Bill to regulate Management Companies for apartment blocks. Overall good bill?

Hi All,

Just wondering if anyone know if this Bill is now completely passed into Law?

Thanks,
Shelley
 
It must be passed by the Seanad first.
does it immeadiately become law after the presidents signs it?
Click to expand...
It may be subject to a commencement order.
 
Here's the schedule of events from from DoJ:

On completion of Report Stage, the Bill is sent back to the Seanad to inform them of changes made in the Dail. Once that process is completed the Bill is sent to the President for signature and then becomes an Act. The majority of the sections will commence very shortly after signature by the President. A number of
sections may require regulations to be made and will be commenced when that process is completed.
Click to expand...
 
The bill was passed at 11.10 tonight. Some changes were discussed but because the previous debate ran late, they guilotined the debate, accepted all the remaining ministers changes and passed the bill.
 
I'm hoping some one can make my day and clarify an issue I have.

I live in an own door duplex with no access to 'inside' common areas yet almost half of my service charge or about 410e goes towards: electricity of common halls, cleaning, carpet cleaning, vermin control (inside), electrical repair and maintenance of common halls, fire safety equipment, access and intercom systems and internal building repair.

The MUD Act states in section 18 that "The annual service charge shall be calculated on a transparent basis and shall be equitably apportioned between unit owners" - does this mean I now have a legal basis for challenging the parts of the service charge outlined above from which I derive zero benefit.
 
moyno said:
I'm hoping some one can make my day and clarify an issue I have.

I live in an own door duplex with no access to 'inside' common areas yet almost half of my service charge or about 410e goes towards: electricity of common halls, cleaning, carpet cleaning, vermin control (inside), electrical repair and maintenance of common halls, fire safety equipment, access and intercom systems and internal building repair.

The MUD Act states in section 18 that "The annual service charge shall be calculated on a transparent basis and shall be equitably apportioned between unit owners" - does this mean I now have a legal basis for challenging the parts of the service charge outlined above from which I derive zero benefit.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt it. Lift maintenance makes up a significant proportion of the common area expenditure in apartment complexes, but those on the ground floor stil have to pay for such maintenance.
 
BazFitz said:
I very much doubt it. Lift maintenance makes up a significant proportion of the common area expenditure in apartment complexes, but those on the ground floor stil have to pay for such maintenance.
Click to expand...

There are no lifts. The building I live in are all own door with no 'inside' common areas. The building adjacent to us has a 3 floor common hallway where there are apartments. We pay to maintain their common area.
 
Your lease agreement should indicate the level of management fee you pay. This may be based on a percentage of the total square footage. If you are unhappy with this I think that it would require a special motion at an EGM to try and change it.
Of course not all owners may be infavour of a change because if it means you pay less someone else will pay more
 
i believe the lease usually states an amount and as Yorrick says ts based on a calculation, bedrooms, square footage or a simple percentage ie all ie total budget divided by number of units. I know my lease doesn't mention what paid for out of that amount. the fact the company decide to spend it for various services doesn't come into it. also depending on the development shouldn't larger units pay more in insurance costs then likewise top floor units should only pay for guttering.

i think if a company went down this avenue it would spend more time figuring out what each person actually had to pay based on services rather than just getting teh budget done and approved.

I think when the MUD says transparancy of services it means that you are aware of where the money is going when you get your invoice and not just getting a bill each year with a figure on it.
 
Where I live there are 4 types of units: houses, apartments, own door access duplexes and shared access duplexes.

There are two parts of the budget.

All units pay a portion of budget A which covers gardening, admin charges, bins etc.

Only duplexes and apartments pay budget B which covers block insurance, cleaning of gutters and maintaining common areas. I know exactly how much of each charge I pay (such as 100e to clean common areas and about 120e last year to maintain carpets in common areas).

A house pays about €480 per year service charge while I pay closer to €1000. The only difference between my unit (and all other own door access duplexes for that matter) and a house we need to pay for block insurance and cleaning gutters which comes to €75 per year.

The bill states that The annual service charge shall be calculated on a transparent basis and shall be equitably apportioned between unit owners. It is surely not equitably apportioned in this case.

Why should a house not pay to clean these common areas and I do when neither of us derive benefit from them?
 
redfedora said:
i believe the lease usually states an amount and as Yorrick says ts based on a calculation, bedrooms, square footage or a simple percentage ie all ie total budget divided by number of units. I know my lease doesn't mention what paid for out of that amount. the fact the company decide to spend it for various services doesn't come into it. also depending on the development shouldn't larger units pay more in insurance costs then likewise top floor units should only pay for guttering.
Click to expand...

A lease should mention a percentage of the budget rather than a monetary amount. The budget is a development budget and not a unit budget so it's a contribution to the overall costs rather than unit/service specific in most cases.

In our development it's purely a square footage calculation BUT in newer phases of the development (a mix of houses, own door apartments & duplexes and shared entrance apartments) only shared entrance apartments pay for expenses such as common area cleaning, fire alarm maintenance etc as the costs only apply to those units. That's a much fairer breakdown.

The examples you suggest don't necessarily correlate, guttering issues affect the entire building and the roof which is in everyone's interest to maintain. As the management company insurance is for buildings ie the outer walls, unit size shouldn't matter when it's the shell that's insured? Don't forget insurance costs also include common areas, car parks, communal hallways, playgrounds etc.
 
moyno said:
The bill states that The annual service charge shall be calculated on a transparent basis and shall be equitably apportioned between unit owners. It is surely not equitably apportioned in this case.

Why should a house not pay to clean these common areas and I do when neither of us derive benefit from them?
Click to expand...

It all depends on what's in your lease. Yours seems a little fairer than ours but still not equitable. Unfortunately you signed that lease and are stuck with it. The only way to change the budget structure (and we've taken endless legal advice on this) would be to draw up new leases which would have to have 100% agreements by all the owners. That is never going to happen because some people have a great deal at the moment, get all the services, don't pay an equitable share of the budget, and will never agree to paying more.
 
shesells said:
A lease should mention a percentage of the budget rather than a monetary amount. The budget is a development budget and not a unit budget so it's a contribution to the overall costs rather than unit/service specific in most cases..
Click to expand...

i know that but our lease actually does specify an amount. it also says how that is calculated ie total budget divided by mumber of units which makes no senxse because there are various different types and includes a clause to allow for a modification of the calculation. i assume thats for proper apportionment.


shesells said:
The examples you suggest don't necessarily correlate, guttering issues affect the entire building and the roof which is in everyone's interest to maintain. As the management company insurance is for buildings ie the outer walls, unit size shouldn't matter when it's the shell that's insured? Don't forget insurance costs also include common areas, car parks, communal hallways, playgrounds etc.
Click to expand...

fair point but you propably get where i was going with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top