|
Jacob's Island - History
Information |
Contractors |
Concierge |
Freehold |
History |
Photos |
Property |
Constitution
30th April 2009
Jacob’s
Island Residents’ Association (JIRA)
Minutes of
the Eleventh
ANNUAL
GENERAL MEETING
held at
7.30pm on
Thursday 30 April 2009
City Hall,
The Queen's Walk SE1 2AA
Present:
JIRA Committee Members:
Colin Hartridge-Price (CHP) – Chair
Apologies:
Steve Argles (SA) – JIRA Committee Garden
Coordinator
In attendance:
Valerie Shawcross, London Assembly Member for
Lambeth & Southwark
1.
Chairperson's introduction
CHP welcomed everyone to the
11th Annual General Meeting and introduced Valerie Shawcross (London
Assembly Member for Lambeth and Southwark) who was responsible for
allowing JIRA the free use of a City Hall meeting room for the fourth
consecutive year. Ms Shawcross commended the good work being
done by JIRA and wished everyone a successful meeting.
CHP introduced the Committee
members present and thanked them for their hard work and support.
He drew attention to the fact that at the last AGM, Catherine Milsom
had been appointed as the Chair of JIRA, but she had subsequently
stood down as she felt she had a conflict of interest. Catherine
felt she had a conflict due to also being a director of the
freehold-owning company for Springalls Wharf, from which JIRA had
taken a £5,000 loan to cover legal fees for the right to manage
project.
The JIRA Committee had
appointed CHP to the Chair in October, but he and the whole of the
Committee would be standing down later in the evening, and will offer
themselves for re-election. CHP emphasised that new Committee
members would be very welcome and encouraged everyone to think about
volunteering.
2. Minutes of the
2008 AGM and matters arising
The minutes were agreed as a
true record.
CHP drew attention to the
comments that were made at the last AGM regarding what is said to be a
Banksy on the River wall opposite the Providence Square gardens.
We cannot be absolutely certain this is a Banksy, as it is not clear
whether the website on which it appears is officially his (or hers).
CHP asked if anyone present could provide any enlightenment, but no
one had any information. If it were a genuine Banksy, its value
might be £200,000 to £300,000.
Removing the over painting
would cost about £700 plus VAT, and Peverel has agreed to pay half
the cost up to £350. The balance would be met by owners through
the maintenance charge. Peverel has accepted no blame for the
over painting and has said that their on-site painter and decorator
"cannot have been expected to recognise the distinction between
the alleged Banksy and 'normal' graffiti”.
The meeting agreed that, for
the time being, the “Banksy” should not be restored.
3. Chairman’s
Report on the past year and current
maintenance issues
It was less than five years
ago that some of us will have squeezed into the upstairs room at La
Lanterna for a fairly lively JIRA AGM. At the time I had only
just joined the Residents' Association so it was rather a baptism of
fire. There were many complaints about Peverel’s lack of
maintenance, but we have come a long way since then.
In the last five years about
60 non-routine maintenance or security issues have been addressed,
including:
- a 24-hour concierge
- security improvements,
including colour CCTV with more cameras
- the removal of
unregistered bicycles from the basement car park, almost exactly
2 years ago
- Fox barrier round the
basement car park
- complete internal and
external redecoration
- improvements to the gym
- and of course replacing
the moat liner
For the last two years we
have had a permanent painter and decorator -- Mark O'Brien. He
keeps the common parts looking fresh despite the fact that the
internal redecoration was completed four
years ago.
Gardeners have proved
unsatisfactory and two have come and gone. However, we now have
Andy Roberts who has only been with us a few months but is doing an
excellent job. JIRA Committee member Steve Argles continues to
devote a lot of his spare time to ensuring the gardens, and the
development in general, are well maintained. Many thanks to
Steve for that.
Caretakers have also come and
gone. We now have Tom Koko who was recently taken on permanently
following a stint at the developments as an agency worker. He is
doing a good job.
For the last year we have
also had a Peverel on-site Development Manager -- Angus Bearn -- who
is at the development from 9am to 5pm on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday.
It may just be coincidence, but this change coincided with our
decision to obtain Right to Manage.
The last 12 months has seen
the completion of the major work of complete external redecoration and
repairing sections 2 and 3 of the moat liner. Unfortunately the
cost of the repair to the moat liner is not covered by the buildings
insurance, as no insured peril has operated. The NHBC has also
denied liability, on the basis that the damage to the liner is not a
structural issue. Berkeley Homes will not accept liability --
more on that later.
