direction no.2

Direction no.2, Eddie Wiseman, Flat 29 Alexandra court, RSB, Margate. – Hearing & Inspection Date 25/03/2011

Direction No.2

Applicant: Eddie Wiseman

Date of Statement: 25th January 2011

Date of Direction No.2: 10th February 2011

Date of Direction No.3: 10th March 2011

Hearing and Inspection Date: 25th March 2011

Applicant Address: Flat 29, Alexandra Court, Royal Sea Bathing Hospital, Margate, Kent, CT9 5NT

Case No: CHI/29UN/LSC/2011/0001


Index

Section Title Subtitle Page

1. Overview 4

2. Service Charges 5

2.1 Concierge and Flat rental 6

2.2 On-going costs for office etc. 6

2.3 Site Supplies 7

2.4 Security 7

2.5 Cleaning Internals 8

2.6 Cleaning & maintenance externals 8

2.7 Electricity, Water & Sewage 9

2.8 Refuse Bins 9

2.9 Landscaping 10

2.10 Fire Alarm Maintenance 11

2.11 Fire Extinguisher Maintenance 13

2.12 Door, Gate & CCTV hire 13

2.13 General Repairs 16

2.14 Window Cleaning 17

2.15 Pest Control 18

2.16 Bank Charges 18

2.17 Auditors Fees 18

2.18 Health and Safety 19

2.19 Buildings Insurance 19

2.20 Management Fee 20

3. Summary



Appendices

1a Service Charge demand for period 01/07/07-30/06/08 23

1b Estimated Service Charge breakdown for period 01/07/07-30/06/08 24

1c Estimated square footage breakdown per flat 25

1d Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2008 26

1e Service Charge demand for period 01/07/08-30/06/09 27

1f Section 20(b) Notice for period 01/07/08-30/06/09 28

1g Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2009 29

1h Estimated Service Charge demand for period 01/07/09-30/06/10 36

1i Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2010 37

1j Estimated Service Charge demand for period 01/07/10-30/06/11 43

2a Open Letter to Tenants – April 2008 44

2b Open Letter to Tenants – September 2008 46

2c Open Email of 23rd January 2009– Octopus system 50

2d Open email to Residents – Site Update 16th October 2009 52

2e Open email to Residents – Site Update 19th October 2009 56

2f Meeting minutes of Residents Meeting 31st January 2010 58

2g Open email to Residents - 15th March 2010 67

2h Open email to Residents - Site Update 2nd June 2010 69

2i Open email to Residents – Site update 12th July 2010 73

2j Open email to Residents - RSB Site Update 6th December 2010 76

3 Photos of garden areas 30th January 2011 and prior. 80

4a Photos of fire alarm panels taken on Sunday 30th January 83

4b Photos of fire alarm panels taken on Wednesday 2nd February 86

5a Photos of Flat 29 Emergency Escape route – 30th January 2011 88

5b Photos of Hall Signage 93

5c Photos of General Decoration 99

5d Photos of Hall Lighting, Gate Signage and Abandoned Cars 102

6a Minutes of residents meeting with WDAM – 12th November 2008 107

6b Minutes of residents meeting with WDAM and GT – 3rd December 2008 108

6c Open email from Tenant representative, Wade Barker – 1st February 2010 111

7a Plan View of Site and Proposed Landscaping Area 113

7b Plan View of Site and Current Landscaping Area 114

8a Witness statement – Tenant 40 Alexandra Court, RSB, Margate 115

8b Expert witness statement pertaining; End of Year Accounts for 2009 & 2010. 119

9a Copy of LVT Application Attached

9b Copy of Lease – 29 Alexandra Court, RSB, Margate Attached


1 Overview

The Royal Sea Bathing (RSB) Development has suffered from multiple and complex issues that have been both

frustrating and time consuming to tenants, managing agents, receivers and associated parties alike. The original

Developer, Freeholder and Funding bank all went into administration mid development. Resultantly, some flats were

complete, some part complete and some not started. The sites as a whole, inclusive of communal areas were and

remain affected.

Management of the site was communicated as taken on by White Door Asset management (WDAM) in April 2008.

The reasons for this change in Managing agents from the original agents are not known, but it is assumed this was

on the request of Grant Thornton (GT) who were appointed Administrators.

It is unclear exactly the number of flats that have been completed, but it is understood, from the minutes of the

Residents Meeting on 31st January 2010 that of the 53 flats in Alexandra Court, only 35 have been completed, and of

those, it is unknown what level of occupancy is upheld. A large proportion of the tenants are not owner occupiers.

As of the minutes of the Residents Meeting of 31st January 2010, it is understood that of those paying a service

charge 9 owners have paid in full and 27 have made a contribution. In the period to 30th June 2009, it is understood

8 owners had paid in full with a further 25 making a contribution.

Communication from WDAM has at times suggested that the majority of tenants were paying and at other times

very few.

Although the initial significant issues on site, spurred a residents committee to be formed, the disparate individual

problems and on-going complex nature of the separate issues of site management and separate developer related

building problems, it disbanded. A number of original owners were subject to repossessions, some decided to sell at

a loss and move on.

In dealing with numerous individual requests and calls from tenants, WDAM set up a resident’s web forum in

September 2008. WDAM would act as site hosts and administrators. As of writing I have not been granted access to

this site. Last request was made on 20th January 2011.

Since this time, WDAM have used this site (when operational), open emails to all residents and individual

communication channels for individual issues.

I, myself was based abroad until late 2008, and have since let the flat out to a close family friend from December

2009. This has allowed me to visit the site frequently at various times of the week and different times of the day.


2. Service Charges

I fully understand my obligations as a lessee under the terms of my lease. I feel that I have acted wholly within them.

I made my issues with the service charge level of cost and detail clear to WDAM, whilst awaiting the requested detail

or explanations, I continued to make a part payment in recognition of the limited services available and the

statutory requirements of insurance etc. I made it clear I was happy to pay in full but only if the site or my property is

fully useable and i have uninterrupted use and enjoyment - as originally contracted (and the managing agents are

providing that, by undertaking their full management obligations).

I feel that WDAM has materially failed to deliver their full obligations under the Lease clause in Schedule 7, Part 1.3

where it states:

“The Estate Manager may add to, withhold or vary the Estate Services if, acting reasonably, it considers the

addition, withholding or variation to be necessary or desirable for the comfort or convenience of the lessees

on the Estate even if it increases the Estate Manger’s Expenses provided that the Tenant’s enjoyment of the

Flat is not materially impaired, or if it is required to do so by competent authority.”

It then goes onto to say in Part 3.3a:

The Estate Manager’s Expenses are deemed to include… “such fair and reasonable part of all costs and

expenditure in respect of or incidental to all or any of the recurring services, whether paid or incurred

whether before or during the Term, including reasonable provision for anticipated expenditure by way of

contribution to sinking and reserve funds”

The tenants who bought a flat in the RSB have already paid a substantial amount for a Flat they were told would

have a luxurious finish with service and a service level that would reflect and befit the status of the property, a Grade

2* building. The cost of purchase, installation and commission of those services to be provided were part of that

purchase price.

If the developer has failed in their duty to provide the necessary plant or infrastructure, it should not fall on the

tenants to pay again for a service installation they have already paid.

The developer failed in many areas of their obligation to provide a habitable Flat and tenants have pursued actions

with the relevant insurance agent. WDAM should continue to pursue actions against those that are responsible, be

they the insurance agents, developers or their administrators to pay for, if required, any works deemed should have

already been completed.

Had, at any time, WDAM provided clear evidence that the high charges being levied were in no way related to a cost

of instatement of a service that should have been completed by the developer or their representative; I would have

fully complied with my obligations to pay in full for the services, provided they were reasonable and in line with the

obligations of the Managing Agent.

It is noted that in the Open communications through 2010, highlight improved contributions from Paigle, GT,

Premier and Liberty Insurance. The detail of what these contributions were specifically applied against is not

communicated. It is therefore not known whether these payments should offset previous estimates in service charge

and any over payment would be attributed to a sink fund.

It is also noted that although contributions continued and escalated through 2010, those contributions were not

reflected in the year end accounts and not detailed elsewhere.


2.1 Concierge and Flat rental

There has never been a concierge service on site. There has been a caretaker on site for periods, and the

security personnel have also periodically been indicated as a place of contact for tenants and visitors, and at

other times not. The security personnel advise they are not permitted to carry out any duties outside there

remit and refer to WDAM, this cannot be considered a substitute service.

Although it is unclear what benefits the tenants are receiving for the costs, and the post has remained

unfilled in any guise for the previous 18 months, costs are still being attributed to this service.

There is no allowance in the Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2009 for the partial service.

It lists expenditure of “£24,646 for Caretakers salary and payroll costs, along with £7506 for Residence rent”.

There is no salary noted in the Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2010, however there are

inclusions for Caretaker services, Caretakers Mobile and the Gate Lodge phone. The charge for caretaker’s

services is now also shown for the previous year.

What are the actual recorded and worked hours by the Caretaker for the periods covered in the

Service charge demands and passed through payroll?

What are the advertised responsibilities and hours of the post?

Is the caretaker expected to contribute towards the Flat Rental?

What constitutes Caretaker Services?

Who provides these services?

Do the combined phone charges appear reasonable?

Why was there no consultation with the tenants as this service comes under the definition of a Long

Term agreement and costs individual leaseholders more than £100 per year?

2.2 On-going costs for office etc.

It is understood that these costs are attributable to the office running costs of the concierge service, no

detailed breakdown has been given as to the nature of these costs, or indeed if they are still a requirement

for the role of a caretaker. They are still listed as a service charge for this year.

Although the post was only partially filled during the service charge period, the statement of Account for

year ending 30th June 2009 of “£4,467 for Gate Lodge Costs”. It is assumed this aligns to the Service covered

under On-Going costs for office.

In the statement of Account for year ending 30th June 2010, there is no cost listed for this service.

What is and what is not covered by this charge?

What constituted the 60% increase up to the period ending 30th June 2009 in costs above the

estimated, whilst the post was only partially occupied?

Which parts of the statement of Account for year ending 30th June 2010 are attributable to this

service?

What proportion of the costs shown is borne by the tenants?


2.3 Site Supplies

It is not clear what these charges relate to, however the estimated cost in 2008/9 was £2000, and the actual

was £548.27. The estimate for 09/10 was £1500 but actuals £3,921, it is unknown what the actuals related

to. The charge for 10/11 remains at £1500.


For the estimate of 09/10 of £1500 what constituted the 40% increase to £3,921?

What constitutes the £645 costs in the statement of Account for year ending 30th June 2010?


2.4 Security

The exact remit of the security on site is unclear. They are based in a “Security Hut” on the periphery of the

site. They do not regularly man the Gate house and do not assist the residents or visitors when attending

site. All questions and requests are relayed via WDAM.

If the security guards are not performing perfunctory checks on visiting guests and vehicles, they are merely

there to provide protection of the landlords’ asset, and as such should be paid via the administrators for

providing such protection and not the tenants.

The individuals providing the security and the company used have changed and the tenants have not been

briefed as to the reasons for change. If the tenants are charged for at least part of that service and the

provision of that service materially changes, the tenants have a right to understand how and if it affects

them. It is also unknown, the degree, if any, the previous or current security guards have access to

documents, flat keys, site fobs and other related items, including the PC used to make fobs, previously held

in the gatehouse for the “concierge” or within the office previously used by Paigle.

At least 2 security guards have been recorded working on the sites gardens, one on a daily basis.

It is noted that there is no provision made in the 01/07/10 – 31/06/11 budget for Security but the roles and

functions appear to remain as in previous years.

What are the responsibilities of and hours covered by this post?


Is the cost for 01/07/10 – 31/06/11 being borne by a 3rd party? If so who and do these apply to

previous charges?





2.5 Cleaning Internals

In the open letter of September 2008, WDAM state:

“Contractors

We have recently instructed a company called “The Grass Master” who will be responsible

for the maintenance of the lawns and borders. Whilst we had asked Paigle to returf the area

in front of Alexandra, due to the fact that they are now in administration, this has been

refused. As a result, we have asked the contractor to do this and the works are scheduled

for the week of October 13th. They will also commence their regular maintenance from this

date. The internal communal areas are being cleaned temporarily until we find a reputable

contractor that can carry out the works to our satisfaction. We hope to have this resolved

shortly and the communal areas will be maintained on a weekly basis.”

Apart from the involvement of “the Grass Master” and any work carried out and billed for, WDAM state that

the common areas are only being cleaned temporarily.

My tenant who occupied the flat from December 2008 has complained bitterly to me since moving in

regarding the cleanliness of the common areas. She has severe asthma and suffers severe effects from the

inhalation of dust.

No clear information has been made available as to when cleaning contracts were actually put in place and

what the remit is of the contractors. It is understood that 1 cleaner was on site for the first 6 months of

2009, then, after a gap, another cleaner in place from around August 2010. The service charge demands

have not reflected the partial service. They do not show transparency in the hours provided for the cost and

what constitutes the areas and quality of cleaning applied to the common parts.

What are the responsibilities of and hours covered by this post?



2.6 Cleaning & maintenance externals

It is not clear what these charges relate to, however the estimated cost in 2008/9 was £6000, the actual was

£100. The estimate for 09/10 was £3000.

The statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2009 does not have any detail for the specific service

being charged, there is a cost for “Ground Maintenance - £3084” and a cost for “Buildings Repair and

Maintenance - £804”, in the statement of Account for year ending 30th June 2010 these costs double.


What constituted the actual costs shown in the year end Statements?

Is this something that would be covered in the “Concierge” or “caretaker” duties?



2.7 Electricity, Water & Sewage

WDAM have been not provided the invoices for these utilities. The estimated costs in 2008/9 were £2500

and £3000 respectively; the actual cost for the electricity was £325.66. The estimates for 09/10 were £2500

and £3000 respectively. In the statement of Account for year ending 30th June 2010, the costs for communal

areas electricity are shown, but still no costs attributed to water or sewerage.

In the statement of Account for year ending 30th June 2010, it also shows a one off charge of £7,832 for

“Electrical Work”

In the Estimated and Actual Costs for period 01/07/08 – 30/06/09, WDAM state:

“We have still not received full details with regards to the communal electricity and water bills.”

At this point, almost 2 years of managing the site, WDAM cannot give actual costs or proper estimates for a

utility that must be providing regular invoices. In the statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2009

there is nothing shown for either Electricity or Water and sewerage, however a sum of £325.66 is noted

against the Actuals in the previously issued document.

Now, 3 years on and without producing any invoices from the previous years, invoices from Utility

companies which should be easily obtained and circulated. WDAM has increased the Estimate from £1500 to

£15,000 for the period 01/07/10 – 30/06/11, an increase of 600%!

What areas of the site are covered by this charge?

What are the actual invoice costs for the utilities in the previous years?

Do any of the costs include any installation work to the pump, pump house or any other plant that

should have been installed and paid for by the developer?

Do the costs ONLY relate to the cost of the utility and ONLY repair and maintenance of installed

plant and infrastructure?

What is the cost shown for Electrical Work in the statement of Account for year ending 30th June

2010 for?


2.8 Refuse Bins

No information is provided as to the service provided to tenants by this charge. however the estimated cost

in 2008/9 was £6000, the actual was £100. The estimate for 09/10 was £3000. There are no costs listed

against this service in The statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2009, the estimate for the

period 01/07/10 – 30/06/11, there is cost shown for this service in statement of Account for year ending

30th June 2010.


As nothing is listed as actual accrued expenses for this service, will the demanded sums for previous

years be rescinded or put in a sink fund?


