‘Rainbow Management Solutions’ does not exist

Rhodesian


Joined: 29/06/2009
Posts: 27

Message Posted:
13/12/2010 17:17

It has come to our attention that Mike Armstrong of Armstrong Enterprises is continuing to tell people that his use of the false company name ‘Rainbow Management Solutions’ has been somehow vindicated ‘in a recent court case’.

This is a complete lie. The court case in question, which I was involved in, had absolutely nothing to do with his persistent use of this alias. ‘Rainbow Management Solutions’ not a registered company, neither is it a registered trading name and therefore he has no right whatsoever to continue using it.

Of more interest is the question: if he wishes to continue using it, what is preventing him from registering it?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
13/12/2010 19:00

I do not know what the position is now but when SWB and Mike filed their libel case in an effort to gag the "troublemakers", it backfired on them in a big way. They are not anxious to have the case heard speedily and in fact they are using delaying tactics in every way they can. They have already withdrawn their application for an injunction. I can predict that they will not be able to prolong it much longer and they will have to withdraw the case completely.



About a year ago I checked with the Companies House and Rainbow Managements Ltd., Rainbow Management Solutions or anything similar were not registered. However I cannot comment on what the situation is now. Rhodesian may know more than I do.

ismet

sunone


Joined: 02/11/2008
Posts: 22

Message Posted:
13/12/2010 22:25

As both Keith Hunt of unit C38 on SWB and Elko know very well, as both were in attendance at a recent court case, and which has been explained in detail to all owners on the above named development, RMS is a name that Arm Ent Ltd (ms 11768), intended to use as the official company name..this name was not accepted by the TRNC government. As such we operate, in a totally legal capacity as Arm Ent Ltd, as explained to the Judge ( and openly excepted by the same judge) in the above mentioned court case....Perhaps Keith Hunt Or Elko would care to share the Judges comments on the above issue for all to openly see????



We use the name RMS(as a paper trading name) only because most clients recognize this name, but all clients fully understand that all official receipts, invoices, and bank accounts are held and actioned in the name of the registered company, ARM ENT LTD.



While I feel it it imprudent to divulge client information on a public forum, I think it is important to highlight ....

sunone


Joined: 02/11/2008
Posts: 22

Message Posted:
13/12/2010 22:43

Continued....

...a number of very important points, firstly out of 146 units on this development, we have 7 unit owners who either refuse to meet their financial obligations, or who feel they can make up their own level of service charge fees...of these 7 units owners ( 2 of which we have no contact), 5 have utilized the services of the wife of Elko as their solicitor!!!.



I also feel it very important to point out that Elko was requested to Quote for the supply of VOLTAGE REGULATORS for the SWB development...this Quote was rejected as too expensive and indeed ineffective to the problems which we had suffered in the past.



I will leave all readers to make up their own minds as to whether the above in any way gives bias to the opinion of ELKO or of course his wife as the legal representative of the small number of continual(7) NON PAYERS on a development which has fairly won the award of ' THE BEST OVERALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE TRNC'.



MIKE ARMSTRONG (ARM ENT LTD MS.11768)

Arthur


Joined: 04/11/2008
Posts: 687

Message Posted:
13/12/2010 23:02

The same old guerilla tactics from Rhodesian. At least Mike Armstrong [I assume "Sunone" is him] provides an answer, which is something always lacking from Rhodesian when he and his cronies comments are challenged.

We have via SWBOA a self elected committee, a number of whom pay only part of their service charges, or in one case, none at all, yet have the audacity to represent all owners, the vast majority who pay in full without complaint. I suggest owners look at the recent newsletter, in particular the listing of non/part payers, and play "link the non payer to the committee".

How can these people claim to represent the majority when they aren't prepared to "play by the rules" and pay as all others do?

Rhodesian can't go on the new owners forum as non/part payers are excluded. I suggest he sticks to the private forum that his cronies set up with silly aliases such as "Nimrod" etc.

"Best Regards"

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
13/12/2010 23:05

Why should Elko not post ?it is his wife representing "people" not him ..........remember Cherie Blair and the Orams , not called up T blair ...

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
13/12/2010 23:33

msg 3 and 4

Sunone wrote: "We use the name RMS(as a paper trading name) only because most clients recognize this name, but all clients fully understand that all official receipts, invoices, and bank accounts are held and actioned in the name of the registered company, ARM ENT LTD. "



It is legally wrong and improper for any responsible company to use a name with or without "Ltd." attached to it which is not properly registered and it leaves its customers wide open to fraud and all sorts of devious dealings.



