Management company refused motorbike anchor in apartment block.

Del2005

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

In Law under the Multi unit Development Act, 2011 each apartment owner does own share of the common areas via the owners' management company.

Wrong. The owner in a MUD has a share in the OMC which owns the common areas. I have shares in several companies yet like the OP can't install a ground anchor in any of them.

The problem for the OP is that they asked so now they can't do anything. The fact that a neighbour has already told the tenant to stop installing the anchor means that the traditional asking forgiveness isn't going to work.

OP the tenant either needs to move or live with an unsecured bike.

Yyhhuuu

Del2005 wrote: »

Wrong. The owner in a MUD has a share in the OMC which owns the common areas. I have shares in several companies yet like the OP can't install a ground anchor in any of them.

The problem for the OP is that they asked so now they can't do anything. The fact that a neighbour has already told the tenant to stop installing the anchor means that the traditional asking forgiveness isn't going to work.

OP the tenant either needs to move or live with an unsecured bike.

This is semantics. I should know about the OMC as I am too involved and qualified to speak on the matter. The owner does indeed albeit indirectly, own a share of the common area by virtue of him owning a share in the OMC who own the common area. If you read back in to my post you will see I'm on the side of the OMC in this and never said this conferred the right to unilaterally install a ground anchor.

H_Lime

Boooooooorrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnng.

zubair

H_Lime wrote: »

Boooooooorrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnng.

3 pages of zzzzzzzzz

two wheels good

Suggestions:
Offer the tenant some additional moto security e.g. a quality chain and lock, a non-fixed anchor - an anchor fixed in a lump of concrete. Assuming it can be placed in a safe location.
Write to the Mng Co. to state you were not aware the tenant ignored their decision.

Fabio

There are anchors out there which can be drilled and bolted to concrete, like the base of a wall or something like that. Once a chain is slipped through them, or a cover is on them which is locked by said chain, the bolts can't be touched. However, they are easy to remove once the chain is off so if the mgmt company start acting the tool then it's easy to remove. https://www.oxfordproducts.com/motorcycle/brands/oxford/security/anchors/oxford_bruteforce_anchor/

This is an issue of perception - I find that people usually have no idea what you mean when it comes to motorbikes or motorbike security (someone recently asked me if bikes were allowed on the M50...). When they hear anchor they probably think of a big massive yoke sticking out of the ground when the reality is very different and is far from a trip hazard if bolted to a wall or something similar.

Motorbike parking should be a requirement in most places, there are EU directives on this, but unfortunately we're the ignored minority, for good or ill. Motorbikes are congestion-busting, sustainable methods of transport and should be accommodated properly.

Fair play to the OP for going to the effort of trying to accomodate the biker in question, not many landlords would bother.

However, if it were me, I'd have scoped it out, see where the bike could be parked without interfering with others, then see can I bolt an anchor point to it and say nothing.

listermint

Just lock it to a lampost in the development, job done.

Sh1te like this is why I'd NEVER consider buying an apartment. Paying money to a management company to treat you like sh1t.

Yyhhuuu

Could it be the management company thinks motorbikes might bring down the tone of the development particularly if an upmarket development? Just asking the question. Not saying I agree with this...

Yyhhuuu

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sh1te like this is why I'd NEVER consider buying an apartment. Paying money to a management company to treat you like sh1t.

The owners can put themselves forward to be on the management company if they're unhappy with the manner its run. Legally The management company act in the interests of its owners rather than tenants of the owners as the motorbike owner is.

Del2005

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sh1te like this is why I'd NEVER consider buying an apartment. Paying money to a management company to treat you like sh1t.

Block and public liability insurance, landscaping, grounds and building maintenance yes management companies treat themselves like sh1t! The management company is the owners and its our litigious culture which means that a management company can't allow the installation of a trip hazard no matter how small the risk.

Yyhhuuu

Del2005 wrote: »

Block and public liability insurance, landscaping, grounds and building maintenance yes management companies treat themselves like sh1t! The management company is the owners and its our litigious culture which means that a management company can't allow the installation of a trip hazard no matter how small the risk.

Plus management companies want to keep costs down and keep management fees down.

Del2005

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

Could it be the management company thinks motorbikes might bring down the tone of the development particularly if an upmarket development? Just asking the question. Not saying I agree with this...

