# Residents Associations Meeting



## amygirl (17 May 2010)

I recently attended our residents associations meeting and it was dicussed in great details that two of the residents had not yet paid towards the grass cutting and these people where named even though they where not in attendance. Also it was put to another member to see if she could get them to pay even though she is not on the committee.

I found this unacceptable and said so but no one really took any notice.

Are things like this allowed to be discussed? My understanding is that these people should have been contacted privately.


----------



## shesells (17 May 2010)

How formal is the Residents Association? Do you have a constitution that has rules for membership?


----------



## amygirl (17 May 2010)

No there is no rules for membership as far as I know. We meet twice a year. The only time letters are sent is for when the neetings are to be held, how much will be required for grass cutting and the one day yearly clean up other than that nothing, no letter re what happened at the meeting etc


----------



## Bob_tg (17 May 2010)

Perhaps those two people are tenants and have an agreement in their lease that their landlord should pay the fees?


----------



## mathepac (17 May 2010)

As membership in the residents' association appears to be optional and it seems there is no formal charter or constitution for the association, then they should concentrate (voluntarily and collectively) on minding their own business and getting on with  whatever activities the "committee" and the general members decide to engage in. Commenting on the business or financial affairs of non-members /  non-contributors may prove their undoing.

This sounds typical of a bunch of well-intentioned but ultimately ill-advised and ill-informed busybodies.


----------



## MrMan (18 May 2010)

1234 said:


> You wonder why people give up their free time and money when you make comments like that. Why should some residents pay for the unkeep while other free load and reap the benefits of maintaining the value of their home.
> 
> How would you suggest a Residents Association encourage all members to contribute to the maintenance of their estate?
> 
> ...



Its abit extreme to suggest that if someone is in a dire financial state, they should put the neighbourhoods needs ahead of their own. Many people are unaware of how residents assc operate and many mistrust the use of funds. 
Naming and shaming creates an immediate divide and does little to achieve the ultimate objective, which is to make your estate a nicer place to live (for everybody).


----------



## Padraigb (18 May 2010)

What amygirl describes sounds like a voluntary association. If that is so, then any resident is free not to volunteer. It is bad form to discuss anybody's non-participation at a plenary meeting, and particularly bad to be critical of them. If they are not members, then they can not be expected to pay towards the grass cutting.


----------



## mathepac (18 May 2010)

1234 said:


> You wonder why people give up their free time and money when you make comments like that. ...


 I know what motivates me  as a founder member of our estate’s residents' association and member  of the village Tidy Towns Committee, etc. I can’t speak for others in similar situations.


1234 said:


> … Why should some residents pay for the unkeep while other free load and reap the benefits of maintaining the value of their home. ...




Because contributions (money, time, equipment, work, etc.) are voluntary
Because that’s how some people are - accept it and get on with it



1234 said:


> … How would you suggest a Residents Association encourage all members to contribute to the maintenance of their estate? ...


By showing all residents (owner-occupiers, renters, parents, children, singles, etc.), local businesses and landlords tangible benefits of the association. In our case these included illegal businesses closed, anti-social behaviour stopped, developer / builder “encouraged to do the right things”, public representatives lobbied, themed "parties" (Monthly clean-ups, Mayday, etc), etc.


1234 said:


> … I don't think it's unreasonable to name who is not paying their share...


I think it is completely unreasonable.  As membership is voluntary, a “share” only falls due if someone opts in; opting out (or deciding not to opt in) is a decision still allowed to citizens under our Constitution the last time I checked. Publicly naming non-contributors to a voluntary organisation may be grounds for a defamation case.


1234 said:


> …  If things are that bad that they cannot afford to pay towards the maintenance costs then maybe they should sell up and rent. ...


 It’s news to me that residents’ associations had the power to decide who their neighbours should be or who can and cannot own property, but maybe Biffo & Co slipped that one in with the NAMA stuff. 


1234 said:


> … If some residents do pay then the remainder become resentful and then they too will decide not to pay. Eventually no one will be paying to maintain the estate and it falls in neglect. The house prices will fall and everyone will lose out as a result. ...


Maybe, but not our experience thankfully.


1234 said:


> … Not making contributions to your local Residents Association is short  sighted in my opinion.


I think it depends on whether the association is populated / dominated / run by extremists of whatever hue; sometimes opting out can be a positive decision.


----------



## amygirl (18 May 2010)

Many thanks for all your replies, all are just the same as I was thinking myself except for 1234. I have approched these people and told them what has been said as I feel they have every right to know and not have people talking about them behind their backs. They are both very angry and will be having a word with the committee and will be advising them the next time they mention either household thery will be getting a solictors letter. They said they have the money but no one called to collect it.


----------



## Padraigb (18 May 2010)

That shows a particular danger of discussing private matters in public: it seems that they were actually willing to pay towards the grass cutting, but were not asked. To identify them in public as non-payers might be considered defamatory.

amygirl, I think you did the right thing.


----------



## MandaC (18 May 2010)

*Grass Cutting*

I remember something about the residents association where I lived.  Same thing, rows about the grass, etc. Apparently, there were issues about naming who did not pay, but the other way to do it was to issue a newsletter thanking and naming all the houses that did pay with no mention of those who did not.

Dont know how accurate that actually is by law.

When I moved to where I am now, there was a woman, self appointed who cut the grasses, etc as we have a number of green areas.  However, she decided the rates herself, eg, number 25 lives facing the green sideways, so they should pay 50, but number 30 is right in front of the green, so it was deemed they should pay 100.


There was war when this got out.  Now some residents took over and each house pays equally, though there is not much they can do if some people dont/cant pay.  The only thing is if no one does this thankless job of collecting the money, then the estate goes to ruin.


----------