Sunone wrote: " As such we operate, in a totally legal capacity as Arm Ent Ltd, as explained to the Judge ( and openly excepted by the same judge) in the above mentioned court case....Perhaps Keith Hunt Or Elko would care to share the Judges comments on the above issue for all to openly see???? "



I have never been present in court to hear the proceedings however I do know that the only trial that took place was about the application by SWB and Mike to amend their application for an injucntion based on my comments on C44 and this was rejected by the judge. Eventually they have withdrawen their application for an injunction. The non-existence of RMS was not the subject of the trial that took place and thus if there was any mention of RMS it could not be relevant to the trial at hand. So the judge had no reason to rule on that subject.



ismet

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
13/12/2010 23:43

msg 4

Sunone wrote: I also feel it very important to point out that Elko was requested to Quote for the supply of VOLTAGE REGULATORS for the SWB development...this Quote was rejected as too expensive and indeed ineffective to the problems which we had suffered in the past. "



So what is the relevance here? Does it make any sense?



My only interest on the subject is my strong feelings about financially stronger people trying to crash or gag smaller people through court action. The defendants were accused of (1) Falsely claiming that SWB land is Greek Cypriot land (which is true) and (2) That RMS did not exist legally (which is also true).

ismet

sunone


Joined: 02/11/2008
Posts: 22

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 00:02

Then please explain Elko, for all to understand, Why your wife questioned me on the issue, in great detail for almost 45 min on the use of the name RMS(the trial only lasted 90 min), Why we use it, should we use it, etc etc.and that we indeed provided proof that we applied for the name with the TRNC government and that the judge ruled that this was an unimportant issue in the case at hand ?



As you state, the use of the name RMS was unimportant and as such not relevant to the trial at hand so why are you and Keith Hunt now trying to make an issue of the same?



Please also, for the sake of fairness, explain why anyone should believe, given both your wifes obvious involvement and financial gain from this whole issue, and of course our past entirely unsuccessful business relationship issues, why anyone reading your posts can openly expect an unbiased view on this whole issue?



A fair and open question I feel....do you not?



Lets leave it for the courts I say



MIKE ARMSTRONG

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 00:15

Mike,

As I stated above very clearly, I have never been in court to listen to your case but I can talk in general terms and state that advocates can go in tangents when cross-examining the other side to shake their credibility. However, I can state categorically that the trial you had did not have any relevance to the existence of RMS and its legality. The trial was simply about your efforts to include my comments on C44 into the court case and that was rejected by the judge in her reasoned judgement. So it is not true that you were vindicated on RMS.



Hundreds of people ring me and get a quote forf a regulator, so acording to you I have hundreds of failed businesses



My wife has thousands of files in her hands and I am only interested in some cases for reasons of principle only and I can asssure you that despite your efforts to prolong the case the deffendants were charged a very small initial fee and no more because she is sure that you will pay the costs at the end of it all. So really I have no financial interest in this at all. If anything I press my wife to charge as little as possible in such cases of principle. You may find it difficult to understand this but money is not everything for some.

ismet

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 00:22

Could I ask some questions here.



Are Owners on SWB allowed a fair and legal tender to manage SWB ?



Are owners allowed to have clear transparency and full accountancy of the running costs of SWB ?



Are owners allowed to set out the service level agreement/contract for the Management to adhere to ?





Just curious !!

rocky


Joined: 17/10/2007
Posts: 1749

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 01:08

in UK any individual can use a trading style whether they are an individual or a limited compay so is it not in order in NC for Mike or a company to use a trading style if it is clear he/it is doing so? also is Elko trying to retain his tile of extrememely helpful member whilst discussing confidential cases over his cornflakes at breakfast, if he is not in court and is publishing information are there no data protection laws in NC and is Elko able to do this? If he is how can we be sure of the accuracy of his postings.....

mint1955



Joined: 30/05/2007
Posts: 988

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 02:06

Is a public forum the place to discuss any of this?



The owners have their own forum, would it not be more appropriate to discuss this there http://www.sweetwaterbayowners.com/forum

gardenmaker


Joined: 01/09/2008
Posts: 170

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 07:58

go on mike i make you right and the courts will as well

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 07:58

msg 12

Rocky,

Your question about the protection of public data reminded me of a Laz joke. In UK you have Irish jokes and here we have Laz jokes.



