收費問題收費

24. 答某讀者
23. 清水, 毒水, 劇毒之水
22. 點解要聽你地支笛?
21. 全村特別業主大會延後之困惑
20. 申請CC訴訟基金之紙媒報導
19. 3%專業費是
18. 側寫2013-8-25的EGM
17. 又係呢班人?
16. 有關授權書的小故事
15. 如此業主代表?
14. 申請消費者訴訟基金之二, 三事
13. 行規=合理, 更=合法?
12. 有關申請消委會訴訟基金之交代信
11. 閉門會議
10. 螳臂當車
9. [公契]淺析
8. EOC 2012-5-03會議點滴
7. 小業主權益, 自救之道?
6. 撥款. 法律意見
5. 搬石頭砸己腳
4. EOC問卷調查之點滴
3. 和諧的代價
2. 業委會2009/1/08致康業的信
1. 收費問題, 問題收費 之緣起

廣告

Responses

  1. Hello Natalie,

    I am not sure if you have similar issue on Manager’s Remuneration. Below is the email I sent to Consumer Council a moment ago and it is posted to my blog http://eowner.info/?p=4306

    水電煤稅要都抽MR-Manager’s Remuneration
    發表於 2013/11/06

    10月初上消委會開左兩單Case,其中一單 (cc #301/151186/2013)是經理人酬金的不合理計算方法,論據如下:

    1.無付出而有收入:公共設施,會所,管理處,中西餐飲及各種康樂活動的照明,冷氣,水電煤費及政府各稅項現時都算做屋苑支出費用,於是以DMC條例港鐵收取經理人酬金是屋苑支出費用的10%.中電生產電力,輸送電力,維護設施,管理營運而收取電費利潤上限是10%,港鐵大業主不用承擔任何風險或成本下便要小業主多付10%!中電申請加價而港鐵大業主也坐享其成收硬我地小業主筆錢.各位業委,議員是否要關注一下?

    2.DMC條例上寫經理人酬金的收取是按:The annual remuneration of the Manager for the performance of its duties hereunder shall be ten per cent (10%) of the total actual annual expenditure (excluding the Manager’s remuneration)reasonably and properly incurred in the good and efficient management of the Estate.
    經理人僱用之員工去服務屋苑,繳付水電煤稅及與相關部門連絡溝通,已做performance of its duties而收取10%酬金另加1%Headquarters Expenses;為何在Performances of its duties後已收MR錢,仍再收水電煤稅款支出的10%MR?這類expenditure是否reasonably and properly incurred?
    為什麼香港房委會居屋之DMC對MR的計法是無以上的問題,其DMC說法是MR只計管理,修理及維護性文出: Estate Management Expenses shall mean all costs, charges, expenses and outgoings necessarily and reasonably incurred in relation to the management repair and maintenance of the Estate as a whole.

    3.香港法例458章:不合情理合約條例 (Chapter 458 Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance)是否適用?

    十分期待消委會的回應.(2013.11.18)

    Regards,
    Peter

    • Hello Peter,

      I have relay your question to some learned friends, and their answers are as follows:

      From HL
      The best way is to set up OI, kick the present manager out and hire a new one.

      Everyone face the same situation in HK. It seems there is nothing we can do about it except setting up OI.

      From TY
      From what I understand, the Manager’s Remuneration (“MR") is based on DMC or a contract entered into between the
      management company (in the case of WV, it is HY) and the EOC/IO (in the case of WV, it is EOC).
      In our case, the MR is based on the actual management fee revenue, instead of actual expenses incurred for the whole Estate.
      However, the different approach gives different MR. If based on expenditures, the MR is fewer.

      For example:
      If MR in WV is say 12% (instead of 8%), it is calculated based on management fee annualy collected, approx HK$34 M.
      There has been normally a 5-10% surplus annually,ie, the total expenses paid out for maintaining the Estate is approx HK$30-32M.
      Some of the surplus will be saved in Capital Reserve Account (a common area reserve for common area emgergency expense),
      some in each Building’s Saving Accounts (one for each block’s normal saving and one for repair purpose).

      The question comes here is : why we need to save about 10% for no purpose, as this surplus has attracted 12% MR, which is equal
      to HK$360,000 or more payable to HY? ( surplus of HK$3M x 12%). This is a big sum…

      Every year, HY would ask for budget increase in operating expenses, in cleaning, salaries, maintenance and repairs etc. This would
      mean increase in each block’s management fee is required. If this is increased, say by 10%, total management fee is increased by
      HK$3-4M, and HY would get increase in MR by 12%, ie HK$360,000-480,000.

      Therefore the best thing to avoid HY to collect more MR by this method is:
      1. Do not increase management fee for each block unless that block has no more savings,
      2. Control expenditures and question the increase budget,
      3. If unexpected repairs are required, like major renovation/repairs, the money should be raised from individual owner on a fair basis
      through special collection method: " Repair Fund" demand note, instead of management fee demand note (this is subject to 12%
      based on DMC, which you cannot subsequently avoid).

      As for Peter’s queries, I think he has no reasonable grounds to appeal on the MR collection method as it is written in the contract entered into.

      Hope the above will help. Make it a good one!


發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

連結到 %s

%d 位部落客按了讚: