Ben Kingsley - why not use on-site property managers?

I have managed properties as an on-site manager for over 7 years but seem to find the investment industry tends to shy away from putting investment properties with the on-site manager.

Of course one first asks the question are they any good? How can you prove yourself if you're not even asked. In fact I would like to put the question to Mr. Kingsley and his company:-

"If your interests are to do what's best for your customers (investor's) surely checking out all options is the responsible thing to do?"

I live on site as the title suggests, have proven myself as an exceptional manager and yet wasn't even considered or spoken to with regards to the future management of this particular property.

I'm not putting down the manager who has taken over. I just don't understand the concept of doing what is best for your client and yet you don't even consider a manger who would see the property daily, immediately be able to attend to any emergencies regardless of the day or time of the week, take the same pride in the complex they themselves live in and of course charge the same, if not less for this service.

 

Welcome to the real world Julie.

So it looks like they got another manager to replace you who isn't onsite. Maybe it's to save money or could be nepotism. This could be out of your control.

Just make sure you get everything you're entitled to and fight for it if not. You seem to be good at what you do so you might just have to move on.

 

I think a lot of onsite managers are complacent in their service because they 'automatically' win a lot of business, sorta by default. An onsite manager isn't automatically better. Seeing a property everyday isn't necessary, and don't need to be there to help with emergencies.

Its up to clients to use who they think will align with best - whether that be based on price, distance, service offering, relationships, whatever

 

I understand what you are saying, my question is wouldn't you check them out at least. As in every industry there will be good and bad. I just thought if you are using an investment company to look after your interests they would at least check out the option first?

I also beg to differ with emergencies, not all need your attendance however there are times when being on-site is a definite advantage.

 

Thanks Datto, completely moved on. These investment companies shout out how good they are and I bet they haven't even discussed with the investor the option of using the on-site manager.

 

I think you could be right Y-man. I am originally from Victoria and it was all new to me.

 

I purchased a new flat in Brisbane last year and was the only owner to have Ray White manage it for me. They had aggressive tactics and I didn't want to be competing with 100 other flats - why would the onsite lady put forward my flat above 70 other identical ones? I always pay Bribes , sorry incentives - and ray white scored a big one as they had a tenant in with no vacancy paying far higher than expected.

Coming from Sydney I was also wary of the corruption within the onsite management rights / lack of transparency.

I asked the onsite lady to sell it to us but they were unable to put forward any perceivable benefits except for wrap around advertising....

 

Hi Julie, welcome to PC and nice post. This is what I have been always advocating. Will write more when I have more time.

For now, I'll just say this: it is in their best interest to manage the properties well. OSM paid for the Management Rights. Granted, some PM might pay for the rent roll but the price is very small compared to OSM.

I too consider myself a very good OSM; I know my subjects and the Body Corporate laws. A small number of Investors/Owners know how to tap into our knowledge, but most dont. One of the reasons is probably bad experience.....

 

I have heard stories where site managers have been there for a while and it is a situation where it is more their neighbours and friends which are their clients / tenants rather than strictly business. It then becomes problematical to be removed and less emotional when it comes to putting up rents and dealing with other issues etc. They can work well from a care taking point of view when they actively need to do tasks daily to keep the site running and looking sharp.

 

Grapes are usually sour in this season. You should try some Pineapple or Mango.

pinkboy

 

Maybe they have an existing relationship with a Property Manager in the area? Better the devil you know I say.

That being said, as a tenant of a number of blocks with onsite managers, my experience has been great. Personal, friendly and always available.

 

Personally, I've found On-Site managers to generally be more complacent than other Property Managers. It's not like it's exactly a well regarded industry to start with, but in my experience the on-site guys can be particularly slack. I think this is a widely held perception.

However, when I have come across on-site managers who are skilled and motivated, they have a distinct advantage over external agents.

 

and there a times when an onsite manager who may be complaceant in getting business may not do the best job either,

pros and cons

 

I agree with this. I think it's by virtue of the general flawed belief by investors that the closer their PM is to their property, the better equipped they are to handle problems. This means that on-site managers can use leverage this as a tool to sell their business and probably don't have to work as hard on their product or service to win managements from the outset. I'm not saying that all on-site managers are slack, but in my experience there is no benefit and usually they have a much more complacent attitude.

 

Just look up the owner of the property on pricefinder and speak to them directly with the price and services you offer.

 

Hi Julie,

It may be outside of your hands - it isn't necessarily about the quality of the service you deliver.

It may be more that owners can get a better return on their own rather than being part of either a pool return or a pool of units under one manager. A standalone manager can market the unit as a priority but presumably you need to equally market all units...

Cheers