Shoreline - Landlord Arrears On Maintenance Charges

Anyone else think we're going round in circles? 1. Access to all the facilities is in my tenancy agreement. There's actually a bit where it states who pays for the clubhouse fees (that means the gym, pools and beach). it's the landlord. I think this is pretty straightforward to understand - I paid my rent, my contract has been broken by the landlord. 2. It's not just about the service fees. Nakheel are in dispute with the owners association over who owns the "common parts" of the development. This is because they want to make the beach area into a beach club and charge for memberships. This is what started the dispute - banning residents from using the beach came off the back of this and is entirely related. 3. The new clubhouse structure is rubbish. It means that my son can't take his friend to the swimming pool without it costing me 200dhs. It means if my mum comes to stay for two weeks she will have to stump up 28,000 dhs to accompany us to the beach. It also means that my son can't go to play with his mates without me coming with him. It's so badly thought out that you wonder what idiot came up with it. 3. The dispute is with RERA now. They have told residents to pay outstanding service fees but the other part of the dispute is still unresolved. Owner are claiming that Nakheel banning them from common areas is not legal and that is what they are currently fighting over. 4. As I understand it, there have been disputes over the service charges for years - as anyone who lives here would testify, the development hasn't been particularly well looked after and Nakheel are well know for this lackadaisical attitude to maintenance in many of their properties. The beach is usually filthy, pools aren't heated, apartments are badly made and there are always problems with drains/leaks/lighting etc etc. So this is a way of getting residents to pay up without nakheel actually addressing any of the problems. 5. Nakheel's record keeping when it comes to service charges is pretty bad. My neighbour owns, is up to date with servcice charges, has all her receipts and is still not getting access. Even showing them proof she has paid is getting her nowhere. Same with my friend - she has all the lanlord's receipts and still it's "computer says no..." 6. Nakheel limiting access to the beach actually started some time ago. The doors from the beach side apartments were all locked and everyone had to go via the security guards. Myself and my family were stopped early November, before they had originally wanted to bring in the new temporary access card system. We had our pass cards with us. The guard had a big list of apartments/owners/tenants. Although the name of our landlord was correct it was a different tenant name to ours. In fact the name they had was at least over one year old as it wasnt even the last tenant. Even showing them our Ejari tenancy -proving it is registered with the land department- made no difference. I refused to leave until we were allowed on. An argument ensued where we were told by the guard: this wasn't the UK This wasn't our home We didn't live here We had to accept the situation. I was rightly furious and eventually we were let past the guard. This incident had nothing to do with service charges. 6. Edna I believe people have offered suggestions, they are just not ones you agree with. Here's one, why don't Nakheel find a development and developer where people DO pay their service charges and copy that. You know, learn from another more successful, business with a better reputation. So as you see, while I have beef with the landlord there's more than enough to complain about nakheel and their backwards way of doing business.

The rental value surely takes in to account the surrounding facilities It takes account of their proximity and convenience, but from a legal standpoint, it doesn't guarantee access unless it's specifically written into the rental contract. You may well *assume* that you have access, but legally, unless it says otherwise in your tenancy contract, you don't have a right to it if the appropriate service charges have not been paid. It's the same when you're buying a property. If it's located in a desirable area with a good school and good recreational facilities, you will pay more than you would have to for a property in a less desirable area, but you're not guaranteed free access to all those benefits just by moving there. The school might be full, you'd have to pay separately to use sports centres, and so on. It's the proximity that counts. After all, if a couple who do not want children move to an area close to a good school, they will have to pay a premium because there's a good school there, even though they will probably never actually use it. I honestly don't understand your stance that Legal action in entirely impractical Sorry, but it is. For one thing, the protracted nature of the legal system here means it would probably take years for any cases to get to court, with the legal fees just for instigating many cases being way more than the actual amount of service charges owed. Secondly, a huge number of the LLs live in other countries and the practical difficulties of tracking them down and forcing them to come to Dubai to face a court case are enormous. Short of the Dubai government demanding extradition, which would obviously never be entertained just for non-payment of service charges by those few foreign governments which have extradition treaties with the UAE, how many absentee LLs do you think would voluntarily travel to Dubai in order to sued? They'd have to be certifiably insane to even consider it. Again, it's very noticeable that none of the people insisting that the tenants should retain full access to facilities even if their LLs choose not to pay have any practical suggestions of alternative means of prising the money out of the owners.

What's RERAs take on what's happening?

Just a thought here, but if LL still don't pay - would Nakheel stop residence in those apartments using say all common areas; such as parking, lifts or could they go one step further and actually stop access to the buildings. bearing in mind that those who "own" the apartments don't really own them outright as such.... they are basically Long leased...... Just a thought Therein lies a legal minefield - strictly speaking if you are in a leasehold (as pretty much all "freehold" owners are in Dubai), then would the landowner be able to repossess if the leaseholder were in breach of contract... and does non-payment of service charges constitute such a breach? As for tenants having to pay service fees directly, well, in a way, they already do through their rent - it's just that the LL hasn't quite got their head around such overheads like service charges and maintenance having to come out of their "profits". I had my ex-agent trying to give me some sob-story about how unfair it was for the LL to have to replace part of the fitted kitchen because rents had come down so he was making less profit than in 2008. Wow... my heart bled, I can tell you! Again, the only reason why tenants are putting up with this is because they find themselves between a rock and a hard place, having had to hand over a year's rent and not wanting to forfeit it. In a pay-monthly situation, the LL's would have got a polite letter of notice and a silent FU as soon as it all hit the fan.

Just a thought here, but if LL still don't pay - would Nakheel stop residence in those apartments using say all common areas; such as parking, lifts or could they go one step further and actually stop access to the buildings. bearing in mind that those who "own" the apartments don't really own them outright as such.... they are basically Long leased...... Just a thought

the West is totally different though because you don't really have 99% of your freehold property market being owned by expats of the country (and even a huge percentage of them not living in the country AND without mortgages so not even a way to trace them through that) and if there were legal wrangles having to find all of the owners/track them down etc. Edited to amend rambling slightly... edited by Muesli Bar on 24/12/2011 If that is the case then sounds like that a well thought through plan! :\:

I am bemused that people can condone intimidation and harrassment of these innocent tenants This sort of thing happens all over the world; if people use a service but fail to pay for it, that service *will* eventually be withdrawn. It doesn't happen all over the world - well not in my world of owning, renting and paying service fees. People pay what they owe OR if they default, the company follows a legal process.

Yes, I'm sure the rent you've paid to your LL would have covered the Service Fees, however, if he has chosen to keep that money for his/herself ang not paid, then it's the LL you need to follow up, not Nakheel. Nakheel's arrangement is not with the tenant, it's with the owner, and if they don't pay, then they do have the right to withdraw services. The fact that the owner has decided to lease out his property is not Nakheel's concern. It's basic common sense. I'm surprised several of you expect to have the right to use these facilities, if the service fees have not or ever been paid. Your landlord is in breech of contract and they should be the people you should act against as they have defrauded you out of services you have paid for as part of your rent. I would be straight down to lodge a complaint with RERA and if LL refuses to compensate me, be lodging a complaint with the Police.

Oh and while I'm here... You may think access to beach/pools/gym/playground is not as serious as having your electricity cut off. Well I disagree. Why? Because I PAID for it. Me. In my yearly rental costs. I think not getting what you have PAID for is fraud. Pure and simple. If I don't pay my electricity and Dewa cut me off that's my fault and I deserve the consequences. But we came here BECAUSE of the beach access. And we have already PAID for it. I find that pretty serious. I dunno, deceit just gets me like that. As a LL I totally agree with you. Of course your LL has covered the cost of the services in your rent. And it is grossly unfair that people have found themselves in this position. But just what can be done about it, apart from moving at the first oportunity, I really dont know.