2.9 Landscaping

In the open letter of September 2008, WDAM state:

“Contractors

We have recently instructed a company called “The Grass Master” who will be responsible

for the maintenance of the lawns and borders. Whilst we had asked Paigle to returf the area

in front of Alexandra, due to the fact that they are now in administration, this has been

refused. As a result, we have asked the contractor to do this and the works are scheduled

for the week of October 13th. They will also commence their regular maintenance from this

date.”

The area referred to should have been part of the original build and thus paid for by the developer and not

the tenants. If the actual charge of £3192.08 for the period 01/07/08-30/06/09 relates to any other work

other than maintenance, it should not be past to the tenants. In the statement of Account for year ending

30th June 2010, there is no costs shown for landscaping, but the costs for Ground repairs and maintenance

have doubled.

Further, it needs to be understood, why security guards are being used to carry out work separately billed

for under the service charge.

In general, the garden areas that are accessible are not kept in a manner that would be deemed acceptable

for the cost being attributed to it.

There is no information on how the estimates for Landscaping have been derived.

Assuming the same model is used as is to attribute the service charge, and is based on area, how is

this distributed among the Flats? The original planned landscaping area is highlighted green in

Appendix 7a

Assuming the above assumption is correct, does it take into effect the total area that has been

landscaped against that not yet landscaped? The current landscaped area is highlighted green in

Appendix 7b


Are the costs of £3,084 and £6,487 attributed to Ground Maintenance in the Statement of Accounts

for Gardening? If so, what constituted this cost.

Who are the Gardening Contractors used?

What are their responsibilities and hours?




Photographs in Appendix 3 document the general garden areas, specific garden areas and a security guard

carrying out “landscaping “duties.


2.10 Fire Alarm Maintenance

The Fire Alarm system, is of course something that all parties wish to be in full working order and the

integrity of the equipment, its suitability and stability is again something all parties share a clear mutual

interest.

In the April letter to residents, WDAM state:

“We have commenced works on the communal areas and have arranged the installation of

fire extinguishers and the inspection of all fire panels.”

WDAM stated that inspection of the fire panels had commenced, however it was not until the residents

meeting on 31st January 2010, that the residents were informed of the extent of the lack of initial provision

and testing:

“IW informed residents that Fire Panels & equipment were not installed to the specification

required by Building Regulations. IW explained that upon taking over from the previous

management company, James Andrew, a full fire safety inspection of equipment etc was

instructed. It was reported that the system was not to specification and that there were various

outstanding issues and defects. IW confirmed that unless these works are carried out that Kent

Fire Brigade could issue a Prohibition Notice to the freeholder and the development could be

closed and residents need to be re-housed if not rectified urgently. The following defects were

found and recorded:

a) The final certificates were found to be unsigned therefore not meeting the legal requirements.

b) It was found upon inspection some fire panel boxes were empty so could not function. c) It was originally intended for the gatehouse building to house the master panel so that

the Fire Brigade could ascertain where the fire was on arrival at the site but this did not take place.

d) Further failures include that fact that no fire alarm sounders were found in Victoria Wing only detectors (flats 7-16). Flats 18 to 28 should also be covered as there are communal staircases. It was also found that the three fire panels in Alexandra Wing were not interlinked as originally stated in the specification. One of the fire panels in Alexandra Wing was found to have just the fire alarm box with no internal wires, although this has rectified further works will need to be carried out. Residents were extremely concerned that there safety had been put at risk.”

There is of course, a great deal of concern around the gap of WDAM commencing a survey of a small amount

of fire panels in April 2008, and the astounding situation of some panels being completely empty of wiring

and components, only being informed to the tenants almost 2 years later.

It should be noted, that WDAM has made clear their commitment to H&S on site, the question relates to the

information and detail provided, related to service provision.

It is unclear, given the infrastructure outlined by WDAM on the 31st January 2010, what parts of the system

the maintenance costs pertain to. Indeed, given the lack of installed components, it is unclear whether the

actual charge of £3192.08 for the period 01/07/08 – 30/06/09 relates to installation or maintenance.


The statement of Account for year ending 30th June 2010 splits the charge over a number of items; Intruder

alarm maintenance, Gate lodge burglar alarm maintenance, car park smoke alarm maintenance and fire

service contract. The cost for the car park element tripled in this year.

There has not been a summary of the situation since the meeting and the site still has problems with the

alarm. An alarm was sounded at around 11PM Friday 28th January 2011, all tenants were evacuated and Kent

Fire Brigade attended, but did not access the site via the gates. The engine was parked on the outside of the

gates. At the moment only 1 gate is operational. It is unknown whether they requested vehicular access to

the site.

It is understood that this was a false alarm. It is unknown what activated the alarm.

The photos taken on Sunday 31st January are documented in appendix 4 and in Appendix 5 for Wednesday

2nd February show that issues still continue with the system.

Whilst this is on-going, along with continuing site work, it is a grave concern that the Emergency signage and

instructions have not been updated to reflect the situation. The displayed egress route for my Flat is detailed

in the photos in Appendix 5. The main passageway has a trench dug along its length, the stairway is in

particular bad state of repair and the lighting is poor.

Common sense and my up to date understanding of what is on-going on site would of course make me take

a safe alternative route; however a visitor with no knowledge of the layout would follow the advertised

instructions, as directed. If the alarm was raised in the dark, those obvious obstacles may not be apparent.

Should the visitor be additionally impaired, the reliance on clear site guidance at the mandatory junctions is

of an even greater importance. Given WDAM’s knowledge of the general site condition and obligations as

managing agents, whilst they work towards the provision of a fully commissioned, certificated and reliable

system, it must prioritise the provision of up to date support information, whether that is funded through

this service charge or the Health & Safety service.

What was the date, scope, results and recommendations of WDAM’s first and subsequent reports

on the integrity of the Fire System?

What proportion of the costs of implementing the recommendations is attributed to the tenants?

What level of testing and certification has been done and where is it displayed?

What is the current state and future maintenance plan for the Fire Alarm system?

There are costs for a number of “new” items in the statement of Account for year ending 30th June

2010; Intruder alarm maintenance, Gate lodge burglar alarm maintenance, car park smoke alarm

maintenance and fire service contract There is no previous estimate for them and no estimate given

for the period 01/07/10 – 30/06/11, what are these separate costs attributed to?

Was any part of the costs to cover installation of the initial planned alarm system and should have

been installed, tested and commissioned by the developer?

How often is the emergency signage checked and reviewed and by whom?

How often is the fire Alarm tested?

Where are the results of these tests and checks logged and displayed?


Is the charge for “Woods Site survey” in the End of year accounts 2010 related to this service?




2.11 Fire Extinguisher Maintenance

In the April letter from WDAM, it states:

“We have commenced works on the communal areas and have arranged the installation of

fire extinguishers...”

If there was a lack of fire extinguishers on uptake of the site, it should have been a part of the initial

provision and handover of the site, the tenants should not be expected to install the initial tranche of

extinguishers.

The estimated cost in 2008/9 was £400, the actual was £825.03, although this charge was not highlighted in

the Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2009. The estimate for 09/10 was again £400, raised

to £470 for the period 01/07/10 – 30/06/11. If the money highlighted as actual was for initial provision of

equipment, again this should be a charge borne by the developer and not the tenants.

The amount of extinguishers required on site is an easy total to come to and a quote from any appropriate

company would confirm the annual maintenance costs of the units. This, like the utilities should be a

transparent cost, easily communicated.

What did the £825.03 cost for the period 01/07/09 – 30/06/09 cover?

How often are the extinguishers tested?

Where are the results of these checks displayed?

There is no cost shown against this service in the Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June

2010, under which service is this now deemed to be covered.

2.12 Door, Gate & CCTV hire

Again, this is an area where transparency in the service being provided and the associated costs are unclear.

The services provided are understood to cover the flat door entry system, the main gate entry system, the

on-site CCTV system and the satellite TV distribution system.

The estimated cost in 2008/9 was £12,925, the actual was £14,279.04. The estimate for 09/10 was £11,000.

£14,279 is listed against this service in the Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2009.

There have been persistent issues with all of the above services provided as highlighted in:

In the email sent to residents on 23rd January 2009, WDAM state:

“Further to our recent correspondence, I would like to thank those owners who have made the effort

to commence payment of Service Charges.

However, there are a substantial number that have still not responded. I have enclosed a self explanatory (sic)

email below and would request that those who have not yet contacted us to make payment give this matter

their urgent attention.

Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.


Ian West

The Art of Living

T 02380 457864

F 02380 457962

www.artofliving-city.com

Members of: The National Association of Estate Agents (NAEA) The Ombudsman for Estate Agents (OEA) The National Approved Letting Scheme (NALS) The Dispute Service (TDS) This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. The content and views expressed are those of the sender and not necessarily The Art of Living. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy or use any part of it. Please delete all copies immediately and notify the sender. The Art of Living (Hamble) Ltd trading as The Art of Living. Registered in England and Wales, No. 05563305. Registered Office: Hamble Court Business Park, Hamble Lane, Hamble SO31 4QJ From: Les Asker [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wed 14/01/2009 10:01 To: Ian West; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; helpdesk; David Pagram Subject: RE: Paigle - Sea Bathing Hospital

IMPORTANT Hi Ian Thanking you for your e-mail reference our rental contract appertaining to Sea Bathing Hospital at Margate. May I bring to the attention of all concerned, if we do not receive payment of our rental invoice previously submitted In November 2008 Invoice No 425 value £13,517.16 Inc Vat covering the rental period as from the 1

st January 2009 to 31

st December 2009 for apartments already completed and

utilizing our equipment we have the authority to issue formal notice on the 21st January 2009 to all

relevant parties for non payment stating that we will disconnect and remove all of our equipment from Sea Bathing Hospital including all door entry, access control, CCTV and all TV infrastructure within the risers and each and every apartment including all cable and the outlet plates for the TV distribution as it is solely owned by Octopus. Obviously, we do not want to enforce the disconnection clause within the legal agreement, but if payment is not forthcoming we will have no choice as at today’s date we have expended a vast amount of money on labour and materials within Sea Bathing Hospital over the last couple of years including financing the project. If we do have to remove or disconnection our services from site we will notify all residents by letter the reason they have lost their services and display a copy within the communal area in each block. I feel at this juncture it would be prudent if you were to notify all the owners and occupiers of the aforementioned as they may not be aware they are at risk of losing all their services especially as lost of the TV signals is normally a very emotive subject.

http://www.artofliving-city.com/


For ease of reference I have attached a copy of the rental agreement and highlighted in orange the poignant clauses appertaining to non payment and disconnection and a copy of the unpaid invoice. Do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss any of the above. Les Asker Director Octopus Multi-Systems Ltd

01753 541100

01753 541150 www.octopusmultisystems.co.uk “

In the minutes of the Residents meeting of 31st January 2010, WDAM stated:

“The cost of the rental agreement service to the development is in excess of £77000.00 pa

when the site is complete and a decision will need to be made whether it is viable for the

rental to continue or whether an agreement could be reached for the purchase of this

equipment. IW felt that any contracts in place prior to administration period could be re-

negotiated before the period of administration is terminated. IW also explained that Octopus

also own the satellite equipment which was originally installed on the roof of the Dog & Duck.

Due to residents losing their sky and television service, and Octopus refusing to come to

site, IW instructed an engineer to look at alternative locations to relocate the dish. The dish

and terrestrial aerials are now located on the roof of the Pump House, The system has failed

again the engineer is due to attend site to resolve it soon. Only some residents are currently

receiving a television signal. However, IW confirmed that as the equipment is owned by

Octopus, there are only certain items that can be looked at or repaired. Permanent

relocation of the dish is currently being investigated for when the development is complete

and will be discussed with the new purchaser. IW advised that until the matter was finalised

that Octopus would be paid on a monthly basis so that equipment would still be maintained.”

I have a particular interest in understanding the makeup of this substantial invoice as i have personal

experience in the installation costs for multi drop satellite systems. I manage big IT and Infrastructure

relocations and installations for investment banks. A typical job I did last year required a satellite system that

fed 12 hubs on 9 floors. 110 drops, which is larger than Alexandra block. The cost for kit, install and

commission was £24,000, which included some redundant units as it is usual that no maintenance is

required. The actual infrastructure is passive and any unit failures or cable cuts are rare, quickly diagnosed

and repaired. The contractors and equipment used across commercial and residential projects are identical

in composition, operational use and maintenance.

If the contract in place between WDAM and the 3rd party providers is commercially out of line with what

would reasonably expected, WDAM should have recognised the higher costs and renegotiated.

Large costs which may include installation costs are being asked of the tenants with little detail behind the

invoice provided.

Of particular concern is the statement by Octopus that they “ ..helped finance the project”. Without a better

understanding of the nature and validity of this comment, it cannot be clear that some of the invoice does

not include some “payback” of this investment.

A clear delineation on services is also required as WDAM may have violated the terms of the agreement by

moving the satellite equipment that Octopus claims it owns in whole. If the subsequent issues confirmed in

the minutes of the residents meeting of 31st January 2010 are attributed to the movement of the equipment

http://www.octopusmultisystems.co.uk/


by another party, Octopus may consider its obligations to repair and maintain that part of the system

compromised.

What services are covered by this charge?

What services are not covered by this charge?

Which services are rented and which, if any, are not?

What was the date, scope, results and recommendations of WDAM’s first and subsequent reports

on the integrity of the Systems?

What proportion of the costs of implementing the recommendations is attributed to the tenants?

What is the current state and future maintenance plan for the system?

What does the invoice of £14,279 cover? Does it include any element that may be considered to be

attributable to the developer?

Is WDAM aware of the finance that Octopus claim to have invested in the site and the nature of this

finance?

In the Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2010, there is a cost of £762, attributed to

“Octopus Repair” on a rental system, what is detail behind this cost?

If the £762 is attributed to Tenants, why was there no Major works consultation as this in in excess

of £250?


2.13 General Repairs

It has not been made clear what these charges relate to, however it is understood that it would cover

“general” repairs to common areas as and when needed. Estimated cost in 2008/9 was £6000, the

Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2009 had a cost of £803, against Building Repairs and

Maintenance. The estimate for 01/07/09 – 30/06/10 was reduced to £5000, and then doubled to £10,000 for

the estimate of the period 01/07/10 – 30/06/11! In the Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June

2010, the actual shown is £1,659.

One area that may have benefited from this service is the water pump.

In the minutes of the residents meeting with WDAM on 3rd December 2008, It was recorded that:

“AOL have some pressing issues which need to be dealt with in particular the Water Pump and

chlorination of the water which residents use”

Although WDAM acknowledged the urgency of the matter and committed to address it, over a year later at

the residents meeting on 31st January 2010, WDAM stated:

“IW informed residents that although Grant Thornton had paid for immediate & emergency

works to be carried out on the water pumps in the pump house, there are still outstanding

works to be carried out:- chlorination of the water tank and the pumps are required to be

serviced. As the majority of residents are not paying their service charges, works on the

pump house are unable to move forward unless costs are met via the service charge.”

If specific issues with the pump had been identified and attributable to the tenants as early as December

2008, a full and proper schedule of works and estimated costs could have been distributed. This would have

enabled tenants to have a clear view of the issues and proposed resolution, costs and timescales.


Again, WDAM are demanding that all service charges are met before any work can be completed, without a

reasonable explanation of the costs being attributable to the work.



What constituted the £803 costs in the Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2009?

What required the estimate for the period 01/07/10 – 30/06/11 to increase to £10,000?


Why was there no Major works consultation as this in in excess of £250?

2.14 Window Cleaning

The obligation on the frequency of exterior window cleaning by the managing agent would be reasonably

expected to be in line with the obligations placed upon the tenant for the interior as outlined in the lease,

once per month.

