Residents' Association contributions

by8auj6csd3ioq

"Well occasionally I take money from people when organising events or pooling for presents, but I don't think DP applies to me, I think there's more to it than that test." possibly not and not to be smart it may apply to you. Depends on if you keep records and what you mention seems more ad hoc and casual than an organised organisation that has no legal standing but takes money on a regular basis. They would have to have records about the money they pay the contractors or if they buy trees etc

lantus said above "Contact the dpc but I have asked the very same question several years ago and was told it was a breach" This refers to the post "Providing a list of every address in the estate & marking everyone that pays is not in breach of the regulations." so it seems RA's are in the remit of DP

I have no direct experience but have seen one demand money but not give any information as to how it was used and refused a request so the requester would not pay. More recently they demand money with no information about themselves escept a first name and mobile. Call xxxxx at 084 123456 to arrange payment. Then they are surprised when no one does.

They should really have a constitution as to their aims and show how money is spent

by8auj6csd3ioq

"This whole area with residents' associations seems to be an accident waiting to happen.
If Tom next door cuts the open green with his tractor lawnmower and he happens to cut a cable or a stone flies from the lawnmower and hits a kid playing closeby who covers the possible liability?"

I have seen claims that any member could be sued. There should be leglisation around it and they should be made to give all details of how the money is spent etc

bobbyss

sexmag wrote:

As the op maybe some people can't afford the extra expense.

sexmag wrote:

Op my advice is go out one day a month with your lawnmower if you have one and cut some grass in the estate, if not then do some weed cleaning and plant trimming and whatever else you can to keep the place nice and if anyone says anything again say you put your time in instead of your money

This is not as straightforward as you may think. Specifically 'plant trimming.'


Which plants need trimming?
Who decides that?
Do you go around to ALL residents to agree on this?
Do you ask only those who have paid? What about if one or two residents think plants should NOT be trimmed or trimmed just a bit or trimmed a lot?
It may be the case that residents have made a contribution to purchase plants and want a say. Do you cut away with out asking anyone? (No is the answer)

Used to live in estate and these issues surfaced with acrimony.

by8auj6csd3ioq

In the case i am familiar with i did some research and found one of the member of the RA involved in an illegal practice. Not very serious but it was illegal. And that person was the one who demanded money

Tigerandahalf

This is where the local property tax should come in. The councils should be made come back on board and take all responsibility for estates.

Lantus

So data protection is not just something that applies to businesses or companies.

An ra taking money has no dp issue unless the payees details are recorded. Once they keep a record of the transaction they are required by law to handle the data correctly.

Stubbs gazette publishes legal rulings which by law are public records.

So you cannot apply a very simple one rule catch all. The data and requirements are specific to each case and any processing undertaken.

judeboy101

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

This is where the local property tax should come in. The councils should be made come back on board and take all responsibility for estates.

They are taking over estates and cutting grass, etc but only a few times a year. If you don't want your greens looking like the African savannah you have to take care of it yourself. CC's do give a grant to RA's to help them but very few RA's are kosher e.g have agm's, audited accounts, constitutions etc.

Lantus

judeboy101 wrote:

They are taking over estates and cutting grass, etc but only a few times a year. If you don't want your greens looking like the African savannah you have to take care of it yourself. CC's do give a grant to RA's to help them but very few RA's are kosher e.g have agm's, audited accounts, constitutions etc.

There is a huge issue with both ra and omc structures which pushes huge responsibilities onto general home owners. It creates friction and issues in all but the most affluent areas.

The USA method is a better approach where any additional fees for estates form part of the mortgage and are legally bound into the banks responsibility to collect taking very stressful and difficult task away from ordinary people.

It's critically flawed to expect one neighbour to ask money from another. Your creating division and animosity by design.

by8auj6csd3ioq

.

This whole area with residents' associations seems to be an accident waiting to happen.
If Tom next door cuts the open green with his tractor lawnmower and he happens to cut a cable or a stone flies from the lawnmower and hits a kid playing closeby who covers the possible liability?

At least if a contractor with insurance was hired you are protecting yourself. But how would the residents' association pursue an action if they aren't a legal entity.

The one i know of hires a contractor, that is why they want the money

splinter65

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

This is where the local property tax should come in. The councils should be made come back on board and take all responsibility for estates.

