May 2005
6th May 2005
Below you will find the results for the election which was held yesterday Thursday 5th May 05.
Member of Parliament for Gosport Results:
|
Peter Viggers (Conservative)
|
19,268
|
|
Richard Williams (Labour)
|
13,538
|
|
Roger Roberts (Liberal Democrat)
|
7,145
|
|
John Bowles (UKIP)
|
1,825
|
|
Andrea Smith (Green)
|
1,258
|
|
|
|
Conservative Majority 5,730
|
3.36% swing Labour to Conservative
|
|
Turnout
|
43,034
|
RVRA would like to congratulate Mr Peter Viggers on his 9th successive term and wish him good luck.
Hampshire County Results
Gosport Bridgemary
|
Dennis Wright (Labour)
|
3,459 - 47.48%
|
|
Stephen Ward (Conservative)
|
2,360 - 32.40%
|
|
Wayne Richards (Liberal Democrat)
|
1,466 - 20.12%
|
|
|
|
Turnout
|
7,285 - 58.31%
|
Gosport Hardway
|
Peter Chegwyn (Liberal Democrat)
|
2,184 - 34.69%
|
|
Peter Langdon (Conservative)
|
2,014 - 31.99%
|
|
Ken Searle (Labour
|
1,730 - 27.48%
|
|
Noelle Bradshaw (Green)
|
367 - 5.83%
|
|
|
|
Turnout
|
6,295 - 58.16%
|
Gosport Lee
|
Margaret Snaith (Conservative)
|
3,458 - 51.52%
|
|
Victor Burt (Labour)
|
1,798 - 26.79%
|
|
Mark Mundie (Liberal Democrat)
|
1,456 - 21.69%
|
|
|
|
Turnout
|
6,712 - 56.22%
|
RVRA would like to congratulate all the above successful candidates.
7th May 2005
Everyone should now be in receipt of a copy of the 2004 Service Charge Accounts.
If anyone wishes to discuss these accounts, RVRA are happy to do so, please contact RVRA through email or by calling our contact number to make an appointment.
9th May 2005
Below you will find RVRA notes taken at an LVT Hearing at Portsmouth Library on Monday 9th May 05.
Attendees:
|
Mr R P Long
|
LVT Panel Chairman
|
|
Mr Preston
|
LVT Panel
|
|
Mrs Newman
|
LVT Panel
|
|
Mrs Rhodes
|
LVT
|
|
Mr N Faulkner
|
Labyrinth Properties Ltd
|
|
Mrs L Lockyer
|
Reynolds & Heatherington
|
|
Mr & Mrs Munch
|
Residents
|
|
Mr Burt
|
VRA
|
|
Mrs Burt
|
VRA
|
|
Mr Dodds
|
VRA
|
|
Mr Hall
|
Resident
|
|
Mr Plowman
|
Resident
|
|
Mr Fernie
|
RVRA
|
|
Mrs Jessop
|
RVRA
|
|
Mrs McDonald
|
RVRA
|
|
Mrs Killeen
|
Estate Manager
|
DAY 1.
The Hearing commenced at 11.50am after the Tribunal Panel's Estate Walk Around.
Mr Long informed everyone that during the three days set out for the hearing, four of the applications will be heard, they are as follows:
Application 1: Application by Rowner Estates Ltd to determine the 2004 Service Charge.
Application 2: Application by Mr & Mrs Munch to challenge the 2003 and 2004 Service Charge.
Application 3: Application by the Village Residents Association to Appoint a New Manager.
Application 4: Application by Rowner Estates Ltd to determine the 2005 Service Charge.
The Application made by the Village Residents Association for Recognition will be dealt with privately by the Tribunal.
Mr Munch was invited to make representation on his application.
Mr Munch requested that invoices from White House Services should be more accurate with regards to materials used for painting etc. This appeared to refer to 2004 accounts.
Mr Long said that discussions for 2004 accounts should be dealt with within the 2004 Service Charge.
Mr Munch referred to the 2002 LVT ruling claiming that Caseacre Ltd had not paid the 13.7% contribution for the commercial properties.
Mr Munch also complained that Caseacre Ltd's Director Mr Michael Baker Harber changed the commercial contribution from 13.7% to 5% without any formal discussions or consent of the lessees.