I am unaware of the frequency of cleaning until December 2009, but my tenant has stated to me that she

can confirm that the exterior windows of my flat have been cleaned only once in the 2 years she has been

resident in the flat.

The fact that the flat faces the sea means a high degree of salt and other deposit build up occurs and any

cleaning is immediately noticeable. Had the windows been cleaned on a more regular basis, my tenant

would have been immediately aware the windows had been cleaned, even in her absence.

She has stated to me that the windows in the property have been cleaned, only once, to her knowledge in

the 2 years she has been there.

WDAM has persistently curtailed access for deliveries or removal men to my property via the “rear” of the

property which enjoys easy access via the service road adjacent to the site. This access has been denied on

the reasonable grounds, that the exterior is considered a working building site. Should this be the reason the

window cleaner cannot gain access, then I should not be charged for a service I cannot receive.

What areas are covered by this charge?

What areas are not covered by this charge?

Who are the Window Cleaning Contractors used?

What are their responsibilities and hours?

What are the times covered by the charge of £3,710 in the Statement of Account for the year ended

30th June 2009?

What are the times covered by the charge of £530 in the Statement of Account for the year ended

30th June 2010?




2.15 Pest Control

The obvious pest issue on site is a substantial pigeon infestation. The main area is empty flats on the top

floor of Alexandra Court, but also in an adjacent building that is also on a designated fire escape route. The

feathers and excretions are an obvious health hazard that should be dealt with.

Although the infestation is clear to see, I mentioned this to WDAM and even suggested the use of a dummy

bird of prey which is a cheap and easy deterrent, I received no reply.

Estimated cost in 2008/9 was £1500, nothing mentioned in the Statement of Account for the year ended 30th

June 2009, the estimate for 09/10 and 10/11 was reduced to £750.

What are WDAM’s plans to deal with the current pigeon infestation?

What are the plans to keep the site clear of pigeons?

What are the plans in place to monitor and deal with any other infestations?

Will the differential on the demand for the years 08/09 and subsequent years be placed in a sink

fund or repaid to tenants as appropriate?

Why are there is no costs shown for this service in the Statement of Account for the year ended 30th

June 2010?


2.16 Bank Charges

No bank charges have yet been detailed on the accounts.

Do any of the costs listed under “legal and Professional Fees” In the Statement of Account for the

year ended 30th June 2009 and 2010 include costs for this service?

If so, how much and what are they?

Why is there no interest shown in the Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2009 and

2010?


2.17 Auditors Fees

No Auditor Fees have yet to be detailed on the accounts, it is noted that estimated cost in 2008/09 was

£1200, reduced for 2009/10 and 2010/2011 to £1000.

Do any of the costs listed under “legal and Professional Fees” In the Statement of Account for the

year ended 30th June 2009 and 2010 include costs for this service?

If so, how much and what are they?



2.18Health and Safety

It has not been made clear what these charges relate to, however it is understood that it would cover

“general” Health and Safety measures to common areas as and when needed.

Estimated cost in 01/07/08 – 30/06/19 was £1400, the actual was highlighted as £722.40 in the Estimates

and actuals for 01/07/08 – 30/06/09, but £273 in in the Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June

2009. No costs are attributed to this service in the Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2010



Is there a contractor specifically aligned to this service?

If not a site or 3rd party contractor, who has discretion over the spend and application of this

service?

What made up the charge of £722.40 in the Estimates and actuals for 01/07/08 – 30/06/09 and the

£273 in the Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2009?

Why is there a discrepancy in the two actual costs?


2.19 Buildings Insurance

The paperwork on display, and copied in the Appendix, is from the broker confirming that the building is

insured and the sums involved. It also states it is part of a combined policy.

Several attempts by several tenants to get some further detail behind the cover letter and understand the

policy has met with no reply and no understanding of the actual policy in place.

The witness statements and open email from Wade Barker attest to the attempts.

The premiums being asked do not seem reasonable and is acknowledged by WDAM in the minutes of the

residents meeting on 31st January 2010.

WDAM have continued to demand these excessive premiums as they state they are obliged to under the

terms of the administration as stated in the open letter to residents on the 2nd June 2010:

“As discussed at the owners meeting, we feel that the insurance premium is very

high. However, under the terms of the Administration, we are obliged to use Grant

Thornton’s insurers. We have had surveys carried out and are waiting for revised quotes

which we will pass to the new purchaser for consideration when they complete. We

anticipate that this will reduce costs.”

And went further in the Open mail of 12th July 2010:

“We are unable to change insurers until the sale completes, as previously advised. Further,

we will not be able to change providers until the electrics and fire alarms have been repaired

and certificated. Please note that we have been informed that those leaseholders who have

not paid their Service Charge are NOT covered under the Block Policy in the event of any

claim.”


If the right to choose the insurer has been removed by the administrators, then it cannot be clear whether

the term “Block Policy” in the broker’s cover note refers to Alexandra Block, the site or a block of units under

administration not limited to the RSB development.

The estimates over the three year period remained at £15,000, but the actuals were £34,284 in the

Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2009 and £37,724 in the Statement of Account for the

year ended 30th June 2010.

The witness statement at Appendix 8a, details the lengths that there residents have gone to try and extract

the relevant documentation from WDAM.

What are the details of the Insurance Policy? Including, but not limited to;

o The Name of the insurer

o The risks covered by the policy

o The amount and period of cover

o The address of the property’s insured.

o The registered office of the authorised insurer

o The number of the insurance policy

o The frequency that premiums are payable.

o The amount of any excess payable under the policy and what the excess applies to.

o Whether the policy has been renewed (and the date).


2.20Management Fee

If the Management Fee is variable and based on a variable Service Charge, the Tenants need clear

information when the Charge Changes, the reasons for the change and any anticipated impact.

If the Management Fee is based on a percentage of the overall service charged, then it is even more

important to Tenants that it is understood what constitutes any significant charge and what if any

contributions they are liable for.

The witness statement in Appendix 8a and the Open mail at Appendix 6c, highlight consistent efforts by

Tenants to obtain some detail and level of understanding of the service charges and underlying services’ and

cover.



What percentage of the Management Fee is attributable to Paigle?

What communication channels are in place to ensure Tenants have all relevant information on the

services provided?

What provisions are in place to ensure Tenants are properly consulted on Major Works and long

term agreements?

What provisions are in place to serve Notice of Proposals?


3 Summary:

As a tenant, I should expect the Quiet Enjoyment of my flat and its services. WDAM, acting as the Managing

agent have an obligation to ensure that all tenants can enjoy that Peaceable Occupation.

WDAM have an obligation to be reasonable, accessible, transparent and provide adequate and clear

information to Tenants when requested or where it would be reasonable to expect it.

It is fully appreciated that the site has suffered from numerous problems, out with both WDAM and the

Tenants Purdue.

As the issues developed and escalated, some Tenants had their Flats reposed, others sold at a loss. Of those

remaining, the rentable value, or personal enjoyment of the Flats decreased exponentially. With the reduced

rents and increasing infrastructure problems, the site began to take on the air of a “ghetto”.

Without a clear summary of the long Term Agreements in place or Major Works required, Tenants cannot

possibly deduce the reasonableness of the costs.

With no opportunity for a workable tenants association or body, the sole place for Tenants to get any

information about the site and progress was WDAM who provided little information available as to what Site

surveys were done as part of WDAM’s due diligence and any proposed plans for future works.

The opportunity to provide proper due diligence on the services to site was wholly in control of the

management company and the sites administrators. At no time were the tenants in a position to understand

the details behind the service charge and what work was done with 3rd party providers and the

administrators to offset the costs to be borne by the tenants.

The management practices of WDAM have at times been described by tenants as “Rachmanesque”.

Particularly the use of 4 ”bouncers” at the Residents meeting and the pejorative language used in

communications. In combination with the lack of information provided, quiet enjoyment is not possible.

It is unclear what, if any, site surveys have been completed. As such the tenants are still unclear as to the

installation condition, maintenance condition and end of life expectancy for much of the plant on site.


Appendices


Appendices

1a Service Charge demand for period 01/07/07-30/06/08 23

1b Estimated Service Charge breakdown for period 01/07/07-30/06/08 24

1c Estimated square footage breakdown per flat 25

1d Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2008 26

1e Service Charge demand for period 01/07/08-30/06/09 27

1f Section 20(b) Notice for period 01/07/08-30/06/09 28

1g Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2009 29

1h Estimated Service Charge demand for period 01/07/09-30/06/10 36

1i Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2010 37

1j Estimated Service Charge demand for period 01/07/10-30/06/11 43

2a Open Letter to Tenants – April 2008 44

2b Open Letter to Tenants – September 2008 46

2c Open Email of 23rd January 2009– Octopus system 50

2d Open email to Residents – Site Update 16th October 2009 52

2e Open email to Residents – Site Update 19th October 2009 56

2f Meeting minutes of Residents Meeting 31st January 2010 58

2g Open email to Residents - 15th March 2010 67

2h Open email to Residents - Site Update 2nd June 2010 69

2i Open email to Residents – Site update 12th July 2010 73

2j Open email to Residents - RSB Site Update 6th December 2010 76

3 Photos of garden areas 30th January 2011 and prior. 80

4a Photos of fire alarm panels taken on Sunday 30th January 83

4b Photos of fire alarm panels taken on Wednesday 2nd February 86

5a Photos of Flat 29 Emergency Escape route – 30th January 2011 88

5b Photos of Hall Signage 93

5c Photos of General Decoration 99

5d Photos of Hall Lighting, Gate Signage and Abandoned Cars 102

6a Minutes of residents meeting with WDAM – 12th November 2008 107

6b Minutes of residents meeting with WDAM and GT – 3rd December 2008 108

6c Open email from Tenant representative, Wade Barker – 1st February 2010 111

7a Plan View of Site and Proposed Landscaping Area 113

7b Plan View of Site and Current Landscaping Area 114

8a Witness statement – Tenant 40 Alexandra Court, RSB, Margate 115

8b Expert witness statement pertaining; End of Year Accounts for 2009 & 2010. 119

9a Copy of LVT Application Attached

9b Copy of Lease – 29 Alexandra Court, RSB, Margate Attached


Appendix 1a

Mr E Wiseman 100 Jay Street Apt 30B, Brooklyn New York NY 11201 30th April 2008

Service Charge Demand Re: 29 Alexandra Court Service Charge Period 01/07/07-30/06/08 Service charge for year: £1200 Service Charge due pro rata: £482.74 Payments received to date: £400 Balance due: £82.74 Please make cheques payable to White Door Asset Management Clients acc or make payment via BACS to: Acc: White Door Asset Management Clients ac Bank: Arbuthnot Latham Private Banking Sort Code: 30-13-93 Acc No: 11642601 Please ensure that you quote your Property Address on the back of a cheque or in the payment field if paying by BACS.


Appendix 1b

I do not recall receiving the Estimated Service Charge breakdown for period 01/07/07-30/06/08 and do not have a

copy in my records.


Appendix 1c


Appendix 1d - Statement of Account for the year ended 30th June 2008 – there were no issue of accounts for this period, WDAM stated the reason below, Extracted from the Residents Meeting Minutes of 31st January 2010.

“Due to the lack of funds, IW advised that it had not been possible to provide audited accounts for the period to 30th June 2009 but that Section 20 (b) notice had been served. As some funds had come through from a repossession, the accounts were to be submitted for auditing and would be provided to owners in due course on completion. IW advised that the previous managing agents had not provided a cost breakdown when their services were terminated As a result, it was agreed with Paigle and subsequently Grant Thornton that the first service charge period with White Door Asset Management would run from April 2008 to 30th June 2009. During this period, invoices of £136,444.29 were received against service charge receipts of £94,294.59 leaving a deficit of £42,149.70. Approximately £55,000 is outstanding from leaseholders from 2007 to 30th June 2009. For the period from 1st July 2009 to date, approximately £29,000 has been received from leaseholders against an expected income of approximately £66,000. IW confirmed that Grant Thornton had paid in excess of £40,000 in Service Charge contributions but that this had stopped as the majority of owners were failing to contribute. As the freeholder had been placed in administration, any funds provided were at the discretion of the Administrator. IW advised that legal action against those who had not paid in full would be suspended for a period of 14 days after the meeting and reminders would be sent out. After this time, legal action would be commenced and mortgagees contacted if necessary.”


Appendix 1e Mr E Wiseman 100 Jay Street Apt 30B, Brooklyn New York NY 11201 By email 30th September 2008

Service Charge Demand Re: 29 Alexandra Court Service Charge Year 01/07/08-30/06/09 Period covered by this Demand 01/07/08-31/12/08 Service charge for year: £2052.73 Payments due for this period: £1026.37 Please make cheques payable to White Door Asset Management Clients acc or make payment via BACS to: Acc: White Door Asset Management Clients ac Bank: Arbuthnot Latham Private Banking Sort Code: 30-13-93 Acc No: 11642601 Please ensure that you quote your Property Address on the back of a cheque or in the payment field if paying by BACS.


Appendix 1f


Appendix 1g


Appendix 1h

Direction no.2, Eddie Wiseman, Flat 29 Alexandra court, RSB, Margate. – Hearing & Inspection Date 25/03/2011 Appendix 1j

Appendix 1i


Appendix 1j


Appendix 2a – Open Letter to Residents – April 2008

Block Management

I am pleased to advise you that with effect from April 1st 2008,

White Door Asset Management Ltd, which is a wholly owned

subsidiary of The Art of Living (Hamble) Ltd, has been appointed Managing Agents for the Royal Sea Bathing Site.

White Door will invoice for the Service Charge account and The Art of Living will be responsible for the day to day

management.

As some of you may be aware, James Andrew RSW were disinstructed in October 2007 but had commenced

invoicing for the Service Charge period which ends on 30th June 2008. We have been passed the balance of the

accounts and various items of paperwork but there is still a substantial amount of work to be done whilst we finalise

and account for previous expenditure. As a result, we have decided to finish the Service Charge year using the

estimates that James Andrew provided. Please therefore find enclosed a breakdown of payments received and

payments due for your property up until 30th June 2008. This has been calculated from the information that has

been provided to us by James Andrew. If you have a query relating to the statement, please contact us directly. We

will produce a service charge estimate for the next year in due course along with a programme of works that will

take place throughout the year. You will also shortly be invoiced directly from your freeholder, Paigle Properties for

the ground rent that was due in December 2007.

I have been informed that DJ Ellis Construction Ltd have started works on the 19 remaining units in Victoria and

Alexandra Wings, we will be liasing directly with them during the build programme so that we can keep all occupants

advised of any work that will be taking place. Please rest assured that we will be working closely with them to

ensure that any inconvenience to residents is kept to a minimum.

Following several enquiries, we would like to confirm that our role is solely for the provision of services for the

communal areas of the building along with buildings insurance claims. If you have any issues relating to your actual

property, these must be directed in the first instance to Paigle Properties.

We have commenced works on the communal areas and have arranged the installation of fire extinguishers and the

inspection of all fire panels. All external windows have been cleaned recently and a further clean is scheduled in the

near future.

We are implementing many changes on the site which will be beneficial for all concerned. Skender Xhakaliu, is the

full time caretaker. We are in the process of setting up an office for him in the gatehouse and this will be manned

Monday- Friday 8am-4pm and Saturday mornings from 9-11:30am. Skender will be in the office unless he is working

on the site carrying out general maintenance duties. Beda Xhakaliu will be responsible for the cleaning of the

internal common parts in all blocks. We have decided to look after the external communal areas in house until

further units are finished and works have recently started.


The site owners, Paigle Properties, will be contributing to the service charge budget for flats that have been

completed in blocks that benefit from the services provided.