TV Upgrade
An issue that has been around
for a long time is the TV upgrade, which the vast majority of owners
asked for in a development-wide survey conducted by JIRA three years
ago. This has obviously not been a priority for Peverel and the
slow progress is down to them. Having said that, there have been
other more important issues (such as the external redecoration and
moat repairs) for Peverel to concentrate on.
There have also been a number
of issues to overcome with the TV upgrade, not least of which was the
form of the upgrade, and system testing which thankfully confirmed the
existing cabling could be used. JIRA Committee member Jeremy
Hendy has put in a huge amount of effort to ensure Peverel is working
with the right technical specification. Without his help and the
persistence of JIRA, I don't think this project would ever have got
off the ground.
We are now moving towards the
conclusion of the TV upgrade. The latest consultation period
ended on 20 April and very few residents raised any objections.
Obviously we live in a community and we all have to accept the
majority view.
The upgrade is to enable
residents to obtain IF THEY WISH
satellite and terrestrial TV services, including Freeview. We
will all pay our share of the cost of this upgrade to the basic
infrastructure. It will then be down to individual choice (and
individual cost) as to what TV services you wish to receive. If
you want to stay with your current choice of TV provider, there will
be no additional charge beyond that for the basic infrastructure
upgrade. The cost of the infrastructure upgrade will be higher
for the leaseholders in Providence Tower than elsewhere, due to the
relatively low number of apartments.
The next step is for Peverel
to advise owners of the basic cost that everyone will have to pay, and
the additional cost that you can choose whether or not to pay
depending on what TV services you actually wish to receive. It
is hoped Peverel will write to owners in the next month, once tenders
from contractors have been received.
Providence Tower
Towards the end of last year,
Angus Bearn wrote to the owners of properties in Providence Tower with
suggestions on how to reduce the problem of overheating in the summer.
He has ordered keys to enable residents to open the landing windows
for ventilation in hot weather.
A Health and Safety
inspection took place today for the whole of the development. I
am told that buggies and bicycles on landings at Providence Tower have
been identified as an issue and may be removed, particularly if
blocking the dry-risers.
There are unsightly scratches
on a number of the Providence Tower lift panels. The cheapest
remedy would be for the on-site decorator to paint the panels in situ
(the panels cannot be temporarily removed), but this will mean the
lift being out of use for a number of hours.
CHP confirmed with those
present that there were no other maintenance issues specific to
Providence Tower that they wished to raise.
Springalls Wharf
Peverel are currently dealing
with a number of problems at Springalls Wharf. The renewal of
the roof covering to the lift shaft in September 2008 has not cured
the problem of rainwater entering the shaft and causing the lift to
malfunction. A surveyor's inspection report has confirmed that
the new roof covering and the lead flashings are in good condition.
The remedy proposed by the surveyor is for a shallow pitched lead
covered and timber framed roof covering, similar to the adjacent
shaft.
The proposed remedy for the
leaks to the foyer roof at Springalls Wharf is for the roof covering
to be replaced -- it is 11 years old and the normal life expectancy
for felt roofs is 10 years unless a high specification roof covering
has been used.
The curtain walling is also
to be inspected so as to seal any gaps that might be causing leaks
into a couple of Springalls Wharf apartments.
A resident raised a problem
with water leaking from the flat above and staining their walls.
It was recommended that this be pursued with Angus Bearn.
CHP confirmed with those
present that there were no other maintenance issues specific to
Springalls Wharf that they wished to raise.
Providence Square
At Providence Square there is
uneven ground settlement in the block paving in front of what was
Hills Electrical. There is also settlement elsewhere,
particularly along Block A (numbers 1 to 47A) where the brickwork
around the vent wells to the basement car park has dropped away from
the main building. Again, Berkeley Homes, the buildings insurer
and the NHBC have so far denied any liability.
CHP had received today from
Angus Bearn a report on the "Geotechnical Investigation"
that was recently undertaken. This investigation included
digging trial pits at seven locations at the end of February, and
laboratory testing of the substrata recovered.
In the main, the settlement
has occurred at places adjacent to the walls of the basement car park.
In part, this is due to the nature of the ground at Jacob’s Island
and even if remedial work is carried out, there is a risk of continued
settlement. The surveyor has given an informal view that it
would be very difficult to prove previous poor workmanship, in order
to recover the repair costs.
