Näytä aineistokuvailu.

FSD2937 Limited Liability Housing Companies Act's Functionality and Impact 2013: Shareholders

Aineisto on (A) vapaasti käytettävissä ilman rekisteröitymistä.

Lataa aineisto täältä

Muunkieliset kuvailuversiot

Aineistoon liittyvät tiedostot

  • Aineistoon ei liity muita kuvailevia tiedostoja

Tekijät

  • Ministry of Justice

Asiasanat

alternative dispute resolution (adr), building maintenance, companies, conflict resolution, governing boards (organizations), home ownership, housing, maintenance, real property law

Sisällön kuvaus

The survey investigated how the new Limited Liability Housing Companies Act 2010 (Asunto-osakeyhtiölaki) functioned in Finland, what its impact had been and how it had been implemented. Separate surveys were conducted for shareholders of limited liability housing companies, members of governing boards, property managers and estate agents. This dataset contains the responses of shareholders of limited liability companies.

The respondents were first asked basic information about the company, such as the types of buildings belonging to the company, number of apartments, business premises belonging to the company, and whether the company had a property manager and who was responsible for property management.

Relating to management of the company, the respondents were asked about the ease of attracting new members to join the board of the company, interest shown by shareholders in the activities of the company, and improvement or decline of the management of the company after June 2010. With regards to auditing, the respondents were asked whether there was a person responsible for financial/performance audit in the company, whether performance audit (set out in the 2010 Act) had improved residents' access to information about the activities of the company, and whether the audit had benefited the company and increased trust for its management.

Views were charted on information and communication by the company, for instance, by asking whether invitations to meetings were sent out early enough, whether board members and chair answered shareholders' questions in the meetings, and whether shareholders were notified early enough about important decisions and plans made by the board. Further questions charting communication probed improvement/decline in communication by the board and property manager after 2010, issues the board and/or property manager should notify the shareholders about (e.g. the company's financial situation, renovating and maintenance instructions), and whether an Act should be in place that lays down provisions on communication between the company and shareholders during the fiscal year.

Concerning building maintenance, views were charted on the board's and property manager's knowledge of the law and regulations relating to responsibilities of the company and the shareholder in maintenance issues, and disputes between the company and shareholders about the division of maintenance costs. Relating to the maintenance needs report (which is required by law in cases when planned maintenance significantly affects the use of an apartment, company charges, or other costs incurred by the use of an apartment), questions charted, among others, discussion about the report in the company meeting, shareholders' opportunities to go over the report before the meeting, things included in the report (e.g. cost estimate, maintenance schedule), and perceptions on the usefulness of the report.

Relating to renovations done by the respondent, questions examined superficial renovations done in the apartment after 2010, potential difficulties in filing a renovation notice, whether the respondent had consciously neglected to notify about a renovation, whether the company had requested that the respondent add information to a renovation notice, what the processing fee for the notice had been, and whether the fee had increased or decreased after 2010. Further questions about renovations investigated the processing time of renovation notices, supervision of and conditions set for the renovation by the company, and potential costs incurred by the supervision.

Perceptions of disputes and dispute resolution were surveyed. Increase or decrease in disputes between the company and shareholders after 2010 was studied as well as primary actor in resolving disputes, and the need for an independent third party to settle disputes and conflicts between the shareholders and the company. Finally, the respondents were asked whether they had received a property manager's certificate (isännöitsijäntodistus) when they had requested for one.

Background variables included, among others, the respondent's gender, age, whether R lived in or rented out the apartment she/he owned, the location or size of the municipality where the limited liability housing company operated, and the decade when its buildings had been constructed.

Pysyvä linkki tähän aineistoon:

Suora linkki tähän välilehteen:

Aineiston kuvailu koneluettavassa DDI 2.0 -formaatissa

Aineiston kuvailu on lisensoitu CC BY 4.0 -lisenssin mukaisesti.