A management company dispute has never and will never be a valid excuse to avoid paying a management fee.
If was paying a management fee for a lift for example , ( or part there of) and the lift was allways out of order and I diputed this with the company and said that I am now refusing to pay untill its resolved and will not pay for portions of time that it was out of order you dont think that I am within my rights? Surely not.
When a management company goes bust you can’t sell the asset you paid hundreds of thousands of euro for. No solicitor will even look at doing the conveyancing on the property because they have no management company to request information from. If there is no sinking fund because people aren’t paying their management fees no solicitor will advise their client to buy the apartment.
An apartment with an dead management company is near worthless.
And what everyone forgets is that you are the other party to the contract. If you feel the management agent isn’t doing their job you don’t renew your contact with them but you are wearing two hats when you buy a leasehold on an apartment; you aree the resident and the landlord.
Bills have to be paid.
A management company is not an management agent.
The management company is composed of the apartment owners. If you withhold management fee you are withholding payment from yourself.
If you are unhappy about service in the management company you are a member of raise it as a topic at the AGM or convene an EGM; that’s your method of resolution.
The Management company will enforce compliance with covenants of leasehold which includes payment of annual service charge. This is not a contract for goods or services type scenario. The leasee signed of their own free will a lease and are subject to the terms and conditions contained within.
Come back to me when you understand the distinction between the mgmt co and mgmt agent.
Come back to me when you understand the distinction between the mgmt co and mgmt agent.
You have explained this. You come back to me when you understand the difference between paying for something( ANything) that you are getting or not getting.
It always strikes me as a bit unfair that, while some estates are maintained (to some degree at least) free of charge by councils, similar estates down the road are not and their dwellers have to fork out hundreds per annum in management fees.
I’m not talking appartments here, but rather typical suburban estates with semi-detached houses and even detached houses (a dying species in Celtic Tiger Suburbia).
How much in management fees do people living in a detached house or semi-detached house in these new privately managed estates typically have to pay per annum? €1000? €2000? Will these folks be afford to afford this when they are living on €12000 per annum in their dotage? Or if they are disabled or made unemployed in the next few years? Are these management fees really, like… sustainable?
There’s a lot to be said for buying in an estate where that management company lark doesn’t apply. Even if they don’t look as well. Just a lot of hassle about them in general. I know that they are unavoidable in an appartment situation, but for the rest… messy.
A solicitor will not entertain your arguements and will not go to court to represent you.
What’s more solicitors will have no sympathy for you. They make a living out of conveyancing and don’t have time for messers who refuse to pay their management fees because insolvent management companies make their professional life more difficult.
As Director of the Management Company my first concern is to ensure the financial security and continued existence of the management company. An insolvent company can’t deliver a service to it’s members. If you are not paying your management fee, the Directors will successfully pursue you through court to pay your fee. If you still won’t pay a lien gets put on the property. If need be we can apply to court to remove you as a leaseholder.
Only reason this isn’t being done for some apartment leaseholders is because management agents couldn’t be arsed to follow up on fees owed and just jack up the service charge for the decent majority who pay their service charge which isn’t very fair on the decent people. This was the main reason I took up the position of secretary.
I im not getting the service then im not paying,. Its that simple.
If I am getting the service, then I should pay. No argument here.
My argument is against your original statement, that of being in dispute does not qualify you to not pay your fees. IMHO, it does.
Alright this thread has required some severe cleansing. Please do not personalise the debate between posters, further moderation required on this thread will lead to some temporary bans.
Notwithstanding that, it’s a worthwhile debate so please continue, nicely.
Doesn’t really matter what posters say here. Leaseholders sign up to a lease and are subject to it. Directors act in the interests of the members( and are members themselves) in chasing up amounts owed and have the leasehold agreement to enforce their position.
People can jump up and down and throw hissy fits but once the Directors choose to go to court to exercise their rights the Management company will always win.
As the leasehold agreement and articles/memorandum of association includes provisions for dispute resolution the judge will not have jurisdiction on management company activities but will only determine whether an annual service charge fee is owed or not. The judge will be presented with the leasehold agreement, see that a service charge is to be paid annually and make a judgement in favour of the management company. He won’t entertain complaints about the quality of service provided since the leasee is a member of the management company providing the service and will direct the leasee to raise the issue at the next AGM of the management company that he is a member of.
Please see above statement. Do you agree, yes or no.
I am trying to understand the subtleties of this, can you please correct me if I’m wrong.
The management company is an elected board of management comprised of the property owners. They then in turn appoint (subcontract) the actual maintenance work to a mangement agency (an independent company). Is that correct?
I don’t think I would ever buy in a place that had a management company in place. Fairplay to you for doing your bit for the community and all that. But you hear nothing but bad press about these entities. Services substandard, excessive fees, etc.
