Management Company Private Housing Estate

I

igora

Registered User
Messages
129
Hi,

Does anyone know if it is legal for a developer to create a management company for the upkeep of a private housing estate (as opposed to an apartment block)?

I believe this issue was highlighted on RTE's 5-7 Live programme yesterday.

Did anyone hear the programme and know of its outcome?

Thanks,

Igora
 
Whyever would it be illegal? Use the search and browse the site to see several threads on the whole issue of management companies and agents that might also be of interest to you.
 
Minister Dick Roche spoke on the issue, the issue had been raised in the Dail, i.e. some planning authorities were making the formation of management companies a condition of planning permission in the case of housing (not apartment block type) developments. A case in Co. Kildare was cited. The minister indicated that this was not acceptable or desirable in the case of traditional housing estates but acknowledged thast the issue was very different in the case of apartment blocks where common areas etc necessitated such a management arrangement. Some authorities have been imposing this as a planning condition to eliminate any responsibility for taking in charge of a scheme on completion. However despite what Minister Roche says I'm aware of at least two schemes locally where a management structure exists in the case of housing estates and the local authority will not be taking these estates in charge as a result. Moreover the benefits of an estate being taken in charge are questionable given that all local authorities are insufficiently funded to carry out anything other than the most basic repairs and maintenance- in the main such repairs are confined to work on sewers and water services only. Residents must still pick up the tab on maintenance of green areas, signage etc.
 
Note that by not having to go through the 'taking in charge' process, the developer can skimp on having to meet the normal minimum requirements which the council would insist on. The management company (i.e. the residents) is left to pick up the bill. There are also cases (moreso in apartment blocks) whereby the builder retains a significant number of units in the development under his ownership, and therefore had substantial influence/voting rights in the management company.
 
Is that true in all cases? I know that in our case the developer had to lodge a bond with the Corpo (now DCC) in relation to the utilities (sewage, surface water etc.) which was to be used (and was used as it happens!) in the event that these were not completed to the required specifications before being connected to the public systems.
 
Personally I support the mandatory creation of a management company for private housing estates, where the residents have the voting rights to control it. Speaking as a frustrated chair of a residents committee I find it infuriating that some of the residents refuse to contributes a small sum towards the upkeep of the comman areas and yet have no problems enjoying them, allowing their children to play on the green areas, and enjoying the increased value/saleability of their houses on backs of the rest of the residents. All unpaid fees set my the management company should be required to be paid before a house can be sold.

Rant over.

:mad:
 
Dearg Doom said:
All unpaid fees set my the management company should be required to be paid before a house can be sold.
Click to expand...
As far as I know they are. At least that's the case with our estate/management company where when it comes to selling the house the seller will need something stating that any outstanding charges/arrears are cleared. I guess the buyer's solicitor will check for this when processing the legal documents (covenant? lease?) attaching to the management company agreement or something like that? Apart from that any arrears are always treated as collectible by the management company/agent and they charge interest and legal fees back to the debtor if necessary.
 
The headline ("Minister abolishes 'illegal' household charges") doesn't match the article itself. Maybe they meant something other than "abolishes" - e.g. "admonishes" or "lashes" :)?
 
Thank you for all your replies.

I hope Minister Roche will clarify the situation in the coming months.
 
Folks,

there are two related but quite distinct issues:

1. Some Local Authorities are forcing developers to form management companies. It is this which the Minister feels is unjustified and possibly illegal.

2. Even where there is no compulsion to do so, many developers of their own volition form management companies. This can be for a number of reasons such as :

A. Developer doesn't want to wait 8 years for local authority to take estate in charge (though in fairness, delays like this are almost a thing of the past)

B. Developer doesn't think local authority will keep the place well and wants to address the concerns raised by Dearg Doom above.

C. Developer is a cowboy, happy to forfeit his bond and just get the heck out of there.

I sell housing estates for builders. My standard practice is to retain the right to form a management company. All house buyers are obliged to join the management company if one is set up; This means that if it becomes apparent that there is a need for such a company, my clients (good reputable builders, bless them) can facilitate, but if there is no real need for one (active residents association with no real problems) the residents can be spared the expense of keeping a limited company in existence.

I don't think there is any legislation which could stop developers forming management companies. Bear in mind that under scenario 1 above (management company forced by local authority) the residents would have to pay for repairs to sewers and watermains within the estate, which is clearly unfair in circumstances where the local authority are funded to take responsibility for such items. Under scenario 2 above, the developer-led management company is usually only responsible for keeping the standard of decor a wee bit higher than would otherwise be the case.
 
Are there issues with the title the land on which some developments are sited that would provide the rationale for having a private management company? In our case the development is on land previously owned by the Department of Defence and this (or the title/transfer of the land) was cited as a reason for there being a private management company (although some utilities are taken care of by the council). Does that make any sense or was somebody talking rubbish to me?
 
Note: post from 2Pack below stripped from this thread

2Pack said:
I do feel that FF and the PDs are in for an awful shock on the doorstep when the next election campaign starts because of the lack of regulation of these entities and they way in which they can simply present their victims with extortionate demands every year ....in certain cases that is .

There are swathes of new housing in the larger cities where nobody will vote for the government because they have been hung out to dry by the developers and their cronies in property management .

If you think that FF will appoint a competent regulator for the sector you have another think coming. Once they sold eircom we were given a regulator called Comreg to represent our interests . Comreg have been an absolute disaster for this country and are typical of what FF and the PDs call a regulator .

FF and their developer mates would never allow the creation of a strong private estate regulator with teeth who could regulate quickly, lay down clear standards of accountability and remove some of these vermin from 'their' developments and fine them swingeing amounts of turnover when they misbehave.

FF and their developer mates have ensured that no proper legislation on the taking in charge of developments by Local Authorities has been enected in years. Nor has the planning act 2000 been fully implemented where completions are involved. Everything is deliberately left in a mushy legal limbo.

FF and their developer mates have ensured that statutory estate referendum process where the owners can vote on whether they manage an estate or let a local authority do it .......exists .

The PDs simply do not care because extorting your captive homeowners is not a tax as they see it , its legitimate profit to them.

The press do not care either, they make most of their profit on Property Supplements.

RTÉ do not want to be seen to deliberately 'create' a new 'political issue' with a general election incoming within a year.

Nobody has a vested interest in helping the victims , Bulletin Boards are simply somewhere to compare victim statements .

God bless one off housing :p
Click to expand...
 
Can we keep the discussion reasonable and on topic please-any ranting can be done in Letting off Steam.

Thanks.
 
My problem with management fees in housing estates is that people in the housing estate across the road that's a few years older are not paying it. It should be everyone or no-one.

Do councils take over housing estates anymore? What happens if there are a few duplexes in the same estate that seperate from the houses?

I don't mind paying for extra care to keep the housing estate to a high standard - I know of one housing estate where the residents association pays 75 euro a year and they employ a gardener to take care of open areas. The place looks great. I pay 300 euro to a management company a year and the upkeep of the estate is quite poor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top