Car park access issue for apartment

Meesared

Hey all,

Just looking for some advice, today we tried leaving the carpark in our apartment building, which is controlled by number plate recognition only to find that we couldn't get out. We pressed the button for security on the car park barrier thing, and they advised us that our car has been "blacklisted" and that we wouldn't be able to get back in. I called the property management company and they advised that there is a disagreement between them and the owners and that it was going to the courts, so god knows when we will see a resolution to this.

In the meantime what are our options in this case?

Mrs OBumble

Are you a tenant? Talk to your landlord.

An owner? Check with the elected volunteers on your management company.

Meesared

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117646098#Comment_117646098

Yeah I've spoken to the letting agency for the apartment, but I'm not exactly hugely optimistic given how that call went

FishOnABike

And people wonder why many are reluctant to rent in an apartment complex. There should be legislation preventing third parties being drawn into disputes like this.

I'd be tempted to say 'Fine I'll just leave my car here at the exit barrier until the management company and owner can sort out their disagreement.' ditto if stuck on the way back in.

apache

They usually do that if you/your landlord is not paying the maintenance fees.

There must be more going on here.

micosoft

Well no. The most likely issue is that the landlord has not paid the management fees. That by the way is not the letting companies responsibility either. Your dispute is with the owner for not fulfilling the terms of the lease by not paying their fees due under their leasehold. Next stop is the RTB if owner refuses to engage directly or indirectly via letting agency.

One thing that gets my goat. It is not the mgmt company that people are giving the money to. They simply get a % of the fee to "run" the block/estate. If an owner does not pay basically they are expecting the other owners i.e. neighbours to pay up instead. The Irish thing of pretending money goes to mgmt or letting agents when they simply facilitate payments is not on. Having neighbours who think you will pay for their rubbish, lighting etc is not on. Having neighbours whose tenants decide to block the entrance is adding insult to injury.

The legal situation is that the fees + interest will accrue against the apartment and will have to be paid in order to sell the apartment. Some owners put it on long finger and end up having a lot of interest. I appreciate this is hard on tenants. It would be best in these situations if RTB could allow renters to pay mgmt fees directly if owner does not with a 20% surcharge for hassle. That would sort this out much more quickly.

Meesared

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117646133#Comment_117646133

The letting agency seemed clueless, its the property management crowd that seem to be playing dumb. Theres also been a recent development of the bin room apparently being temporarily locked for residents in the apartments with a sign up on the door saying we would have to arrange our own waste disposal?

We are in a larger complex with a shared car park with a hospital and some other businesses, so there are a few parties in play.

Meesared

Also as a side note, we are not the only affected residents, others with other landlords are also affected

nullObjects

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117646133#Comment_117646133

Same thing happened me and this was exactly the cause

edit: also to be fair to your landlord, in my case they more than doubled the management fees and when he questioned it they took away the access for the carpark fob

FishOnABike

It would be far better if management companies were legally prevented from vicariously bringing third parties into their disputes with the owner.

A third party leaving their vehicle parked at an exit or entrance which they are being obstructed from using is being no more obstructive than the management company.

The management company have sufficient recourse in law to recover any unpaid fees up to seeking a judgement against the owner and possession or sale of the property to execute that judgement. Vicariously obstructing an innocent third party is nothing short of strongarm bully boy tactics.

Owners are the management so if they implement such bully boy tactics against innocent third parties they are hardly in a position to complain.

A simple legaslative solution would be to

Outlaw management companies obstructing innocent third parties.

Oblige management companies to inform tenants if an owner is defaulting on management fees

Permit tenants in such circumstances to pay any future management fees directly to the management company without any surcharge or added administrative fee and deduct the management fee from the rent paid to the owner with legal notification of same.

Responsibility for management fees up to the time the tenant is given the opportunity to pay the fees themselves should remain with the owner as should any penalties, surcharges or administrative fees.

Provision would have to be made for the case where a tenant has taken over payment of management fees and then that tenant defaults.

FishOnABike

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117646302#Comment_117646302

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117646321#Comment_117646321

And people wonder why apartments are less popular here than in other countries. It should not be legal to remove essential services from a third party.

If I live in / own a house I can keep my own bins and make my own arrangements for collection.

In an apartment complex I don't have that option. I have neither the space to hygienically store refuse nor the authority to allow a collection service access. Failure to provide for refuse storage and collection is an environmental health issue for which a management company should be prosecuted.

apache

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117646420#Comment_117646420

Owners need to go to meetings. They are informed of the time and place but many choose not to go.