Oh and while I'm here... You may think access to beach/pools/gym/playground is not as serious as having your electricity cut off. Well I disagree. Why? Because I PAID for it. Me. In my yearly rental costs. I think not getting what you have PAID for is fraud. Pure and simple. If I don't pay my electricity and Dewa cut me off that's my fault and I deserve the consequences. But we came here BECAUSE of the beach access. And we have already PAID for it. I find that pretty serious. I dunno, deceit just gets me like that. But although you have paid your rent, if your LL hasn't paid the service charge, then you are not entitled to access to the facilities. That seems pretty clear cut. You are paying to rent the apartment, unfortunately not the add ons. Does it say specifically state in your contract that your rental includes the outdoor facilities of the building? If it doesn't then your're not! If it does then your issue is with your LL for non-payment of service charges. Then LL's issue is with Nakheel. Phew!

Oh and while I'm here... You may think access to beach/pools/gym/playground is not as serious as having your electricity cut off. Well I disagree. Why? Because I PAID for it. Me. In my yearly rental costs. I think not getting what you have PAID for is fraud. Pure and simple. If I don't pay my electricity and Dewa cut me off that's my fault and I deserve the consequences. But we came here BECAUSE of the beach access. And we have already PAID for it. I find that pretty serious. I dunno, deceit just gets me like that.

Is that really the right figure? 99% owned by expats? Whatever it is owners can certainly get away with endless bad practise. The trouble is it seems you're either renting from someone who is minted and doesn't give a monkey's or from someone who bought during the madness and is looking at a property worth half what they paid for it. either way tenants here can really struggle to get things paid for or sorted. I rented for years in the UK and never had as much ***** from landlords... Why? Cos they are not allowed to get away with it. You can effectively complain. Not just complain to the air. Here it's almost expected. Shaft your tenant, shaft your employee, shaft your customers (thinking of palm utilities here... I think Catherine Tate visited their IBN Battuta office for inspiration when she wrote her "computer says no" comedy sketches.) Basically shaft everyone for as long as you can get away with it. And I completely think Nakheel are shafting ME. Not the person who hasn't paid their bills but ME, and my kids. Anywhere else I'd just withold my rent. But guess what? I've already paid it. Shafted. There's a whole building next door to me owned by one local... It's empty. Nakheel remind me of the football club Millwall whose terrace chant is "Everybody hates us, we don't care."

Desertedbeach, you are so right, about other developers taking on this approach. Then it might not just be the developers who would like to act in this manner .... Wild West Rule reigns supreme !

Edna, your analogy is completely irrelevant to the situation we are discussing. You are right, this kind of thing does happen all over the work, however it is usually the modus operandi of unscrupulous landlords who take advantage of disadvantaged and vulnerable tenants. To be fair, I can only talk of western developed countries, but in developed countries these kind of tactics would be deemed illegal. I honestly don't understand your stance that Legal action in entirely impractical, if that was the case we could all take whatever action we deemed necessary if we believe we have been wronged. The legal route might be impractical or take longer than we would like, it does not mean that we can use bully tactics as an alternative by making our own call on what is right and what is wrong. That is called a lawless country. As I said, I don't live on the Palm, I won't be living in Dubai on a permanent basis, for as long as we are here I will be a tenant. I hope I never fall foul of someone (either directly or indirectly) who uses us, our family home, our hard earned cash as a pawn in a much bigger game. No one is saying the developer/ management company should not try to recover their costs, what most people are saying is their METHODS and CONDUCT for recovering their costs are unjust, they are targeting and intimidating innocent people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the developer. I remain bemused by anyone supporting these kind of tactics.

