July 2005
5th July 2005
RVRA would like to inform residents that Channel 4 in conjunction with the Rowner Access Point have arranged a BBQ on the precinct area on Sunday 17th July 05 at 2pm.
Rowner Access have informed us of the following:
"You may or may not be aware that Channel 4 is making a series of programmes called Demolition. People have to nominate an area they would like to see demolished. The area called 'The Village' has been nominated and the programmers have visited and are interested in featuring this area in one of those programmes.
They cannot demolish this area!
I think we can use this opportunity to try and do something with the Precinct area. So we are holding a BBQ which will be filmed by Channel 4, to talk with everyone to determine how we can improve the look of the area on a limited budget. We are fortunate to have other resources from Channel 4, Focus DIY, Gosport Borough Council Gardens, Groundwork and Whitehouse Services.
The BBQ will be a chance to discuss what improvements WE could make, what kind of plants We could plant (assuming local people want plants in the precinct), a sort of 'make over' on a small budget. Then a few weeks later we will organise a 'Make and Plant Day'.
Of course the choice is YOURS. How do you want your area represented? Channel 4 will find people to talk with and if it's not the positive, hard working people that want to see improvement then I think the end result could be a negative knock which will not help anyone.
Please come along on the 17th and make your choices known, we look forward to seeing you and your families."
RVRA can confirm that neither Channel 4 nor Rowner Access have received written confirmation of authority from Labyrinth Properties nor the Landlord as yet.
Anyone wishing to discuss this matter or oversee our documentation, please contact any RVRA Team Member.
7th July 2005
RVRA would like to confirm that the BBQ arranged by Channel 4 and the Rowner Access Point on Sunday 17th July 05 is now cancelled.
We have confirmation that Channel 4 have now pulled out.
Anyone wishing to discuss the matter further, please contact any RVRA Team Member in the usual manner.
16th July 2005
RVRA have today Saturday 16th July 05 received the recent LVT Tribunal Result. Anyone wishing to see a hard copy of the result should make an appointment with any RVRA Team Member and we will be happy to accommodate. The full report may be put on this web site in time but until then a summary of the decisions are as follows:
2. Paragraph 3 to 8 are intended to form only a brief indication of the tribunal's decisions in the matter in dispute. Any inconsistency between anything contained in them and in the detailed descriptions of the tribunal's findings that appear from paragraph 9 onwards is to be resolved by giving preference to the terms of those later descriptions. The numbers in square brackets in paragraphs 3-8 refer to the number(s) of the paragraph(s) in this decision that deals with the point in question. For the purposes of the summary, and where it appears in the same context in this decision the expression "allowed" indicates that this is a sum that the tribunal found to be reasonable costs for the work done to the standard to which it was done. It was not suggested before the tribunal that any of the costs in question are presently irrecoverable by reason of any limitation imposed by section 20 of the Act, and the tribunal's decisions are made on that basis.
3. In respect of the year 2003, the tribunal has decided in respect of the points in issue before it:
a. that it has no jurisdiction to deal with Mr Munch's points concerning his wish for a management audit.
b. that the proportion of the service charge payable by the residential leaseholders should be 86 .3% of the total cost.
c. that the sum of £2,000.00 plus VAT should be invested initially in investigating the matter of the "cash difference" £142,490.01 mentioned in the 2003 accounts, to enable a more informed view to be taken before any subsequent funds are committed. It is not a matter for the Tribunal to decide which accountants should undertake that work.
d. that the balance to be shown in the 2003 accounts as payable for service charges in respect of the occupation of the estate office (including arrears from earlier years) is £10,948.68, and the amount to be shown there for rent in the same period is £2,250.00.
e. that a sum of £117.50 including VAT is to be included in the 2003 accounts for the work undertaken by Friars Secretariat Ltd in lieu of the sum of £339.50 presently included.
f. that the telephone charges for 2003 are to be reduced by £30.00 to allow for private use of the telephone that seems to have occurred.
g. that the tribunal rejects Mr Munch's arguments for reduction in service charges in respect of the land whose reversion has been acquired by Caseacre Ltd from Focushawk Ltd arising from the fact of that transfer.
h. that Mr & Mrs Munch's service charges are to be reduced by one third of the amount that would otherwise be payable from the date when the last of the lifts was damaged until the date when a lift is once more available and in service that will allow them proper access to their flat. It expresses an informal view only that a similar reduction be be appropriate in respect of their rent.