I

usernamegoes

The OP's dispute is with his landlord regardless of the ins or outs of this issue. If his lease includes car parking speak to the landlord and then open a dispute is you can't come to a deal.

FishOnABike

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117648753#Comment_117648753

It could equally be said the management company's dispute is with the non paying owner / landlord. They should take legal action against the owner / landlord and not take unilateral action against a tenant who has no power to remedy the problem.

A landlord who cut off utilities to a tenant would be prosecuted. It should not be legal for a management company to cut off utilities (such as parking or refuse) on an innocent third party. The management company, and the omc engaging them have legal recourse against the landlord.

usernamegoes

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117648841#Comment_117648841

Regardless of what should be legal and what should not be legal, the OP has an agreement with the landlord for services. The landlord isn't providing those services, it's no concern of the OP's as to why. He either gets a reduction in rent as agreed with the LL or some other arrangement they are both happy with or he opens a dispute with RTB.

If I ordered something from Amazon and it didn't arrive because they forgot to pay the postage my issue is why Amazon not An Post because my contract is with them not An Post. I can't say, well I paid Amazon for postage so why is An Post taking it out on me.

FishOnABike

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117648920#Comment_117648920

The management company have legal means to recover unpaid fees from the owner / landlord. Judgement, enforcement, attachment of earnings, seizure of assets by the sherrif. Those are the methods that should be used not victimisation of innocent third parties who have no power to resolve the situation. The tenant may frequently not even have any direct contact with the owner / landlord. If the owner / landlord is not engaging with the management company they are hardly likely to engage with the tenant.

Having a sherrif turn up to seize the owner / landlord's car is far more likely to force an errant owner / landlord into compliance than victimising an innocent tenant who has little or no power to resolve the matter. The management company possibly cannot even inform the tenant why essential services are being denied.

Caranica

From a management company perspective, fees will get paid a lot faster when services are being denied rather than going via other legal channels. It makes no difference whether the apartment is owner occupied or rented nor should it. Can't have a situation where you can deny services to owner occupiers and not tenants.

Your landlord should be responsible for any additional costs you incur as a result of being blacklisted from the car park if parking is implicitly included in your lease. Keep detailed receipts and pursue through the RTB if necessary.

the_syco

AFAIK, water & electricity are the only utilities that the landlord is not allowed to cut.

It sounds like multiple landlords haven't being paying their fees, and a (possibly new) president of the PMC has decided to enforce some rules to get the non-paying apartment owners to pay up. I'd imagine the fee-paying owners voted this measure in.

Mrs OBumble

Does your lease specifically mention that it includes a car-park?

FishOnABike

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117649660#Comment_117649660

I have to disagree. This is only true for owner occupiers.

Removing services from an owner occupier is likely to result in swift compliance as they are directly affected but removing services from an innocent tenant because of an absent owner landlord's management fee areas is highly inefficient and unjust.

An absent owner landlord is not directly inconvenienced and is still due their full rental payment from the tenant. There is little incentive for an absent owner landlord in financial difficulty to resolve any arrears or dispute as quickly as an owner occupier.

The tenant has no right to negotiate with the property management company or the OMC.

It would be far more effective for the property management company or OMC to seek judgement against the defaulting absent owner / landlord in the District Court and having that registered and enforced.

I'm sure the property management company could get a hearing in the District Court quicker than the tenant could get a hearing in the Residential Tenancy Board after which the tenant is still reliant on the absent owner / landlord to resolve the arrears or dispute as the tenant has no right to deal directly with the management company.

Indeed for a defaulting owner / landlord in significant financial difficulties it is completely pointless for the management company to withdraw services from the tenant absent owner / landlord's interests are possibly best served by continuing to take rent from their tenant while not paying management fees or the mortgage on the apartment.

Owner occupiers and tenants are in different legal relationships with the property management company and OMC and need different approaches to recovery of arrears on property management fees owed on their apartments.

Peregrinus

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117647181#Comment_117647181

It's the landlord who has contracted to provide a parking space to the tenant. The management company isn't bringing a third party into the dispute; the landlord is. He has an obligation to pay his service charges, which he has defaulted on, and the result is that he doesn't have a car park space that he can supply to the tenant in satisfaction of the contract that he freely entered into.

Sue the landlord. He's the one who has contracted to provide you with a parking space; he is the one whose default led to the denial of the space; he is the one who is in breach of contract.

FishOnABike

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117649787#Comment_117649787

The multi unit developments act provides that managememt fees may be recovered by the owners’ management company concerned as a simple contract debt in a court of competent jurisdiction. That is the method that should be used to collect arrears.