I am bemused that people can condone intimidation and harrassment of these innocent tenants I'm bemused that people think that tenants have the absolute right to use all the facilities even if their landlord doesn't bother to pay the service charges that fund those facilities. Let me ask you, mum2girls - if it was possible for your employer to say to your DH "Actually, I don't feel like paying you", would he say "Fine, no problem" and keep working as normal indefinitely, or would he withdraw his services until they were paid for? This sort of thing happens all over the world; if people use a service but fail to pay for it, that service *will* eventually be withdrawn. how can anyone believe this is the only (and valid) option open to the developer How can anyone be so naïve as to think that the developer will just carry on indefinitely providing services that haven't been paid for? It's telling that nobody else has come up with a feasible alternative for Nakheel to pursue. Legal action is entirely impractical for numerous reasons, not least the huge amount of time it would take. And I'm sorry, but being denied access to a pool or beach is nothing like as serious as having power or water cut off, which is what happens if you don't pay your utility bills. Or would you expect DEWA to keep supplying you with power and water if you decided not to pay them any more? I agree with what you've written Edna, the problem here is that SOME landlords/owners have paid, and people whose LLs have paid are still being penalized. The system where you get treated the same as those who haven't paid, when you have, is grossly unfair and needs to be addressed. Fair enough if you (or your LL) DONT pay you are denied access. For example, shutting down the aircon in JLT to everyone just because some haven't paid is crazy! <em>edited by Pomegranate on 24/12/2011</em>

I am bemused that people can condone intimidation and harrassment of these innocent tenants I'm bemused that people think that tenants have the absolute right to use all the facilities even if their landlord doesn't bother to pay the service charges that fund those facilities. Let me ask you, mum2girls - if it was possible for your employer to say to your DH "Actually, I don't feel like paying you", would he say "Fine, no problem" and keep working as normal indefinitely, or would he withdraw his services until they were paid for? This sort of thing happens all over the world; if people use a service but fail to pay for it, that service *will* eventually be withdrawn. how can anyone believe this is the only (and valid) option open to the developer How can anyone be so naïve as to think that the developer will just carry on indefinitely providing services that haven't been paid for? It's telling that nobody else has come up with a feasible alternative for Nakheel to pursue. Legal action is entirely impractical for numerous reasons, not least the huge amount of time it would take. And I'm sorry, but being denied access to a pool or beach is nothing like as serious as having power or water cut off, which is what happens if you don't pay your utility bills. Or would you expect DEWA to keep supplying you with power and water if you decided not to pay them any more?

My landlord's outstanding charges are not much less than my entire year's rent. I somehow can't see us coming to an agreement on rent reduction... I find it amazing people can really believe that punishing the tenants is the best option. All the people who paid their bills, paid their rent, paid their ****** landlords the money. There really is no honour in business here. Let's hope all the Nakheel supporters never find themselves in this sorry state of affairs. Because if Nakheel are allowed to get away with targeting the tenants then brace yourselves for the tidal wave of other developers who then do it too. I saw someone say they live in Disco Gardens... So you'll be aware of this http://www.arabianbusiness.com/nakheel-eyes-pool-fees-for-discovery-gardens-tenants-434640.html I wonder if you are also aware that at the root of the Shoreline issue is the owners association wanting to take control of the common areas and Nakheel claiming that the common areas belong to them and they can do what they like with them, including making it into a public beach club. It's more than just a service charges issue. Are nakheel really that hopeless they can't sort out a decent bit of credit control? It seems they are. Did they come up with this genius plan in a management meeting? "I know, let's just screw the people who live there and let them hassle the landlords for us! Yay! Result." Pathetic. Because my property is managed by a decent estate agent, I'm citing breach of contract and asking them to sort it out or we move. Immediately. Because my kids are the ones who are really losing out here. They don't understand why they can't go to the beach and play with their friends like they have been doing since last January (when we moved into our first shoreline flat which was then reposssed by a bank because the landlord didn't want to pay the mortgage... didn't see the bank demanding that we sort out their debt collecting for them....)