Mr Munch stated that as there was a discrepancy in the 2003 Service Charge Accounts with regards to the "missing" £142,490.01. He claimed that as this could not be accounted for, the Service Charge should be reduced by that amount.
Mr Munch questioned the rent for Units 8 and 12.
The hearing adjourned at 12.50 for lunch.
The hearing then resumed at 13.50.
Mr Munch questioned the costs for telephone calls, particularly calls for £8.47 (3 in total). He said he had requested a list of all calls and telephone numbers from Labyrinth Properties Ltd, but Labyrinth said that due to the Data Protection Act, this could not be provided, but had indeed furnished Mr Munch with receipts for these calls.
Mr Munch raised the subject of who owned the roof areas. This appeared to remain unresolved.
He then questioned the percentage of Cleaning, Maintenance, Security etc Caseacre Ltd contributed.
Mr Munch questioned the ownership of land and the legality of the change of ownership and the legality of the change in contribution payable by Caseacre.
Mr Munch stated that he would like a reduction of 35% for cleaning and maintenance from the 2003 Service Charge. He said that he though this was a reasonable figure as the facilities are not just for the on site residents.
He claims that the Security is for the entire estate inclusive of Caseacre property and not just for the benefit of the lessees.
Mr Munch also claims that Caseacre only has benefit of insurance because security is for the entire estate.
Mr Munch also questioned the work undertaken to board up the old Married Quarters building. He questioned the cost of timber which "must" be for the commercial units.
Mr Munch also questioned a payment for work undertaken at flat 19 Hillary Court. Mr Plowman, (lessee for property), then stated why he had work undertaken on his property.
Mr Munch complained about the cost to redecorate Unit 8 after the property had been damaged by a water leak.
Mr Munch also discussed the fire damage to the lifts in Hillary/Lawrence in 2001.
Mr Munch concluded his case at 16.30.
Mr Hall (lessee of 3 properties) who is joined in Mr Munch's case commenced at 16.32.
He claimed that he had paid his Service Charge as determined by LVT 2002. He said that in that determination, £133,000.00 was deemed reasonable, but insurance was not placed until September 03.
He also said that the 2002 determination also included a £50,000.00 Sinking Fund and £10,000.00 Contingency recommendation. He claims that there were sufficient money to commence the work required to complete the lifts.
Day 1 was adjourned at 17.00.
10th May 2005
Dear Resident
Below you will find RVRA notes taken at an LVT Hearing at Portsmouth Library on Tuesday 10th May 05.
Attendees:
|
Mr R P Long
|
LVT Panel Chairman
|
|
Mr Preston
|
LVT Panel
|
|
Mrs Newman
|
LVT Panel
|
|
Mrs Rhodes
|
LVT
|
|
Mr N Faulkner
|
Labyrinth Properties Ltd
|
|
Mrs L Lockyer
|
Reynolds & Heatherington
|
|
Mr Concannon
|
VRA Barrister
|
|
Mr Munch
|
Resident
|
|
Mr Burt
|
VRA
|
|
Mrs Burt
|
VRA
|
|
Mr Dodds
|
VRA
|
|
Mrs Hussey
|
VRA
|
|
Mrs Hammond
|
VRA
|
|
Mr Hall
|
Resident
|
|
Mr Plowman
|
Resident
|
|
Mr Fernie
|
RVRA
|
|
Mrs Jessop
|
RVRA
|
|
Mrs McDonald
|
RVRA
|
|
Mrs Killeen
|
Estate Manager
|
DAY 2.
The Hearing commenced at 10.08. Mr Faulkner to respond.
Mr Faulkner said that the percentage Caseacre contribute lies unresolved as it is up to the LVT Panel what percentage the residential area should contribute. He suggested that the residential area pay 86.3%, Caseacre to contribute 5% and the sum left of 8.7% payable by the Landlord.
Mr Faulkner claimed that the 2003 Budget was strictly in accordance with the Johnson Report. He said that the "missing" money of £142,490.01 if indeed it is missing is not in dispute. He said that the amount of £40,953.00 for a forensic accountant is included in the 2005 Service Charge demand. The above "missing" figure may be misappropriated or part of a criminal act. As he was not Managing Agent in the first six months of 2003, without a forensic Audit, he could not explain where the money had been spent. He also put to the Tribunal Panel that if Mr Munch is convinced that this is a criminal issue, he should consider informing the police, however it is up to the Tribunal to decide which course of action to take.
