A Summary of the new Law about Ownership and Management

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
02/10/2010 23:12

Law 35/2010 published in the Official Gazette on 22 July 2010.

Story Ownership and Story Easement Law

Although this law has been published in the Official Gazette, the required byelaws have not been passed yet so its not fully operational yet. According to this law one will be able to get the title deeds of a property which is yet at the planning stage once all the building permissions are obtained. Of course the PTP will be an stumbling block to foreigners unless that is sorted out too. Once an easement title deed is obtained the property will be in his name but will be obliged to pay the developer or the financial institution the amount as stated in the sale contract. Otherwise they will be responsible for all the losses including interest and damages for default in payments.



Management:

The original law about the management of apartments has been repealed and this law includes many paragraphs which will make the management easier.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
02/10/2010 23:13

Clause 22(1): Owners will be responsible in equal shares for expenses and advanced payments unless agreed otherwise i.e. it will be possible to decide on monthly payments and be binding on all.

Clause 22(A): The manager will have the right to sue the owner who does not pay but if he does not do so any owner can do it.

Clause 22(B): Late payments will be subject to maximum interest charged by the banks.

Clause 24(1): Those making use of the apartments or the tenants are responsible jointly with the owners but the responsibility of the tenant cannot exceed the rent.

Clause 24(2): If not paid a memorandum can be put on the property.

Clause 24 (3): This memorandum will have priority over others.

Clause 27 (1): The court can decide to pass the ownership of the defaulter to other owners jointly or to have it put on sale.

Clause 27 (3): Default in payment for three times in two years is a cause for application to court.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
02/10/2010 23:14

Clause 32 (1): The quorum must be over one half of owners or shares and decided by simple majority except in those cases where more is required or as specified by the constitution.

Clause 32 (2): If quorum is not met at first meeting, the second meeting must take place between 7-14 days.

Clause 33 (2): Each owner has one vote for each unit but the vote cannot exceed one third of total votes.

Clause 33 (6): Proxy votes an be used but one person cannot have more than 5% of the total votes. If the total votes is 40 or less, the number of proxy votes used by one person cannot exceed two votes.

Clause 35 (1): Any owner who attends a meeting and casts an opposition vote can apply to court within one month against any decision. Any owner who was not present at the meeting can apply to court within one month of learning the decision taken but in any case not after six months. There is no time limit for application to court against any decision which is illegal.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
02/10/2010 23:15

Clause 35 (2): Any owner can apply to court against any owner or person who has right to use it or a tenant for non-payment.

Clause 36 (3): If the property is solely owned by one person, he is the manager of the site.

Clause 36 (6): If the Owners Association cannot agree on a management, any owner can apply to court to have a management appointed by the court.

Clause 36 (7): Any management appointed by the court cannot be changed by the Owners Association in less than six months unless the court allows a change earlier for a good reason.

Clause 38 (1) (A): The manager must keep a book and show all expenses with dates in the right order.

Clause 38 (1) (B): This book must be closed one month after the end of the year and shown to Owners Association or the Controllers.

Clause 52: The followings byelaws must be enacted and published in the official gazette within six months of this law, namely:

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
02/10/2010 23:16

(1): Story Easement Agreements,

(2): Methods for registration of ownership and easements at DLO,

(3): About the rules for the Management of the property,

(4): Methods to be employed by the owners and the books to be kept,

(5): The Procedure for the managers,

(6): Registration and transfer of ownership and easements,

(7): The determination of any damage of the main property or one of its independent parts

Clause 53: apartment Law 63/1987 is repealed by this law but anything done under that law remains valid.



ismet

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 01:49

elco2

I presume that management also have an obligation to to adhere to service level agreement/contract that owners employ the management company on ?



coupled up with having a legal mandate on site ?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 02:29

Anita,

The problem is this: The law does not recognize the situation where the title deeds are held by the developer but the buyers are living in them. As far as the law is concerned the developer is the sole owner and thus he manages or the company that he elects. On the other hand, the owner (the developer) is jointly responsible with the user (the buyer) for maintenance costs. If we draw a parallel between a tenant and a buyer, things get complicated. A tenant is only responsible for maintenance to a maximum of the rent. Thus it is possible to argue that the buyer is simply responsible for the purchase price and no more until he/she becomes the owner unless the sale contract says otherwise. One can argue that if the developer elects the management company and the buyers have no say in it, then why should the buyers pay for it.