There's no designated parking in the OPs complex so there is no where to install a ground anchor because anyone can use any parking bay. Say the OP got permission and installed the anchor in a parking bay at the end of the row onto the wall, so there is no trip hazard, another resident parks there and the OPs tenant now has no where to lock their bike.

Yyhhuuu

Del2005 wrote: »

There's no designated parking in the OPs complex so there is no where to install a ground anchor because anyone can use any parking bay. Say the OP got permission and installed the anchor in a parking bay at the end of the row onto the wall, so there is no trip hazard, another resident parks there and the OPs tenant now has no where to lock their bike.

Owner management companies probably have more important commitments and demands on their budget the matter of one motorbike user. It's not on their list of priorities given the response received.

listermint

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

Owner management companies probably have more important commitments and demands on their budget the matter of one motorbike user. It's not on their list of priorities given the response received.

Owner management companies rarely have priorities. Its a talking shop for the busy bodies of the estate / apartment block.

They dislike any outside the box thinking or anything that resembles an ounce of effort. copy and paste central.

Fabio

I used to live in a complex in the midlands where there were these kinda semi-open wooden sheds for the bins on one side, and bicycle parking on the other. The bicycle racks were rusty from lack of use so I put the motorbike in there and left space for bicycles too. Threw a cover on it, chained to the frame of the shed (steel frame). Never an issue.

But then I didn't ask either.

Yyhhuuu

listermint wrote: »

Owner management companies rarely have priorities. Its a talking shop for the busy bodies of the estate / apartment block.

They dislike any outside the box thinking or anything that resembles an ounce of effort. copy and paste central.

Thats not my experience as a member of an OMC. The managing agents( if in sutu) are well able to charge and he who pays the piper calls the tune Perhaps its your experience. I'm not sure if you are involved with an OMC, you didnt say? The major issues are discussed at the annual AGM. In all fairness I doubt the issue affecting the motorcyclist is high up on their agenda.

hayoc

We have had this issue in the apartment complex I live and own an apartment in.

Ive seen 3 solutions.

One guy put an anchor in the wall next to his front window and locked the bike to it. No trip hazard, invisible behind a plant pot - easy peasy.

Another guy installed an anchor in the ground next to an area of shrubs. In a little spot beside the shrubs and a lamppost - no trip hazard as there isnt space to walk between the shrubs and the lamppost.

And someone else locks a bike in the bin shed. Its not anchored, but only people with keys can open the bin sheds. And there is plenty of room.

Del2005

Del2005 wrote: »

There's no designated parking in the OPs complex so there is no where to install a ground anchor because anyone can use any parking bay. Say the OP got permission and installed the anchor in a parking bay at the end of the row onto the wall, so there is no trip hazard, another resident parks there and the OPs tenant now has no where to lock their bike.

You sure that's correct? He later said;

"The parking area designated for the apartment is not street facing."

Now, maybe I'm way off but wouldn't most buildings have a few spaces in the corner, etc for bikes thus avoiding a bike taking a full parking space?

And if they're is a parking space designated to the apartment, couldn't an anchor be put on the wall this avoiding the risk of tripping?

Del2005

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You sure that's correct? He later said;

"The parking area designated for the apartment is not street facing."

Now, maybe I'm way off but wouldn't most buildings have a few spaces in the corner, etc for bikes thus avoiding a bike taking a full parking space?

And if they're is a parking space designated to the apartment, couldn't an anchor be put on the wall this avoiding the risk of tripping?

My reading is that there is designed parking for the apartments but not for each individual apartment.

"There is no designated parking. All parking is on ground level. No underground parking and it's not gated."

If they don't have a designated place then anywhere they put the anchor can be used by someone else. Depending on the complex there could be no spare spaces, most developments get permission for 1.5 spaces per unit and less in urban areas, and parking is on a first come first parked basis. So the tenant will not be sure that they would be able to get to the anchor.

Depends on the development if they have bicycle parking. In mine , no designated parking, there is no where to park a bicycle and I've been in several others, multi story blocks with designated underground parking, that don't have any bicycle parking. I know that modern developments are supposed to have bicycle parking.

iwillhtfu

Could the tenant pick up a **** box of a car and chain the bike to it It would certainly piss off the other tenants but he would be doing nothing wrong if spaces are for tenants although not allocated.

listermint

Yyhhuuu wrote: »

Thats not my experience as a member of an OMC. The managing agents( if in sutu) are well able to charge and he who pays the piper calls the tune Perhaps its your experience. I'm not sure if you are involved with an OMC, you didnt say? The major issues are discussed at the annual AGM. In all fairness I doubt the issue affecting the motorcyclist is high up on their agenda.