I dare say an application for judgement against a defaulting owner landlord could be made to the District Court in less than a week.

An application by the tenant to the RTB would take much longer to be heard and require application to the court for enforcement.

Taking direct action against a tenant is both misdirected and inefficient. It is not as if the defaulting owner / landlord's unit is going anywhere, the debt will always be recoverable, with interest and costs.

The taking of direct action by the property management company and/or OMC against an innocent tenant who is meeting their obligations to their landlord and to the OMC / development house rules should not be acceptable or legal. That it appears to be is part of why renting and apartment living is so disfunctional in this country.

It is unlikely a management company would take any action until arrears had built up or fees had not been paid for some time. It should not be acceptable or legal that the first notice a tenant gets is 'sorry we can't let you out but if we do we can't let you back in again.' or finding they have no access to communal refuse bins.

I may be arguing in ifs and buts and what should be rather than what is but it could be argued that taking action against an innocent tenant occupier by obstructing access to essential services fails to meet the obligation under the multi unit developments act that house rules should be made with the objective of advancing the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of the property by the unit owners and the occupiers, and the objective of the fair and equitable balancing of the rights and obligations of the occupiers and the unit owners. It might make an interesting test case.

DubCount

I just love the language in this thread. "Innocent tenant" and "Absent Landlord" etc. Maybe the LL is in arrears with management charges because of late/non-payment of rent. These issues are just not black and white, and its hard to know if the "innocent party" is the same in all cases.

jumbone

Left field suggestion but if I was in that predicament i'd consider it €12.50 well spent to get a show plate made up with another residents reg on it (that isn't blacklisted)

e.g. https://www.adverts.ie/exterior-parts/number-plates/20165725

Consider it your 'car park fob'

Obviously still progress via landlord/agent in parallel

JimmyVik

I have a friend who has 3 apartments in a development.

One tenant is causing all sorts of problems for the neighbors. Total scum.

He has been trying for 2 years to evict them, but the law is on their side.

The management company last year, did not renew the fobs for all 3 of his apartments because of this bad tenant.

They will only renew them when the tenant is evicted, which is probably still years away.

So now the totally innocent tenants have to suffer for the sins of the scum bag tenants too.

drogon.

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117650252#Comment_117650252

Sounds like a great plan! Any chance I could have the reg of your car ? I promise it will only be used when I am in a similar predicament ! 🙄

FishOnABike

https://boards.ie/discussion/2058200250/car-park-access-issue-for-apartment

It looks like you're being drawn into what could be a protracted dispute between your landlord and the management company (owners and /or property).

For what it's worth, from a security point of view, I'd consider ANPR as a very weak method for controlling vehicular access. With a little creativity it is easily circumvented. Just make sure your car is road legal when in a public place.

jumbone

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117650278#Comment_117650278

Sure just walk out to the street where its visible to every man and his dog and write it down.

If I can buy a plate with whatever reg I like on it without showing proof of ownership then relying on a number plate for access control is a security failing of the management company on a similar level to them having a PIN of 1234 or not policing tailgating.

It might be that its deemed to be 'good enough' or the convenience trade-offs of driving up and a barrier lifting made it attractive to whoever designed the system.

The plate isn't illegal and if I'm paying for a parking spot in good faith (as part of my rent) then I'd have no moral qualms with what I'm suggesting.

Especially where the management company knowingly revoked access for tenants with zero notice

jumbone

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117650324#Comment_117650324

this guy gets it

drogon.

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117650325#Comment_117650325

All I will tell you is that it is an offence to drive with an altered number plate under the Road Traffic Act 2014. Even if the intention was good.

Peregrinus

https://boards.ie/discussion/comment/117650194#Comment_117650194

They're not taking direct action against the tenant. They are taking action to suspend the landlord's rights in relation to the car space. This has the knock-on effect that the landlord is unable to honour his obligation to the tenant. But that's a situation created by the landlord, who has contracted to provide a parking space but failed to ensure that he has one to provide. The management company may not even know about this, if they are unaware that the landlord has let the apartment.

It seems wrong in principle that the landlord can diminish the management company's rights by letting the apartment; that would mean that owner occupiers enjoy less rights over their parking spaces than owners who let their apartments to tenants. How could that be justified?

The argument here is whether the adverse consequences of the landlord's default in paying his management fees should fall on the management company, and therefore the other owners, or on the tenant. Once you recognise that, the answer is obvious; the adverse consequences should fall on the landlord. Matters should be arranged so that it will be cheaper for the landlord to pay the management fees and so provide the parking space than to default on the management fees and, in consequence, default on the obligation to provide a parking space.