Limited Liability Housing Companies Act's Functionality and Impact 2013: Board Members

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 board members. The respondents were first asked basic information about the company, such as the types of buildings belonging to the company, number of apartments, and business premises belonging to the company. Relating to management of the company, the respondents were asked about the number of members in the governing board, number of meetings in 2012, average time spent on a meeting, change in the time spent on meetings after 2010, division of labour within the board, documents drawn up to guide the work of the board, composition of the board, remuneration received by board members, and increase in the workload of the board. Further questions probed, for instance, the ease of attracting new members to join the board, interest shown by shareholders in the activities of the company, and effects of the new Act on the activities of the company. With regards to property management, the questions surveyed whether the company had a property manager, who was responsible for property management, where the duties of the property manager had been set out, changes in property management services and their costs after 2010, and the need for allowing a property management company to assume the tasks of a property manager. Concerning auditing, topics included person/people responsible for financial/performance audit in the company, differences in opinions about the duties of a performance auditor, and benefit of the performance audit to the company. 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), perceptions on the usefulness of the report, and the frequency of updating the report. Plans of building lifts in the buildings owned by the company were surveyed as well as the division of costs of building them. Further questions studied reimbursements awarded to shareholders for making the renovations planned by the company by themselves, and the equal distribution of maintenance costs. Relating to renovations done by shareholders, questions examined rules set out for renovation notices by the company, number of notices filed per year, shareholders' neglect to file notices, need to add information to filed notices, and expert help hired by the company to assess renovation notices. Further questions about renovations investigated disputes resulting from the neglect to file a notice, processing fees for renovation notices, processing time of renovation notices, and supervision of and conditions set for the renovation by the company. Perceptions of disputes and dispute resolution were surveyed. Disputes among shareholders, and increase or decrease in disputes between the company and shareholders after 2010 were 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. Background variables included, among others, the respondent's gender, age, work experience in the governing board, and position in the board as well as the location or size of the municipality where the limited liability housing company operated, and the decade when its buildings had been constructed.

本调研旨在考察《2010年有限责任住房公司法》（Limited Liability Housing Companies Act 2010，芬兰语原名Asunto-osakeyhtiölaki）在芬兰的运行状况、实际影响与落地实施细节。调研分别面向有限责任住房公司（limited liability housing company）股东、董事会（governing boards）成员、物业经理（property managers）及房产经纪人（estate agents）开展独立问卷调查。本数据集包含董事会成员的调研回复。

受访者首先被问及公司基本信息，包括公司名下建筑类型、公寓数量及公司所属商业用房情况。

在公司治理维度，调研问题涵盖董事会成员人数、2012年董事会会议次数、单次会议平均耗时、2010年法案实施后会议耗时变化、董事会内部分工、用于规范董事会工作的成文文件、董事会构成、董事会成员薪酬，以及董事会工作量增幅。

后续问题进一步探究：吸纳新任董事会成员的难易程度、股东对公司运营的关注程度，以及新法案对公司运营的影响。

在物业管理维度，调研内容包括公司是否配备物业经理、物业经理的权责界定、2010年后物业服务内容及成本的变化，以及是否需要委托专业物业管理公司承接物业管理工作。

在审计维度，调研主题涵盖公司财务/绩效审计（performance audit）的负责主体、对绩效审计职责的意见分歧，以及绩效审计为公司带来的收益。

针对公司信息与沟通情况，调研设置了如下问题：会议邀请是否提前发送到位、董事会成员及主席是否在会议上解答股东疑问、股东是否提前获知董事会作出的重要决策与计划；进一步的沟通相关问题还包括：2010年后董事会与物业的沟通效率变化、董事会及物业需向股东通报的事项（例如公司财务状况、修缮与维护指引），以及是否应出台规范财年内公司与股东间沟通的法律法规。

在建筑维护维度，调研考察了董事会与物业经理对涉及公司及股东在维护事宜中权责的法律法规的认知情况，以及公司与股东间关于维护成本分摊的纠纷。

针对维护需求报告（maintenance needs report，当计划维护显著影响公寓使用、公司收费或其他公寓使用相关成本时，法律强制要求出具该报告），调研问题包括：该报告在公司会议上的讨论情况、股东在会前查阅该报告的渠道、报告包含的内容（例如成本估算、维护计划）、受访者对报告实用性的评价，以及报告的更新频率。

调研还覆盖了公司名下建筑的电梯加装计划及成本分摊情况；股东自行实施公司规划的修缮工程可获得的补偿标准，以及维护成本的公平分摊情况。

关于股东自行开展修缮的相关问题，调研考察了公司制定的修缮申报规则、年度修缮申报数量、股东未按时提交申报的情况、申报信息的补充需求，以及公司聘请专家评估修缮申报的情况。

进一步的修缮相关调研还包括：因未提交修缮申报引发的纠纷、修缮申报处理费、修缮申报的处理时长，以及公司对修缮工程的监管要求与设定的施工条件。

调研还收集了受访者对纠纷及纠纷解决的看法：股东间纠纷情况、2010年后公司与股东间纠纷的增减趋势、纠纷解决的主要参与主体，以及是否需要引入独立第三方来调解公司与股东间的纠纷与冲突。

背景变量涵盖：受访者性别、年龄、董事会任职年限、在董事会中的职位、有限责任住房公司所在市镇的位置与规模，以及公司名下建筑的建造年代区间。