To cut a long story short, the law does not answer for the situation where the buyers have not got the title deeds yet and it will be up to the courts to sort it out unlesss they do something about it in the byelaws.

ismet

PS: I better have a word with the chap who appeared with me on TV and he is working on these byelaws.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 02:34

Anita,

Sorry, your question was about something else. Of course the management has to adhere to the terms of service. One precondition is that the management must be elected/selected by the committee which was elected by the owners by a proper vote.

ismet

Deniz1


Joined: 28/07/2009
Posts: 3829

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 06:56

Well thats as clear as mud and i am not dunce!

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 10:08

I understand Elco just needed to clarify owners with deeds and owners who are waiting for deeds have an obligation from management also .





Deniz1



It is difficult to understand unless you are going through a process where these laws are needed to help complexes work .

Let us hope that this law will encourage both management and owners to have clearer guidelines to follow .

Obligatory transparency and record keeping for all owners to see, should in turn give owners more faith in how there sites are being run.

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 10:14

Thank you Elco .

honestie


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 468

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 10:18

Ismet



think I understand as best I can however in a situation like mine where in a complex of 36 the builder who also lives on it has only transferred 24 and wont transfer the rest as he just wants to be awkward and now going to court.



we have a management company and signed and stamped maintenance contracts and elected commitee .



the builder refuses to pay for any maintenace charges or communal water electric etc and we are in the process of starting legal action.





how would this legislation apply in this case.



honestie



As the builder still has 12/36 in his name what is our position then under this new law

walkerscott


Joined: 13/08/2009
Posts: 901

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 10:40

Ismet

Thank you very much for explaining the new law. You certainly made it short, sweet and simple to understand, a super precis!

It is much like the laws which exist in Germany and which run without many problems. The cost of the management company, maintenance of the outside areas and building exterior and the sinking fund amounts seem to be the hot debating issues with my apartments in Germany. I assume there will be a sinking fund clause for building maintenance in North Cyprus as well?

Keep up the good work Ismet.

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 11:00

walkerscott .



I have a problem with sinking funds . These need to have tight guidlines on what they are used for

example

Some Maintenance companies do not class painting as maintenance and so M/C expect owners to pay for painting of the complex out of the sinking fund .



I disagree as maintaining a building is painting .



I use this as one of the examples as the painting of the complex is the most costly to be used out of the fund .

So owners are expected to pay for maintenance twice once out payments and again out of there sinking fund .

flutterby


Joined: 11/01/2008
Posts: 214

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 11:58

If it is a fund you are running, you do not pay for it twice, you either up your contributions into the fund to cover for large expenses such as painting of a complex, and emergency costs, or you have a lower contribution plus you have a sinking and/or contingency fund that saves up for such costs, I think Pipie you are getting mixed up with a fee!!

beachsidebum


Joined: 02/03/2010
Posts: 425

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 12:26

Hi Elko,can you tell me what the law is regarding self management by the owners themselves.

Our developer brought in a management company this year, and they done a runner with our funds.

In march this year we collected funds into a cyprus bank and self managed our site.

Where do we stand in law with this situation.

Can the developer make us us a management company.

beachsidebum


Joined: 02/03/2010
Posts: 425

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 12:27

Should read,,, can the developer make us use a management company.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 14:20

There is a great deal more detail in the law. As you must have noticed, what I hae quoted are the parts I thought most relevant. Most decisions must be taken with simple majority but some, and I think the big expenditure about painting is one of them, msut be taken by a qualified majority. If I remember rightly, that majority is four fifth of the total owners. Treat it with caution and check the actual law itself.



The owners can opt to manage themselves without calling in a management company. However, the tricky part is the "owners". If you have title deeds or the papers are in place for title deeds then you are owners, otherwise you are not.

ismet

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 15:24

msg. 12

Honestie,

The developer has jsut one third of the total votes, he could not have more even if he did own more houses. He cannot opt out of maintenance and if the owner's committee is not prepared to sue him, any owner has the right to do it. However, is the Owners Committee properly elected? If not, you better wait until January and call a meeting after giving 15 days notice. Just stick the notice on the noticeboard.

ismet

honestie


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 468

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 15:36

Thanks Ismet



yes the commitee is properly elected but is there a certain amount of people you have to have on a committee and what is the relevence to January.