The remedial work recommended
in the report is repair of the areas where significant movement is
observed. This would involve removal of the surface and
sub-base, and this then being replaced using suitable compaction.
Information is awaited from Peverel on how it is intended to proceed.
Where there is a definite trip hazard (such as the block paving on the
public area outside what was Hills Electrical) Peverel has been asked
by JIRA to arrange remedial work as a matter of urgency. Repairs
to the block paving are actually urgently being arranged by Hills
Electrical, as they want to sell their Providence Square offices.
Quotations have already been obtained, but who will meet the cost has
yet to be confirmed by Peverel.
Marisa Cassoni said she felt
the issue of the uneven block paving outside Hills Electrical was down
to Berkeley Homes, being the result of inadequate workmanship during
the construction of the development, and if there were to be a
tripping accident it would therefore be Berkeley Homes who would be
liable.
DM was invited to express his
view. He emphasised that he was not at the meeting to provide
legal advice and was attending in a purely personal capacity. He
stated he was however familiar with this area of the law. He
indicated that if an individual were to suffer a tripping accident on
account of the uneven paving blocks outside Hills Electrical then the
injured person’s immediate remedy would be against the
occupier/occupiers of that land (i.e. Hills Electrical and/or
Providence Square ABC Limited in this case), depending on who was
responsible for and exercising control over the land. DM
explained that legally there can be more than a single “occupier”
of land who may be liable in such circumstances.
There was uncertainty as to
whether that land formed part of the common parts of the Estate or
whether it formed part of Hills Electrical’s demise. If
however a legal claim were to be instituted against the occupier of
the land, and if the subsidence was caused by the deficient
workmanship of Berkeley Homes, then it would be open to the occupier
to join Berkeley Homes into the legal action as an additional party.
DM pointed out that it might be far from straightforward to prove that
Berkeley Homes was in fact at fault and legally liable, and that the
joinder of Berkeley Homes would add to the complexity and costs of any
litigation.
CHP thanked DM and went on to
refer to a new item. The Provenance Square gym had been closed
for redecoration last December, but was already again showing signs of
damp along the outside wall. Drainage from the water fountain
will be redirected, and other action taken to try and prevent surface
water remaining on the car park side of the wall. It is hoped
this will improve matters, as further remedial work could be quite
expensive.
CHP acknowledged there are
some leaseholders who do not want money spent on the gym, but estate
agents tell us it does influence purchasers and the gym is a definite
plus point when trying to sell a property. Peverel has a
responsibility under the lease to maintain the gym in a good state.
The cost of the new flat screen TV in the gym was £3.67 per
apartment.
Following the repairs to the
moat liner, some of the ground floor wooden decking still requires
repair and staining. This work is due to commence on 11 May,
depending on weather conditions. The independent surveyor
engaged by Peverel will then check all the work and authorise the
final payment to the contractor for all the moat repair work. We
will then be given a certificate for the 20 year liner guarantee.
Unbeknown to JIRA, Angus
Bearn has obtained a survey report on the entrances to Block A
(apartments 1 to 47A) as he feels the entrance ramps here are rather
steep and could be a hazard. It appears they do not meet current
disability access guidelines. Moreover, the issue seems likely
to be raised in the Health and Safety Report, as it was commented on
by the Inspector during his investigation today. It is for
Peverel to decide how to proceed, but the view of the JIRA Committee
is that there appear to have been no complaints or accidents in the
last 11 years, despite the heavy snow this winter, and that nothing
should be done unless there is an actual request from leaseholders.
No doubt Peverel will be contacting the owners of the blocks concerned
for their views. The cost of work of this nature would have to
be met by the owners in the individual blocks.
CHP confirmed with those
present there were no other maintenance issues specific to Providence
Square that they wished to raise.
Thames wall
The Environment Agency requires
us to make repairs to the Thames side of the River wall. About
20 to 30 square metres of brickwork requires re-pointing and of this
perhaps 6 or 7 square metres will require rebuilding of the surface
brickwork -- the wall is actually many bricks deep.
Most of the work falls
approximately underneath the area between Springalls Wharf and
Providence Tower. However, it is not clear whether the repairs
to the Thames wall are the responsibility of leaseholders or the Port
of London Authority (PLA). This is being investigated. The
repair work is not especially complicated and Angus Bearn has
estimated costs of perhaps £15,000. He has also suggested that
perhaps £3000 per year should be accumulated in a reserve fund for
the future maintenance of the River wall.