My eyes were opened to this recently, when visiting friends in one of those pseudo-villages on the outskirts of Dublin. They had received their 2nd final notice from the management company. The fee was approx €500 per year, -they live in a house so no lift/ corridor and security system maintenance required. So I guess what the management company does is maintain the shrubs and common green area. (I live in a housing estate of ~80 houses and pay, or rather the LL pays €40 a year for this service)
They hadn’t paid the fee since moving in ~4 years ago, nor had the previous owner. They knew this when buying -that there was ~€500 outstanding on the property, but bought anyway. So now they owe ~5x€500 =€2500.
So I asked ‘knowing that there were €500 p/a fees to be paid, why buy the property if you were not prepared to pay the fees’ No definite anser but they did say that they will pay -big hit to take.
I also asked ‘why did you buy a property with management fees associated’ Answer: there were no properties available at the time, in the general area, within budget that did not have fees associated with them.
Management companies are a necessarily evil in an apartment complex. But I don’t understand how we can have a two tiered system where some estate are serviced by the local council, effectively for free, and other have management companies commanding -what always seems to me to be- excessive fees?
You don’t have to have a management agent. Our management company is self managed by the directors who are residents/owners in the apartment block.
In Fingal established estates like Georgian Village (with multi-million pound houses) are maintained by the council while new estates are not(or at least that is what Joan Burton’s web site was saying. The County Council don’t maintain those new estates saying it is the residents’ responsibility.
The townhouses in our estate have no management company. The apartments do.
the only part of our estate which is maintained is the area controlled by the management company and the remainder of the estate has gone wild with 5 foot thistles along the driveways. Management company haven’t got funds or authority to maintain the remainder of the estate.
Council don’t give a damn about the estate and won’t take control of the estate.
No, if you are in dispute with the management company you are in dispute with yourself and that is a ridiculous situation to put yourself in. As a member of management company you are in a position to rectify the issue that you suffer from.
If you want to modify your arguement to a discussion about the oppression of a minorities interest in a company then you might be able to make some headway and you may have legal remedies available to you.
Dipole, in your scenario, who actaully does the work? Cut the grass, sweep the path, mend the carpet/ fix the lift (in apartment block). If there is no management agent do you just appoint contarcators on an adhoc basis, or do you actually employ someone full time?
The councils obviously grant permission for the building of these developments. Do they put a clause in -yes you can build so long as you appoint a management co. and don’t expect us to maintain the place in future’. Or are the actaully supposed to take the place in charge, but bury their head in the sand, and of course there is the old get out of jail card - the development is not finished (which could go on for years) so they will not take charge of the place.
we contract on an as needed basis. residents volunteer to do some upkeep and get re-imbursed for their time.
my estate hasn’t been taken in charge by the council for the last 7 years but they still managed to hand off the management company to the residents within two years.
Now excuse me all if I get all this ar$e about face but…My thoughts on this whole matter are:
Previously, as a general rule when housing estates were built and on completion, were taken in charge by the council… It was my understanding that only apartment blocks had a need for managment companies.
Since the advent of the septic tiger, housing estates were being built at such a rate that it became impossible for the council to keep up with the rate of completions and hence the need for the managment companies, which were to manage these estates until such time as they could be taken in charge. Convientely for the councils budget, they did not have to do this until, absolute completion, and also large builders had a separate company which was the managing agent, therefore another source of income… ( please correct me if I am wrong…)
Now with all that has happened, with semi-completed ghost estates, surely disagreements such as mentioned above, will become commonplace. The mad boom was unmanaged and now people are in limbo… Also seeing as I’m here I listened to the radio today where, some councillor was mentioning the second property tax and according to him, it was up to people to declare that they were second property owners and would not be sent bills, but if they did not declare their properties they would face fines… He reckoned that people were not aware of this. So in short Can we not manage anything properly in this country… (Think NAMA )
Ps. The estate where I am renting has a large amount of rented properties and according to the guy who organises the grass cutting etc only about 60% of the landlords pay the yearly fee for the upkeep of the common areas…
Not a comment on the debate in general, however I always understood the legality behind a company was that it acquires what they call a “legal personality” - so in essence it becomes a person. In which case you would not be in dispute with yourself! The company has its own legal personality separate from that of the shareholders… which is why they are limited in liability to their investment.
It’s a contrived device to manage the affairs and assets in which you have an interest and will outlast you. It may protect you from people litigating against you and it does serve that purpose but it isn’t intended to protect yourself from yourself.
e.g. the lawn in my block isn’t being cut so better withhold my management fee from the management company…hold on… I’m a member of the management company and the greater part of the management fee is being spent on grounds maintenance(true in my case)…so, as I have a vested interest as a member of the management company I’d better keep paying my management fee and see why the lawns aren’t being then do something about it(as it was in my case where I personally got tenders for a new grounds maintenance company to replace the one who wasn’t doing their job).