Our budget year is from April to April and the new meeting was to be march and a vote again re committee.



would that be in order and also best to wait til then to start the legal proceedings against debtors.



Also from reading the act does the contact maintenance one that is have to be registered at the registry office or entered in a book



and if I am right is the law saying that a specific book has to be kept re the management.



We have everything accounted for and for everyone to have copies but from my understanding it has to br in a specific book





sorry Ismet I will stop asking too many questions but for us it is difficult to make sure we have adhered to it correctly and therefore correct for any subsequent court procedings





thanks honestie

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 16:10

Honestie,

1. Since you already have a properly elected committee, you can go ahead with the court action against the non-payers. If you did not have an elected committee, then any owner can call a meeting in January.

2. You have to keep a book and have all the resolutions of the general meeting recorded plus the decisions of the managing committee or whatever it is called. Furthermore a book must be kept with expenses recorded. I expect this to be detyailed when the relevant byelaws are enacted.

3. According to Clause 34 (4) the pages of the Resolutions Book must be numbered consecutively and stamped at the District Land Office. Ask them to see if they can stamp it. probably they will tell you that they know nothing about it officially, so come back later. Just try it just in case they do it.

4. According top Clause 36 (1), the owners meeting can appoint a manager from amongst themselves or someone from outside or a committee of three to manage. According to clause 36 (2), if the property has moe than four units it is mandatory to appoint a manager or a committee to manage

ismet

honestie


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 468

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 17:23

thanks Ismet will start to do my best



lets see what happens im sure I will be frustrated at the end of it but many thanks as usual for you time





regards honestie

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 18:54

all in all fantastic news this has been adopted, it will stop SOME bad Management COmpanies in their tracks.



One question if I may Elko



you say owners can run their site themselves if they hold title. But I undersood we couldnt employ people as forgeiners ie gardeners for instance and or cleaners has this changed



Thanks in advance

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 19:07

flutterby .



You and I know that with a fund you do not pay twice for painting . However you and I know there are only a very few running sites on a fund .



I should have mentioned under a fee but felt I might have confused . Cheers !!

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 19:29

Sienna,

An excellent question. Whether most owners are foriegn or not is irrelevant in my opinion. The question boils down to this: as a local site manager with probably no wage, are you allowed to employ local workers directly, pay for their social insurance etc.? I think the answer is yes. Look at the local site management as a company for no gain, like a charity. As long as you prove to the Social Insurance people and others that you are registered with the DLO as a site management, they should accept you as a normal employer except that you should not be liable to any tax except the PAYE for your workers.

Of course the Social Insurance people have no experience in this field and expect their original reaction to be negative. You will have to insist and threaten them with court case. It works every time.

ismet

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 19:56

Thank you Ismet



Another ...... so if this is law what happens to sites that :-



A) havent got a committee in place

B) have MC 'ruling' over owners not recognising appointed committees and not keeping correct record keeping accounts and receipts ?



Thanks

johndp


Joined: 08/09/2009
Posts: 497

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 20:06

Ismet many thanks for your reasoned and rational comments, however you will now get those that wish to start twisting things with supposition etc, the thing some have to ask first is m/c dealing with OWNERS or not, have/will the residents (owners) followed/follow the procedures to keep correct records /accounts & receipts, I think not on many complex's, as we see for ourselves that many pool cleaners/ gardeners etc etc are not legally employed, another can of worms !!!

I await

INCOMING !!!!

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 21:36

Don't expect an answer for everything in a law. In any case, you may find some answers in the byelaws which are not out yet. I am assured that they obtained them from Turkey and soon they may be passed through parliament. Let us hope there is no undue delay.



If there is no clear answer in the law for any specific question, then it is a matter of common sense and perhaps some rulings from the courts. I expect a big rise in such court cases within a year.

ismet

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 21:39

thank you Ismet , it is great step forward for complex owners to have a law

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
03/10/2010 22:09

Hi Elko,

We are on a complex of 76 apartments.I actually have the deeds as they where not held by the developer.Is this the best position to be in,

Paul.

blade


Joined: 19/06/2010
Posts: 1286

Message Posted:
04/10/2010 08:37

Can i please ask, is a quorum in TRNC law the same as a quorum in British law?