Mr Faulkner said that Unit 8 has been historically occupied as the Site Office until October 03 when it was damaged by water. Unit 12 was then occupied as the new Site Office on a temporary basis, pending repairs to unit 8. On 1st April 04 Unit 8 was again used as it had now been repaired. Mr Faulkner said that in past years, Service Charges and Rent had always been paid for the Site Office occupied, through the Global Service Charges, and was not in agreement that the Landlord should provide payment for such provisions.
He said that the Rent for the Office is £3,000.00 pa and the Service Charge is as a 3 bedroom property plus insurance for a 3 bedroom property in addition.
Mr Faulkner covered the discrepancy Mr Munch had highlighted in the boundary lines. He said that if, (due to the split in the Freehold), the residents did not wish to pay for the Caseacre boundary areas (i.e. 149 car parking spaces in the Grange car park and the green areas), then the residents may not have the use of these areas and it is Hillary Court, Lawrence Walk, Livingstone Court, Raleigh Walk and Darwin Way, that have the benefit of this land.
Mr Faulkner addressed the matter of paying for damaged caused to Mr Plowman's flat. He said that the 2002 LVT determination costed for a £10,000.00 contingency fund. 2002 LVT determination No156
"There is a need also to cover any claims falling within the excess under the insurance policy. It would be imprudent for there to be a complete absence of a contingency within the list of budgeted expenditure. Therefore a contingency of £10,000.00 is reasonable having regard to the sums involved in the maintenance of this estate and the requirement take account of the possible insurance excess".
Mr Faulkner raised the issue of Labyrinth Properties's Management Fees. He said that the cost of £110.00 plus VAT has been charged (extra for on site Manager), which is £4,500.00 below the 2002 LVT determination. The same costs are applicable to the commercial units.
Mr Faulkner argued that the cost for boarding up the old Married Quarters building was paid out of the Service Charge account due to the fact that the insurance company would not place our policy otherwise, and it was the residential areas that benefited from this.
Mr Faulkner raised the issue of Service Charge Arrears. They are as follows:
2003 £185,151.50
2004 £157,267.90
2005 £510,933.30 Grand total of £853,352.70
Mr Faulkner asked Mr Hall to inform the Tribunal of how much he is paying for his Service Charge (3 properties in all) and how he thinks any Manager can cope with carrying out major new works on such a low contribution. Mr Hall failed to address and complete this question.
The Tribunal adjourned for lunch at 13.00.
The Hearing commenced at 14.00.
Mr Faulkner addressed the 2004 Service Charge Demand. He claimed that the Budget was in accordance with the Johnson Report plus 3% inflation with the exception of Insurance and Security.
Mr Concannon claimed that Section 20 fees should be included in the Management Fee of £110.00 plus VAT. Mr Faulkner said that the cost for Section 20 fees were £12.05 per unit, which is still under the Johnson Report recommendations.
Mr Concannon said that he had no objections to the costs for walkways, repairs to stairwells, external redecoration and lighting and electrical.
He said he objects and challenges, cleaning standard, sundry expenses, Caseacre contributions.
Discussions took place with regards to the cost of insurance. Neither party accepted the opposite objections and the decision will be left to the Tribunal.
Mr Faulkner argued his case with regards to the 2005 Service Charge Demand. He said that a quote for an audit to be carried out to trace the "missing" money in the 2003 Service Charge accounts was included in the 2005 Service Charge Budget. This amounted to £40,953.00. Mr Concannon objected to this cost and claimed that the VRA have received a quote for approximately £2,500.00, but had not submitted this quote. Mr Faulkner suggested the VRA quote should be accepted and that a copy should be submitted to the Tribunal.
Mr Concannon raised the matter of the boxes of disks and dockets that had been left by VMC 2 Ltd. He said that Mr Burt had claimed that Mrs Jessop had taken them home with her. Mr Faulkner told the Tribunal that within Mrs Jessop's witness statement, a letter from Mrs Killeen had confirmed that Mrs Jessop had not taken these disks or dockets home with her, but were still in the possession of Mrs Killeen. Mrs Killeen had also confirmed that no one had viewed any of this documentation. There was no further argument
Mr Faulkner said that if there were proof that the "missing" money from 2003 Service Charge account had indeed been misappropriated, depending on the chance of getting the money back, the case would need to be submitted to court.
