As for the management company self-running the development..it has huge implications..registration as an employer, PRSI/PAYE/USC payment obligations, management of contractors etc...in our development we pay the agent approximately 10% of our annual budget for their services. It's money well spent, and less than we pay on landscaping!

Exactly - the OP has no voting rights anyway so it's not an option. Agree with everything you say here.

athtrasna

username123 wrote: »

Remove the clamps without damaging them. Until Leo Varadkars Bill comes into law next year it is just as legal for you to remove a clamp as it is for them to attach one.

Re arrears on management fees. Have you engaged with MABS? Our mgt company accepts payment plans for people in arrears when they have engaged with MABS.

Ultimately you need to meet your financial responsibilities and it is wrong of you to expect everyone else to give you leeway when your lack of payment costs others money.

However, IMO, private clamping is currently unregulated and amounts to extortion so I would absolutely not pay a private clamper a penny and would remove any object attached to my car myself.

Clamping in a managed development is different to clamping in say a shopping centre car park IMO. The owners in the development signed up to agree by development rules, and to pay their fees. If a rule has been brought in that non paying owners will be clamped, then as a member of the management company they have already agreed to that so there can be no accusation of extortion. It's completely different to private clamping on a street or shopping centre as the person being clamped there has no vested interest and has not given consent.

Naux

tinkerbell wrote: »

I did read it - the OP implied that the 150 was only for a few months in order to clear the cost of the clamp, it doesn't sound like they are still paying that as IMO that amount monthly is probably significant enough if they aren't in huge arrears as they claim they are.



But a residents committee is just that - a committee, made up of residents. They have no control over the estate. They can try and lobby the directors of he management company but at the end of the day, they have no input into decision making. The norm is that there's a residents committee (made up of owners) while the builder still has control of the estate, because they want to influence the running of the Management Company. Once the builder signs the estate over, then property owners put themselves forward as directors of the Management Company and are voted in by all other property owners at the AGM so the estate is now being run by people who have an interest in that it runs well (because they own property there). Therefore, there's no need to have a residents committee any longer, unless it is to do little things like being a sounding board for minor things or organising fun things for the estate.

I mentioned 20-30 directors because of the suggestion that they fire the Management Agent and instead take on the running of the estate themselves. Unless they can find 5 (say) people to volunteer to take on the huge job pretty much full time, they'd need a hell of a lot more people to do so part time and that's just not feasible as you have too many people invovled then. If it's a medium / large estate then it is a huge job, unless it's small then it's just not feasible. But again even small developments have problems - you could have a large portion in arrears. Chasing arrears takes a lot of time and it's something that a lot of people wouldn't be comfortable with volunteering to do so - ie you volunteer as director, turns out your neighbour ain't paying fees and you yourself have to hound them for their arrears. It's much better to get an Agent to do that rather than you personally, IMO.
.

So now you understand my posts .....right.:D

anncoates

Naux wrote: »

OP says that the clamping fee was 265 euro per day!!! Surely the management company are taking some of that?

Maybe they have some arrangement. Our dealings with the clamping company only extends as far as letting them into the development and it's just the usual fee to release the clamp.

anncoates

username123 wrote: »

Remove the clamps without damaging them. Until Leo Varadkars Bill comes into law next year it is just as legal for you to remove a clamp as it is for them to attach one.

Re arrears on management fees. Have you engaged with MABS? Our mgt company accepts payment plans for people in arrears when they have engaged with MABS.

Ultimately you need to meet your financial responsibilities and it is wrong of you to expect everyone else to give you leeway when your lack of payment costs others money.

However, IMO, private clamping is currently unregulated and amounts to extortion so I would absolutely not pay a private clamper a penny and would remove any object attached to my car myself.

In your infinite wisdom, can you suggest the magic way that this might happen without any punitive measures?

Funnily enough, most of the ones moaning about their "rights" on here would be the first ones losing the plot if they lived on a managed estate that looked like a shithole or was having services cut off because of unpaid service fees.

athtrasna

Naux wrote: »

You are correct of course, but let me be clear when I refer to residents in my comments I refer to resident OWNERS. In my experience very few RENTER residents are overly bothered with what happens to the management company/management co fees etc. The OP must be a resident OWNER if he is behind on his fees.

Yes but there are also non resident owners who are involved in the decision making as they are members of the management company. Resident renters have no say. We have had non resident directors of our management company and it gave us an interesting insight at budget meetings.

Naux wrote: »

Here we go again "huge implications" etc etc

If you pay 10% to the managing agent then it's obviously a big development and as such as I said previously my comments apply to smaller developments.

If you pay > 10% for landscaping then again I'm assuming it is a large development...........or else it's like the botanical gardens:D.

The OP did not say what size/type his development was.

Our development is a mixed development of 81 units, I wouldn't consider that to be big. We have a number of large common landscaped areas and some smallers ones. We spend that money as this is what ultimately keeps the development looking well and means that units sell/rent really fast so it is in the interests of the development not to skimp (which we did for a few years) on this cost.

Regardless of the size of development, the costs involved in being an employer and the time that it takes to administer it are significant.

Grandpa Hassan

username123 wrote: »

However, IMO, private clamping is currently unregulated and amounts to extortion so I would absolutely not pay a private clamper a penny and would remove any object attached to my car myself.

That is not true. The clampers will have been brought in by the management company. The residents have effectively hired them to provide a service and they will have been given specific instruction to clamp in version circumstances.

username123

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

That is not true. The clampers will have been brought in by the management company. The residents have effectively hired them to provide a service and they will have been given specific instruction to clamp in version circumstances.