Where we live I pay 2.70 per week and my mother pays around 4.50.
Lots of houses are rented, some from the LA so they don’t pay any.
How many times a year do you think the grass in our estate will be cut for that?

wirelessdude01

judeboy101 wrote:

Fair played to them, too many 181/182 cars in the drives of some of my neighbours who refuse to contribute to our estates keep up.

Doing well to have a 182 car seeing as it is still June ðŸ˜

by8auj6csd3ioq

It's critically flawed to expect one neighbour to ask money from another. Your creating division and animosity by design.

The problem is a small group of people set up and make decisions and feel an entitlement to money from others who have no access to the decision making process. I know a lot of people who are put off by the arrogance they display by demanding money or giving a flyer in letterbox saying "your payment [that you did not agree to pay] is due" That creates animosity because the small group of people own the houses and want their area nice but want people who have no interest to pay into it

by8auj6csd3ioq

"Fair played to them, too many 181/182 cars in the drives of some of my neighbours who refuse to contribute to our estates keep up."

what they buy with their money is their business

by8auj6csd3ioq

Contact the dpc but I have asked the very same question several years ago and was told it was a breach.

Publishing a list that says house 1, 2, 3 and 5 has paid on street of 5 houses uniquely identifies number 4 as a non payer. That owner could be subject to undue stress or abuse from having their details published without their permission regarding such a financial transaction. Its unfair and if I was the owner of number 4 a very definite breach where no consent was obtained." correct. There is no need to publish a list. just thank everyone who paid. Publishing is a form of bullying which as you say could make the non payer "subject to undue stress or abuse from having their details published without their permission regarding such a financial transaction"

I would not be inclined to pay if a list was published as i do not give in to bullies.

anewme

Something tells me you'd not be inclined to pay anyway.

bill66

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Most people are aware that GDPR legislation exists but most don't understand it at all.

It's about the data that someone holds belonging to you. How it's stored and used. You have a right to ask for a copy of your data & you can ask for it to be permanently deleted. This does not mean that it will be deleted. There are many reasons why a business can't delete your data for example revenue require that it is kept for up to 7 years.

Resident associations aren't businesses. To suggest that they can't publish a list of addresses that pay /don't pay would suggest that the Stubbs Gazette is illegal. There is still freedom of speech.

This is absolute nonsense. Stubbs gazette can publish a list of debtors because a court has ruled they are debtors. Someone who does not pay their residents association is not a debtor. A residents association has no legal right to demand money from anyone.. it is amazing how confused some of the posts in this thread are.

Personaly I would be very careful about publishing anything that even hints of other peoples personal information unless I had signed consent.

clfy39tzve8njq

anewme wrote:

Something tells me you'd not be inclined to pay anyway.

People who don't want to pay will always find a reason. Fair play to the people who organise keeping the place tidy and the people who support them.

anewme

Brooke Square Clergy wrote: »

People who don't want to pay will always find a reason. Fair play to the people who organise keeping the place tidy and the people who support them.

I feel the same.

Our RA deals with the builders etc to get the estate finished as well.

They were dealing with an issue for residents when one person knocked into the secretary's house one evening to find out when his would be sorted. As the RA, were negotiating on behalf of members only, they advised him to contact the builder directly.

by8auj6csd3ioq

"Something tells me you'd not be inclined to pay anyway." you do not know either way but like all RA you need to insult people who do not pay for your dream

whether i would or not is my business and i do not have to answer to some self appointed group of people

clfy39tzve8njq

anewme wrote:

I feel the same.

anewme wrote:

Our RA deals with the builders etc to get the estate finished as well.

Instead of whinging over paying a few quid to keep the place tidy fellas should be getting involved. But unfortunately there's people that won't pay their way everywhere.

Tigerandahalf

Lantus wrote: »

There is a huge issue with both ra and omc structures which pushes huge responsibilities onto general home owners. It creates friction and issues in all but the most affluent areas.

The USA method is a better approach where any additional fees for estates form part of the mortgage and are legally bound into the banks responsibility to collect taking very stressful and difficult task away from ordinary people.

It's critically flawed to expect one neighbour to ask money from another. Your creating division and animosity by design.