Mr Munch claimed that VMC 2 Ltd had been appointed by Focushawk Ltd. Mr Faulkner counterclaimed that VMC 2 Ltd were set up with the agreement of the residents and Mr Baker Harber only agreed to this, because he thought that was what the residents wanted.
Mr Munch and Mr Concannon addressed the cost for a Loan given by Rowner Estates Ltd and the cost for CCTV. The decision on these matters was left to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal adjourned at 17.00 to resume at 10.00 on Thursday 12th May 05.
11th May 2005
RVRA have been given telephone numbers of the Police to aid residents in combating anti social behaviour. The telephone numbers are as follows:
The Anti Social Behaviour number is Monday - Friday during office hours 9am - 5pm 02392 545501, alternatively email addie at asb@gosport.gov.uk
Any other low level crime can be reported to police on 0845 045 45 45.
If residents have any further questions please contact RVRA in the usual manner.
12th May 2005
Below you will find RVRA notes taken at an LVT Hearing at Portsmouth Library on Thursday 12th May 05.
Attendees:
|
Mr R P Long
|
LVT Panel Chairman
|
|
Mr Preston
|
LVT Panel
|
|
Mrs Newman
|
LVT Panel
|
|
Mrs Rhodes
|
LVT
|
|
Mr N Faulkner
|
Labyrinth Properties Ltd
|
|
Mrs L Lockyer
|
Reynolds & Heatherington
|
|
Mr Concannon
|
VRA Barrister
|
|
Mr Martyn Brown
|
Daniells & Harrison
|
|
Mr Munch
|
Resident
|
|
Mr Burt
|
VRA
|
|
Mrs Burt
|
VRA
|
|
Mr Dodds
|
VRA
|
|
Mrs Hussey
|
VRA
|
|
Mrs Hammond
|
VRA
|
|
Mr Hall
|
Resident
|
|
Mr Ruscoe
|
Resident
|
|
Mr Plowman
|
Resident
|
|
Mr Fernie
|
RVRA
|
|
Mrs Jessop
|
RVRA
|
|
Mrs McDonald
|
RVRA
|
|
Mrs Killeen
|
Estate Manager
|
DAY 3.
The Hearing commenced at 10.10.
Mr Faulkner explained that he was now in possession of all the disks and dockets VMC 2 Ltd had left behind in Unit 8 and confirmed to the Tribunal that nothing in theses boxes could determine the whereabouts of the "missing" money. Mr Faulkner explained that the disks were identified and dated 1999 and earlier and said that although he had produced this information for Mr Concannon and the Tribunal, if necessary he had these disks in the boot of his car if the Tribunal wish to take them. Mr Long said that he had no reason to disbelieve Mr Faulkner's statement.
Mr Faulkner asked Mr Concannon if the VRA represent all 66 Tenant signatures supporting the Application to Appoint a New Manager, Mr Burt and Mr Concannon confirmed that the VRA did.
Mr Faulkner said to his knowledge, there are at least 2 addresses who the VRA claim to represent, who have supported a change of management, who are known as "undesirables". The same "undesirables" Mr Hall was complaining of. This comment elicited no response.
The Tribunal thanked Mr Faulkner and informed everyone that today would deal with the application to appoint a New Receiver/Manager. Mr Long explained that he would like to ask a few questions of Mr Brown before Mr Faulkner had the chance to ask his.
Mr Long asked Mr Brown to tell him more about his career. Mr Brown explained that in 2000 he had been a property manager for a number of sites including Ocean Village in Southampton. From 2002 - 2004 he had an involvement with MOD properties in Gosport/Portsmouth areas and had previously lived in similar properties to ours. He said he was aware of some of the problems with the Village and informed the Tribunal he would not employ residents to work on site. He said he intended to inspect the site on a regular basis and would deal with Village business 2 - 3 days a week.
He said that he would supply communications to VRA as he has been informed that the present manager is not. He is also a professional qualified Chartered Surveyor.
