Tea and Toast
Registered User
- Messages
- 12
Long time lurker, first time poster!
We are in a relatively new estate built during the Tiger with 1/2 houses sold due to the developer going belly-up. The unfinished houses remained unfinished/unsold until recently but the management company/agent continued on as best it could, and did a reasonably good job.
The problem is that while the Receiver agreed to pay maintenance fees for unfinished houses (gardens/parking spots/other costs), the management company incorrectly twice apportioned a cheque received from the Receivers for outstanding service charges due.
The Solicitors for the Receivers argue they paid the service charge debts as per the Requisition on Title documents 37/ MUD Act replies as individual properties were sold. They also argue the Management agent incorrectly calculated and undercharged for the service charges for the relevant years and that we were now asking them to make it up.
Records show that they were initially correctly invoiced (!) and the Management Company’s Solicitors contend that that money is still due irrespective of the admin mistake. The Management Agent then notified the Receivers that they would be billed for the total outstanding debt when they look for MUD Act replies on the remaining unsold properties. The Receivers are obviously not very happy with that.
A deal is being spoken of whereby the Receivers solicitors are saying they will pay the correct service charges on the remaining unsold properties as originally agreeed but only 33% of the oher debt (for arguments sake EUR10,000 of EUR30,000). The estate hasn't yet been taken in charge by the Council but we exect this to happen within 6 months. Some on the Committee fear the Receivers will simply walk away when the estate is taken in charge and only legal action (and consequent legal fees we can ill afford) will resolve this.
In summary through the management company's error, the Receivers are trying to take advantage. Is this normal sharp practice by Receivers? (As further background, the Committee has also sent legal letters to other residents for unpaid fees stretching back years but not approaching the level of this debt. The Committee will obviously have to justify whatever approach is taken at the next AGM i.e. justifying a large write-off but chasing our neighbours for unpaid fees)
Has anyone any suggestions on how to plot a way forward?
We are in a relatively new estate built during the Tiger with 1/2 houses sold due to the developer going belly-up. The unfinished houses remained unfinished/unsold until recently but the management company/agent continued on as best it could, and did a reasonably good job.
The problem is that while the Receiver agreed to pay maintenance fees for unfinished houses (gardens/parking spots/other costs), the management company incorrectly twice apportioned a cheque received from the Receivers for outstanding service charges due.
The Solicitors for the Receivers argue they paid the service charge debts as per the Requisition on Title documents 37/ MUD Act replies as individual properties were sold. They also argue the Management agent incorrectly calculated and undercharged for the service charges for the relevant years and that we were now asking them to make it up.
Records show that they were initially correctly invoiced (!) and the Management Company’s Solicitors contend that that money is still due irrespective of the admin mistake. The Management Agent then notified the Receivers that they would be billed for the total outstanding debt when they look for MUD Act replies on the remaining unsold properties. The Receivers are obviously not very happy with that.
A deal is being spoken of whereby the Receivers solicitors are saying they will pay the correct service charges on the remaining unsold properties as originally agreeed but only 33% of the oher debt (for arguments sake EUR10,000 of EUR30,000). The estate hasn't yet been taken in charge by the Council but we exect this to happen within 6 months. Some on the Committee fear the Receivers will simply walk away when the estate is taken in charge and only legal action (and consequent legal fees we can ill afford) will resolve this.
In summary through the management company's error, the Receivers are trying to take advantage. Is this normal sharp practice by Receivers? (As further background, the Committee has also sent legal letters to other residents for unpaid fees stretching back years but not approaching the level of this debt. The Committee will obviously have to justify whatever approach is taken at the next AGM i.e. justifying a large write-off but chasing our neighbours for unpaid fees)
Has anyone any suggestions on how to plot a way forward?