Mum2girls - I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head! Legal action would cost them more particularly as so many owners are out of the country. And of course would indeed prove their own incompetance. I would be happy to pay for my own service charges, but, Nakheel need to do some maintenance. At the moment we are in a "no win" situation. My LL is trying to sort things out from another country. Nakheel is being totally unhelpful. Even basic maintenance has not been done for months. And the completely innocent tenant is caught in the cross-fire. This is a lesson to us all.........ask questions before you sign your contract, [b'>seek proof of charges having been paid to date[/b'>, and as for us paying the next years rent a year in advance - NO chance!! I am even going to request financial compensation. I will not be moving out, I like it here, it's convenient for us, we have nice neighbours. And why should we be further inconvenienced. It's just all such a total mess :-( Well said......although it seems with these new tactics, a prospective tenant will need to seek proof that ALL apartments have been paid for (i.e. service charges) not just who you are renting from, how difficult would that be?! And how many buildings would actually have ALL owners actually paid up? How can you guarantee this will continue year after year? Renting in Dubai has just got a whole lot more difficult!

Mum2girls - I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head! Legal action would cost them more particularly as so many owners are out of the country. And of course would indeed prove their own incompetance. I would be happy to pay for my own service charges, but, Nakheel need to do some maintenance. At the moment we are in a "no win" situation. My LL is trying to sort things out from another country. Nakheel is being totally unhelpful. Even basic maintenance has not been done for months. And the completely innocent tenant is caught in the cross-fire. This is a lesson to us all.........ask questions before you sign your contract, seek proof of charges having been paid to date, and as for us paying the next years rent a year in advance - NO chance!! I am even going to request financial compensation. I will not be moving out, I like it here, it's convenient for us, we have nice neighbours. And why should we be further inconvenienced. It's just all such a total mess :-(

I am bemused that people can condone intimidation and harrassment of these innocent tenants. It is an abuse of power by the developer, how can anyone believe this is the only (and valid) option open to the developer. If the developer / management company have a issues with the owners, why are they not taking legal action against said owners? exactly as DeserRose explains. Is this their preferred option because legal action against the homeowners would mean they would have to defend their own failure to meet their side of the contract?

I wouldnt trust tenants to pay service charges because some tenants can be really difficult I wouldn't trust landlords to pay service charges because some landlords can be really difficult. As this situation demonstrates perfectly and very publicly. God knows what headache you'd bring upon yourself as an owner if your tenant decided not to pay the service charges for whatever reason As long as the system was structured properly, no headaches at all. It seems pretty straightforward to me; for a concomitant reduction in rent, tenants have to pay service charges, since they're the ones actually using them. If they don't, they lose access to those services, and they have nobody to blame but themselves. It would be essential that the rent reduction matched the amount of service charges, of course.

It's not only an issue in Shoreline, this is happening everywhere. We visited some friends in JLT last night and the same is happening in their building and management have actually put a list in all the elevators with the apt numbers of those who haven't paid! Now the problem my friends have, is that their LL has actually paid the fees and they have the receipts to prove it, but can they get hold of the management or maintenance company to remove them from the non-paying list and get their utilities back on? er no! So it's a major issue from another angle as well.

To me, after reading all the replies, it seems the only way to resolve this is for whoever is living in these apartments, be it owner or tenant, they are solely responsibible in paying the service fees. Obviously, the rents will have to drop, but at least then tenants then have the choice, don't pay you can't use the facilities. Simples! I wouldnt trust tenants to pay service charges because some tenants can be really difficult. God knows what headache you'd bring upon yourself as an owner if your tenant decided not to pay the service charges for whatever reason. Not everyone is honourable and decent as this thread has shown, and some people are just downright big moaners who'd get an owner into hot water just for the sake of wanting to have a bit between their teeth over the smallest thing. What has happened is horrible and I really dont know how it can be resolved apart from people moving out of their apartments when their contract is up. Hit the owner where it hurts - and thats in the pocket. We have a system here in Oman, our buildings are managed by Strata Global, and one week after the quartely service charges should have been paid legal proceedings commence against the owner. A letter is sent from a lawyer and people have 7 days to cough up, 7 days later another letter is sent and I think this goes on for a month - its then put in the hand of debt collectors/the law. It can become quite a costly affair as people are even charged for the letters that are sent out. ets - we also have an owners group that I wont join for the simple reason the first thing they do is ask other owners not to pay service charges whenever they are griping about something with the management company - usually very small somethings. To date though I think its no more than a handful of people who havent paid their dues and when they each received warning that legal proceedings were about to commenced they got all upset. :D Oh and admin charges to the management company take up the biggest share of the service charge - funny that eh. <em>edited by DesertRose1958 on 24/12/2011</em>