Those present acknowledged
that the Thames wall protects us all, and noted the particular
vulnerability of the basement car park if the Thames flooded.
Subject to establishing liability, those present agreed they would
have no objection if all leaseholders at the development shared the
cost of the work required by the Environment Agency, and the ongoing
cost of accumulating a reserve fund.
[Chairman's note: Robin Tam
has subsequently provided useful information that indicates repairs
below high water mark could be the responsibility of the PLA.
Angus Bearn has advised the Environment Agency accordingly, and a
response is awaited.]
4. Treasurer’s
report – Garry Hughes
GH presented the audited
accounts of JIRA for the year to 31 December 2008. Copies of the
accounts had been among the papers available at the entrance point to
the meeting.
Income for the year amounted
to £1110 and total expenditure was £1825. This expenditure
comprised two items -- £518 for catering at the 2008 AGM and £1307
in fees paid to the lawyers dealing with Right to Manage (RTM).
More RTM expenditure would be incurred in 2009.
The cleared balance at 31
December 2008 was £6,995 after allowing for two loans of £5,000 each
from the freehold-owning companies for Springalls Wharf and Providence
Square Blocks ABC. These loans were to enable JIRA to meet the
legal costs of achieving Right to Manage at the development.
The JIRA membership
subscription for 2009 is £25, but a number of members had chosen the
option to pay £50 to cover membership for the three years 2009, 2010,
2011. This equates to £16.33 for each year.
GH responded to queries, and
the accounts were approved.
5. Appointment of
the Auditor
Andrew Donaldson was
reappointed as the JIRA Auditor.
6. Election of the
JIRA Committee
CHP explained that a
requirement of the JIRA Constitution is for all Committee members to
retire annually, although they may offer themselves for re-election at
the AGM. Between AGMs, new Committee members can be appointed
with the agreement of the other members.
The only resignation from the
committee since the last AGM was Marisa Cassoni, whose support would
be greatly missed. Marisa had been the Chair of the JIRA
Committee for the four years up to the 2008 AGM. Michael Smith
had recently been appointed to the Committee. CHP thanked Marisa
and all the Committee members for their time, effort and support over
the preceding year.
All existing Committee
members were willing to stand for election again, but Parvin Alizadeh
wished to stand down as Secretary. Lewis Phillips would be
standing for election to the vacated post, having been Secretary for
almost four years up to the 2008 AGM. Phil Nutburn was finding
he was able to spend less time at his Providence Square property, and
therefore would stand for election as Webmaster only.
CHP said the Committee would
welcome new members and he urged those present to additionally put
themselves forward for election either as a general Committee member
or for one of the roles specified in the meeting agenda. There
is no limit to the number of Committee members.
There were no additional
volunteers and the following were therefore duly nominated and
re-elected as members of the JIRA Committee:
CHP confirmed he would be
responsible for maintaining a database of e-mail addresses for
communicating with JIRA members.
7. Right to Manage
and next actions – David Currey
CHP explained that achieving
Right to Manage (RTM) would allow leaseholders to choose who should
manage the development. The current Managing Agent, Peverel OM,
is one of the parties in the tripartite lease that applies to all our
properties and the legal advice is that it would therefore be
difficult to appoint a different Managing Agent. It was not
necessarily the intention to replace Peverel, but RTM would give
leaseholders the ability to do so if that was what they decided they
wanted. RTM would give leaseholders better control over cost and
service levels.
David Curry (DC) was not a
JIRA Committee member but had been leading on the RTM project, in
particular liaising with the lawyers, BP Collins. CHP invited DC
to address the meeting.
DC said that RTM had
proceeded fairly smoothly for Providence Tower and Springalls Wharf
and RTM had been achieved for both buildings. However, there had
been a number of problems with regards to Providence Square Blocks ABC
(the Blocks around the water gardens).
Following legal advice, we
first proceeded on the basis that these three blocks were a single
unit, which was how they had been treated for the purpose of acquiring
the freehold. However, having advised Peverel that we had
obtained the necessary support from owners for RTM, Peverel maintained
that for the purposes of RTM, Blocks A, B and C should be treated as
three separate units.
The situation was not
straightforward and, although we had legal advice that Blocks A, B and
C could be treated as one, it was decided that it would be more
cost-effective to undertake the RTM process all over again, separately
for each Block. There were concerns about the legal advisers we
had been using initially, and we therefore switched that appointment
to BP Collins.