One day Dursun was passing bye and saw this man on the roof wanting to jump down and commit suicide. So our friend springs into action, finds a rope and throws one end to the man. He gets the man to tie the rope round his waist and then he pulls him down and thus kills him. Dursun is perplexed. "Once I did see a man being saved by a rope, was it from a roof or from a well?

ismet

PS: when big money tries to crash small people through legal action, I am indeed the most helpful person but not on the side of big money!!!

rocky


Joined: 17/10/2007
Posts: 1749

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 08:43

msg 13, I think not the detail but I did ask questions of our learned friends which is not just applicable to SWB...does TRNC have data protection laws? can one adopt a trading style as in the UK?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 09:10

msg. 16,

Rocky,

"Data protection" laws can mean different things to different people. Some countries, notably Scandinavian countries, have strict laws about the protection of personal data i.e they try to protect the privacy of individuals. Other laws like official "Secrets Act" try to protect secret and specially military information from falling into wrong hands. All this has nothing to do with trade Names and Companies names.



According to the laws here in TRNC, nobody can use a Trade name if it is not officially registered unless it is based on the name of the individual using it. i.e. "Elko" is a registered trade name owned by me. I could use "Ustuner Enterprises" without a need for registration because it is based on my surname. So if you use a trade name and you do not have it registered, you need permission from the court before you can start a legal case under that name. If you sue under another name for the work you did under the trade name, you can be challenged.

Under no circumstances you must not use a "Ltd." name without registration. That is a serious criminal misrepresentation and can have serious repercussions in serious countries. TRNC is on the learning cure in these matters.

ismet

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 09:14

Another site that never the twain shall meet as it has been handled wrongly since day one !



two factions never seeing eye to eye



Yes maybe they will name & shame BUT have they all in place from concept in the first place to be able to do so and are they whiter than white themselves to be able to do so and or allow them to be holy than thou! think about it long and hard

Arthur


Joined: 04/11/2008
Posts: 687

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 09:50

So Ismet, what you're quite reasonably saying is:

a) you can't use the word "limited" unless you do have a limited company [which is obvious]

b) if you want to take a legal action in a trading name, that has to be registered[ditto]



Doesn't appear to leave it's customers "wide open to fraud and all sorts of devious dealings".



Questions are, is Armstrong Enterprises Ltd registered [I think the answer is yes], are owners at SWB aware that "RMS" is Armstrong Enterprises Ltd, [again yes]. So what's the problem?

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 12:13

Arthur (msg 19),

I am not going to give you details of what can be done. Suffice to say that I did fight such a case of fraud in court based on a non-existent trade name. It took me personally ten years, three separate court cases, one injunction, one General Application, one Bankruptcy Application, two Appeals to the High Court to correct the wrong judgements of the lower courts. Eventually he had to mortgage his house and pay me with interest. He never recovered after that and he is not with us any more.

ismet

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 14:24

Re my questions .



Are Owners on SWB allowed a fair and legal tender to manage SWB ?







Are owners allowed to have clear transparency and full accountancy of the running costs of SWB ?







Are owners allowed to set out the service level agreement/contract for the Management to adhere to ?





From the lack of response I assume that SWB owners do not have all of the above in situ then !!!

jakki



Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 865

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 15:16

Pipie - think what you like - your comments are unimportant

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 16:03

jakki.



So you own on a complex and for it is not important that owners should not have the right to a legal tender !!!



And you also think that it is not important that owners should have clear transparency /sla/contract agreed by owners !!



Beggars belief !!!

jakki



Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 865

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 16:50

Pipie - I didn't say any of the above - why don't you read my message again.

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 18:42

jakki.



''Oh'' so you do agree then !!

Scoty


Joined: 23/05/2010
Posts: 846

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 20:13

This reads similar to another well known site on this board?

Always 2 sides to any story - the right one and the wrong one. Which is which though?

Must admit, SWB does look a nice site though. Shame it appears not everyone working together on it.

jakki



Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 865

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 20:28

Pipie - go away!!!

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 20:35

jakki.



Ah !! non committal then.

Lazy days


Joined: 24/07/2008
Posts: 847

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 20:47

PIPIE

it would seem you are a pain in the neck where ever you stick your oar in, but then we all know that now dont we

Nice put down Jakki

Its obvious nobody wishes to enter into dialogue with you pipie as you cannot answer direct questions but expect others to !! so maybe your day is past - goodbye

Apologies for taking the thread further off topic

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 21:30

Apologies accepted Lazy days ''no probs !!

Arthur


Joined: 04/11/2008
Posts: 687

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 22:17

Scoty- yes it is a nice site.