4. In respect of the year 2004, the tribunal has decided:
a. of the list of items in the 2004 accounts that Mr Munch challenged (all of which are also referred to here in round brackets by reference to the page in his bundle on which they appeared) Mr Faulkner conceded that certain of them should not have been included as follows:
i. cost of security fence £105,75\
ii. repairs to waste and water pipes in car park £253.80
iii. work to steps at what was the NAFFI £188.00
iv. roof repairs £475.00
b. of the same list of items the tribunal has disallowed from the service charge account:
i. cost of repairs at 19 Hillary Court £2,831.75
ii. materials at Unit 8 £211.35
iii. cost of roof repairs £940.00
iv. cost of tenancy agreement £293.75
v. service charges for units 8 & 12 £2,676.88
c. the remaining items specifically challenged by Mr Munch and similarly dealt with are allowed. Of those relating to Management, it appears that a sum of £19,452.12 is attributable to the 2003 account, and the balance of £40,239.65 is attributable to 2004.
d. that the telephone charges for 2004 are to be reduced by £40.00o to allow for private use of the telephone that seems to have occurred.
e. the sum of £3,628.21 for "sundry expenses" is allowed.
f. of the amount of £86,224.78 charged in the accounts for cleaning and landscaping, the sum of £70,000.00 is allowed.
g. the cost of new locks (£3,960.50 plus VAT, which the tribunal calculates as a total of £4,653.59 including VAT) is allowed.
The same provisions apply to the calculation of the charges payable as are set out in paragraph 3 above and are more fully described in paragraph 84.
5. In respect of the budget for the year 2005, the tribunal has decided:
a. that the 2004 costs of asphalting related to staircases only and that the further provision in the 2005 budget does not amount to a duplication.
b. the tribunal has no power to compel production of the asbestos survey, although it accepts that it is desirable that the leaseholders should have the opportunity of seeing it. This has been previously offered by RVRA but can still be viewed by contacting RVRA.
c. that the matter of the nature of the security devices is one that lies with the insurers and is not a matter upon which the tribunal can dictate to them.
d. that the figure for landscaping and cleaning to be substituted in the 2005 budget is £72,100.00.
e. that the tribunal accepts the level of Management fees contained in the budget.
f. that it is a matter for the parties to pursue a Management Audit by giving the appropriate notice if they so wish. That is not a procedure in which the tribunal has a part to play.
g. that if a loan by the landlord is necessary then a rate of 4% above the base rate from time to time in force would be appropriate.
h. that it is appropriate to include an allowance of 3% for inflation for the costs included in the Johnson report.
i. that the matter of the identity of the security staff employed at The Village is not a matter for the tribunal.
The same provisions apply to the calculation of the charges payable as are set out in paragraph 3 above and are more fully described in paragraph 84. Those amounts strictly do not become due and payable to the landlord's agents until 1st January 2006, credit of course being due for any amounts already paid or paid on account by any individual leaseholder for that year. However, delay in making those payments will not assist the Management of the estate.
6. In respect of the application to appoint a receiver and manager of the property, the tribunal has found that grounds specified in section 24(2) of the 1987 Act appear to it to exist upon which is might appoint a receiver and manager. It is not prepared to appoint the applicant's nominee Mr Brown to that position. The applicant, Mr Burt, may propose another appointee within three months from the date hereof, but if a nominee acceptable to the tribunal has not been proposed within that period then the tribunal will not be prepared to appoint a manager and receiver upon this application. Paragraph 93 also indicates some of the characteristics that the tribunal considers would be necessary in such a nominee, and its reasons for its views upon that aspect of the matter.
7. As to the applications with regards to the landlords costs under section 20(c) of the Act those applications are granted except in respect of any further hear of Mr Burt's application for the appointment of a manager and receiver.
8. The parties have leave to apply for the determination of any issue that may arise when the accountants have undertaken this work at any time within three months after the issue to service charge payers of the last of the schedules, prepared by the accountants and any necessary consequent amendment to the accounts for the three years in question.
17th July 2005
As many residents may not be in receipt of the 2005 LVT Result, RVRA have reproduced the whole document and this is available to anyone who requests the electronic copy. Please contact RVRA in the usual manner for this request.
30th July 2005
RVRA would like to inform residents that due to a large number of properties with substantial arrears with their Service Charge, Halifax have put any new mortgage applications for our properties on hold.
RVRA have spoken with Halifax and have been informed that no new applications will be authorised for the immediate future, until Halifax management have made their final decisions.
They have pointed out that if any new applications are refused on a permanent basis, our home prices may fall.
Anyone wishing to discuss this matter further, please contact any RVRA Team Member who will be happy to advise.
31st July 2005
RVRA would like to inform residents that our Estate Manager Karen Killeen has resigned from her position as of Friday 29th July 05.
Karen has sought a full time position outside the area.
Any further information regarding Karen's replacement and office hours will be on this site as soon as possible.
RVRA would like to wish Karen and her family good luck and best wishes for the future.
