You're way off the mark here.
These companies are a special case...and normal rules cannot apply.
As far as I can see it's more often antipathy rather than apathy with housholders taking a them and us approach to the management company and not understanding (or want to understand) that they are the management company in most cases!I used to live in an apartment complex and couldn't believe the apathy surrounding the whole management company issue. People would complain OK if you spoke with them, but they took zero interest in getting involved in any form. Am I glad I moved on....
No they're not (a special case)! They're either companies, and play by the rules, or they're not. It never ceases to amaze me in this country that when laws start getting enforced, people claim they don't apply, they're special cases, sure everyone's doing it, whatever....
You do have my sympathy, however. Your problem is with your director
I'm no legal expert, but I believe if you were to become a director I can't see how you'd be held liable for anything that happened pre-dating your apointment. Also, if you act in member's interests once apointed, I think it extremely unlikely you'd be held personally liable for anything (check out the recent Eddy Hobbs case). It's really a legal question though. You should also check to see how directors can be removed. In fact, that would be my starting point: get rid of them if you can.
The solution I feel is vigorous enforcement of directors responsibilities directed towards these builders, and allowing residents sit as directors without the traditional burdens.
One further thought is that I cannot see how the second part of this suggestion could be in any way workable. What you're effectively asking for is the ability to take control of something without taking any responsibility for it.
Some responsibility has to devolve to the shareholders. How can you allow a company go this way when your home/investments are being threatened by people not doing their job? People need to wake up and take responsibility. No point always blaming someone else. You have access to courts and if a number of apartments/houses are involved hold meetings with the others.
Thanks everyone for your advice, some good reading for me here.
We were told by our management agent that the developer is ready to come off as a director of the Management Company and that they would like some residents to go forward for directorship,
The said as the company was limited by gaurantee it is not the same as being a director with a non limited by guarantee company, directors can not be held personally responsible for anything and all residents are equally liable should anything go wrong...
I just wasnt sure if this was true or not!
Anyone who is brave enough to step up to the mark needs to get professional advice and do it with their eye's wide open. As I said, there's no personal liablilty if you act correctly, but there's some serious responsibilities involved, and you can't just walk away from them if you don't like what you find.
One does not have to actively act incorrectly to be quilty of reckless trading simply being ignorant of your responsibilities and passively letting the situation continue could in some circumstances be considered reckless trading for which a director could be personally liable.
However, if you're prepared to do this, there should be no danger of taking the rap for someone else's misdeads just because you're a director, which is what I think one of the concerns is.
There was an interesting case in the papers last week about Eddy Hobbs who was a director of a company in pretty catastrophic circumstances, but because he acted responsibly was commended rather than censured (or worse) for his actions (I'm a bit vague on the details, but that's what I took from the reports).
It took Eddie the guts of a decade, and several trips to the courts, to have his good name vindicated in this way. I am sure that the whole saga was a nightmare for him. Its very easy to say that there "should be no danger of taking the rap for someone else's misdeads just because you're a director" but not many people have either the money or the stomach to defend themselves in the courts if something unexpected happens.
Exactly...the problem is a resident becoming a director of a company which is trading recklessly would be obliged to take action immediately. This would jeopardise their and other resident's properties. It'd be like shooting yourself in the foot. I would like to take a more active role in the running of the management company but cannot risk my own situation.
Ang, it is an offence to continue trading recklessly. I go back to saying there has to be a special category of directorship created for residents in management company situations. You'd still have traditional directors-the builders. They have made the vast profits which would justify the obligations they would face. But as things stand right now, residents could find themselves in deep trouble if they are proactive enought to step forward.
You're way off the mark here.
Our management company has been forced to pay approximately €3,000 in fines to Companies Office since its incorporation. This money has come from company funds...i.e. money I and the other residents have put into the company by way of management fees. We are arguing that the directors (in this case the builders) should pay these fees but it's a tough fight. I would like to be a director of this company but cannot and will not accept the liabilities that go with a standard directorship. So what do we do? Keep the status quo and continue to be ripped off? And I use the term ripped off knowing meaning what I say. Or become a director of a shambolic company to look after my and other residents' interests and jeopardise my own career?
These companies are a special case...and normal rules cannot apply.
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?