From what i understand a quorum based on British law is not half the members, it's based on a percentage of the number of members. Thats what decides a quorum.

flutterby


Joined: 11/01/2008
Posts: 214

Message Posted:
04/10/2010 10:25

Elko, can I ask with reference to the site employing their own employees, is there such a thing for example as workers who are self employed and thus pays their own taxes and if these workers areTurkish Cypriot, there would be no need for work permit, so in that scenario could a site themselves employ such people taking taxes and work permits totally out of the equation?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
04/10/2010 11:22

msgh. 30, Newlad,

Yes.



msg.31, Blade,

In TRNC now the quorum is over 50% of the owners. 50% also means one half!!!



msg. 32, flutterby,

You can use self employed people but you must get fatura (invoice) for every work you get done. On the otherhand, if you are an employer directly and you pay them a wage etc, you save on the 16% VAT. Services you buy is subject to VAT. The wages you pay is not subject to VAT. It can make a lot of difference.

ismet

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
04/10/2010 11:55

elko is it correct that if you can not obtain 50% of owners then you call another meeting then the quorom is decide on those that attend and provide proxy votes.?



thanks in advance

blade


Joined: 19/06/2010
Posts: 1286

Message Posted:
04/10/2010 12:22

So what your saying is its a TRNC quorum, not a real quorum in the meaning of the word?

In the UK commonhold law a quorum is 20% of the members. This quorum basis is also used by most companies.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
04/10/2010 14:03

msg.34 Sienna,

See msg.3, clause 32(2) stated above.



msg.35, blade,

I lost you there. There is no such thing as a "TRNC Quorum" in my book. The numbers sufficient to form a quorum is normally fixed by rules and regulations and any percentage including 20% is not God sent.

ismet

johndp


Joined: 08/09/2009
Posts: 497

Message Posted:
04/10/2010 17:47

Once again Ismet well said, do not let people try to put their own slant on things, sienna mess 34 you do not make your self clear in this post, without wishing to upset your sensitivities lol

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
04/10/2010 18:09

JohnP I am not trying to put my own slant on anything - if thats your interpretation of it your totally incorrect I am trying ot clarify issues as best I can - though I do not have ot explain myself to you



Ismet and myself have been in contact many times on and off this board, he is quiet happy answering my questions, please do not try to stir up trouble when there is none.



I am very grateful to Ismet and respect him totally I do not need you to tell me how to behave if Ismet did not understand my questions he would ask me



kindly stop trying to dig me out as yu have all weekend to no fruition as your postings have been 'closed'



Ismet thank you for your clarifications as always



S

johndp


Joined: 08/09/2009
Posts: 497

Message Posted:
05/10/2010 10:32

Sienna why do you always read things wrongly, i am not attacking you, you seem to read posts as if they are attacking you, 'people' is not always 'you'. and in this case it was blade i was referring to so there !!!!!!!!

I only said your post wasnt clear is that wrong ?? I print it here please read it, it doesnt make sense

"then the quorom is decide on those that attend and provide proxy votes"

maybe you missed out something in your spelling, perhaps you should re-read your posts before pressing the send button but dont continually attack those who question, may i remind you of the forum rules about civility.

Regards

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
05/10/2010 12:14

Elcoo.



Could you please explain how the byelaws will have contribution to this new law ?



Could you tell us when this law will be in force .





Must say this law looks like it certainly help owners who own on a complex. Before some owners were just expected tp pay up with no obliagtions in place .



Strides forward for the TRNC .

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
05/10/2010 13:59

Johndp - Firstly I was not asking the questions to you - the question has been answered, so why do you continue other than to 'pick' an argument with me I have no idea, but frankly as said I am not interested in what you think.



I know Ismet personally and have been out to lunch with him and his dear lady wife ! so I am sure as said if he does not understand he would ask



Please drop your attitude with me and stop trying to ruin this very important informative thread



you are also trying to twist my intentions I am not the one attacking and please do not remind me of the forum rules when you have postings to me deleted POT Kettle Black



Get of your crusade to destroy everything I post if you have some question to ask Ismet then ask it if not Butt out or take your argument elsewhere you silly man

johndp


Joined: 08/09/2009
Posts: 497

Message Posted:
05/10/2010 23:16

Elko why do you mods allow this kind of harassment and name calling on this board, I UP TILL NOW have had no attitude towards Sienna, merely asking questions and trying to dissect badly written posts. IS THAT A PROBLEM ON HERE

