Elevator charges in Management fees and living on ground floor

J

JonnyCage

Registered User
Messages
17
Hi there

I have a ground floor apartment, and the highest contributor to our management fees (~1800 every year) is elevator maintenance.

Do I really have to pay Elevator fees considering I am on ground floor and the elevator only ever goes up (i.e. no down to basement) ?

This cannot be fair as I Have NEVER used the Elevator for anything

Thanks for the info

Regards
JC
 
What did you sign up for when you purchased the property? It's standard for ground floor apartments to contribute equally.
 
It is most likely that your contract is for a share of the overall budget. The percentage that you pay was calculated before you purchased the unit and the criteria used vaied greatly from one scheme to another. Some took account of the floor of unit, size, number of bedrooms, size of block etc. etc. Others divided the budget equally.

There are probably people who live on the first floor who always take the stairs !

What is the basis for the calculation of your annual service charge?
 
I dont think its usual practice to exclude people from paying a share in the expenditure based on what floor they live. Our complex divides all expenses between all apts with the % decided on floor size.

A few years ago we did an expensive project on the basement as it was causing damp issues for ground floor apts. All apts contributed. In the same way we'll all contribute to the roofing project.
 
1. I am not aware of the practice occurring in Ireland but In London and some of the continental countries the lease agreements do make allowance for people on the ground floor who may not use elevators. However you have signed a lease agreement agreeing to pay a certain agreed ratio every year so it is a little late to complain now.

2. Nowhere in your lease will it say that life is fair.
 
JonnyCage said:
Hi there

I have a ground floor apartment, and the highest contributor to our management fees (~1800 every year) is elevator maintenance.
Click to expand...


you'll find if you look at your contract it most likely states service fee/managemnent fee = 1234. it wont go into teh detail of how that s broken down in the contract but it will state what services are provided. How the company then decides to spent that money is irrelevant once it up holds its side of the contract.

the fact that a certain amount of your service charge is apportioned to the elevator maintenance is included in the budgets for transparancy only. the company could just list the budget for the year and the estimated amount for each service and not break down your contribution, that's how we do it because it then means we dont have to answer questions like the above because no matter how many times we answer it someone will not understand and grind an AGM to a halt because of it.


your arguement about ground floor apartment could also be used for top floor apartments, they use more of the lift so should pay more or on the flip side they dont have immediate access to the grassed/paved areas so shouldnt pay for it at all or a 1 bed apartment generates less waste and drainage than say a 2 bed thus should pay less for these services. like wise someone with two people uses generates more waste than a unit with one person so the 2 people should pay more for waste removal should they not?


the fact remains that you are legally bound to pay all the service charge in full. The company uses its income to pay for all budgeted services the access and use of those services by the individual owners is irrelevant.
 
In the apartment complex I am in there are apartments on 3 levels, ground, 1st floor, 2nd floor. Ground and 1st floor apartments have their own front door accessed from street level for ground, and outdoor steps for 1st. The apartments on the 2nd floor have 1 front door accessed by outdoor steps, which opens into a flight of internal stairs, leading to internal individual apartment front doors.

When I first moved in all apartments paid the same management fees. This was later challenged as people in ground and 1st floor felt it was unfair to pay for the upkeep (cleaning) and lighting of the shared internal stairs for the top floor apartments.

A successful objection was made and now the cost of maintaining the internal shared area used only by the top floor apartments is paid only by the top floor apartments.

Our management fees contain a breakdown of the fee so it was clear to all what we were paying for.
 
truthseeker said:
A successful objection was made and now the cost of maintaining the internal shared area used only by the top floor apartments is paid only by the top floor apartments.
.
Click to expand...

This would be the only way to change how things are done alright and it would need a discussion at a general meeting with a vote being taken. I wouldnt leave something like that to the discresion of directors or agents, I's let the majority decide by a show of hands, its the fairest way and also would indicate the general feeling in the company.

after that it some record other than minutes of the AGM might be a goo idea IMO, maybe updating the Memo and Arts to reflect it so that those that later join the company can be provided with the documentation by their lawyer upon the completion of sale, because if its only recorded in the minutes they wouldnt get a copy at sale and it might it lend itself to confusion. Also such a decision can also be overturned at any point by another vote.
 

When you say challenge and objection...was all of this done with solicitors? We got legal advice in our development as own door units are subsidising the expenses of the shared door units like common area cleaning, fire alarm service etc but the way the company was set up and the leases were written means we have no legal way of changing the allocation of fees.
 

No - it wasnt done with solicitors.

When I say challenge I mean the members of the management company (the apartment owners), challenged it at an AGM that the directors of the management company were present at.

After some members objected there was a vote taken by all members. As the top floor apartments comprise 1/3 of the development they were in the minority so it was agreed that the change to management fees would be made.
 
sorry to say but I think that would not hold up in court if any owner wanted to challange it.

I think you should talk to a solicitor.
 
AMO said:
sorry to say but I think that would not hold up in court if any owner wanted to challange it.

I think you should talk to a solicitor.
Click to expand...

Precisely! The directors and almost all owners in our cluster want to challenge it but we've had several solicitors look at it and the only way to change it would be to disolve the MC and set up a new one and we are certain we wouldn't get 100% agreement to join the new company so it's a non starter.

Your directors are being negligent in allowing this change to be implemented without legal guarantees that it is in keeping with the Articles of Association and head leases for the Management Company.
 

You could apply that same logic to the lighting,cleaning,re painting,ongoing maintenance,insurance on other floors and in other blocks of the complex,why should you pay for all those charges as they have no value to you on the ground level of your particular block?

If these services are not maintained and improved on an ongoing basis,you would find it even more difficult to say sell your apt in the future,who in their right mind would want to buy a property in a run down complex,poorly maintained and where the elevator doesnt work?
 
shesells said:
but the way the company was set up and the leases were written means we have no legal way of changing the allocation of fees.
Click to expand...

I would think that this is the case for most companies. I remember reading something where a similar situation occurred and i believe it went to court and the judge basically said that in theory the complainant was right but the practicalities would make in near impossible to actually enforce. basically the judges said that to make a ruling that excluded one type of property from paying for elevators would mean that the likes of drainage, fire equipment, lighting, gutters, grass, waste management etc all had to be recalculated because a one bed would use less drains and waste than a two bed because less people could occupy it. likewise a top floor should pay for roof maintenance as the roof is above their property and not say the ground floors and gutters would be the same, while a lower floor should not, same with grass and internal lighting, the lower floors shouldn’t pay for the electricity of the upper floor communal lighting or cleaning because they would have no cause to go to those floors while those on the upper floors had to travel though the lower floors to get to their property thus they dirtied it more. personally I think he was taking the mick but i can see the logic in his thinking.

the head lease would have to be changed as would the lease agreements of every single person, as these leases are individual contracts then I would think that means you'd need 100% compliance to implement it contractually. the alternative would be to dissolve the existing MC and implement a new one with new memo and arts as shesells has said but that’s never going to happen because people don’t want to pay their fees at the best of times, offer them an out and I doubt they would agree to sign up for the new company.

I think a lot of talk similar to what the OP has said will happen and belts get tighter and time tougher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register