Busy bodies rarely see themselves as busy bodies. Hence the title .

Body of busy.

Del2005

iwillhtfu wrote: »

Could the tenant pick up a **** box of a car and chain the bike to it It would certainly piss off the other tenants but he would be doing nothing wrong if spaces are for tenants although not allocated.

The car would need to be insured to be parked in the complex as its a public place so needs insurance but its not a public road so doesn't need to taxed.

GBX

iwillhtfu wrote: »

Could the tenant pick up a **** box of a car and chain the bike to it It would certainly piss off the other tenants but he would be doing nothing wrong if spaces are for tenants although not allocated.

They could get an old van and keep it locked in it overnight.

goblin59

Del2005 wrote: »

The car would need to be insured to be parked in the complex as its a public place so needs insurance but its not a public road so doesn't need to taxed.

Its not actually a public area that requires insurance.

Its public in the sense that its for all residents of the complex.
But its still a private parking area, so insurance, NCT and tax are not required.

But as its a communal parking area, there is likely a clause to allow the removal of vehicles that are seen as abandoned.

Del2005

goblin59 wrote: »

Its not actually a public area that requires insurance.

Its public in the sense that its for all residents of the complex.
But its still a private parking area, so insurance, NCT and tax are not required.

But as its a communal parking area, there is likely a clause to allow the removal of vehicles that are seen as abandoned.

It is public place for insurance because the OP can't lock the other residents or guests from the car park, it looks like tax is also required but I can't find the statute to be sure



"(iv) by the substitution for the definition of “public place” of the following definition:

“‘public place’ means—

(a) any public road, and

(b) any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge;”;"

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/7/section/49/enacted/en/html


" It is a legal requirement to have motor tax if you want to drive your vehicle in a public place."

It says drive but use is the official word and parking is using.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20legal%20requirement,vehicle%20in%20a%20public%20place.&text=CO2%20emission%20bands%20for%20private,for%20this%20type%20of%20assessment.

goblin59

Del2005 wrote: »

It is public place for insurance because the OP can't lock the other residents or guests from the car park, it looks like tax is also required but I can't find the statute to be sure



"(iv) by the substitution for the definition of “public place” of the following definition:

“‘public place’ means—

(a) any public road, and

(b) any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge;”;"

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/7/section/49/enacted/en/html


" It is a legal requirement to have motor tax if you want to drive your vehicle in a public place."

It says drive but use is the official word and parking is using.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html#:~:text=It%20is%20a%20legal%20requirement,vehicle%20in%20a%20public%20place.&text=CO2%20emission%20bands%20for%20private,for%20this%20type%20of%20assessment.

This is the key bit here
public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge;”;"


The public don't have permission or right to park there as its a private parking lot for the residents of the complex with non designated parking spaces.
Same reason as a vehicle in the underground garage where i live can be declared off the road and not need insurance.

so no he doesn't require insurance, as soon as the vehicle leaves the parking he can be done.
If it was a public parking spot he'd just have to ask the local council for permission to put an anchor in as its in their jurisdiction.


but as its in what technically constitutes as a small company limited by shares.
it is a private parking lot with non designated parking spaces.


We are going off topic though on this.
The OP hopefully has approached the management company and board of directors and come to an agreement on what to do.

Even asking to install a bar, the same as you see for bicycles would be beneficial for all residents.

Caranica

hayoc wrote: »

We have had this issue in the apartment complex I live and own an apartment in.

Ive seen 3 solutions.

One guy put an anchor in the wall next to his front window and locked the bike to it. No trip hazard, invisible behind a plant pot - easy peasy.

Another guy installed an anchor in the ground next to an area of shrubs. In a little spot beside the shrubs and a lamppost - no trip hazard as there isnt space to walk between the shrubs and the lamppost.

And someone else locks a bike in the bin shed. Its not anchored, but only people with keys can open the bin sheds. And there is plenty of room.

1&2 are vandalism of common property. No owner or tenant can drill holes into external walls or footpaths without permission.

3 is a danger to other users of the bike shed, I know our development insurance company explicitly stated that no motorbikes can be stored in bike sheds.

Most planning applications for new developments includes specific motorbike parking areas but older developments don't have them.