I dont give a damn if you know the queen of Sheba personally and and her dear old aunty Mabel, it doesnt give you the right to try and throw your weight around on this board, and if anybody is silly it is a person who cant put a sentence together without spelling mistakes, maybe Ismet will advise you to revisit my post and read it again, maybe more than once, and maybe the mods should take appropriate action about your agressive and personal retorts.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
05/10/2010 23:38

Sienna and Johnndp,

It is so easy to let a simple misunderstanding spiral into a serious dispute. I prefer not to react to an insult with a counter insult. Sometimes people insult me too and I always prefer to reply them curtuously. It is the most effective way to belittle the other person who uses insults. It is so easy to insult back but it takes more to reply in a curtous manner. Please try it.



Pipie,

The laws are supposed to state the broad principles and the regulations detail the applications in practice. for example the law may stipulate that records must be kept but its up to the regulation to specify exactly how the records will be kept.

ismet

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
06/10/2010 00:18

Thank you Elco .



So do we have to rely on the local council/authority /area to oversee these laws are adhered to ?.



Example . Accounts/book keeping should be adhered to . If these are not adhered to according to the law could the Manager be reported to the local authority covering that area ?



Or would it be that an officer would be calling on establishments ensuring all laws are being adhered to by auditing on the premises ?

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
06/10/2010 00:23

You are right as always Ismet,difficult as it is, I have been advised not to react or feed this person further - the forum admins are more then capable of dealing with such harasement I have been assured.



-



Sienna

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
06/10/2010 00:28

Sienna,

Both of you are accusing each other with harassment, so really both of you should stop

ismet

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
06/10/2010 00:32

lets see if he can

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
06/10/2010 00:32

Pipie,

It is not the business of the authorities to oversee that the books of private orginizations like site managements are kept properly. It is up to each private organization to look after its own business. If there is any dispute then its up to the courts to make the necessarry orders. Site managements should be under the orders and control of site owners.

ismet

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
06/10/2010 00:40

Ismet - I agree with you they should be, but some are not, so there is no alternative but to take them to court it seems , if they refuse to give you proper audited accounts, presumably though this is quite costly ?



I hasten to add this is not true to all MC some do produce proper accounting records for owners

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
06/10/2010 14:41

Thankyou again Elco2.



How lucky we are to have you bring us up to speed with updated laws .

halffull


Joined: 26/01/2009
Posts: 571

Message Posted:
06/10/2010 18:43

Elko, thank you for such an informative post.

I see that more than 4 apartments must have a committee. We have a problem we own an apartment in a development of 8. Only 4 are sold two more are still being "processed", one is rented by the brother of the builder until sold, the other is for sale.

There were only three occupied apartments for the last nine months (the forth owned apartment is for the owner's son when he gets married), The builder's brother has only recently moved in.

Since January the 4 of us have covered the maintenance costs and decided things between us.

The builder has refused to pay any maintenance for the 4 unsold apartments, he now resides in Turkey and we have no chance of redress.

We will be asking his brother for his share this month as he is the tenant.

Do we need a manager? Can we carry on as we are until all 8 are sold and completed?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
06/10/2010 20:04

msg. 51, Halffull,

Since you are only a few, surely you can manage jointly and take all decisions collectively. So there is no need for a manager. The owners can elect a manager to speed up the running of the site if necessarry.

ismet

halffull


Joined: 26/01/2009
Posts: 571

Message Posted:
11/10/2010 01:03

Thanks Elko, yes the three of us have been managing very well, I was concerned because your post stated as a clause that we needed a manager as there was more than 4 apartments.

Rhodesian


Joined: 29/06/2009
Posts: 27

Message Posted:
11/10/2010 09:27

Elko

In our case, none of the buyers on our site have kocans; we have serious defects in the communal areas which the developer refuses to rectify. He insists that the money for this must come out of the maintenance fund.

Is there any recourse other than taking him to court? And, as we don't legally own anything, can we even take him to court?

Regards

Keith

Rhodesian


Joined: 29/06/2009
Posts: 27

Message Posted:
11/10/2010 09:31

Elko

I should have added that some of these defects concern health and safety - people are using facilities which are dangerous and there have already been several injuries.

Regards

Keith

clivearup


Joined: 29/10/2008
Posts: 44

Message Posted:
19/10/2010 13:16

Elko

Can you let me know whether the new property management laws refer to apartments only. We own a villa on a development where there are villas and apartments and whilst the apartments have some shared facilities ie swimming pool etc the villas do not as they have their own pools and the only shared facility is the sewage system. There is very little any management company can do which the Belediye does not already do so rightly the owners of the villas are not happy to pay for something just to comply with a law which may be intended for apartment complexes.

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
19/10/2010 14:55

clivearup.



Do you pay maintenance to a maintenanace company ? and if so do you have a contract ?

clivearup


Joined: 29/10/2008
Posts: 44

Message Posted:
19/10/2010 16:31

Not yet but this is under consideration by some of the owners. None of the owners have received their kocans yet but are expecting them very soon which is why this issue has come up. The developer has been quoted as saying that they cannot allow the kocan process to go forward without there being a management company appointed - not sure if this is correct. Any advice from those who have been there.. is welcomed.

Previously a management company appointed by the developer "did a runner" with the money - so you can imagine we are all a bit cautious!

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
19/10/2010 18:45

Does the contract mean much in any case, many maintenance companys are put in situ by the developers anyway and theres little anybody can do about this situation without the developers consent till they have their deeds

clivearup


Joined: 29/10/2008
Posts: 44

Message Posted:
21/10/2010 19:32

Has anyone got an answer to my questions in msgs 56 and 58 regarding the need for a management company for a group of villas?

millzer


Joined: 12/04/2007
Posts: 978

Message Posted:
21/10/2010 21:18

Clive I think you'll find that until you have Kocans the developer can pretty much do what they want as technically they still own it all.



As far as the new law goes, I think it covers any development whereby parts of a site are communally owned, whether they are apartments or villas is irrelevant.



You do need to find out what is classed as 'communal' i.e the shared pool, are you as villa owners permitted to use it? do you have a share in it? etc etc etc

johndp


Joined: 08/09/2009
Posts: 497

Message Posted:
21/10/2010 21:31

The situation you are in is similar to the one on Turtle bay where the some of the owners of the villas are in rebellion about paying communal charges, their argument is that they own their own places except sewerage, but there is street lights security roadways etc to be taken in as well some think they should pay something towards it

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
21/10/2010 21:54

Im other words what does it stipulate in your contract . Do you own a share of the complex ? if so it means your are responsible for a contribution of the costs of the site .

However if this is not written down in a sales agreement it could be argued that the owner of the site eg developer is responsible for the upkeep of the site .

mistress


Joined: 29/08/2009
Posts: 57

Message Posted:
21/10/2010 22:35

Can we appoint resident owners to run the site as managers and pay them? would they need a work permit or to set up a company of some sort if they are British?

clivearup


Joined: 29/10/2008
Posts: 44

Message Posted:
22/10/2010 15:13

There is nothing in our contract of sale which says anything about this. As far as I'm aware no villa owners expect to use the communal pool since the majority have their own. The main street lighting is covered by the Belediye and we are paying the Belediye for the rubbish collection and basic street cleaning - it is really only the sewage that is genuinely communal to both villas and apartments and at present due to low usage there is no pump needed and so there are no electricity costs. As far as we can see there is only a need for a Management Company so as to comply with the law, if the law genuinely requires this, and perhaps to communally agree to make some improvements to the site in the future which could probably be agreed amongst residents on an ad hoc basis.

If the law requires this then so be it and we can get on with it but if not I cannot see how we can persuade all the villa owners to pay somewhere between 20 to 40 pounds a month for a mainly administrative role.

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
22/10/2010 15:41

clivearup.



The maintenance company in all honesty should provide you with the sewage/charge/bill then divide it amongst the properties that are are using the sewage sevice . Then you just pay your proportion amount .



If you have receipts for the electric and rubbish collection that you have already paid for forward a copy on to the M/C with a note explaining you are not in the habit of paying twice for these services . Hope this helps !!

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
22/10/2010 15:55

clivarup.



Why buy a villa and then have to pay a M/C unless it is in your contract it confuses me why you think you have to pay a M/C ?



What would the M/C be doing for you ?