Yes, it's also a shame that there is a rump of [mainly] permanent residents who have their own agenda, constantly trying to rubbish the management company [they'd even started this before the management company took up the assignment], spread innuendo & misinformation, yet when challenged, won't answer questions put to them. To cap it all, the purveyors of innuendo & misinformation are those who either have paid none of their management fees, or arbitrarily decide what they should be paying.



When other owners have asked what to believe, I've simply suggested that they look around & make up their own minds.

andy-f


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 1256

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 22:18

is this the same pipie who used to go on and on moaning about the terqoise bay council estate ?

Pipie


Joined: 05/01/2008
Posts: 5499

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 23:12

Had plenty to moan about way back then andy-f , not any more !! We now have a listening M/C, thank goodness.



That's all from me !! have a good evening all.

zhivago


Joined: 21/01/2009
Posts: 70

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 23:19

I dont think this conflict will ever end .........for the good of the site and my russian agents please lets all talk and dislcose our secrets, what has happened to pussygalore has she gone silent..work together some of you are acting like children....yes I am back from the dead

andy-f


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 1256

Message Posted:
14/12/2010 23:48

you know what there are some members of SWBOA who think mike and RMS woops ! armstrong etp ltd , are doing a good job!

JoanneM


Joined: 24/06/2009
Posts: 266

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 10:56

I visited Sweetwater Bay about 2 months ago along with 5 other sites in the Esentepe/Tatlisu area, this site, in my opinion, was the best in regards of the landscaping and facilities available. So unless it is the owners keeping it up to shape I'd say the M/C are doing a really good job! Also, I was quite shocked to be told the monthly maintenance charge was only £60! - standard cost for most sites, but then the other 5 sites did not have the facilities or quality of landscaping. So well done for keeping it in top notch, especially for that price!

jakki



Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 865

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 11:49

Thanks JoanneM - good to hear some positive feedback about our development.

johndp


Joined: 08/09/2009
Posts: 497

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 12:17

Well heres some more

It is really nice and I have to say also that the Seaterra marina is also lovely the gardens on both sites are well groomed and the surrounds weed and litter free and the marina the fees are lower still under £50

O dont I wish people had left well alone, my sites a tip in places :(

Rhodesian


Joined: 29/06/2009
Posts: 27

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 15:44

Pipie – answers to your questions in messages 11 and 21:

NO, owners on SWB were NOT allowed to tender – Mike was appointed by the developer for THREE years.

NO, there is no transparency – there was no discussion about the level of service fee, just demands and threats if you fail to pay it, regardless of what your sales agreement says. We do not have our kocans and I pay only part of the service fee, what I think is fair and reasonable under the circumstances and confirmed by our own calculations and quotes by other management companies (real ones that is!). Despite therefore having a legal right to know how the money is spent, I have been denied my legal right to inspect the accounts and their underlying bills, etc.

NO, there is no service level agreement.

Rhodesian


Joined: 29/06/2009
Posts: 27

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 15:46

To comment on Arthur’s message 31:

The reasons why we smelt a rat as soon as ‘RMS’ appeared on the scene were:

The company was not registered and the name was also unknown to the Tax Office;

No-one else had ever heard of them;

They tried to portray themselves in their initial ‘Information Pack’ to owners as a long-established company here in TRNC – UNTRUE

They claimed to run ‘many, many sites’ here in TRNC, - UNTRUE;

They claimed to have ‘many happy customers’ – UNTRUE;

They claimed to have a skilled and qualified professional team of employees – UNTRUE;

Our suspicions were confirmed a little later when we saw a draft of Mike’s proposal to SWB when he clearly stated the ‘RMS’ was new to site management and had only two employees, himself and the wife of a SWB employee.

I might point out that, in most countries, if you tell lies about yourself in order to persuade people to give you money, it is a criminal offence.

So, if it looks like a rat, walks like a rat and talks like a

rocky


Joined: 17/10/2007
Posts: 1749

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 18:07

I did own at sweetwater bay and felt the £60 a month fees were unfair. I only paid £60 a month ( you pay more than that a month for family gym membership in UK) for a villa whereas smaller properties, one and two bedroom owners also paid this amount .I thought my fees and the bungalows would have been good value at around £80 to £100 a month with smaller properties around half that. I also believe that if I lived on site I would have expected to pay more mainly having exclusive use of the facilities for much of the year. SWB is a beautiful site but if you skimp on maintenance and do not build up reserves to maintain all the community paintwork for example the site will become untidy and investments suffer...seen it before. I was thinking of another unit there but I now feel there is too much bad feeling and these arguments will continue. Anyway perhaps when the local rates are set villa and bungalow owners may have to a larger rates contribution but this will not benefit the site.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 19:59

Rocky it does work like that it works on how much you actually own ie 1/88th out of 88 properties dont forget you are paying for the maintenance of the site not your property or how big it is. As for people paying more if they are resident thats a personal choice everyone bought knowing there would be fees to pay on or off the site its what you signed a contract to do !