Despite the switch in
lawyers, RTM for Providence Square Blocks ABC had progressed extremely
slowly, not least because of problems in trying to obtain a response
from all leaseholders and a number of changes in the individual at BP
Collins responsible for seeing the project through. RTM for
Providence Square Blocks A, B and C had still not yet been achieved.
DC advised the meeting he no
longer wished to take the RTM project forward, and had informed the
JIRA Committee of this on 7 April. He invited questions from the
floor.
CHP advised the meeting that
he had not previously been involved with the RTM process but was now
liaising with BP Collins to establish what more needed to be done to
achieve RTM for Providence Square Blocks A, B and C. He thought
it might be possible to complete RTM within little more than a month,
but this depended on how quickly BP Collins acts. He had already
found it difficult to obtain responses from BP Collins and there was
no evidence they were making progress.
In answer to questions, CHP
confirmed that the same board of directors had been registered at
Companies House for each of the RTM companies. No changes had
been made since the initial filing, and the only individual named as a
director was David Currey. The other two named directors were
companies -- RTM Secretarial Limited and RTM Nominee Directors
Limited.
CHP thanked DC for the work
he had done.
8.
Nomination of Directors for the Right to Manage Companies
for:
- Providence Square Blocks
A, B and C
- Providence Tower
- Springalls Wharf
RTM directors can only be
elected at an Annual General Meeting of the companies, in accordance
with the Memorandum and Articles of Association. CHP advised the
meeting that the original intention had been to have the same
directors for each of the RTM companies, so as to ensure a
co-ordinated approach on behalf of all owners to the management of the
development. More recently, concerns had been raised about
potential conflicts of interest, and at the level of representation
for each building -- e.g. directors from Providence Square on the
boards for Providence Tower and Springalls Wharf.
If the directors for each RTM
company are leaseholders only in the corresponding building, it would
seem necessary to have some way of ensuring there is communication and
cooperation (where appropriate) amongst the individual companies.
There are obviously ways this can be done. For instance, it
might be appropriate to have one director (or perhaps just an official
observer) common to all companies so that each board of directors can
be kept informed on what other boards are doing. If there was a
common director, they might perhaps not to have a vote. An
alternative would be for the directors of all the RTM companies to
meet together.
Before asking for views on
the above from the floor, CHP asked whether anyone present would be
willing to stand for election as an RTM director at a properly
convened company AGM. In due course it would be necessary to
invite all members of the RTM companies to say whether they were
willing to offer themselves for election. At present there were
four volunteers -- Garry Hughes and Marisa Cassoni (both of Providence
Square); Robin Tam (Providence Tower) and Melanie Hunt (Springalls
Wharf).
[Chairman's note: Catherine
Milsom (Springalls Wharf) has subsequently confirmed she is also
willing to stand.]
There were no further
volunteers from the floor, and it therefore seems likely that the same
board of directors will apply for each RTM company, as originally
envisaged. Catherine Milsom and Robin Tam confirmed they saw no
problem with such an arrangement. Ultimately it will be for the
members (i.e. leaseholders) of each RTM company to decide how to
proceed, as they will be electing the directors for their company.
9. Recovery of
repair costs from Berkeley Homes and others
JIRA has no locus to
institute a claim to recover repair costs. CHP thanked the
previous JIRA chair, Marisa Cassoni (MC), who has done a lot of work
to establish a claim, including obtaining free advice. MC
believes that, for something in the region of £20,000 a well-known
legal firm could write a letter to the various parties and that
Berkeley Homes will wish to reach a settlement out of court.
This is based on what Berkeley Homes has done elsewhere.
This has been discussed by
the JIRA Committee but we feel we are not in a position to recommend
that leaseholders commence legal claims against Berkeley Homes,
Peverel OM and perhaps other parties, especially in the absence of an
authoritative analysis and informed assessment of the prospects of
success, the risks and the potential costs involved.
A lawyer on the JIRA Committee also has doubts as to whether the Right
to Manage companies would have locus to bring proceedings. Any
legal action is likely to be based on a claim for breach of contract
or negligence, and none of the RTM companies were in existence when
any cause of action in contract or negligence arose.
In the 10 years plus since
the Estate was developed and sold, leaseholders/residents have
changed. So, the members of the RTM companies will not be the
same body of persons who contracted with Berkeley Homes, or to whom
Berkeley Homes, Peverel and other potential parties may have owed a
duty of care.