That seems like a decent alternative.
Local government has really thrown homeowners to the wolves with this.
If another recession kicked in and a good share of people lost their jobs you can imagine the state that estates would turn into.


It begs the question as well as to who actually owns the green areas in new estates.

anewme

Greens are builders responsibility until estate taken in charge by council I would think. Given that a lot of builders went wallop that leaves homeowners out on a limb unfortunately

splinter65

Clark Millions Flesh wrote: »

"Something tells me you'd not be inclined to pay anyway." you do not know either way but like all RA you need to insult people who do not pay for your dream

whether i would or not is my business and i do not have to answer to some self appointed group of people

This is confusing. On one hand you are utterly convinced of your entitlement to enjoy the common areas of the estate being kept in good order whilst feeling no obligation whatsoever to share the expense with your neighbors.
Your quite clear that you feel the financial contribution should be optional (it is, legally and technically), and you’ve made the choice not to contribute.
But if your so sure of your position then why are you so upset at the idea of your neighbors knowing that you’ve taken the option not to contribute?

clfy39tzve8njq

Lantus wrote:

The USA method is a better approach where any additional fees for estates form part of the mortgage and are legally bound into the banks responsibility to collect taking very stressful and difficult task away from ordinary people.

In my experience the problem for the most part isn't with people paying a mortgage but with renters.
Have to say I have sympathy with private renters, should it be the landlords paying.
Don't think people in social houses already subsidised by the tax payer can expect the local authority to pay theirs.

Sleeper12

bill66 wrote:

Personaly I would be very careful about publishing anything that even hints of other peoples personal information unless I had signed consent.

But if you read the op there is no personal data.

You can publish what you want so long as it is true. So residents association isn't breaking any law there.

As far the new legislation is concerned again no law has been broken. Op has to right to see all of their data and then can request full deletion of the data. They are his /her rights. Residents association does not automatically have to delete the data. Most data they will be entitled to keep for revenue porpoises.

Too much of a claim society going on in Ireland at the moment unfortunately.

Answer to the op question : No its not illegal

gctest50

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

............

Local government has really thrown homeowners to the wolves with this.

How ? they didn't build them

And surely one of the first questions you'd ask when buying a house in some superstar builders housing scheme is :

"Who looks after/pays for repairs to the access road"

" Who looks after/pays for the green areas"

weldoninhio

Squatter wrote: »

Which is exactly what you did in your earlier reply!

Maybe practice what you preach!

There’s no assumption there. S/he gave a list of alternatives that may have happened.

clfy39tzve8njq

Sleeper12 wrote:

Too much of a claim society going on in Ireland at the moment unfortunately.

And the very people who don't contribute their time or financially would be first in with a claim

JustAThought

I always think if its only about e20 or so a year be nice and pay it but ask for a receipt and the tally of how it was spent - that keep everything fair and mostly managable. After several years of donating e40 I stopped paying in my area when no receipt year after year was ever forthcoming and I learned that most people gave e20. When I saw for the second year in a row that 2k out of the annual e20 for about 300 houses was spent on a day long party and hiring marquees for the organisers to sell their tat and crafts in (not legal businesses) and the balance was spent on bottles of wine and bunches of flowers for the organisers I decided never to give to thise set of people again. Now and then I'll DO something and give time or get involved in a clear up or something I can do, but I'm not a bank for people to lush off and as the group apathy sets in and the fee (in addition to an annual management fee) keeps rising one has to ask where common sense stops and entitlement starts. We are not a poor area and buying every child in the area a present Christmas is,I feel, just a nonsense and a waste of others hard earned cash. We all have famikies and relations to buy for - why am I being asked to give a gift to every child in our private estate - Not a vincent de paul gift mind you - one for well healed children.

Regarding GDPR - yes - under current legislation this technically will get them in trouble but as they arnt a registered body or business there will never be a serious outcome - apart from setting neighbours against each other and breeding bad feeling and spite - which is exactly the kind of thing that leads to neighbours feuds and fights.

Lantus

Brooke Square Clergy wrote:

In my experience the problem for the most part isn't with people paying a mortgage but with renters. Have to say I have sympathy with private renters, should it be the landlords paying. Don't think people in social houses already subsidised by the tax payer can expect the local authority to pay theirs.

Just like a mortgage the owner would pay the residential fee whether he lived there or not?