ClubMan said:Please take rants to Letting Off Steam and stick to discussing the issue in hand. Thanks.
ClubMan said:I'm just pointing out that nobody is forced to buy in a development which is privately managed either short term (e.g. until the LA takes it in charge) or longer term (e.g. indefinitely).
it's a fairly stupid argument. It is almost impossible to find new developments that don't charge fees
it's a fairly stupid argument
Who says that all new developments involve management fees - temporarily or indefinitely?
I bought a house in 1995 and the EA clearly stated up front that the development (which is technically private but is not gated and has a public right of way through) would not be taken in charge by the LA, would be privately managed, that there was a management company of which the householders would be members/shareholders and that annual management fees would be payable (the first year on closing). Obviously my solicitor also pointed out these issues separately. Maybe this transparency was/is unusual but I would imagine that even with a basic level of "due diligence" the potential buyer will know in advance what the situation is with regard to management and fees.In short, what I mean to say is, this is the thing that management will take advantage off. In a fair game the EA should explain that this house has the management fees. Do they say it? Some of EA's say they'd get back and they NEVER get back to you. Its a sorry state. I think its not well communicated to the buyer.
I dont think anyone "sane" would buy a 20 year old property for 360K when a new one is available for the same price.Who is arguing that you have to buy a new property?
Then what you think, the role of politicians is, in a democratic country?Why? It's not their problem or concern that you or others decided to buy in a privately managed development and now, after the fact, don't like it.
Could you tell me about at least one development without management fee? All the county councils have made it mandatory to have a management company to get the planning permission approved.Well why don't you point out a new dev in Dublin that doesn't have a mgnt fee intially. No choice equals forced....
I don't understand what you mean. Your terminology is confusing. See the definitions of management company and management agent/agency earlier in this thread and many others.Many members speak about the management fee , as if they are management company agents.
Which would be...?I dont mind paying a "Nominal Justifiable Fee" for the management of the estate to a management company.
Nobody is necessarily exploited here. People are free not to buy in a privately managed area if that arrangement does not suit them.Then what you think, the role of politicians is, in a democratic country?
Silently watch their people being exploited by greedy companies !
Who here "supported a 'hefty' management company fee"? It might help if you argued your point based on what was actually posted here and not what you imagined was posted.I am talking for people with average income. Members who supported the "hefty" management company fee here, might be millionanires who might have won a euro million recently!
Of course not but many people seem to act as if they are powerless pawns in these situations when, in fact, they are active principals in the legal agreement underpinning the management company. Also - moaning about them (the management company) and us (the poor householders) is missing the point in most cases since there is no "them" at all. If people don't like how their management company is operating then they should get actively involved to change matters rather than expecting the state to step in and act for them.But surely that doesn't mean you don't have the right to complain about it afterwards?
ITGuru said:I dont think anyone "sane" would buy a 20 year old property for 360K when a new one is available for the same price.
ITGuru said:Then what you think, the role of politicians is, in a democratic country?
Silently watch their people being exploited by greedy companies !
I am talking for people with average income. Members who supported the "hefty" management company fee here, might be millionanires who might have won a euro million recently!
Of course not but many people seem to act as if they are powerless pawns in these situations when, in fact, they are active principals in the legal agreement underpinning the management company.
Then there IS no management company in ewffect and the developer can charge what he likes to empty the bins and hire himself as agent at extortionate rates and tough **** on you, the purchaser.
2Pack said:Where the developer has gone and left a proper finished estate in the hands of the owners its different of course
Stop moaning and get involved, and begin to examine issues like budget,sinking fund
Why are the people who have never had any trouble with management companies so annoyed with the people who have? If I'm giving someone advice in my area of expertise, I don't start by getting annoyed with the person who doesn't understand the area and tell them they should've known better before they got into the situation.
People buying new houses are often going to be novices and definitely pre-occupied with other things. They're not going to sit down with the solicitor and say "Tell me every last thing that could turn out to be a headache in the next two years or so..."
Just because there are things they CAN do doesn't mean they should be put in the position in the first place. It would seem that a little bit of regulation regarding management companies/agents wouldn't go amiss. Why direct the anger at the exploited instead of the exploiters?
In what other situation would you consider with-holding payment to be a last resort? It seems the most natural reaction if no service is received.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?