There is nothing of course to prevent leaseholders/residents banding
together in a group to institute a claim providing they have a
community of legal interests. Each leaseholder/resident must
have an individual entitlement to make a legal claim -- for example
for breach of contract or a claim in negligence.
The claims for breach of
contract against Berkeley Homes are likely to be confined to the
original purchasers. Similarly, only those leaseholders who were
owed a duty of care at the relevant time may have any claim in
negligence.
Even if an appropriate legal vehicle to bring the proposed claims was
available, the task of preparing, presenting and pursuing the proposed
claims would be demanding, very time consuming and potentially a
logistical nightmare. Many potential claimants may already have
left the Estate and moved elsewhere. Others who potentially
might have had, for example, a contractual claim against Berkeley
Homes may have suffered no loss in that they had moved away before the
increased service charge to cover the cost of moat repairs was levied.
Contributions towards the
costs of pursuing the claims will need to be collected from those who
wish to pursue the claims and are entitled to do so. Those who
do not wish to participate in the legal claims would rightly object to
being saddled with the cost of pursuing them. This type of legal
claim and action would be far from straightforward to organise.
Even if these difficulties could be overcome the only sensible basis
on which interested leaseholders/residents should consider bringing
forward such claims would probably be if lawyers could be persuaded to
undertake the claims on a “no win, no fee basis”. Even then,
insurance would need to be obtained to cover the potential legal costs
and disbursements in the event that the claims failed. The
chances of finding lawyers prepared to take on these far from
straightforward claims on the basis of "no win, no fee" are
considered to be slim.
A proposal put to a JIRA Committee meeting was that claims be made
against Berkeley homes, Peverel OM and perhaps other parties, such as
the planting contractor. It was suggested that very large claims
be put in with the hope that a strong letter of claim prepared by
expensive lawyers would cause the parties to settle the claims without
a legal contest.
The JIRA Committee feels this
is an extremely optimistic strategy. To date, Berkeley Homes has
denied any responsibility for Estate problems such as the moat,
settlement and loose cobbles. This instils no confidence that an
early settlement, or indeed any settlement, would be achieved.
Further the claims are likely to be fraught with complications and
difficulty. For instance, the piercing of the moat liner by the
roots of inappropriate planting may have been the fault of the
planting contractor, who is now bankrupt. If the planting
contactor had relevant insurance there might be a claim under the 3rd
Party Rights Against Insurers Act. The contactor may have had no
such insurance. The contractor/his insurer may dispute the claim
entirely.
Other parties may be blamed
and brought into the dispute. The burden of proving the claim
rests with us, the claimants. If the claim is not established
against one or more of the potential defendants and is not proved by
us the claimants, then the claim will fail.
Even if liability can be
established against a party who can pay damages, the appropriate
amount of damages may be disputed. The value of the claim that
can be made will be no more than the sum of the losses sustained by
the participating leaseholders/claimants. Credit might need to
be given for the 10 years worth and function that the moat liner in
any event provided. The reasonable life span of the liner
was only 20 years in any event.
We now have a brand new liner
hopefully fit for the purpose for a further 20years. The
reasonableness of the cost of repair may be disputed. Other
unforeseen difficulties may arise. It needs to be appreciated
that once we have started down the legal route, costs could quickly
and substantially escalate. As already stated, it has been
estimated that £20,000 will be spent in legal fees just to get the
parties round the table in hope they will propose an acceptable
settlement.
CHP invited comments and there was further discussion. The
position was noted that, for the reasons stated, JIRA would not be
making any recommendation that legal action be taken to recover repair
costs.
10. Open discussion on
Peverel’s performance and charges
For the last year we have had
a Peverel on-site Development Manager -- Angus Bearn -- who is at the
development from 9am to 5pm on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. He
can be contacted at any time via the Concierge desk. John and
Sandra Clatworthy on the desk are a mine of information if you have
any queries or issues on the estate.
CHP advised the meeting that
Peverel has confirmed the fear of any managing agent is that
expenditure will be ruled outside the provisions of the lease or
judged "unreasonable" by a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal,
leaving the agent to foot the bill. Whilst Peverel has a duty to
maintain the developments, they are therefore unlikely to actually
instigate any improvements
without the support of leaseholders. JIRA has a good working
relationship with Peverel and is regularly asked to provide feedback
on issues and proposals.