He said that he is the Property Manager in his firm. There is an inside staff of 5 people dealing with property management, but would increase the staff by 1 person experienced in technical details and accounts to deal with the Village.
He said that he would set up a dedicated Rowner 24 hour a day telephone/answering service with an emergency contact number. He said he would have monthly meetings with the VRA and intended to have separate bank accounts for individual clients.
Mr Long asked Mr Brown if he new the difference between appointing a new Manager and appointing a Receiver/Manager. Mr Brown's response was no. Mr Long asked Mr Brown if he is fully aware of the task he has been asked to undertake. Mr Brown's response was no.
Mr Brown was asked how long it would take to turn the Village around. Mr Brown's response was 2 - 3 years.
Mr Brown was asked to inform the Tribunal of his costs. They are as follows:
For the first year £150.00 plus VAT per unit for Management excluding any on site Management. £12,000.00 - £15,000.00 plus VAT for any on site Management. 10% - 12% for works tendered under £75,000.00. 9% - 10% for works tendered over £75,000.00.
Mr Brown was asked if he charged an initial set up fee. Mr Brown said a charge of £10,000.00 plus VAT would be charged to residents.
Minimum amount residents would pay for Management in the first year only would be as follows:
|
Mr Brown's Management Fees
|
|
Set up fee
|
£10,000.00 + VAT
|
£11,750.00
|
|
Mr Brown's Management fee
|
£150.00 per unit @ 301 unit + VAT
|
£53,051.25
|
|
Any On Site Manager
|
£15,000.00 + VAT
|
£17,625.00
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL
|
£82,426.25
|
Management Fees which are exhibited in the 2005 Budget is £65,000.00 inclusive of on site Management. A difference of £17,426.25.
Mr Brown was asked how he would cope with the animosity from the residents. He said that he would be happy to enter into dialogue with both groups.
He said that he would issue a projective budget each year, but was unsure how he would place insurance for the Village. He said that any commissions from insurance etc would be claimed by him. Mr Brown said that if he were to be appointed by the Tribunal, he would need approximately 2 months before he could take up any appointment.
Mr Brown was asked how he would deal with legal matters. He answered by saying he would seek the help of Reynolds and Heatherington as to how he would deal with Deeds of Variations between Caseacre and Rowner Estates. The cost of this would be borne by the residents.
Mr Long informed everyone that the Tribunal can only rule on the Service Charge payable by the residential sector and not the commercial one.
Mr Brown said that he would install CCTV within the present budget and recommendations of insurance policy.
He would work within ISO 9001, but was unsure of other kite marks to work to.
He said he was not yet a member of the Managers Association of Residents Associations, but would apply.
Mr Faulkner asked Mr Brown how he would gather the Ground Rent and Arrears of Service Charge. Mr Brown said he would issue separate Ground Rent Demands and would send out reminder letters to recover Service Charge arrears in accordance with the Lease. He said he probably would issue Section 146 notices, but would seek advice from Reynolds and Heatherington with the intentions of issuing tentative letters. Again the cost to be borne by residents.
Mr Brown was asked how he would cope with Managing the Village if he worked anywhere else. Mr Brown said that he had no intentions of leaving his present company, but if this did happen he did not know how he would cope.
It was put to Mr Brown that at present only 20% of the Service Charge money is being paid, and was asked how he would prioritise spending this if he were in this situation. Mr Brown said that he would have difficulty in prioritising this money.
Mr Brown was asked if he had facilities for clients to pay by credit/debit card. The answer was no. He said that he would make a payment plan for those who cannot pay straight away, but Mr Faulkner pointed out that residents would need to pay their Service Charge 14 days after the Tribunal made their decision. If Mr Brown was to set up any payment plan, how would he pay for works to be carried out in conjunction with the Johnson Report. Mr Concannon stepped in, but the Chairman agreed with Mr Faulkner.
Mr Munch said that the security in the Village was not functioning properly. Mr Brown said that he would look for weak points of security on the estate and funds permitting, take action.
The VRA quote for an accounting audit had been submitted, but Mr Faulkner pointed out that this quote was only to revise the figures already obtained and not to investigate where the "missing" money may have gone.
The Tribunal adjourned for lunch at 13.00.
The Hearing commenced at 14.00.
Mr Dodds (VRA Vice Chairman), had requested that the Tribunal view three videos that he had taken. The first was of the fire in the old naval stores building in 2001, the second was a film apparently made for Channel 4 by the VRA and the third was of rubbish which had accumulated since the Tribunals visit on Monday 9th May 05.
The Tribunal appeared shocked at the amount of rubbish and particularly furniture which had accumulated in just a few days and Mr Faulkner confirmed that this is what our cleaning staff face on a daily basis.
Mr Concannon made his summing up. Mr Faulkner also made his summing up, leaving the Tribunal Panel asking if anyone else would like to say anything.
Mr Fernie (RVRA), with regards to the various complaints raised regarding rubbish and redecoration, he would like the Tribunal to readdress matters highlighted in the Johnson Report, viz, Chapter 8 - Painting Cycles, Chapter 12 - Waste Chutes, and for the Tribunal to give guidance on the way forward on their final conclusions. He also said that the cleaning staff are employed to clean the estate and not as furniture removal men.
He also said that regarding the criticism from Mr Concannon concerning Security Staff being over paid, Mr Fernie disagreed, bearing in mind the charge for Security is £8.50 per hour plus VAT, Mr Fernie asked Mr Concannon if he or his clients were willing to do this job for the sum quoted, bearing in mind the hazards and dangers that the Security Staff face during their normal daily duties i.e. Drug abusers and dealers, being shot at, being held at knife point etc. Mr Concannon claimed that the company MITIE quoted this sum, but it should be borne in mind that this quote was contained within the Johnson Report of 2002 and not a recent quote.
Mrs Jessop (RVRA) said that there had been quite a lot of castigation from residents with regards to the qualifications of the Security on the estate. She then produced copies of BTECH and City and Guild Certificates of Security Guards explaining that although not mandatory until March 06, these are Certificates of the appropriate training, approved by the Security Industry Authority (SIA). No further challenges were made by Mr Concannon, Mrs Lockyer, Mr Hall, VRA or Mr Munch.
Mrs Hammond (VRA Secretary) asked Mr Faulkner why there was so much money in arrears for 2003. Mr Faulkner replied by saying that it is due to LVT action.
Mr Long said that from what he has seen this week and what he has read in witness statements, the way forward for the residents of the Village is to put their differences behind them and try to work together. RVRA agree totally with Mr Long and the Tribunal.
The Tribunal thanked everyone for attending. All parties now await the Tribunals determination. The Hearing concluded at 17.05.
If anyone wishes any further information or wishes to discuss anything, please contact RVRA in the usual manner.
22nd May 2005
We have noted on the VRA Web Site, that there are rumours going round the Village. RVRA have not heard of any such rumours, however would agree totally with the VRA comments that the LVT Tribunal do not work in this manner.
Any rumour mongering will not help the residents of the Village and we would kindly request that those rumours cease immediately.
RVRA are dedicated to bringing residents accurate and truthful information with regards to the Village at all times and therefore all rumours should be ignored.
The LVT Tribunal Panel will give their decision as soon as possible and residents will be informed of that decision immediately.
If residents wish any further information, please contact any RVRA Team Member in the usual manner.
23rd May 2005
RVRA have been approached by readers from New Zealand who have recently been affected by issues similar to residents of the Village at Rowner.
They have been following our news and have decided to set up a Residents Association of their own with email facilities. They have enquired if they could call their Association - RVRA, and as this would not affect our web site, RVRA have of course granted full permission.
RVRA have also offered any help which this new Association may need initially or at any other time.
RVRA would like to send good wishes to Don and June and all other residents at the Retirement Village in New Zealand.
31st May 2005
Due to a number of complaints with regards to children entering the electric pound situated in Darwin Way, RVRA have arranged through Southern Electric to apply Anti Climb Paint to the west facing wall. This hopefully will discourage children from entering this dangerous area to retrieve their football.
If you have children who play in the vicinity, please be aware that if they climb into this area, this Anti Climb Paint will stain their clothing.
Southern Electric have erected signs to the wall to inform residents of this.
We are also in discussions to prevent the children from climbing on to the garage roofs. Further information on this will be on our web site as soon as any decisions have been made.
If you have any questions, please contact RVRA in the usual manner.
