Warsaw’s big property managers are accused of throwing quality service out the window in order to achieve the sort of scale that makes them almost untouchable.
One of the biggest frustrations that owners of apartment buildings in Warsaw can have is often the level of service they get from the property manager. Even seemingly simple tasks like keeping the building clean and in good running order often seem to be beyond the abilities of the companies that provide the services. There are any number of reasons why this can happen, but often it comes down to the questionable practice of many of the larger property managers to handle many of the other issues like facility management, cleaning and security services in-house. Typically, these companies will convince the owner’s association of a building that this type of arrangement will result in lower prices for their services. And in a sense, it’s often the case that they are able to underbid other companies in order to get the work.
But while there are naturally exceptions, entrusting all of these functions to a single company can backfire on the owners of the apartments in the building. Not only does it concentrate a great deal of influence in the hands of the property manager, but it reduces the company’s incentive to ensure the highest possible level of service. “ I only have one building, but it’s a large one, so I can make a living from it,” says one independent property manager, who asked to remain anonymous. “When I was in school, they always told us that if you do property management, you can’t do any of the other services.” He explains that if there are complaints about the quality of service of the cleaners, for example, he tries to work out the issue with the company. “But if that doesn’t work, I can just change that one company. I don’t have to change everything.” Building associations that entrust all the work to a single company would have to replace everyone, meaning the property manager and all the individual services. This is extremely awkward and difficult to arrange, since canceling a contract is requires an official meeting of the association attended by at least 50 percent of the members as well as a notary.
Issues often comes up in cases where a developer building a multi-phase project will assign a property manager to the first building and continue with the same company for the rest of the project. This can lead to a conflict of interests. In theory, the property manager should be actively monitoring the building and its equipment for defects and aggressively hounding the developer when problems arrive. But the company may decide it’s in its own interest to be more accommodating with the developer. “It’s a question of ethics,” says our source.
At the root of the problem, he says, is excessive competition and cost cutting. “The problem is that the manager is absent in the building,” he says. “They put one person in charge of five or ten buildings, so he ends up doing his job from the office. There’s no one who is actually in the building, someone who is speaking with the owners about what they would like to have and what the problems are. It lacks the human element.” He insists he’s not claiming to be better than the managers of the big companies, but his service is better because he only has one building to take care of. “My day only has 24 hours, just like their day has only 24 hours. There’s only so much you can do.”