[Chairman's note: It is
always made clear as to whether a view being expressed to Peverel is
that of the Chairman only, the Committee, or is a view expressed by
JIRA members (in which case the views of members would have been
canvassed".]
Angus Bearn and his manager,
Stephen Room, had been very keen to attend this evenings AGM but it
was decided not to invite them.
Concern had been raised on
what happens to the money Peverel is holding if the company goes bust.
Angus Bearn has provided assurances that money paid by residents goes
firstly into a holding bank account which is cleared down to zero each
day, with the money for each scheme (e.g. Jacob's Island) transferred
into the relevant trust account. There are no trustees as such.
The money, and any interest on it, is dedicated to Jacob's Island and
is entirely separate from Peverel's trading or company accounts.
Angus Bearn has said, it is quite simply not Peverel's money, and so
cannot be used by Peverel in the event of liquidation. There are
internal controls as you would expect, such as limits on expenditure
by individuals, and of course an independent audit of the Jacob's
Island accounts.
MC referred to having been
given a letter by Peverel confirming that leaseholders would not be
charged directly for Angus Bearn being on-site. CHP agreed to
look into that. Action CHP
In response to a direct
question from the floor, CHP said he thought Angus Bearn was doing a
good job. Angus was proactive in identifying where improvement
was desirable (whether in terms of service or Estate
maintenance/repair) and was proactive in keeping CHP informed on
progress on outstanding issues. There were regular exchanges of
e-mail between Mr Bearn and CHP (often several e-mails a day) on
Estate matters. Other members of the JIRA Committee were also
regularly being contacted by Mr Bearn for their views.
CHP had been the main contact
between the JIRA Committee and Peverel for virtually all of the five
years that he had been a member of the Committee, and the file of
correspondence that he had accumulated in the five years was massive.
Throughout this time, CHP has maintained a schedule of current
projects, recording each step of progress so as to ensure Peverel
completes projects to a satisfactory timescale. Similarly, CHP
ensures responses are obtained on all outstanding queries. CHP
felt he was in a better position to judge the performance of Peverel
than anyone else, and thought that Peverel/Angus Bearn was doing a
good job.
A comment from the floor was
that estate managing agents all tend to provide the same, generally
mediocre, level of service although it does very much depend on the
individual responsible for your particular property.
A comment was also made that
the cost of the external redecoration was too high, and so were
service charges. CHP pointed out that all work was put out to
tender, so as to obtain at least three separate quotations.
Peverel will then choose the most cost-effective contractor, usually
after having consulted with the JIRA Committee. In the case of
the external redecoration, the invitation to tender document had been
available in the concierge office, and leaseholders had been invited
to inspect it. It was a massive tome covering the extent and
standard of work required in great detail. The contractor chosen had
tendered for the work at a much lower cost than other responses.
CHP also explained that some
years ago Peverel had agreed with JIRA a fixed fee for their service
(as distinct from the expenditure on maintenance etc) although the
Lease allows them to levy a service charge 15% of total expenditure.
A comparison with other managing agents about four years ago had
indicated that Peverel's service charges were very competitive.
Once RTM is achieved for Provident Square Blocks ABC, it is intended
that the RTM directors will invite tenders for the management of
Providence Tower, Springalls Wharf and Provident Square.
However, it can be a case of getting what you pay for, so value for
money has to be the main criteria.
11. Questions from the
Floor
Peverel’s Accounts
– there was a request for more details about how the figures in
Peverel’s accounts for the development are calculated, particularly
with regard to existing reserve funds and whether the money currently
going into them is at the right level. CHP said he would raise
this with Angus Bearn, but total costs are allocated to each apartment
according to the formula set out in individual Leases.
Action CHP
About four years or so ago
CHP had gone through the accounts with Peverel (Ian Scott) to identify
any changes that should be made in respect of reserve funds.
However, with some of the large projects such as the internal and
external redecoration, Peverel's estimate four years ago of the future
cost had been way below the eventual actual expenditure. The
accumulation of future reserve funds will be influenced by the past
actual experience on costs.
Gym
– a request was made for another cross trainer in the gym, but a
show of hands indicated that only three attendees supported this
request. It was also pointed out from the floor that there was
really no space in the gym for another cross trainer. No further
action is therefore proposed.
TV channels
– the issue was raised of the availability of TV channels differing
in different rooms in an apartment. JH confirmed that this
problem should be remedied by the TV upgrade.
12. Any
Other Business
There being no other
business, the meeting was closed at 9.30pm.
|