What you do with your property and how often you use it in comparions to Joe Bloggs next door can never be managed or proportioned fairly, what if you have more rentals than the Smiths next door -



You pay pro rata to what you own if it is equal shares you pay equal amounts if it is parcelated diffrent then you pay what ever you own



the larger properties pay more property tax (equivalent to our council tax) once it is parcelated and Kocans have been issued.

negativenick


Joined: 10/11/2008
Posts: 6023

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 20:02

i've read thrugh this entire thread and i'm awarding it the Neg Nick "my head hurts" award..............

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 20:04

I meant doesnt work lke that sorry



Negative nick you aint wrong !! stick with your lady boys much more fun

rocky


Joined: 17/10/2007
Posts: 1749

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 20:46

sienna I understand what you are saying and you are probably correct but if I have a 3 bed bungalow or villa then this can house 6 to 10 people who can use the facilities. These 6 to 10 persons could be using the gym equipment causing wear and tear so I think it is fair that smaller properties only sleeping say 2 to 4 should not have to make the same contribution. Yes we could argue on number of occupants. On on a previous development my neighbour rented out his 2 bed penthouse commercially and often there were often 8 plus residents plus canaries and dogs. (yes it was spain)The most I witnessed was 15 in a two bedder. With encouraging tourism from Turkey what could happen is that more people will share the rental to keep their costs down. I would not let on a commercial basis but that is what can happen. I still think more beds should mean more community fees and that is my opinion.

Arthur


Joined: 04/11/2008
Posts: 687

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 20:52

Joanne [msg 36] and John [msg 38]. Thanks for the comments about our site, I've received likewise comments from other visitors to SWB. I can't disagree from Rhodesian's comments about the initial "hype" of our management company, but where I do differ is I think that they have overall performed well in that we have a tidy and attractive site.

I don't think we will ever convince Rhodesian, who despite Joanne's comments about £60 p.m. being very reasonable, arbitrarily decides what he will pay. The management company is real [or is that still being questioned ?]. The quotes he says are from "real" management companies don't stand scrutiny- why has he still not provided a detailed breakdown of the Lynx quote, which was requested nearly three months ago?

I'm sorry, but if SWBOA want to be taken seriously, they'd make a good start by answering questions put to them, rather than disappearing for a while, and then returning with some other point.

andy-f


Joined: 03/05/2009
Posts: 1256

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 20:58

sweetwaterbay is one of if not the best development in turkish cyprus and im more than happy with the £720 per annum site charge. you are allways going to get moaners and shit kickers they have them on every site .

me and her indoors are getting used to it now and we just let those who want to fall out to get on with it ,



andy

rocky


Joined: 17/10/2007
Posts: 1749

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 21:03

Very applicable comments Arthur but I do have a question in the back of my mind perhaps some people are not paying the full amount because they cant afford it???. If this is the case is there a local charity who could help. One reason I sold was due to bickering and I do not like subsidising spongers.

It is purely ridiculous to think that £60 a month is too much on a site of this quality for a detatched villa or bungalow. I would not think there is any margin to build up an emergency fund for necessary repairs which could mean further requests in any emergency such as replacing boundary walls or community painting. If money isnt there for these contingencies just watch the site deteriorate and the scuffles between owners who do pay and those who dont.

Lazy days


Joined: 24/07/2008
Posts: 847

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 21:05

Every estate has people who think they know best and that they have all the answers but unfortunately most of them really do not, they simply "think" they do, the new Floor easement and ownership law is very clear as to how estates should be managed within the framework, if any one wants to they can check out the plain English interpretation on http://www.glencoecyprus.com it is in their *Owners complex* forum just scroll down to *floor easement law*, you will have to register to read it but you might find it worth while.



If the set down rules are followed, I think Rhodesian may eventually find himself in a costly legal battle which he ultimately will not win, and I ask is it worth it ?

Arthur


Joined: 04/11/2008
Posts: 687

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 21:06

To continue, I don't see why non/part payers should have the right to inspection, or quite frankly other rights to the site & facilities. If they pay the full amount [as all others], then they have the right to inspect the audited accounts, and all else that goes with it. If Rhodesian ran the management company, would he be happy for me to make my own calculations of what service charge I think I should pay- I don't think so.

The developer did choose the management company- that's true [& it was in our contract]. The fact is that the management company has now run the site for around two years, and all in all, I think most owners are satisfied [although I'm sure improvements can be made].

If Rhodesian wants to replace the management company, he needs to come up with a credible alternative, with a detailed breakdown of differences in the costings, so that owners can decide whether they are prepared to put up with what is likely to be a much reduced site maintenance.

Arthur


Joined: 04/11/2008
Posts: 687

Message Posted:
15/12/2010 21:16

Well said Alison. Rhodesian has been threatening to sell for almost a year [in fact has a for sale sign up]. It would perhaps save both him and others the continued grief if he went through with it. I would really like the "them & us" to cease, but I am not prepared to stand idly by when someone I consider to be a decent man who is [as I and others think] doing a good job in running our site, yet has received nothing but vitriol and denigrating comments from self appointed experts. When I challenge them, as I have done frequently, they fail to answer [except on this occasion in Rhodesian's comments msgs 39+40].

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
16/12/2010 08:42

rocky you are entitled to your opinion but I think you have answered your own question in that a number of people can and do fit into the smallest of apartments and therefore the only fariest way is to follow the law and pay equally



You could argue under your senerio that because developers and investors bought to make a profit they should not pay maintenance because they do not even go to their apartment so you then get into the senario of maybe half the complex not paying and the responsibility goes to the others half paying more. Nope would never work.



ALso the floor of easement must be followed by the appointed MC which is not happening in some cases it cuts both ways. If the law is flollowed it stops any 'them and us' as the procedure has been followed and there is no arguement, it stops MC self appointing themselves and not showing proper audited accounts



Follow the law

Lazy days


Joined: 24/07/2008
Posts: 847

Message Posted:
16/12/2010 10:05

Arthur in most of my dealings with regard to Estates/complex's, the majority of people want to just get on with enjoying their "place in the sun" however there are always a few who are a little bit disaffected and will never accept that the majority have the right, as I just said to someone in a private e-mail, we all have to accept that the majority of developers did not finish the job possibly because of the world slump, who knows, however you are lucky you have your places so you all must work together to bring them up to a desired standard, not try to dictate your terms.

I do not think the majority of M/C are trying to rip people off, its just peoples perception, I do agree that there may be exceptions but overall these companies want to grow and expand and they know that if they are not doing things properly, then they will fail, it however has to be said that vindictive people with grudges are very dangerous and the majority really have to stand up and not let these bullies win.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
16/12/2010 10:09

you are right LD but to stop the disaffected people and the exceptions to the good MC if you follow the law then this will stop both

rocky


Joined: 17/10/2007
Posts: 1749

Message Posted:
16/12/2010 10:53

msg 52

first point makes some sense but I guess those who take this view generally own a larger property.

Second point does not ,,, who has heard of anyone making a profit on a holiday home ..obviously an owner has to pay upkeep for the development but again there may be people who do not share that view.I can name one development in Spain where a minor earth tremor ruined the pool and some of the community areas they were never repaired as far as I know, what is the value of these properties now? you can guess I think..

Overall I think any owner not paying any fees or deliberately underpaying should be named and shamed. If there are personal financial reasons such as death or similar loss then these owners should be able to discuss and come to an arrangement with the management company.

What I am saying is that a contingency fund is necessary to provide for emergencies therefore owners should overpay and any surplus funds should be held in a secure bank trust account.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
16/12/2010 11:15

Rocky agree - we on our complex pay our maintenance equally then we pay £50 per year into a Contingency fund - which we have had to call upon for Pool pumps and to conduct drainage channels after the floods last year.



Maintenance money is to maiintain and keep the site to a standard anything over this will have to paid for hence the contingency fund. The contingency is kept in a high interest account and any expenditure from it all owners are informed and an owner is counter signatory to the account



If at the end of the year we have cash left over which we do then we spend on improvements to the site - gardens equipement etc.,

simbas



Joined: 16/07/2007
Posts: 5943

Message Posted:
16/12/2010 11:25

This thread is now closed.



Reason: Not specified. This could have a devastating affect on the said company owner { RMS } his business , livelihood , and his family , i feel the person who has an issue with this the company should convey it off board

Simbas