Doesn't matter, still holds no legal weight on private land til Leo's legislation is in. It's just as legal for the OP to remove the clamp, without damaging it, as it is for them to clamp him.

A private clamping company hired to clamp on private land have no legal power to issue fines, the mgt company cannot pass on your address to a third party, incidentally the management company themselves have no legal basis under which they can issue fines, a private clamping company working on private land is not an authorised instrument of law like they would be if hired by the council to clamp on public roads under relevant traffic bye laws.

OP can remove clamps without damaging them and no further action can be taken by anyone. As the law currently stands.

See the Law Society Gazette March 2011 for a discussion on private clamping by a barrister. It pertains more to shopping centre carparks but it's still relevant.

Naux

username123 wrote: »

Doesn't matter, still holds no legal weight on private land til Leo's legislation is in. It's just as legal for the OP to remove the clamp, without damaging it, as it is for them to clamp him.

A private clamping company hired to clamp on private land have no legal power to issue fines, the mgt company cannot pass on your address to a third party, incidentally the management company themselves have no legal basis under which they can issue fines, a private clamping company working on private land is not an authorised instrument of law like they would be if hired by the council to clamp on public roads under relevant traffic bye laws.

OP can remove clamps without damaging them and no further action can be taken by anyone. As the law currently stands.

See the Law Society Gazette March 2011 for a discussion on private clamping by a barrister. It pertains more to shopping centre carparks but it's still relevant.

I get where you are coming from but I assume that the management company owns all of the parking spaces in this case/most cases of this type?

username123

Naux wrote: »

I get where you are coming from but I assume that the management company owns all of the parking spaces in this case/most cases of this type?

Doesn't matter. It's no different to me hiring a private clamping company to clamp your car in my driveway. Sure, it can be clamped, but you can remove the clamp without damaging it and I can't fine you and the clamping company can't fine you.

The clamping company charge a "release fee" for services rendered. If you can lawfully provide such services for yourself, there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Naux

athtrasna wrote: »

Yes but there are also non resident owners who are involved in the decision making as they are members of the management company. Resident renters have no say. We have had non resident directors of our management company and it gave us an interesting insight at budget meetings..

I'm now a non resident owner in my estate but I still go to all meetings as I like the place/residents and I am looking out for my interests as an owner as well.

athtrasna wrote: »

Our development is a mixed development of 81 units, I wouldn't consider that to be big. We have a number of large common landscaped areas and some smallers ones. We spend that money as this is what ultimately keeps the development looking well and means that units sell/rent really fast so it is in the interests of the development not to skimp (which we did for a few years) on this cost.

Regardless of the size of development, the costs involved in being an employer and the time that it takes to administer it are significant.

The development I refer to is 45-ish and is mixed so 81 sized development might be a bridge to far to run yourselves! Well maintained green areas really makes a difference in any development.

What sort of annual management company fee do you think is reasonable?

tinkerbell

Naux wrote: »

You are correct of course, but let me be clear when I refer to residents in my comments I refer to resident OWNERS. In my experience very few RENTER residents are overly bothered with what happens to the management company/management co fees etc. The OP must be a resident OWNER if he is behind on his fees.



Here we go again "huge implications" etc etc

If you pay 10% to the managing agent then it's obviously a big development and as such as I said previously my comments apply to smaller developments.

If you pay > 10% for landscaping then again I'm assuming it is a large development...........or else it's like the botanical gardens:D.

The OP did not say what size/type his development was.

What do resident renters have to do with it? They have zero dealings with the management company and they do not pay fees. They are irrelevant when it comes to the Management Company. The only people involved in the Management Company are property owners, and that's regardless of if they are resident in the estate or not.

Paying 10% to an agent does not mean it's a big development. If anything, paying less than that probably means it's a bigger development because there are so many costs overall that the cost of employing an agent to run the day to day works out as a much lower % overall since you are dealing with a huge budget. Remember, insurance on a large development will take up a pretty significant cost of the budget. Similarly, landscaping doesn't mean it's a huge development - landscaping is expensive, even for basic landscaping.

Naux

tinkerbell wrote: »

What do resident renters have to do with it? They have zero dealings with the management company and they do not pay fees. They are irrelevant when it comes to the Management Company. The only people involved in the Management Company are property owners, and that's regardless of if they are resident in the estate or not.

Paying 10% to an agent does not mean it's a big development. If anything, paying less than that probably means it's a bigger development because there are so many costs overall that the cost of employing an agent to run the day to day works out as a much lower % overall since you are dealing with a huge budget. Remember, insurance on a large development will take up a pretty significant cost of the budget. Similarly, landscaping doesn't mean it's a huge development - landscaping is expensive, even for basic landscaping.

Read comments fully before you reply .... you seem to be missing the points made/reading too much into the comments being made?

Anyway, no reply from the OP in a while so it's time to tune out for a spell...

tinkerbell

Naux wrote: »

Read comments fully before you reply .... you seem to be missing the points made/reading too much into the comments being made?

Anyway, no reply from the OP in a while so it's time to tune out for a spell...

I'm not missing any points and I didn't see your further replies until after I posted...
Agreed, best to wait til OP comes back to clarify.

chopper6

It is NOT illegal to remove a clamp.

Clampers have no authority to immobilise your vehicle.

If you remove the clamp they will NOT tke you to court for criminal damage as the law is unproven in this regard...it only takes one judge to find in favour of the person who's car was clamped for the whole money-making racket to come tumbling down.