If they are carrying out a service role they need to clearly wirite down what there obligations are in order for you to carry out your obligations in paying them !!

johndp


Joined: 08/09/2009
Posts: 497

Message Posted:
22/10/2010 16:36

Pipie you seem to be the universal font of all knowledge on all things maintenance and management, makes me wonder why anybody else bothers in all honesty, but yet again for fear of being branded part of a gang for daring to speak against you, you are not really the best person to offer advice, as from what many locally can see, the m/c that you shout about and support has done very little in the last year and a bit.



Mistress, in a nutshell 'yes' to both of your questions, unless they want to take a chance doing it without a permit or registered business, risky nowadays as the goverment is taking a bigger interest in illegal operations such as them thats going on in some of the schemes

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
22/10/2010 17:01

johndp.



On the contrary I have experience of maintenance companies from rip off M/C'S who have not got a clue to M/C'S who are trying their best to provide a good service. So'' YES'' I think I can offer advise as ''YES'' I have the knowledge .







I also have the gaul to speak out and warn folk to not only be wary but to question obligations on both owners and Management companies .



This law helps but innocent owners out there still think that they have to pay up and shut up without question to some of these so called Management companies !!

clivearup


Joined: 29/10/2008
Posts: 44

Message Posted:
22/10/2010 19:38

We have been now been informed by the developer that, as far as they are concerned, the law covers villas as well as apartment owners but we are checking with lawyers regarding this. Yes we and at least some of the other owners have paid the Belediye who are doing their bit quite well. At the moment there are no other bills to pay so this is why some villa owners are reluctant to pay a m/c.

I think Turtle Bay is slightly different as there are some genuinely shared amenities there - on our site it is just a few plants at the entrance which may need to be watered in the Summer - there are as I posted earlier some maintenance issues around the apartments only.

hodgeliz


Joined: 16/10/2010
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
23/10/2010 00:21

As a new member who has watchd the forum for some time, please let me say, that this thread was informative till the pipie show rolled in again banging an old drum, please tell who the m/c's are that ripped you off as you bang on about, or is it a bit of an over active imagination, I dont believe you can offer any constructive adviCe, just spiteful drivel as is shown time and again, you own on one complex and your daughter (for convenience) owns on another so which one is so bad that has ripped you off, pray tell, ??? and then I will share some secrets from Rodington with people on here, after all we both know your form in the past dont we !! trying to hide behind a relative in blue, tut tut !!

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
23/10/2010 02:31

Troll alert !!!

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
23/10/2010 02:49

Clivearup.



Hope all goes well getting all checked out with Advocate . Good luck with it all . !!



Thank goodness we have this new Law to help protect owners on complexes !!

johndp


Joined: 08/09/2009
Posts: 497

Message Posted:
23/10/2010 10:05

AND maintenance companies from none payers



CMON mess 71 tell everybody, she has never answered others so doubt if she will answer you



pipie alert !!

oh sh1t maybe should of done it on a separate post to get my score up lol

johndp


Joined: 08/09/2009
Posts: 497

Message Posted:
23/10/2010 13:03

Going back 2 mess 8 Ismet you say as long as the management is to be elected by the committee, that IS ELECTED BY THE OWNERS BY A PROPER VOTE.

I take it that if there is a management and committee in situ that has not been elected in this democratic way then owners may insist on this happening before paying maintenance money and there may be no legal recourse until this is done satisfactorily and to owners approval

Many thanks

clivearup


Joined: 29/10/2008
Posts: 44

Message Posted:
24/10/2010 14:13

This is clearly a minefield - the legislation clearly refers to apartments and was intended only for apartments.



However there are many developments where apartments and villas are in close proximity.



I suspect that the property owners may be able to decide if the development could reasonably be split into two separate areas. This would enable the apartments to be managed as the law suggests and makes sense because the apartment owners obviously have some shared interests - access, staircases, roofs, parking, pools etc and the villa owners could do their own thing which may just be paying their share of the communal sewage plant for example - it would seem unnecessary for the villa owners to have a management company for such a small and specific task - a simple residents committee could take this on and deal with any other minor issues in an ad hoc way I'd have thought.

johndp


Joined: 08/09/2009
Posts: 497

Message Posted:
24/10/2010 14:26

Hi Clive

If it is a private access development there may be other expenses you might be required to contribute to for example the roads and pavements and if there is a power or water supply problem as there was almost a year ago on Turq bay where the hole is still not filled in, however with some dialogue you will surely be able to come to a compromise situation with the apartment owners, it may well be tricky but it can be acchieved after all non payment just leads to bad feeling

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
24/10/2010 17:39

Clivearup.



