What to do when directors don't reply

No sinking fund means repairs don't get done because there is no cash available to do them, annual charges are kept at a minimum and when some don't pay or are in arrears then the services in the building suffers, think electric gates not working, left broken, roof leaking etc, no sicking fund means that in the event of a repair costing say €20k to the roof and there are 20 units then all must pay the €1000 on top of their fees before the work gets started, if there are non payers or slow payers it could be the case that others pay more to stop that pesky roof leaking into their unit.

If you have no headache today then why buy one.
 
after all these questions I wanted to explain better my position which is the same of many people in this Country: I can't keep paying rent, especially with this market, I feel like I'm burning money. I can't afford a house either so I'm left with the only option of apartments. It's just unbelievable how it works and the thing that I find absolutely incredible is that if there is a roof leak and no sinking fund then what? Before they can do something the apartment will rot? Also how is it even conceivable that if I wanted to fix it myself I'm not even allowed!!!

I have no words anymore and losing hope completely. I'm seriously thinking to go back to my Country because it's impossible to win here :/

Thanks again for your patience,

Katrina
 
Hi Katrina. I assume it's Dublin that you are working and living in.
There are cheaper houses elsewhere in Ireland and you could commute to Dublin.
 
thanks for your suggestion but I work on shifts and it's not practical, I thought about it and of course yes I'm in Dublin and the level of madness I've seen here I've never seen anywhere else
 
R3alEstate said:
can you explain me better what do you mean? Sorry if I ask silly questions...
Click to expand...

The MUd act came in 2011 when economy was in bits. A huge amount of owners took over the running of their blocks and a huge amount of new entrants came into the market as management agents. A lot of directors are responsible people but unfortunately some are not and the consequences of this are disastrous.

As the sinking fund is a rainy day fund and not used the year its collected. As such a lot irresponsible omc directors , aided by cowboy agents trying to get in as a new agent would reduce this sum to give all the owners a gimme service charge budget for a few years. Some of them might have just meant well trying to reduce the bill when times were tough. Owners by and large don't care so long as the annual fee goes down.

With sinking fund reduced the overall service charge could go down and the new directors and their mate the new agent would be heroes of the development for few years while everyone enjoyed 1/3 or 1/4 less of a service charge bill and got loads of claps at the agm and a few pints bought for them in the local after.

Then the roof fails or the lift falls down the shaft and all the money that should have been put aside to deal with it hasn't and everyone has to pony up for a levy of a few thousand within a short notice and a lot of angry residents( who previously would have not minded the "gimme" budgets of the last decade)

The old directors sheepishly step down/are voted out, agent resigns or is fired and heads for the hills and a new set of volunteers directors and an agent spend a few years trying to clean up the mess and get the place back up and running again.
 
Your are over worrying about this. there are plenty of well run management companies in Ireland. In the statement you have it appear that they have a surplus cash of 54k. This may well be how to interpret the sinking fund. Without seeing the exact statement it appears that yearly costs for the complex were porjected to be 28k but actually were 34k which meant they 'lost' 6k. It appears that the fees collected were for the 28k figure but due to some extras it cost an extra 6k. Not an unusual occurrence and as I said if they have funds of 54k then they have a fund to play with. All apartments in Ireland have these and just because there are a few scaremongers which vent their anger here doesn't mean that the vast majority are run well.
Conversely, if you have your own house, how much do you think it would take to maintain it annually ? If the roof even in a small cottage needs changing, you will need 20k minimum to get it sorted. How much for insurance, bins, hall stairs and landing maintenance, common areas, electricity ?
 
elcato said:
Your are over worrying about this. there are plenty of well run management companies in Ireland. In the statement you have it appear that they have a surplus cash of 54k. This may well be how to interpret the sinking fund. Without seeing the exact statement it appears that yearly costs for the complex were porjected to be 28k but actually were 34k which meant they 'lost' 6k. It appears that the fees collected were for the 28k figure but due to some extras it cost an extra 6k. Not an unusual occurrence and as I said if they have funds of 54k then they have a fund to play with. All apartments in Ireland have these and just because there are a few scaremongers which vent their anger here doesn't mean that the vast majority are run well.
Conversely, if you have your own house, how much do you think it would take to maintain it annually ? If the roof even in a small cottage needs changing, you will need 20k minimum to get it sorted. How much for insurance, bins, hall stairs and landing maintenance, common areas, electricity ?
Click to expand...

Agree. most blocks are well run but the bad eggs are very rotton.

Most of the venting here down to people not paying service charges or in arrears, not understanding where the money goes and having no idea on how much under the hood work goes on in running a large complex. Its quite clear from a lot of the ranty threads that none of the posters in question have every gone to an AGM.

And don't get me started on the "Im not going to pay my service charge until I am happy and we should all boycott" crowd
 
thanks guys really appreciate your help. It's given me some courage to go ahead.

Thanks also for explaining me those figures.

If I didn't get it wrong then it seems that the possibility of a roof leaking not being repaired is just theoretic and the OMC has to fix it no matter what. If there is a sinking fund better otherwise the owners have to pay with a short notice but it's not the case that I would be left with the leak and not being able to fix it

Thanks again!
 
elcato said:
It means they have 138,429 in the bank but have bills outstanding which are due of 84,194. The Net current assets is the second subtracted from the first. As the last figure is the same as current assets then it appears that they don't have a sinking fund as that should appear under capital reserves and funds and be added under the Capital and reserves heading I believe.