Completely a LL v tenant issue, LL should have paid, tenant should have made sure in advance that all rights were available (I know, impossible, but it's the same principle as if you buy property then a [b'>road [[/b'>b'>is[/b'> [b'>built through[/b'> it and they say you should have checked to see if any plans were there). Oh yes and that REALLY works here!

Then that is a matter for the tenant to take up with RERA, the landlord and if necessary Police. IMHO, it's not Nakheel who is at fault, it's just unfortunate the tenant is the ones being punished. You can't expect Nakheel to keep everything maintained as expected if owners/landlords are not paying their service fees. Obviously, from what has already been mentioned, the maintenance and public areas are becoming run down and neglected. This is probably due to lack of fees being paid. It's cheaper for Nakheel to shut these areas down, than continue to run them (poorly), until overdue fees to cover running costs are paid. A newspaper article said 50% are not paying.

Then that is a matter for the tenant to take up with RERA, the landlord and if necessary Police. IMHO, it's not Nakheel who is at fault, it's just unfortunate the tenant is the ones being punished. You can't expect Nakheel to keep everything maintained as expected if owners/landlords are not paying their service fees. Obviously, from what has already been mentioned, the maintenance and public areas are becoming run down and neglected. This is probably due to lack of fees being paid. It's cheaper for Nakheel to shut these areas down, than continue to run them (poorly), until overdue fees to cover running costs are paid.

Zannie, how does that help those current tenants who've paid a year in advance (contractually including service charges), as per the ludicrous system in operation here, to unscrupulous landlords who've not paid on the service charges to Nakheel?

To me, after reading all the replies, it seems the only way to resolve this is for whoever is living in these apartments, be it owner or tenant, they are solely responsibible in paying the service fees. Obviously, the rents will have to drop, but at least then tenants then have the choice, don't pay you can't use the facilities. Simples!

Well, developers promised swimming pools, clubs etc in various developments then reneged on it....what happens? Nothing. The whole thing is a big mess...

Ohhhhhh. This is NOT the tenant's issue So you think that tenants should expect full maintenance and full access to the facilities even if their LL persistently fails to pay his service charges? You're saying that Nakheel should not be allowed any leverage at all, and should be completely at the mercy of the LLs, with no useful sanction against them if they continue to refuse to pay? Yes, they are entitled to it because they've paid for all those things by paying their rent (invariably in full and in advance). . Not really - if the LL is not entitled to use these services how can he then resell them on to someone else? Then in the contract it should clearly state that the otherwise common facilities are excluded from the property... along with as it would turn out, occasionally water, A/C or whatever else the developer fancies cutting. Hardly a great sales pitch. If indeed the LL has mis-sold the property by saying that the tenant would have access to the pool, etc whilst knowing full well that they wouldn't, then he was in breach of contract the moment he put his name to it, and the agent who helped would be equally guilty. What a fine pickle. Of course, you could say that the tenant should have done deep background checks, etc... which is all very well and good, but "due diligence" is also defined by what is considered "reasonable". If the contract states what is and isn't included then there is no reason why the tenant should have to doubt it. And that, people, is why all tenants should be adding in clauses and definitions to clarify the terms of their tenancy and thereby protect themselves.