1874

Goose81 wrote: »

Personally I would tell the resident to fuxk off an mind their business , they don't own the car park. Absolute busy body

In these situations you are better off never asking permission because you will never get permission, you put it in and see do they remove it and if they don't happy days.

In this case if he stopped because of the resident I would have another go installing it at a time he knows this busy body won't be up and see if anyone removes it.

If you are the landlord I wouldn't get involved tbh, there's no comeback on you and if this guy can't secure his bike he will probably leave the apartment.

I would say to him do what he needs to do and not to involve you, it's not your problem

All he needs to do it get up at 7am and install the thing and it will never be removed it won't even be seen

That attitude isnt going to solve anything, I get that its a pain, but that doesnt give the owner or the tenant the right to do as they please either.
Basically it comes down to (in my opinion) risk and cost.

two wheels good wrote: »

Suggestions:
Offer the tenant some additional moto security e.g. a quality chain and lock, a non-fixed anchor - an anchor fixed in a lump of concrete. Assuming it can be placed in a safe location.
Write to the Mng Co. to state you were not aware the tenant ignored their decision.

Why would they do that? its not their fault/problem.
I'm sympathetic, I keep my bike in my own shed and I wouldnt like to be dealing with management companies for permission, but I can see where they are coming from regarding insurance and potential claims and the potential for individuals/especially not even owners who might cause problems, they cant see the outcome of, just to suit their own needs.

hayoc wrote: »

We have had this issue in the apartment complex I live and own an apartment in.

Ive seen 3 solutions.

One guy put an anchor in the wall next to his front window and locked the bike to it. No trip hazard, invisible behind a plant pot - easy peasy.

Another guy installed an anchor in the ground next to an area of shrubs. In a little spot beside the shrubs and a lamppost - no trip hazard as there isnt space to walk between the shrubs and the lamppost.


Personally, having read/heard of bikes/cars/bicycles being tampered with/stolen in apartment blocks, I see no reason why there isnt secured parking, but that comes at a cost, there should be a workable solution, but the occupant-owners are entitled to tell someone to stop work and report if they want, they are paying for it, so cant be just subject to some individuals decision.

And someone else locks a bike in the bin shed. Its not anchored, but only people with keys can open the bin sheds. And there is plenty of room.

1874

Goose81 wrote: »

Personally I would tell the resident to fuxk off an mind their business , they don't own the car park. Absolute busy body

In these situations you are better off never asking permission because you will never get permission, you put it in and see do they remove it and if they don't happy days.

In this case if he stopped because of the resident I would have another go installing it at a time he knows this busy body won't be up and see if anyone removes it.

If you are the landlord I wouldn't get involved tbh, there's no comeback on you and if this guy can't secure his bike he will probably leave the apartment.

I would say to him do what he needs to do and not to involve you, it's not your problem

All he needs to do it get up at 7am and install the thing and it will never be removed it won't even be seen

That attitude isnt going to solve anything, I get that its a pain, but that doesnt give the owner or the tenant the right to do as they please either.
Basically it comes down to (in my opinion) risk and cost.

two wheels good wrote: »

Suggestions:
Offer the tenant some additional moto security e.g. a quality chain and lock, a non-fixed anchor - an anchor fixed in a lump of concrete. Assuming it can be placed in a safe location.
Write to the Mng Co. to state you were not aware the tenant ignored their decision.

Why would they do that? its not their fault/problem.
I'm sympathetic, I keep my bike in my own shed and I wouldnt like to be dealing with management companies for permission, but I can see where they are coming from regarding insurance and potential claims and the potential for individuals/especially not even owners who might cause problems, they cant see the outcome of, just to suit their own needs.

hayoc wrote: »

We have had this issue in the apartment complex I live and own an apartment in.

Ive seen 3 solutions.

One guy put an anchor in the wall next to his front window and locked the bike to it. No trip hazard, invisible behind a plant pot - easy peasy.

Another guy installed an anchor in the ground next to an area of shrubs. In a little spot beside the shrubs and a lamppost - no trip hazard as there isnt space to walk between the shrubs and the lamppost.




And someone else locks a bike in the bin shed. Its not anchored, but only people with keys can open the bin sheds. And there is plenty of room.

Personally, having read/heard of bikes/cars/bicycles being tampered with/stolen in apartment blocks, I see no reason why there isnt secured parking, but that comes at a cost, there should be a workable solution, but the occupant-owners are entitled to tell someone to stop work and report if they want, they are paying for it, so cant be just subject to some individuals decision.