If you are asked to contribute and you are in agreement to what is being billed to you .



Ask for receipts and then divide it proportion to the amount of properties that are on site .



Then offer the contribution accordingly.

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
24/10/2010 18:59

The law covers estates as well. the name is misleading.

ismet

clivearup


Joined: 29/10/2008
Posts: 44

Message Posted:
24/10/2010 22:14

Thanks Ismet - that's what I needed to know, if the law says this then there is at least some possibility of persuading all the owners - both apartment and villas to contribute and if they do not then it is possible to register a Memorandum on their deeds ( I presume this is similar to a charge over the property) which would make it impossible for non-payers to sell their property without clearing the debt to the management company.

I think this concludes things as far as I'm concerned - now all we have to do is work out a fair contribution for everyone....and how to deal with the shortfall if there are many non-payers.

Thanks everyone for your contributions.

Clive

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
25/10/2010 09:13

Clivearup (msg. 80),

If an owner refuses to pay the manager can sue him and if the manager refrains from doing so then any owner has the right to sue him. Once a court judgement is obtained, you can file a memorandum against his unmovables and also you can take out a writ against his movables i.e. anything they can find in his house except his bed, cooking utensils etc. If the writ is returned unsatisfied, then you can ask the court for an order to have his house sold and you will have priority over other debts. A memorandum expires automatically after two years, hence it is not sufficient to simply register a memorandum, you must follow it up with an order for compulsory sale.

ismet

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
25/10/2010 10:11

Ismet thanks for info presumably that is only if the correct procedure has been followed to appoint the manager' or management company and they have not been imposed on the site



thanks

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
25/10/2010 12:37

elco2.



Re your messege 81 .This is presuming an agreed contract has been put in place between owner and Manager and the Manager is carrying out agreed obligations .



The issue we appear to have with quite a few sites/complexes is that Management run the sites to there own chosen rules/regs .



Owners are then led to beleive that they have no say in the running of there site .



I think advise would be welcomed on the importance of committees to represent owners acting in accordance with TRNC law, inorder to acheive smooth running of sites/complexes .

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
25/10/2010 13:30

Of course it goes without saying that owners collectively and democratically have to elect the committee that will appoint the authorized management company or the manager to do the relevant maintenance. If the mangement company in place is not authorized lawfully, then they will have difficulty to get a court order against any non payer except for the sums proved to be essential in court.

Hence there will be no more of the nonsense that the Developer can appoint the management company on a pally basis and expect the "owners" pay for it without any question. The "owners" are those who are not necessarrily title deed owners but have a right of use by contract.

ismet

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
25/10/2010 13:43

Thankyou elco2 .



It made me smile your comment '' Hence there will be no more of the nonsense that the Developer can appoint the management company on a pally basis and expect the "owners" pay for it without any question.



This exactly what needs to be eradicated !!

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
25/10/2010 14:25

thank you Ismet - lets hope this now stops these bad Management Companies that are around into behaving properly.



Some do already lets hope they ALL will from now with this new law and that owners pull together to see it happens in the proper manner

clivearup


Joined: 29/10/2008
Posts: 44

Message Posted:
28/10/2010 12:59

By the way our lawyer has just informed us that until someone tests this law out in court there is no certainty that any of the powers that it appears to give will actually be enforceable. I suppose this is the case with any law but I doubt any residents' committee will have the stomach or the funds to fight a case and clearly if it comes to forcing the sale of a property the owner will have considerable incentive to fight legally!

What is clear though is that the process of setting up a residents' committee needs to be very careful, democratic and transparent or else it will not be able to carry out any of its legal functions effectively and will not survive the scrutiny of a court if it came to that. I suspect that this means that every effort must be made by all means of communication to involve all property owners on a development not just a small group of active people - this will be a challenge.

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
11/12/2010 21:34

has this law been tested yet ..??

clivearup


Joined: 29/10/2008
Posts: 44

Message Posted:
13/12/2010 13:08

Not as far as I know but would be interested to hear if there were any developments which would encourage property owners to contribute to the management costs of any development.

Also it would be good to hear from any management committees that have been successful in developing a community spirit and to learn how this was achieved.