Note: I am not an accountant so instruct your solicitor to ask them.
Click to expand...

The 138,429 may not be all be a bank account - it could be made up of monies due (ie unpaid management fees) plus cash in the bank
 
I understand really little of these things but I'd be surprised if they counted as money in something they actually don't have to be honest, but I could be wrong. I'm not a positive person I know but you seem really negative.

Is it legal to write down something like that if they don't really have the money in?
 
I agree there are some unscrupulous agents and some unreliable owner Directors, but there are plenty of apartment complexes where the company is well run and maintenance is scheduled and planned in a cost effective manner. I live in such a development and we are not unique. If you do buy an apartment you need to realise that you are a member of the OMC and not just a critic. Many owners complain lots but do nothing themselves to get involved or resolve an unsatisfactory situation.
 
Can you also explain me why it's a bad thing if the developer doesn't pass the property to the OMC and they are still a Director?

Thanks
 
If the Developers are still directors then they may not be working in the best interest of the property owners. In our apt complex the Developers and our previous agent were very closely connected. We were being over charged significantly for all of our basic services, cleaning, gardening, insurance etc. Once we took control we were able to change managing agent and put all these contracts out to tender. As a result we were able to gain significant savings for the same level of service and reduce management fees significantly. When the Developers were acting as Directors we had no sinking fund. Five years later we have over €100,000 in this fund and plan to increase our contributions significantly in the coming years. This has taken a bit of time and effort but it has been worth it.
 
The first step is to get volunteer owners on the Board of the OMC at the AGM. Under the MUD act the Developers have to hand over the estate to owners after a number of years. The sooner the handover process of the common areas of the estate is completed the better but make sure to get a good solicitor to act on your behalf.
 
Unless you are buying into a relatively new development or one that was distressed/incomplete in the recession years it is unlikely that the developer is still involved. Again your solicitor should be able to confirm this.
 
Katine I am a retired solicitor with experience of mud act personally and preofessionally.



S 18 of MUD Act regulates service charge. How they are set and what they are used for.

Under S18 7 of the MUD Act approval for service charges to defray cost of matter that are or were the responsiblity of the developer/builder 'have no effect' until three years after the common areas have been transferred to the management company.

If common areas transferred then man co can sue for recovery of service charges approved under S18 .

If not then approval by member of any s charge to pay cost that developer/builder liable for 'has no effect' ??

This may be why man co are not suing for arrears cos NONE IS OWED under MUD ACT.

If service charges are payable to the developer under the lease then developer is responsible for the obligation of the lessor under the lease until the common areas transferred. The service charges are the assets of the DEVELOPER not MAN CO. until common areas are transferred

The management company is in debt to the developer? But who control the management company the voting powers? Under the articles of association u may find that the subscriber to the memorandum of association control the voting rights as nominees of the developer until the management company has acquired the interest of the developer in the development lands.


S18 does not apply to cost of one of repair jobs like leaking roofs to which building regulations apply .

This is covered S19 on contributions to a sinking fund .

the invoice for service charge payment due should furnish two amounts

amount of service charge (cannot be approved by members if common areas not transferred under S18 7 )

AND

amount of contribution to the sinking fund which is not affected by S18.7.



I would look for accommodation and if it is in apartment block make sure common areas are transferred to the man co.









.
Palerider said:
I'm not sure that anybody buying into a development will get accurate information, I certainly did not, after I bought I challenged the agent when It was disclosed there were 10k+ arrears on one unit undisclosed, he told me I was neither an owner or Director when I was making enquiries, all with a straight face, he also told me all units were current, Also false.

I accept I may have had the worst experience but it was a lesson for me that Im happy to share, thread carefully is the message for apartment buyers in this country and if you buy get involved in the OMC.
Click to expand...
R3alEstate said:
Hi,

I wanted to ask if there is an entity that a member of an OMC can refer to when the directors don't do their job and there are problems like bad owners who don't pay, services not provided or other issues of any kind.

Thanks

Katrina
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you missed a beat here MTP, in this case the OP is looking to buy an apartment and does not have an issue as a tenant renting her apartment....
 
Yes Palerider is right MTP, I'm looking for an apartment and the one that I like is in an apartment block which has a situation difficult to understand (at least for me).

I've gone through your post (thanks for taking the time) but I'm not so technical to understand all of it. From what I was able to find out the developer is still a director in the MC, he didn't pass the common areas yet and this complex was finished around 10 years ago, but he's still there!

What I've understood from your post is that in this situation it's not possible to force owners to pay service charges until the MC owns the common areas.

At this point I'm really scared to buy because if I do and then there is something like a roof leak no one is going to pay and I'd find myself in the situation to not be able to repair myself, no place to stay and mortgage to pay :(

Is there a way to force the developer to hand over the common areas? From my research it appears that the County Council is interested part in many of the apartments in the same block, why they don't do anything about it?

I wanted to thank you all for all your help, I can't believe how useful this forum is!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top