We currently have a contract with T-Sec security to provide cover from 7pm on a Friday evening until 7am on a

Monday morning. Following complaints from several residents, we are in the process of carrying out a review of

their contract and will provide an update in due course.

As I am sure you can appreciate, we have taken on the site management mid way through a service charge period

and as such there will be a transitional phase which will require your patience. However, a member of our staff will

visit the site at least once a month and will be available to discuss any problems that you may have. The date will be

visible at the caretaker’s office in due course. In addition, we are in the process of setting up a dedicated website

and forum which will only be accessible to owners of properties on the site.

Ian West and Helen Brake will be your point of contact for all day to day enquiries and their contact details are

shown below

Ian West 02380 457864

[email protected]

Helen Brake 02380 457920

[email protected]

If you have an urgent block management problem out of hours, our contact number is 07513 694516 but this

number should only be called in the event of an emergency.

Please find enclosed a leaseholder contact sheet which will need to be completed in full by all property owners and

returned to us for our records along with your service charge payment.

mailto:[email protected]



Appendix 2b - Open Letter to Residents – September 2008

September 2008

Royal Sea Bathing Update

Further to our introduction letter of April 2008, as many of you know,

there has been a lot of uncertainty with the site as a whole. For those

that are unaware, Paigle Properties Ltd and Paigle Properties (Margate)

Ltd have both been placed into adminstration by Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander with effect from July 15th 2008.

As you are aware, the Service Charge Year commenced on July 1st 2008. However, we were unable to issue the

demands until we had met with the administrators from Grant Thornton to confirm the situation.

The site currently consists of 92 units in Victoria and Alexandra and 41 of these are still to be completed. These units

remain the responsibility of Paigle Properties Ltd and accordingly, they have contributed to the Service Charge. We

had to have a meeting to discuss whether the bank would continue to fund this contribution for the period from 1st

July-30th June 2009 before we were able to issue any demands. As I am sure you can appreciate, if funds had been

withdrawn, we would have been obliged to increase the service charge for residents to cover the shortfall or cut

back on the services provided drastically. We were obviously keen to avoid either of these and I am pleased to

advise that the bank have agreed to continue to contribute for the foreseeable future. We feel that this is very

positive for the site as a whole and will allow us to implement many needed improvements.

As part of our liaison with the Administrators, we have agreed to deal with all owner queries on behalf of Grant

Thornton and Paigle Properties. As a result, all enquiries should be directed to ourselves and not to the offices of

Paigle or Grant Thornton. If we are unable to provide you with an immediate response, we will contact the relevant

person or company and you will be contacted as soon as possible. The staff at the Paigle Offices will not be able to

deal with any residents queries.

Caretaker

The previous caretaker, Skender, and his wife Beda, unfortunately had to leave site on the 15th August this year.

They have returned to Germany as Skender’s father is seriously ill. We are pleased to advise that we have appointed

a new caretaker, who lives on site, called Adrian Handley and hope that all residents will make him feel welcome in

his new role. Adrian is now installed in his office in the gate house and is available to deal with any general site

queries from Monday- Friday 8am-4pm and Saturday mornings from 9-11:30am. There will shortly be display panels

in Alexandra and on the side of the Gate House which will provide any site information that is required and these

should be looked at periodically by all residents.


Service Charge

We have enclosed a service charge breakdown for the whole site and each unit along with a demand for the period

from 1st July-30th September 2008 and 1st October -31st December 2008, both of which are due for immediate

payment. You will note that the service charge is higher than last year due to the provision of services. We have

received enquiries from some residents who have asked if they can pay by standing order. We are pleased to be

able to provide this service but it will only be possible for the demand for the second half of the year with effect

from 1st January 2009. If you wish to pay by standing order, please contact Julie Taylor in our accounts department

on 02380 456388 and she will be able to assist further.

There are still a number of owners who have failed to pay their service charge for the period to 30th June 2008.

Whilst we appreciate that there were periods where work did not take place during the time when a managing agent

was not appointed, funds were still spent on services and the building was insured during this time. As many owners

have paid, we require immediate payment of the outstanding service charge from those owners. Under the terms of

the lease, we will take legal action against any owner who fails to pay their service charge. This may include

contacting the relevant Mortgage Company for payment. We trust that this will not be necessary and look forward

to receiving prompt payment. When we have finalised the accounts, we anticipate that there will be a credit on the

account due to the fact that many items did not take place. Any surplus will be used to create a sinking fund for

future work to the site. It is our intention to allow this fund to build up so that any additional works will not require

additional contributions from owners. We will, of course, provide a complete breakdown of the previous year in due

course when final accounts have been received from James Andrew.

Forum Site

In order to improve communications for the site, we have created a forum website for all owners and residents to

access which will allow you to communicate with each other and ourselves with the intention of improving

communication on the site as a whole. In addition, you will be able to report faults directly to ourselves via the

forum which will ensure that they are resolved promptly. The web address is www.rsb-forum.com. To access the

forum and to add comments and discussion threads to it, you will require a username and password. This can be

obtained by emailing Adrian Handley at [email protected]. We hope to be in a position to have a list of

approved contractors who will provide preferential rates to all residents for general maintenance issues. Please note

that the forum is provided as a resource for use of all owners, appointed letting agents, and residents only.

Communal Hallways

During recent inspections, it has been noted that the communal hallways are looking very tired in some blocks. We

would like to reiterate that no items of any description such as bikes or push chairs are to be left outside of the

property as it contravenes the fire regulations and could impede escape in the event of a fire. If this continues, the

caretaker will be instructed to remove and dispose of all items on his daily inspection. As the majority of units are

currently rented, it is the responsibility of each property owner to advise their respective tenants that care must be

taken when moving furniture into and out of the properties. If we are able to prove via CCTV who has caused the

damage, this will be passed on to the property owner. In the event that damage is caused, we will have to

redecorate the area which will ultimately be passed on to all owners in the particular wing.


Rented Properties

Whilst we have no objections to any property being let out, it is an obligation of your lease that owners provide us

with the contact details for the tenant and the managing agent if the property is looked after on your behalf by a

third party. We have previously enclosed forms for this information to be provided and a further copy is enclosed.

As you can appreciate, there is additional work involved with site management with tenanted properties and this

can be minimised if we are fully aware of the details for each property. If owners fail to provide the required

information, we will look to make additional charges for the extra administration involved. Owners have an

obligation to advise their tenants of obligations under the main lease with reference to pets, noise, parking etc as

these will be rigorously enforced.

Gate Fobs

In order to ensure the integrity of the security of the site, we are carrying out an audit of proximity fobs for the

pedestrian gates and vehicle gate transmitters. Please note that it is the responsibility of all owners to ensure that

outgoing tenants return all fobs when they vacate the property. Replacement pedestrian fobs are available for £20

plus VAT and gate transmitters are £65 plus VAT. Please contact our offices directly if you require any replacements

or originals to be cancelled.

Contractors

We have recently instructed a company called “The Grass Master” who will be responsible for the maintenance of

the lawns and borders. Whilst we had asked Paigle to returf the area in front of Alexandra, due to the fact that they

are now in administration, this has been refused. As a result, we have asked the contractor to do this and the works

are scheduled for the week of October 13th. They will also commence their regular maintenance from this date. The

internal communal areas are being cleaned temporarily until we find a reputable contractor that can carry out the

works to our satisfaction. We hope to have this resolved shortly and the communal areas will be maintained on a

weekly basis.

Security

T-Sec Security are employed from 7pm-7am on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings. They are based in the

Security Hut next to the pedestrian entrance on Canterbury Road. If they are not in their office, they are probably on

a site patrol. Please feel free to ask the guard to escort you back to your property if it is late at night and you require

assistance.

Gas Issues

As you are all aware, the gas supply has been disconnected to the site and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Grant Thornton are working in conjunction with Generator Group to investigate the problem and provide a solution.

We do not envisage that this will take place before Spring 2009. However, we are actively involved in all progress

meetings on site which take place on a monthly basis and further information will be provided on the forum in due

course. Please be assured that all parties are working closely to resolve the matter as soon as possible. A circular

was sent previously to residents informing them that electric heaters were being provided to all residents. If you


have not yet collected your heaters, please contact Adrian in the Gate House and he will be able to assist you. Due

to the demand placed on the electricity sub station by the removal of the gas from the site, it is imperative that

residents only use the water and wall heaters that have been provided to you.

Vehicle Parking

As per the terms of every lease, and a condition of the listed building status with Thanet District Council, no

commercial vehicles of any size or description are permitted on site and there is a weight limit of 2,500kg for the site

as a whole. The only contractor vehicles that are permitted are those working for DJ Ellis or with our permission.

Please note that persistent offenders will be clamped. We would strongly urge residents to use the underground

parking facilities that are provided on the site. If you have a query regarding your parking space, please contact

Adrian and he will be able to assist.

Site Development

DJ Ellis are continuing to work on the remaining units in Alexandra Wing and we have been advised that these will be

completed in Spring 2009. We are still waiting for confirmation regarding the building of the East and West Wings

and the Promenade properties but hope to be able to provide an update shortly when the situation with Paigle

Properties has been determined. If any residents are experiencing problems with the building works that are taking

place, please contact us and we will bring any issues up in our meetings with DJ Ellis. The contractors are aware that

there are units that are occupied and assure us that they are keeping noise and disruption to a minimum.

Emergencies

Whilst the majority of issues can be dealt with during office hours via our Property Management Department, we

recognise that there may be emergencies on site which require immediate attention. In the event that there is an

emergency, please contact our Management Department on 02380 457920, via the Gate House on 01843 221109 or

07513 694516. Please note that this is for genuine emergencies only.

Fire Extinguishers & Alarms

Please note that the fire alarms are tested throughout the development on a Friday morning at 10am on a weekly

basis. In the event that the alarm sounds outside of this time, please ensure that the buildings are evacuated

immediately. Fire Assembly points are at the Security Hut and Gate House. Fire Extinguishers are provided in all

communal areas and are not to be used to prop open doors or to be taken into individual properties unless required

in a genuine emergency. We ask all residents to make the Caretaker aware if any equipment appears to be defective

at any time and it will be rectified immediately.

Bin Store

Please be advised that the bin store is for general day to day rubbish and should not be used to dispose of large

items such as furniture or packaging. If you have any excess refuse that needs to be collected, it should be arranged

directly with Thanet District Council’s Waste and Recycling Department who can be contacted on 01843 577115.

If you have any further queries, please contact our Property Management Department on 02380 457920.


Appendix 2c – open mail Sent by Ian West at Art of Living (WDAM) on Friday 23rd January 2009

Further to our recent correspondence, I would like to thank those owners who have made the effort to commence

payment of Service Charges.

However, there are a substantial number that have still not responded. I have enclosed a self explanatory email below and

would request that those who have not yet contacted us to make payment give this matter their urgent attention.


Ian West

The Art of Living

T 02380 457864

F 02380 457962


Members of: The National Association of Estate Agents (NAEA) The Ombudsman for Estate Agents (OEA) The National Approved Letting Scheme (NALS) The Dispute Service (TDS) This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. The content and views expressed are those of the sender and not necessarily The Art of Living. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy or use any part of it. Please delete all copies immediately and notify the sender. The Art of Living (Hamble) Ltd trading as The Art of Living. Registered in England and Wales, No. 05563305. Registered Office: Hamble Court Business Park, Hamble Lane, Hamble SO31 4QJ From: Les Asker [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wed 14/01/2009 10:01 To: Ian West; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; helpdesk; David Pagram Subject: RE: Paigle - Sea Bathing Hospital

IMPORTANT Hi Ian Thanking you for your e-mail reference our rental contract appertaining to Sea Bathing Hospital at Margate. May I bring to the attention of all concerned, if we do not receive payment of our rental invoice previously submitted In November 2008 Invoice No 425 value £13,517.16 Inc Vat covering the rental period as from the 1

st January 2009 to

31st December 2009 for apartments already completed and utilizing our equipment we have the authority to issue

formal notice on the 21st January 2009 to all relevant parties for non payment stating that we will disconnect and



remove all of our equipment from Sea Bathing Hospital including all door entry, access control, CCTV and all TV infrastructure within the risers and each and every apartment including all cable and the outlet plates for the TV distribution as it is solely owned by Octopus. Obviously, we do not want to enforce the disconnection clause within the legal agreement, but if payment is not forthcoming we will have no choice as at today’s date we have expended a vast amount of money on labour and materials within Sea Bathing Hospital over the last couple of years including financing the project. If we do have to remove or disconnection our services from site we will notify all residents by letter the reason they have lost their services and display a copy within the communal area in each block. I feel at this juncture it would be prudent if you were to notify all the owners and occupiers of the aforementioned as they may not be aware they are at risk of losing all their services especially as lost of the TV signals is normally a very emotive subject. For ease of reference I have attached a copy of the rental agreement and highlighted in orange the poignant clauses appertaining to non payment and disconnection and a copy of the unpaid invoice. Do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss any of the above. Les Asker Director Octopus Multi-Systems Ltd

01753 541100

01753 541150 www.octopusmultisystems.co.uk

http://www.octopusmultisystems.co.uk/


Appendix 2d - Open mail to Residents – October 2009

Royal Sea Bathing Update.

16th October 2009

Latest Site Update

Service Charge

The service charge account is very overdrawn as a substantial amount of owners are still failing to pay their service

charge. Grant Thornton, acting on behalf of the freeholder, have now provided us with funds to instruct solicitors to

pursue the outstanding debt and this will take place shortly. We would like to thank those owners who have

continued to pay in the circumstances and would like to reassure them that all costs involved in the legal action will

be paid for by the individual owners.

Staff at Paigle Properties Ltd and SB Security are not able to assist with any site issues.

Site Queries

Please note that any queries in relation to the Royal Sea Bathing Site must be directed to The Art of Living on 02380

457920 in the first instance. Despite information to the contrary in recent emails, if outstanding payments are

made, the Art of Living and White Door Asset Management will continue to manage the site. However, this will be

reviewed in the event that our fees are not paid.

Buildings Insurance

We have been asked to advise those owners who have failed to make any Service Charge payments that their

properties will not be covered in the event of an incident on the site. This will also be communicated to individual

mortgage companies where applicable. Typically, the outstanding service charge debt is immediately paid by the

mortgage company and added to any loan.


Water Pumps

The water supply pumps have now been repaired and service has been resumed to the site. However, there are still

some issues with one of the pumps and chlorination of the tank which still needs to be carried out and will be

attended to as soon as possible. As a gesture of goodwill, Grant Thornton agreed to meet the costs for this work

which was in excess of £10,000 without any obligation on their part. Ongoing maintenance is the responsibility of

the Service Charge.

Caretaker

Following Adrian’s departure in July, SB Security have been providing a caretaker and out of hours emergency cover.

However, due to lack of funds, this has recently been reduced to 20 hours a week and without an increase in

payments from owners, this service will have to be terminated shortly.

Maintenance

Due to the lack of funds, all gardening, window cleaning and communal cleaning contractors have been removed

from site. Until the caretaker is removed, he will do what he can in the 20 hours that he has available but will not

undertake any window cleaning.

Octopus- Vehicle Gates and Fobs

Both vehicle gates are now inoperative along with the main entrance door to Alexandra Wing. In order to protect

the security of the site as a whole, we have been instructed by the freeholder, via the administrators Grant

Thornton, to padlock both gates shut with effect from 9am on Tuesday 20th October 2009. Please therefore ensure

that all vehicles are removed from site by this point. In the event that vehicles are still on site after this date, the

gates will be opened to allow them to leave but no vehicles will be permitted to access site after this date.

Octopus have confirmed in the attached email that they will not attend site for any matters relating to the gates,

entrance fobs or TV and Sky reception until their invoice is paid in full. This is outstanding due to lack of

funds. Further, it is our understanding that the Dog and Duck Public House, which currently sites the satellite dish,

has been sold. As a result, we will not be able to guarantee continued reception in the event that the dish is

removed by the new owners. As a result of Octopus retaining the PC, we are unable to programme any fobs and as a

result, will not be able to issue any replacements in the event of a loss or breakage.

Car Park

The car park sump pumps are defective and require remedial work which will be carried out when funds

permit. However, we cannot guarantee that the lower levels of the car park will not flood in the event that there is a

downpour. Following a recent inspection, there is a faulty detector in the car park in the smoke extraction


system. Again, due to lack of funds to carry out a repair and for safety reasons, the car park will be closed on

Tuesday 20th October at 9am until further notice. Users should ensure that all vehicles are removed as soon as

possible.

Communal Electricity

There is a substantial outstanding invoice to EON for the landlord’s electricity supply, prior and subsequent to our

appointment, which powers the Pump House, the Octopus system, the communal lighting, the car park and the fire

alarms. If this is not paid in the near future, EON have advised that they will take steps to disconnect the landlords

supply to the site. Again, a lack of funds prevents us from making payment.

RSB Forum

This has been removed due to outstanding bills to the hosting company.

Premier

As of 30th September, Premier were establishing how the work was to proceed with the gas reinstatement and when

they have received confirmation from the insurers, they will contact owners and ourselves directly with a plan to

carry out the work. As advised previously, there are still some owners who have failed to submit a claim form and

will not be covered for this work. We recommend that you contact Premier to confirm if your property is covered.

Site Sale

Negotiations are ongoing with a purchaser but it is unlikely that a sale will conclude prior to the Spring of 2010 with

works commencing at the earliest in Summer.

As advised on numerous occasions, most of the above matters can be addressed in the event that owners pay their

service charge contributions and we can call work to bring Royal Sea Bathing back to the standard that is expected.

If any owners wish to discuss the above, please contact me by email in the first instance.


Ian West

The Art of Living

T 02380 457864

F 02380 457962


We are experiencing an intermittent mail delivery error which is being investigated. If you receive an error message when replying to this message please forward the

error and your message to [email protected]. Thank you. This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. The content and views expressed are those of the sender and not necessarily The Art

of Living. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy or use any part of it. The Art of Living (Hamble) Ltd trading as The Art of Living. Registered in England and Wales, No. 05563305. Registered Office: Hamble Court Business Park, Hamble Lane, Hamble SO31 4QJ




Appendix 2e - Open mail to Residents – October 2009

From: Ian West [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 19 October 2009 21:28

To: Ian West

Subject: FW: RSB matters

Dear All,

I am actually away from the office at one of our developments but have had the opportunity to look at my emails. I feel that it

would be prudent to reply in bulk, and I trust that Mrs Harrison will not object to me responding to her five emails of today's

date in numbers 1-8 including everbody as the subject matter is relevant. Points 9 onwards are from other enquiries.

1) We were advised by the lending bank two weeks ago that an exchange of contracts was due to take place imminently. Since

that date, a locksmith has attended site to change the locks "for the new owners". At this present time, I am unable to confirm

any more information than that. The fact that it has not yet been registered with Land Registry does not necessarily mean that a

sale has taken place. Further, I would not expect a planning application to be submitted so quickly

2) With regards to whether an individual property is covered by a block buildings insurance policy when service charge is

outstanding is a matter for you to refer to your lender or solicitor.

3) The water pump house falls under the responsibility of the block management company and it is the responsibility of the

owners to ensure that it is maintained. Grant Thornton were not obliged to effect the necessary repair. I would like to reiterate

that chlorination is still required to the tank as well as repair to a defective pump.

4) The car park fire inspection took place on October 12th and the attached report highlighted the defect as per the email

below. We are not obliged to ask the HSE to provide a report advising us to close the car park. We have made a decision based

on our professional knowledge and for the safety of all the residents. Further there is also an issue with the drainage pump

being defective which could cause the car park to flood. This coupled with the large outstanding electricity bill assisted with our

decision.

Dear Ian,



We recently carried out a service and maintenance visit for Royal Sea Bathing Hospital on Monday 12thth October 2009. The engineer that investigated the property

identified a fault with the CO detector on the level 3 car park (please see service report sheet attached).

As this is a life safety system, we would recommend a replacement CO detector in place of the repaired unit.

5) The service charge budgets are calculated based on our expertise at block management. The end of year accounts for the

period to 30th June 2009 are being audited at present by our accountants and will be available within six months of the end of

the period.

6)We fail to see why an independent arbitrator as Mrs Harrison refers is required. Our budgets are quite clear and have been

prepared on the instructions of the freeholder and RSBH Mgt Co. Full accounts will be available for inspection within the

required timeframe.

7) A court order is not required for us to lock the main gates and owners are not being denied access to the site which is still

available currently by the pedestrian access. We have been instructed to lock the gates for security reasons. The gates are not

owned by Octopus systems, simply the operating mechanism. I find it frivilous to suggest that someone should be present 24

hours a day to provide access, particularly with the amount of service charge outstanding at present. Again, you may wish to

discuss this further with the "lawyer" who advised you previously.

8) Emergency access will be available (if required) as previously via the emergency lock release on the pillar. The combination to

a lock when fitted will be provided to the Fire Service.

9) Many owners have asked us to confirm who has not paid a service charge to "name and shame" as one owner put it. It is not

our current intention to do so but this could form part of the audited accounts.

10) Owners and residents will need to park on the side streets and Grant Thornton will not assume any responsibility for their

vehicles.

11) We understand that there may be a sewage blockage on the site but at present no funds are available to investigate further.

I trust that this assists further and would like to remind owners/residents to ensure that vehicles have left the site by 9am

tomorrow.

I am out of the office until Wednesday morning and will deal with any further queries then.

Ian West

The Art of Living

T 02380 457864

F 02380 457962


This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. The content and views expressed are those of the sender and not necessarily The Art

of Living. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy or use any part of it. The Art of Living (Hamble) Ltd trading as The Art of Living. Registered in

England and Wales, No. 05563305. Registered Office: Hamble Court Business Park, Hamble Lane, Hamble SO31 4QJ



Appendix 2f - Minutes of Residents Meeting held on 31st January 2010, send on 18th February 2011

Dear All,

Please find attached the minutes for the Owners Meeting held on 31st January 2010. Please accept my

apologies for the delay in sending these out to you as my return to work was delayed for personal reasons.

You will note in the minutes that there is a reference to the RSB Forum and we are pleased to advise that

we have been able to set this up again. Unfortunately, we are unable to retrieve previous posts due to the

fact that the hosting company removed the site and content as their invoice had not been paid. To protect

the security of the forum, you will be required to register via ourselves for a username and password. To

facilitate this, please send an email with your name, property address on site and current contact details to

[email protected]

We have sent out reminder letters following the meeting and are pleased to advise that a substantial

amount of owners have made payments. However, we will now be instigating legal proceedings against

non payers with immediate effect.

As a result of further payments, we are able to clear the debt with Octopus Multi Systems until Dec

2009. They have agreed that they will attend site on receipt of funds. Due to the fact that we intend to

renegotiate or terminate the contract, we will send payment to the Administrators for it to be passed to

Octopus.

We have also requested that the car park smoke vent detector is repaired and will be looking to open it as

soon as the gates are repaired. However, due to the fact that some residents forced the gates open, we

cannot confirm that they will be operative until they have been inspected. In the event that they have been

damaged, we will need to ascertain the repair costs and whether we have sufficient funds before they can

be used.

As you will be aware, it was discussed at the meeting that another Leaseholders Association may be set

up. Whilst we fully support and encourage this action, we must insist that the process is carried out

legitimately and with the agreement of all owners. Grant Thornton and ourselves spent a substantial

amount of time with the previously formed Association and did not make much progress.

I am also pleased to advise that HSE have confirmed that flats can have the gas reconnected on an

individual basis and accordingly, Premier will contact leaseholders in due course to advise of the

timescales for each unit.




Residents Meeting – Royal Sea Bathing Hospital

31st January 2010

Ian West Art of Living IW

Cllr Sandy Ezekiel Thanet District Council SE

Cllr Mick Tomlinson Ward Councillor MT

Amanda Hathaway AH

Susan Tazey ST

Apologies: Roger Gale MP

1)Welcome

IW welcomed everybody to the residents meeting and gave apologies for Roger Gale MP who was unable

to attend due to a prior engagement. SE & MT explained that they were only able to attend for part of the

meeting also due to prior commitments.

IW also requested that residents who wanted to ask questions raise their hand and state name before

asking a question and that although happy to answer all questions, if residents could ask them at the end of

the meeting.

Eddie Wiseman expressed his concern of lack of Agenda etc before the residents meeting. IW advised that

he was waiting for outstanding information and had advised that this had been conveyed in an email.

Further, IW advised that any items that were not on the agenda could be covered at the end of the meeting.

Mr Wade Barker requested an explanation of the connection between The Art of Living and White Door

Asset Management. IW advised that White Door Asset Management is a wholly owned subsidiary of The

Art of Living and deals with all of its Block Management.


2) Site Update

IW informed the leaseholders that the sale of RSBH is now moving forward and confirmed that the

prospective purchaser is not Jane DeBliek and that there is a lockout agreement in place. IW advised that

one of the delays in the purchase was related to a complication with regards to an overage on the site in

relation to the Secretary of State for Health. IW thanked Roger Gale MP for raising the issue with the

Secretary of State in relation to this and confirmed that it is currently in the process of being resolved.

Completion of the purchase of RSBH is due to take place approx end of June/July2010. There will be a 60

day notice period served on residents in March but this is yet unconfirmed.

IW also confirmed that the new owner will not be taking responsibility for the on-going issues on the site

such as gas pipes, car park and defects.

3) TDC Questions

IW introduced the two representatives from the Council and invited questions to be put to them. (C

Bosworth) expressed her concerns and disgust at the fact that her sewage pipes were not connected to the

main sewage pipe and that there is a hole outside the front door which is covered with a board. She

contacted Environmental Health last June 2009 and as of yet has had no action. Residents expressed their

concerns that there may be sewage leaking into the ground on the development. Mr Eddie Wiseman asked

if Building Control at Thanet District Council would take responsibility for this as the sewers were meant to

be tested by Building Control on completion of the works. SE stated that as he was not able to directly

answer technical issues and felt that the residents should form a small body (forum) to represent RSBH

and put all of their questions together. SE was happy to meet with this forum to answer any questions after

seeking responses from officers that understand the technical issues. Mr Wade Barker voiced that he was

happy to co-ordinate this group. IW advised that DynoRod had attended site and advised that there may be

a problem with the fall of the main drains and that this matter was being raised with Premier.

Bob Pett, asked SE to confirm what responsibilities TDC had as Building Control were responsible for the

signing off of the underground car park, gas pipes and fire alarms. SE confirmed that he would answer

these questions when he had spoken to his officers. He also confirmed that the gas pipes were not the

responsibility of TDC.

Cllr Mick Tomlison informed residents that as Ward Councillor he has been aware of problems on the

development and that he is happy to take emails ([email protected]) regarding issues that

residents would like to raise.

4) Dog and Duck and Nurses Home

IW explained to the residents that the Dog & Duck Pub has been repossessed by the Mortgage Company,

Allied Irish Bank, from the previous owner, JED Investments of which Jane De Bliek was a director. The

Nurses Home is currently owned by Beachbelle Developments and the land query is on-going but will not

affect the sale of RSBH. IW confirmed that an application had been submitted to TDC to link the Nurses


Home and the new East Wing site but that this had not been processed as the application fee had not been

paid.

IW explained the different functions between Paigle (Margate) Ltd In Administration & Paigle Properties Ltd

In Administration. PPL is the freeholder and PML was the developer.

5) Premier

Premier Guarantee – IW informed residents that there were currently outstanding claim forms and that

these would need to be filled in as soon as possible. The properties with outstanding forms are: Alexandra

Wing:- 30, 4, 26, 6, 12 & 37

Victoria Wing:- 29, 11, 19, 22, 25, 27.

IW also confirmed the following points:

Premier will only take responsibility for the physical gas pipework from the meters to the individual flats.

Premier will NOT be covering any costs of making good after removal of hot water tanks etc. IW has

negotiated with Premier that they are going to ensure that the boilers are all working correctly after works to

the gas pipework has been completed. IW also negotiated new gas hobs for residents to be covered in the

costs, as it would not be practical to re-fit the new gas hobs that were removed and stored in the Paigle

Office.

6) Harpers

IW confirmed to the residents that G A Harper had now commenced works at RSBH. These works include

the re-fitting of gas pipes to properties in both Alexandra Wing & Victoria Wing and also the works required

on the four Lower Ground Victoria flats. Works will be completed on a flat by flat basis. IW advised that the

Forum would be set up again due to assist with communication. Updates on the works will be posted on the

RSBH forum and IW will co-ordinate communications to residents of any works that will cause disruption to

the communal areas. Meetings with Nick Dermot from TDC are to be confirmed but hoping this to be in mid

March. AH will be attending site meetings on site once a week so she will give an update via the forum. A

brief timeline of works was read out to the residents by IW as follows:

Works commenced on 2,3,4 & 6 Victoria Wing on 25th January

flats, 7,10,11,22,24,25,26,28,32,44 TBC


Dates for Gas Works: (these dates are approximate and used as guidelines)

15th Feb/ Preparatory Works

15th Mar/Design Works

29th Mar/Trench works

26th Apr/Trenches & external pipework

10th May/ external & internal pipework

7th Jun/ internal pipework in flats

27th Jul/ commissioning & installation

IW advised that Premier and the contractor will be seeking confirmation from the Health and Safety

Executive that the flats can be reconnected on an individual basis and not all at once.

7)Car Park/Fire Alarm & Pump Room

IW explained that Premier had advised that the underground car park was NOT covered in the Premier

Policy. IW queried this at the meeting with Premier’s representative as the policy document in AOL’ s

possession showed that cover existed. Premier advised that this was dependent on the version of the

policy document as v2 policy documents state that basement areas are not covered, but that v4 Policy

document now includes them. IW requested that residents should check their policy documents to see

what version they have been issued with, but that this is on-going and that IW is negotiating with Premier

Guarantee regarding the works that are required for communal areas including the car park. IW advised

that he had requested written confirmation from Premier confirming which version covered the site and

when the various versions were published.

Premier are currently refusing to take responsibility for the Pump House located on the Dog & Duck land as

it is not located on Paigle Properties Land but that this matter is on-going. IW confirmed that it appeared

that the Pump House was erected on the land when it was owned by Paigle Properties but that it had then

been sold to JED Investments.

IW informed residents that although Grant Thornton had paid for immediate & emergency works to be

carried out on the water pumps in the pump house, there are still outstanding works to be carried out:-

chlorination of the water tank and the pumps are required to be serviced. As the majority of residents are

not paying their service charges, works on the pump house are unable to move forward unless costs are

met via the service charge.


8) Fire Alarm

IW informed residents that Fire Panels & equipment were not installed to the specification required by

Building Regulations. IW explained that upon taking over from the previous management company, James

Andrew, a full fire safety inspection of equipment etc was instructed. It was reported that the system was

not to specification and that there were various outstanding issues and defects. IW confirmed that unless

these works are carried out that Kent Fire Brigade could issue a Prohibition Notice to the freeholder and the

development could be closed and residents need to be re-housed if not rectified urgently. The following

defects were found and recorded:

a) The final certificates were found to be unsigned therefore not meeting the legal requirements.

b) It was found upon inspection some fire panel boxes were empty so could not function.

c) It was originally intended for the gatehouse building to house the master panel so that the Fire

Brigade could ascertain where the fire was on arrival at the site but this did not take place.

d) Further failures include that fact that no fire alarm sounders were found in Victoria Wing only

detectors (flats 7-16). Flats 18 to 28 should also be covered as there are communal staircases. It was also

found that the three fire panels in Alexandra Wing were not interlinked as originally stated in the

specification. One of the fire panels in Alexandra Wing was found to have just the fire alarm box with no

internal wires, although this has rectified further works will need to be carried out. Residents were

extremely concerned that there safety had been put at risk.

IW has met with Kent Fire Brigade on site and is continuing to work with the fire service to rectify the

situation for the site to be safe and meet the requirements needed. In order to mitigate any losses, White

Door Asset Management were instructed by Paigle Properties Ltd to arrange for the installation of fire

extinguishers and for some initial repairs to be carried out to the system. Further, Paigle Properties Ltd

instructed that the systems in place were to be maintained under a service agreement. Premier have been

advised that it is felt that the matter needs attention under the communal area cover.

9) Octopus/Gates

IW informed residents that the gates to RSBH were locked due to defective sensors and NOT by way of

punishment to residents for not paying the service charges as suggested by one leaseholder. Grant

Thornton instructed AOL that the gates were shut for security and safety reasons. The obstruction sensors

were not working correctly and were opening and closing the gates at random intervals.

During a recent inspection, the smoke vent system in the car park had a defective CO2 detector.

Emergency services were contacted and it was agreed that the car park would have to be closed. A new

detector would cost approximately £700 and would be installed when service charge funds permit.


The cost of the rental agreement service to the development is in excess of £77000.00 pa when the site is

complete and a decision will need to be made whether it is viable for the rental to continue or whether an

agreement could be reached for the purchase of this equipment. IW felt that any contracts in place prior to

administration period could be re-negotiated before the period of administration is terminated. IW also

explained that Octopus also own the satellite equipment which was originally installed on the roof of the

Dog & Duck. Due to residents losing their sky and television service, and Octopus refusing to come to site,

IW instructed an engineer to look at alternative locations to relocate the dish. The dish and terrestrial

aerials are now located on the roof of the Pump House, The system has failed again the engineer is due to

attend site to resolve it soon. Only some residents are currently receiving a television signal. However, IW

confirmed that as the equipment is owned by Octopus, there are only certain items that can be looked at or

repaired. Permanent relocation of the dish is currently being investigated for when the development is

complete and will be discussed with the new purchaser. IW advised that until the matter was finalised that

Octopus would be paid on a monthly basis so that equipment would still be maintained.

10) and 11) Service Charges to 30th June 2009 and to date

IW advised that of the 53 Flats in Alexandra, 18 are unsold and 35 have completed. In the period to 30th

June 2009, only 8 owners had paid in full with a further 25 making a contribution. For the period to date, 9

owners have paid in full and 27 have made a contribution.

Of the 39 flats in Victoria, 20 are unsold and 19 have completed. In the period to 30th June 2009, 6 had

paid in full and 9 had made a part payment. For the period to date, 5 owners have paid in full and 9 owners

have made a part payment.

Due to the lack of funds, IW advised that it had not been possible to provide audited accounts for the period

to 30th June 2009 but that Section 20 (b) notice had been served. As some funds had come through from

a repossession, the accounts were to be submitted for auditing and would be provided to owners in due

course on completion. IW advised that the previous managing agents had not provided a cost breakdown

when their services were terminated As a result, it was agreed with Paigle and subsequently Grant

Thornton that the first service charge period with White Door Asset Management would run from April 2008

to 30th June 2009. During this period, invoices of £136,444.29 were received against service charge

receipts of £94,294.59 leaving a deficit of £42,149.70. Approximately £55,000 is outstanding from

leaseholders from 2007 to 30th June 2009. For the period from 1st July 2009 to date, approximately

£29,000 has been received from leaseholders against an expected income of approximately £66,000. IW

confirmed that Grant Thornton had paid in excess of £40,000 in Service Charge contributions but that this

had stopped as the majority of owners were failing to contribute. As the freeholder had been placed in

administration, any funds provided were at the discretion of the Administrator. IW advised that legal action

against those who had not paid in full would be suspended for a period of 14 days after the meeting and

reminders would be sent out. After this time, legal action would be commenced and mortgagees contacted

if necessary.


12) Owners Questions

IW advised that whilst the caretaker was no longer on site, he had been part of the budget when it was

prepared in May 2009 and the service charge had been invoiced accordingly.

IW advised that it was not possible to revise the budget until the 2010-2011 year as the second service

charge demand had been sent out and paid by some leaseholders. Due to the fact that services had not

been provided as per the budget, any credits would either be applied to a leaseholder’s account for future

demands, a refund would be issued or monies held for unanticipated expenditure. Any decision would be

made after consulting with leaseholders.

IW advised that the work to the Pump House would take place as soon as funds permitted and felt that this

was reasonably urgent as it involved chlorination of the water supply.

IW advised that if a new managing agent was appointed by the new owner that any sums held by White

Door would be passed over and any expenditure accounted for. IW also confirmed that all funds are held

by White Door Asset Management in a separate client account and are not used by the Administrators.

IW advised that Paigle Properties is in administration and could not confirm when it would be liquidated.

However, the company has debts of £41 million and we have been advised that it is very unlikely that any

creditors will be paid. IW confirmed that potential litigation against previous contractors may take place but

this has yet to be confirmed by the Administrators.

IW confirmed that he would be happy to work with a newly formed Owners Association when dealing with

Premier and other site issues and would ascertain if they could attend meetings. However, IW advised that

the association must be set up correctly and with the consent of all owners.

IW confirmed that Grant Thornton had suspended payment of the Service Charge Contributions on behalf

of Paigle for 38 of the 92 flats and would not resume this until approximately 80-85% of leaseholders had

made payments up to date. IW had been advised that the payments were purely as a gesture of goodwill

and were made by Grant Thornton has Paigle did not have funds available. IW advised that he could not

comment on the suggestion that the Administrators were not allowed to withhold payment and that they

should try and obtain a bank loan. IW confirmed that in the event that leaseholders paid up outstanding

Service Charge, Grant Thornton would make their contributions by offsetting what was owed back to them

in insurance payments and rent for the caretakers flat.

IW confirmed that all keys previously held by the caretaker are now in the Paigle office in a locked key

cabinet. Any owners wishing to collect them should liaise with IW directly.


IW confirmed that Service Charge payments can be made on a monthly basis and that any owner wishing

to do this should contact WDAM Accounts on 02380 455211 to arrange for this to be set up.

IW confirmed that it was not possible to provide any replacement fobs for the gates or doors as the PC

required for this work was being retained by Octopus until their outstanding invoices had been settled. As

soon as the PC has been returned, additional fobs can be programmed.

IW confirmed the intention to provide 24 hour security for the whole development when completed. At

present it is not felt viable to provide it as the cost is too prohibitive to pass on to the 92 flats.


Appendix 2g - Open mail to Residents – March 2010

Site Update 15th March 2010

Please note that this has also been posted on the Royal Sea Bathing Forum. If you have not yet registered and

require access, please email [email protected] and a username and password will be sent to you.

Service Charge Whilst more owners have paid, there are still some that have not paid. Following a meeting with Grant Thornton on

March 2nd, solicitors have now been instructed to pursue the outstanding debt. All legal costs will be passed to those

owners who have failed to pay. However, we still do not have enough owners paying for Grant Thornton to resume

their contributions and accordingly we strongly urge the non payers to make payments as soon as possible for their

own benefit and for the site as a whole.

Service Charge Accounts These are now being audited for the period April 2008 to June 2009 inclusive and will be released in the next few

weeks. However, they are very close to those submitted in the Section 20 notice in December 2009.

Octopus Now that further owners have paid their Service Charge, we have been able to pay the outstanding amounts to

December 2009. The funds have been sent to Grant Thornton for onward transmission to Octopus. It has been

done in this manner so that we still have the option to terminate the contract at the end of the Administration

period. As a result of this, they have agreed to attend site on receipt of payment to return the PC which will allow us

to programme fobs. They will also look at the Sky problems and defective gates but we cannot confirm if they will

work immediately due to the fact that they were damaged by residents forcing them open. We hope that they will

be on site by the middle of next week.

Car Park Smoke Alarm This is to be fixed on March 17th and the Car Park will then be reopened.

Fire Alarm & Emergency Lighting A meeting was held with Kent Fire and Rescue and Building Control from Thanet District Council, along with our Fire

Alarm and Electrical Installation Contractor on 10th March 2010. We have raised some questions with Building

Control in relation to the possibility of the building being signed off incorrectly and are waiting for a response. As

the information requested from Grant Thornton has not yet been released, an independent report has been carried

out and will be provided to us in due course. Our Contractor will submit a proposal to Building Control for remedial

works to both installations and once this has been agreed, we will then look at the options regarding the cost

implications, how the work will be carried out and whether we should look further at any legal action against any

parties.



Electrical Installation We have had electrical contractors on site over the last few days looking at the communal installation. Whilst there

are some issues, the intention was to establish what is powered from where and we hope to have achieved this. A

full report on the installation is currently being prepared but we have now managed to get the majority of the

external lights to work.

Concierge In anticipation of continued support from owners, we have reinstated a concierge from 8am to 12pm 5 days a week.

This service will either be increased or removed according to available funds. As we still do not have full funds

available, we are unable to reinstate the gardening and internal cleaning by other contractors. However, where time

permits, this will be carried out by the concierge as much as possible. Obviously as soon as further funds allow,

other services will be reinstated.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions in relation to the above.

Ian West

The Art of Living

T 02380 457864

F 02380 457962


This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. The content and views expressed are those of the sender and not necessarily The Art of Living. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy or use any part of it. The Art of Living (Hamble) Ltd trading as The Art of Living. Registered in

England and Wales, No. 05563305. Registered Office: Hamble Court Business Park, Hamble Lane, Hamble SO31 4QJ



Appendix 2h - Open mail to Residents – June 2010

From: Ian West [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 02 June 2010 15:30

Subject: Royal Sea Bathing Site Update 2nd June 2010

Site Update 2nd June 2010

Service Charge

Please find attached the service charge accounts for the period March 2008 to 30th June 2009. As you will see there

was a deficit on the account of £53,872. However, Service Charge Payments for this period were outstanding from

individual owners totalling £57,000 and from Paigle totalling £19,000. We are pleased to advise that the total

outstanding from owners has now been reduced to £29,000. Grant Thornton have confirmed that it is their current

intention to pay the Paigle contribution on completion of a sale of the site as they do not currently have funds to do

otherwise.

We are pleased to advise that the majority of owners are now paying and that we currently have 12 non payers who

have legal action pending including some repossessions. We would like to express our thanks to those owners who

have taken a positive step towards making payments which has allowed us to progress a substantial amount of work

to the site, although with the non payers and Paigle amounts outstanding, we are not able to provide as full a service

as we would like. We would therefore urge those owners in the minority to take steps to make immediate payment

to avoid incurring legal costs.

We will shortly be issuing demands for the period 1st July 2010 to 30th June 2011 and accounts for the period ending

30th June 2010 will be available by the 31st December 2010.

Site Sale

We have been advised that the due diligence on the site sale is nearing completion and that it is currently

anticipated to be concluded by the end of the Summer. There has been a substantial delay involving a legal issue

relating to the site which has now been resolved but took over 12 months to deal with.

Premier Guarantee

We have had several meetings with Premier Guarantee and their Sub Contractors- GA Harpers. The work to the gas

has been delayed due to issues with the main drainage pipe running under the gas pipes which is defective. Premier

have instructed Harpers to carry out rectification work which is currently taking place and should resolve the issue of

blocked pipes. We have been advised that the fall on the drainage run was not sufficient enough and has therefore

caused blockages. Once this pipe has been repaired, they can then lay the gas pipework on top.



Gas Work

I have enclosed an extract from the latest email from Steve Robinson below:

Gas boilers and the gas hobs. We will pay for the removal of the electric boilers and hobs and the

reinstatement of the original gas boilers and hobs. I will consider reasonable redecoration costs for the

specific areas were the boilers have been removed. Obviously, we will only reinstate those units we are on

cover for.

When we first met, we were advised that Premier would only reconnect the boilers and that consequential damage

and costs were not covered. We are pleased to advise that we have battled with them on this matter and they have

agreed to reinstate the gas hobs and remove the water heaters at their cost. Please note that Harpers or PBA

Consulting will be contacting individual owners to arrange the timelines for the gas work and any queries should be

directed to either them or Premier.

Car Park

We are still in discussions with Premier about cover for the car park water ingress problems. We have been advised

that any structure below ground is not covered but we have disputed this and are waiting for their response. It has

been agreed that trial drainage holes will be dug and these results analysed before we take the matter further.

Fraud Consultants (UK) Ltd

You may be aware that a company has been approached by some owners and is looking at the possibility of taking

action for compensation against some other parties, in particular Thanet District Council, in relation to the defects.

Some owners have been emailed regarding this but to assist with the matter, we have posted a topic on the owners

forum www.rsbforum.com. We would therefore encourage those owners who have not requested a password to

apply via email to: [email protected]. Darren Jones, a director of the company has been given access to the forum

to answer any queries. We would like to advise that we have not appointed this company and are simply passing on

information. Our view is that whilst we support the initial work to collate information and carry out surveys, Premier

should also continue to be pursued as much as possible for rectification of all defects and that claims against other

parties should be run alongside and not instead of this. It may be that we will need to instruct solicitors to obtain

Counsel’s opinion if Premier refuse to rectify problems in areas that we feel should be covered.

Site Update

Caretaker

We are hopeful that we can reinstate this as a full time position if payments continue to be made and the sale

concludes promptly.

http://www.rsbforum.com/



Electrics

We have had a full visual inspection carried out of the communal supplies and as expected, these all

failed. However, we now have a complete understanding of the electrical supplies which will allow us to deal with

issues promptly. The company has carried out the majority of the remedial work and will shortly be attending site to

carry out the remainder of the work. We hope to get payment for some of this work from Premier.

Grounds

We have carried out some work to tidy up the front of the site over the last week and will continue with this when

the extent of the drainage works has been clarified and carried out.

Cleaning

The communal area cleaning will start again by the middle of the month.

Fire Alarm

We have met several times with Building Control and Kent Fire and Rescue with regards to the fire alarm. Building

Control have confirmed that they are happy with the installations in Victoria Wing but that Alexandra Wing is not

satisfactory. The panels should be linked so that the whole building is evacuated in the event of an emergency. We

have requested quotes for the remedial work which will involve the replacement of the three fire panels and it has

been proposed that the smoke detectors at the entrance of each property are replaced with heat detectors to

reduce false alarms. We will provide information with regards to these defects to Darren Jones for his team to

ascertain whether further action can be taken against TDC for non compliance of the system. We will also pursue

Premier.

Insurance

As discussed at the owners meeting, we feel that the insurance premium is very high. However, under the terms of

the Administration, we are obliged to use Grant Thornton’s insurers. We have had surveys carried out and are

waiting for revised quotes which we will pass to the new purchaser for consideration when they complete. We

anticipate that this will reduce costs.

Octopus

We have paid the rental up to 31st December 2009 and it has been agreed that we will use the period prior to the

end of Administration to ascertain whether we can improve on the costs of the rental. We understand that a

substantial amount of owners are experiencing problems with the entry phone system. Please could you advise us if

you have problems as we will arrange for Octopus to attend site. We are also now able to provide vehicle and

pedestrian fobs. Please contact [email protected] or call 02380 457920 if you require any.



Water Pumps

Work is ongoing to the site water supply. Engineers are due back on June 15th to finish work and we anticipate that

all the pumps will be working at this point and the chlorination will be complete. A leak has been discovered on the

site which should also be repaired on the 15th. Please note that there may be some disruption to the water supply

on this day.

Southern Water and EDF/EON

We have been asked by Grant Thornton to look into the water supply invoicing on the site. As a result, individual

invoices will be issued shortly backdated to 15th July 2008 when the meters were last read. Now that we have also

ascertained the location of all electricity meters for the communal areas, we have been able to obtain serial

numbers and are contacting the various electricity suppliers for up to date bills. Please note therefore that you will

see a large electricity bill on the Service Charge account for this year which will go back to the 15th July 2008. When

we have ascertained the suppliers, we will look to move to one supplier on a fixed price contract as soon as possible.

Car Parking

Further to previous emails, please ensure that you do not park your car on the inner part of the main circle as this

blocks emergency access. Currently, we are happy to permit parking on the outer area but will take steps against

persistent offenders. Further, please ensure that no commercial vehicles of any description are allowed to park on

the site as it is against the terms of the lease. If you let your property, please ensure that you advise your tenants

and managing agents.

Best wishes

Ian West

Director

The Art of Living, Hamble

Residential Sales, Lettings, Block & Property Management

6 Coronation Parade, Hamble, Southampton SO31 4JT

t. 023 8045 7864 | f. 023 8045 7962 | Skype: aolhamble




Appendix 2i - Open mail to Residents – July 2010

Site update 12th

July 2010

Service Charge

Please accept our apologies for the delay in submitting Service Charge requests for the period from 1st July

2010 to 30th

June 2011, these will be issued over the next few days. We had been delaying the requests as

we were hopeful of a completion date for the site which would have had beneficial implications for the costs

that are being incurred such as insurance. Although we have not been able to confirm a date, we have

decided to run the Service Charge amounts at the same level as the year to 30th

June 2010. We will then

review the budget for the second half of the year to confirm the position. Due to the current economic

climate, we are trying to ensure that costs are kept as low as possible.

As advised in the last update, we are trying to contact the various utility suppliers, in particular, with regards

to the Landlord’s supplies on the electricity meters. The car park and pump house make up the majority of

the site consumption at approximately £1750 per calendar month between them. We have instructed our

Electrical contractor to change the lighting in the car park with details below.

Unfortunately, we are still experiencing difficulties collecting payments from the few leaseholders that have

outstanding accounts. Lester Aldridge LLP Solicitors are now dealing with these people directly and we

hope that we will receive the funds in due course. All costs for this will be added to the individual

leaseholder’s account.

We have fast tracked the accounts for the period to 30th

June 2010 and hope to have them available by the

end of August for distribution so that leaseholders can be updated promptly.

Buildings Insurance

We are unable to change insurers until the sale completes, as previously advised. Further, we will not be

able to change providers until the electrics and fire alarms have been repaired and certificated. Please note

that we have been informed that those leaseholders who have not paid their Service Charge are NOT

covered under the Block Policy in the event of any claim.

Premier Insurance

As you may be aware, work is continuing to the drainage and gas surveys are being carried out in individual

flats. The contractors have given us a provisional date of October 2010 for completion of these works but

this is subject to further confirmation and can only be used as a guide. We are very disappointed to advise

that we have lodged a formal complaint with the way in which the matter is being handled by Premier. We

have had no response to our requests in relation to the car park and numerous problems with the communal


areas. Further, we have asked detailed questions in relation to the two year delay with regards to the gas

works and have not had any replies. Premier have a certain amount of time to respond to our complaint and

then the matter can be referred to the FSA. We are hopeful that the matter will be resolved but would like to

reiterate that we do not intend spending service charge funds unless all other avenues have been explored. A

copy of the complaint will be provided in due course.

Sale

We have been updated that there are a few minor legal issues to resolve and that completion currently still

looks hopeful for October 2010.

Owners Committee

Following the recent email that was forwarded in relation to the civil action against TDC, we have had

several calls from concerned leaseholders. We would like to confirm that we have no knowledge of the

Owners Committee actually being formed and have not had any dialogue with them. We have requested this

but to date have not had a response. We are therefore unable to advise how it has been formed and by whom

or confirm its legitimacy. We are aware that this was discussed at the leaseholders meeting several months

ago. As previously discussed, we feel that it would be appropriate for everyone to be working together on

resolving matters rather than several different approaches. We will update if we hear anything further. We

do note however, that no dialogue has been started on the Owners Forum on this matter.

Electrics

We have authorised the work to be carried out to the emergency lighting and the remaining remedial work to

the communal areas and this will be completed before the end of the month.

We have provisionally scheduled the works to repair the fire alarms in Victoria and Alexandra to take place

at the end of August but this is subject to us having sufficient service charge funds due to the cost

implications. Due to the number of false alarms, it has been proposed to change the smoke detectors in

Alexandra Wing properties to heat detectors which are less likely to produce a false alarm. We will be

contacting leaseholders to arrange access for this work to be carried out in the individual properties in due

course. Following a further meeting with Building Control it has been confirmed that the units in the

individual flats in Victoria Wing require additional sounders so that the alarm can be heard. So that major

building works are not required, a new fire panel will be needed that can send dual communication to each

point so that a dual sounder/detector can be installed in each flat.

Subject to a site survey, we have also asked the contractor to look at the feasibility of the outer rows of lights

in the car park above the spaces on each level coming on with a sensor. The middle row of lights will

remain permanently lit. This should hopefully bring down the cost of the electricity consumption on the site

as having in excess of 100 underground lights on 24 hours a day is expensive.


Cleaning

The internal communal areas will have a deep clean at the end of this week, with regular cleaning re

commencing afterwards. We will also look to clean carpets where required in due course.

Water Pumps

We are pleased to advise that works to the Pumps in the Pump House and car park are now complete and

that the tanks have been fully chlorinated. All pumps are now on a Service Agreement.

Caretaker

This position has now been reinstated from 8-4 and 9-11:30 at weekends. However, due to funding issues,

the caretaker will also be gardening in the short term. The savings on the flat rental and Security not being

currently provided will be used to meet other costs such as the fire alarm work.

Octopus Multi Systems

Following our previous update, Octopus have attended site to look at various units in relation to the Video

Entryphone system and ongoing Sky problems. Please advise if you have issues with either of these so that

they can reattend. We are still waiting for their revised proposals in relation to the ongoing rental of the

equipment.

Best wishes

Ian West

Director








Appendix 2j - Open mail to Residents – December 2010

RSB Site Update 6th December 2010

Site Sale

BLP, the solicitors acting for Paigle Properties have issued pre-emptive Landlord and Tenant Act Notices to

all leaseholders. This is to advise you that they intend disposing of the freehold which is part of the general

sale process. Unfortunately, we are unable to give any legal advice with regards to these notices and

would suggest that you refer any queries to a solicitor.

As a result of the notices being served, we have been advised that completion of the sale is anticipated to

take place by the end of February 2011 subject to final completion of the legal due diligence process. Due

to the many issues with the site, the legal work has taken significantly longer than previously expected.

Insurance Update

We are pleased to advise that we have had several productive meetings with Liberty Insurance who are the

Insurance Syndicate behind Premier. As previously advised, we lodged a formal complaint and as a result

have been able to bypass Premier on a number of issues. We have managed to negotiate a payment of

almost £20,000 to cover the majority of the works that we have arranged for the communal areas as

detailed below. We will continue to deal directly with the syndicate on the outstanding communal works

and push for further contributions. However, as a number of flats did not have insurance on them, as they

remain unsold and unfinished, the service charge budget will need to make up any shortfall in

payments. This is because the contribution from each property in relation to the communal areas is

covered by a specific clause of each individual policy. We will shortly be uploading all of the

correspondence online but in addition, a file will be left in the Caretakers office with immediate effect for

owners to inspect if required.

Fire Alarm

We have arranged for all the fire panels to be replaced in both blocks and the system is now working.

The properties covered in Victoria Wing (flats 7-16) have had the detectors replaced with a dual

detector/sounder so that an alarm can now be heard in the individual properties. The panels in Alexandra

Wing are now interlinked so will sound throughout the whole building in the event of an activation. A

master panel has been installed at the entrance of Alexandra which will provide the Fire Brigade with

detailed information about where the emergency is located. As part of the works, the engineers require

access to all properties that have smoke detectors in them as part of the system. Please ensure that you

advise your tenants of this and ensure that access is provided. A component needs to be added to each

detector which provides a constant monitoring of the wiring in each property. Unless your property has

been accessed, your wiring will NOT be monitored and accordingly it is in your interest to ensure that

access is provided as soon as possible. We have been advised that, until all of the properties have been


accessed, the fire panels will show a fault indication. However, it has been confirmed that the detectors will

still work in all properties. We would also like to advise all owners to ensure that they, and their tenants,

vacate the buildings in the event that the alarm goes off.

Electrics

Substantial remedial work has been carried out to the communal electric supplies throughout the site and a

large proportion of the cost has been refunded back from Liberty. Electrical work is outstanding to one

stairwell to the car park and a communal area of Victoria Wing. We are still trying to locate the suppliers for

the last communal meter so that we get a better understanding of the outstanding debts.

Gas Work

We have been advised that progress has been made with a number of flats on the development particularly

in Victoria Wing. Due to the layout of Alexandra Court, the gas runs for some of the properties need to

pass through an occupied flat. We have been advised that the agreement between the respective owner

and the insurance company is nearly in place and accordingly we hope that work will progress. Harpers

will provide us with a timeframe and programme of works which we can then pass to the owners.

Car Park

There is some work outstanding to the car park stairwell adjacent to Alexandra Court and as such we would

ask all users to access the car park by the stairwell closest to the main road until this has been carried

out. We are still carrying out investigative work to the car park slope heat mat as this is still not

functioning. Accordingly, with the onset of bad weather, there may be occasions when the car park has to

be closed for safety reasons.

Octopus Multi Systems-Gates, TV and Entry Phone

Octopus have attended site recently and carried out further remedial work to the installation. However, if

you or your tenants still have issues, please contact them directly to arrange an appointment and not our

offices as we do not have details of their diary movements. The details are listed below. If you are unhappy

with the service provided or are experiencing difficulties with them, please contact us and we will attempt to

resolve the matter. We would like to remind owners that there are ongoing problems with the terrestrial TV

aerial which will affect Freeview boxes. There is nothing that Octopus can do to rectify this at the moment

as the aerial needs to be sited on a much higher pole. This will need to be looked at when the development

progresses.

The exit gate has been out of action for a period of time whilst one of the brick piers was rebuilt as it had

been constructed badly. Following our request, additional safety sensors have also been installed dealing

with each gate individually.

Najwa Filali- Helpdesk Co-ordinator


01753 541100

[email protected]

Residents Action Group

To date we have had no communication with the Action Group and accordingly are unable to comment or

advise on any progress that has been made with taking action against others. We would like to reiterate

that we would be more than happy to work with any owners that are keen to assist with moving the site

forward and look forward to starting a dialogue.

Service Charge & Accounts

Please find attached a copy of the accounts for the period ending 30th June 2010. Whilst there is still a large

deficit on an annual basis, the majority of this, £57,193.69 per annum is owed by Paigle Properties

Ltd. However, as Grant Thornton have paid for the Buildings Insurance to date, we have been able to

offset a substantial amount of this in lieu of making a payment to them.

Legal action is ongoing against those owners who have failed to make payment although we are pleased to

advise that the majority of owners in arrears have made arrangements to clear their payments. We would

also like to confirm that all costs incurred in pursuing the debtors will be met by the individuals concerned

and will not come from the Service Charge.

We have obtained several quotes for insurance and will be presenting these to the new developer on

completion and hope that they will be adopted. These represent substantial savings on the current premium

but due to the administration process, we are unable to issue instructions in this regard.

Water Supply & Bills

Unfortunately, despite locating and repairing several substantial leaks to the water supply, there is still an

undetected leak. We have been working with Southern Water’s contractors, at their expense on this

matter, but have now been advised that we will need to appoint specialist contractors and are in the

process of arranging this. This has delayed the processing of the water invoices but these will be issued

shortly.

Security

Due to the length of time that has been spent progressing the sale, Grant Thornton have been forced to

look at reducing costs on the Building site. As we have previously advised, Security Patrols have been

provided on the main development free of charge but this has now had to be reconsidered by Grant

Thornton. We have agreed to make a contribution of approximately £1500 plus VAT per calendar month

which will still provide the main site with regular patrols throughout the night seven days a week. As

previously advised, we will look at the possibility of reinstating a guard in the gate house as the site

develops further.



Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions on the above or in relation to the site.

Ian West

Director






This message (including any attachments) is confidential and may be legally privileged. The content and views expressed are those of the sender

and not necessarily The Art of Living. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not disclose, copy or use any part of it. Please delete all copies

immediately and notify the sender. No person in the employment of The Art of Living has any authority to make or give representation or warranty

whatever in relation to any property marketed by The Art of Living. All offers are subject to contract. Calls may be recorded for training and

monitoring purposes. The Art of Living (Hamble) Ltd trading as The Art of Living. Registered in England and Wales, No. 05563305. Registered

Office: Hamble Court Business Park, Hamble Lane, Hamble SO31 4QJ

https://212.159.92.138/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.artofliving-city.com/


Appendix 3


Appendix 4a

The photos copied here are geo tagged with the RSB location and time stamped between 11.54 and 13.26

on the 30th January 2010.

The displays on the panels indicate otherwise.


The following signage was attached beside the panels, giving no date as to when the issue started and

when a resolution will be in place.

The displays on the panels also suggest there is more than one Zone affected.


Appendix 4b – Photos of fire alarm panel taken on Wednesday 2nd February 2011

The photos copied here are geo tagged with the RSB location and time stamped between 11.57 and 12.34

on the 2nd February 2010.


Appendix 5a – Advertised Escape route from 29 Alexandra Court


Appendix 5b – Hall signage.


Appendix 5c – General Decoration


Appendix 5d – Communal Lighting, Gate Signage and Abandoned Vehicles


Appendix 6a

Art of Living Meeting - 12th November 2008 Those present: Joan James Acting Chair Person RSB Owner/Residents Association Sharon Harrison Acting Secretary RSB Owner/Residents Association Ian West Art of Liviing Amanda & Kelly Ann Paigle Ian West from AOL showed an interest in the first meeting of the RSB Owner/Residents Association enquires were made as to how many owner/residents attended and how we managed to contact those which we did. Ian suggested that both AOL & RSB pool their information so when the next meeting is announced we can ensure that all residents/owners attend in order to take things further with the development & AOL. The AOL has set up a forum for all residents which can be helpful, any information which AOL have regarded the site, Grant Thornton or any other matter relatiing to the RSB can be accessed using the forum, it is also an excellent way for residents to post any issues or matters they wish to discuss. If residents would like to use the forum contact Adrian who is able to give passwords. AOL & Ian West are the first point of contact that the residents have Amanda from Paigle explained that Grant Thornton (administrator) had decided that the Paigle offiice were no longer able to take calls and enquiries and that they should be passed directly to AOL to deal with, Amanda made it clear that this was difficult for the Paigle office team as often they wished to help but were not allowed to due to Grant Thornton's decision. Amanda confirmed that whilst Paigle are in administration they are not in the process of being liquidated and Paigle still exists. Ian confirmed that AOL are not responsible for anything that Paigle have done, issues relating to defects of residents flats etc AOL can take enquiies but any internal problems will be dealt with by Grant Thornton. Joan James enquired about the Insurance Policy whose details are posted on the notice board outside the post boxes Ian confirmed that Grant Thornton terminated Paigle's buildiing insurance policy and now Grant Thornton have taken over the insurance policy for the buildiing. It was made clear that the building insurance has nothing to do with the defects residents may have wiithin their properites and that Premier Guarntee should be contacted. AOL take enquiries but Grant Thornton are involved wiith every decision which is made concerning the site Sharon Harriison queried the management fees as they had increased greatly from the previous year and Sharon Harrison also queried the amount each indiviidual flat had to pay due to the flat's square footage which Sharon felt was incorrect for some properties. Ian West confirmed that the previous management company had not billed the properties correctly underestimating costs and leaving a large shortfall, Ian advised that the amount due was correct and had been budgeted correctly. Ian would contact Grant Thornton to request the square footages of each apartment or those resiidents who are queryiing the square footage be remeasured.


Appendix 6b

Art of Living & Grant Thornton 03.12.2008 Present at meeting: Mr R Dorkins Joan James - Acting RSB Owner/Residents Association Chairperson Sharon Harrison - Acting RSB Owner/Residents Association Secretary Mr J Waghone - Acting RSB Owner/Residents Association Mrs B Waghorne Mr Ian West - Art of Living (AOL) Management Company Mr David Thurgood - Grant Thornton (GT) Minutes: Mr Thurgood started the meeting by advising how GT became the insolvency practioner for Paigle Margate and Paigle Properties, once appointed as Administrators for Paigle, GT had a meeting with Generator who were the project managers of the site and reviewed the site itself, the bank requested that GT work closely with Generator which they did. GT's first action was to request further funding from the bank to complete the 1st phase of Victoria & Alexandra Wing the bank agreed funds and DJ Ellis were appointed to complete the 18 remaining units, in September 2008 roughly 40-50 DJ Ellis contractors were on site completing the remaining 18 units. Generator also began to carry out a detailed review of the outstanding issues on the site this included planning, Health and Safety - Generator complied the report and gave it to GT. 2nd Action by GT was to appoint a range of specialist consultants i.e. fire, utility etc to compile reports on a number of issues including the car park, the structure of the concrete for the build on the East Wing, these reports are still not completed. GT advised that the reports when completed would not be made public to the owner/residents but some information would be shared with potential developers. GT plan from the outset was to finish off phase 1 of the development subject to finance, deal with the numerous Health & Safety issues and open negotiations with the planners from Thanet District Council over phase 2&3 of the development and to sell the site with planning permission for phase 2& 3 GT estimated this would all take about 12 - 18 months. On 8.10.2008 the bank went into administration and Ernst & Young were appointed the bank's administrators GT were left with a development and bank that had both gone into administration. GT asked Ernst & Young what the intention was in regards to the site, 4 weeks later Ernst & Young advised GT that no further funding would be provided and therefore the development could not move forward - Ian West from AOL issued a statement to owner/residents through the post confirming this and there is a copy posted on the forum and also the notice boards around the development. In light of Ernst & Young’s decision GT are now left with money owing to them and GT have had no option but to terminate DJ Ellis contract and are only maintaining a minimum level of services which is required by the insurance company. GT must sell site as it is as no developer would receive finances from the bank as this is an unbankable development. Joan James enquired as to the gas situation and asked if GT have had any discussions with Premier Guarantee. GT have had 2 meetings with Premier:


1st meeting GT discussed the lower ground units and what works Premier will consider rendering properties safe and habitable and if Premier are intending to instruct a builder. 2nd meeting GT advised Premier that there was no further funding from the bank and asked Premier what they would be doing in regards to individual owner defects, Premier advised that they had received a number of claims, Premier would be responding directly to those particular individuals and what is covered specifically by Premier Ian West from AOL advised that they hold copies of the insurance documentation for Premier and they are more than happy to pass copies onto individual land lord's/owners GT have advised that owner/residents should contact Premier Guarantee directly if their properties have defects which may be covered under the insurance policy and GT confirm it is advisable to contact Premier frequently in order for these issues to be resolved. Joan James confirmed that legal counsel has been sought regarding Premier Guarantee and the lack of response many have had in regards to their individual claim’s, Joan James will update owner/residents at the next RSB Owner/Residents Association (meeting date and time to be confirmed) Sharon Harrison asked GT what the situation would be regarding the gas or lack of it if the development is sold. GT advised that if and when the site is sold there are 34 flats that a new developer would have to consider installing gas to and a developer would then enter into a discussion with existing owner/residents’ as to whether the Developer would supply gas to the existing properties. It is a strong possibility existing owner/residents would have to pay the developer to provide them with gas. If Premier Guarantee are responsible for the gas issues’ then they would have to come to an arrangement with a developer to install gas into existing owner/residents properties. GT pointed out that a new developer may choose not to have gas installed at all and could apply for the electrical substation to be made larger and then have the site as electrical only. Sharon Harrison raised the point that if this was the case then current owner/residents would have to finance the permanent measure of installing electric boilers etc rather than make do with the current temporary measure. GT, AOL & those present concluded that due to the gas situation it is imperative that owner/landlords contact Premier Guarantee immediately to file a claim if they have not already done so. Royston Dawkins also enquired as to deposits’ already paid to solicitors for properties which have yet to built and under the original contract with Paigle stated that this money would be held for 3 years - as Royston Dunking pointed out Paigle would not now complete the development and would require his money to be returned. GT advised that they had not been aware of this situation, if this is the case then GT would require confirmation of payment made to which solicitor and for how much if the money has not be passed to Paigle then GT would make enquiries into the refunding of these deposits or holding the deposits in trust. The Service Charges was also discussed by GT they have confirmed that Paigle have only paid until December 2008 after that there is no further money being received from Paigle and AOL. GT are looking to resolve this matter, possible cutbacks will be made and AOL & GT have already terminated the contract with TSEC. GT will continue to make contributions’ to the management fee from January if resident/owners do the same however at this time many have yet to pay the management fees. Joan James advised AOL & GT that legal counsel is being sought on a number of issues including the service charges and a London lawyer is looking over the documents and we will receive a response shortly. Sharon Harrison asked AOL if a reduced service charge would be considered for those properties’ which have been sold but are currently not habitable Ian West advised no reduction would be made and full payment would be requested. AOL did discuss with GT the possibility of a surveyor re-measuring the square footage of individuals properties’ as the point had been raised that some fees due on properties’ was possibly incorrect as square footage may be wrong but


Ian West advised not possible as no funding to do this. Ian West did advise that if individuals contact him regarding service charges a standing order might be considered for the next 6 months if all fees are paid by the end of the financial year July 2009. AOL will look at ways to reduce the amount required in the service charge i.e. pest control £1,500 was allocated but currently there are no pest control issues this will create a credit at the end of the financial year and therefore will reduce the service charge for the next financial year or residents’ will be consulted as to ho any credit will be spent in the future. AOL can justify every penny of their budget when AOL became responsible for the management of the site they requested from James Andrew a breakdown of their fees, where the money paid by resident to James Andrew has gone and on what AOL are still waiting for this breakdown from James Andrew Ian West advised that if owner/residents made payment in full to James Andrew and still do not have a breakdown of where the money was spent then this is a legal issue and counsel should be sought by individuals. Ian West also mentioned that resident/owners should log onto the forum which would be particularly helpful - Adrian the care taker can assist with anyone wishing to join the forum. AOL have some pressing issues which need to be dealt with in particular the Water Pump and chlorination of the water which residents use and the fire alarm system the car park was mentioned Ian West advised that the car park is not likely to collapse and therefore not a pressing issue the worst case scenario would be that instead of being able to take 10 tones the car park would remain at a maximum of 2.5 tones


Appendix 6c

Open email from Tenant representative, Wade Barker

Sent: 01 February 2010 13:10

Subject: Alexandra Court & Victoria Court, Royal Sea Bathing, Margate

Dear Ian

Thank you for hosting the meeting yesterday and providing the lessees with a substantial amount of information and

for your note just received regarding the Minutes.

As you know the lessees are creating a group to deal with the many issues that are current at the property.

Therefore I have copied this email to the list that I have and added a few additional email addresses I collected

yesterday. Hopefully I will have a complete set of email addresses at some stage. It would be helpful if you could

send a copy of this email to the undisclosed list of lessees that you have and then any lessee who would like to be on

the circulation list for this correspondence can contact me and I will add their address to the list. If required the

circulation list can be kept confidential.

In the meantime, given the quantity of information provided by you, I am trying to prioritise various actions. I believe

that the most urgent matter is the question of fire safety and fire cover maintained through the buildings’ insurance

policy provided by Grant Thornton.

I requested yesterday for you to provide to me a copy of the following and you agreed subject to obtaining the

Administrator’s consent:-

1. A copy of the final Fire Completion Certificate that was supplied to Thanet District Council but which was

unsigned.

2. A copy of the Fire Report that you have.

3. Written confirmation from Grant Thornton that their insurers are aware of these two documents (and any

other issues in relation to fire safety that currently the lessees are unaware of) and that notwithstanding

these matters the property remains completely covered for all fire risks by the block policy currently in place.

It would be helpful to have a copy of the Insurance Certificate and policy wording at the same time.


You will understand that this issue is of paramount concern. I would ask therefore for you to obtain the

Administrators urgent consent for you to send to us these documents by return email.

Once we have the documents and confirmation regarding insurance cover from you we can turn to the other issues

raised yesterday.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Wade


Appendix 7a


Appendix 7b


Appendix 8a - Witness statement – 40 Alexandra Court Tenant – Sent 07/02/2010

40 Alexandra Court

Hi Eddie,

You have asked about my requests for sight of the policy and schedules for the insurance cover, I

have requested these items on about six occasions. We made a claim in September 09 and in

June 2010 we asked Ian West how far we had moved on the claim, he replied:

02/06/10

With reference to your insurance claim, we have the same problems as you do as we are not the

policyholder or a representative. Normally, we are able to liaise on behalf of the policyholder who

is the Freeholder or Management Company. In this instance, with the site being in administration,

the insurance policy was cancelled and the site was taken under the Grant Thornton bulk policy.

Your contact at Grant Thornton for this is James Ruthven and you will need to chase him

directly. I will also email and ask him to get in touch with you. He will need to advise you with

regards to the wooden floor but normally you need to get two quotes for replacements and submit

a further claim. I am surprised that this has not been resolved as we have made several claims

after your own which have been resolved.

The information that we have passed to you in relation to the policy is all that we have available

and Grant Thornton feel that it is sufficient and confirms that the site is on cover. As they are the

policyholder, you will need to request further details from James Ruthven.

04/10/10

We then sent Ian West an email:

We made a request in September last year to have sight of the building insurance schedule from

the insurance company. We received a letter from your broker which, as explained at the time,

was not acceptable to us. We will also need to have sight of the current schedule 01/07/10-

30/06/11.


In your site update you state we feel that the insurance premium is very high. However, under the

terms of the Administration, we are obliged to use Grant Thornton’s insurers” This is not the case,

GT have a duty of care to the leaseholders to find the best price and cover for the insurance.

08/10/10

Ian West then replied again with a letter from G T’s broker.

14/10/10

And then email from Ian West saying:

I am writing with reference to your email dated 4th October 2010.

The current insurance schedule has been sent to you via a separate email from the

Administrators. Please note that we have been advised that those leaseholders who have not

paid their service charge will not be covered under the policy.

With reference to your suggestion that Grant Thornton have a duty of care to find the best price

and cover, we have been advised that due to the numerous issues on the site at present, there are

a very limited number of insurers who will provide cover, particularly as the freeholder is in

administration. We have obtained a number of quotes for the site, subject to the remedial work

being completed, that we hope to offer to the new purchaser of the site which are more

competitive. Until then, we do not have much choice or say in the matter. Please note that you

are not correct in your assertion that we do not have to use Grant Thornton’s insurers. As they are

the effective freeholder, they issue the instructions.

14/10/10

I sent an Email to Ian West saying:

I am still concerned about the insurance, G T have found an insurance company to cover the

property but why did they insure for 36 million pounds when, if the whole property burned down, it

could be rebuilt for a third of the sum insured? I have asked for a copy of the insurance schedule -

the one received by the broker and passed to GT from the insurance company, or I would like sight

of the policy as letter from the broker is not acceptable to us.


14/10/10

The reply was:

I note your requests and will pass them to Grant Thornton in relation to the insurance.

08/11/10

We then received a letter from WD’s solicitor requesting that we pay the outstanding management

charges

08/12/10

We replied, saying:

I am in receipt of your letter of the 8th November 2010. We are withholding the service charge for

the following reasons :

We made a request in September last year to have sight of the buildings insurance schedule from

the insurance company. We received a letter from your broker which, as explained at the time,

was not acceptable to us. We requested the need to have sight of the current schedule 01/07/10-

30/06/11. We made another request on the 4th October 2010, this was our request for sight of the

policy or schedule.

27/01/11


Ian West’s reply was:

This was dealt with in our emails of 8th and 14th October. I have not been provided with any further

information from the Administrators. Perhaps you could advise me what you feel is unacceptable

and I can go back to them as the broker’s letter has satisfied several mortgage companies who

require sight of insurance.

02/02/11

My email sent to Ian West, saying:

No, it was not dealt with in your emails of 8th and 14th October, I have asked 6 times for sight of

the policy and schedule. In most of your email you said, “I note your requests and will pass them

to Grant Thornton in relation to the insurance” I then received a letter from your solicitors.

I believe that the insurance that we are being charged for covers more than one property. The

sight of the policy and schedules has to be forthcoming if requested, I have requested it and I have

listed below a Summary of Rights in this regard.

“Where the request is for sight of the policy, the landlord must provide reasonable access for inspection of the policy and any other relevant documents which provide evidence of payment, including receipts, and facilities for copying them. Alternatively, the request may be for the landlord to provide the copies of the policy and specified documents himself and to send them to the leaseholder. The request must be made in writing and the landlord must comply within 21 days of receiving it. “

Failure to provide insurance information or reasonable access

Where a landlord fails without reasonable excuse to comply with either a request for insurance

details or to inspect or have copies of the relevant policy or associated documents, they commit a

summary offence and are liable for a fine of up to £2,500 (level 4 on the standard scale) on

conviction.

02/02/11

Ian West Replied

As I am sure you can appreciate, I am acting on the instructions of the freeholder. I have emailed

them again today copying your email and will advise of the response.

Up to today we have had no satisfactory response from WD or GT


Appendix 8b – Expert Witness Statement on Year End accounts 2009 and 2010

from Amrish

to Eddie Wiseman

date 7 February 2011 09:17

subject Service of Royal Sea Bathing - review of accounts

Dear Eddie, Further to your request, I have briefly reviewed the accounts for the Service of Royal Sea Bathing for the year ended 30 June 2009 (hereafter "2009 accounts") and for the year ended 30 June 2010 (hereafter "2010 accounts"). Regarding my ability to review these accounts, I am a Chartered Accountant (ICAEW) with over 20 years post-qualification experience, mainly in FSA regulated financial institutions in the City. Most recently, I was Finance Director of Fox-Pitt, Kelton Limited (10 years), a full-scope global investment bank specialising in financials. FPK was FSA regulated and I was also a board director. I have the following points/observations/questions: 1. What is the period covered in the 2009 accounts - is this a full twelve months? The first year's accounts are headed "year ended 30 June 2009", but the 2009 comparatives in the second year's account are headed with "period", not "year ended". Please ask them to clarify . 2. Are the 2009 accounts drawn from inception of the Service of Royal Sea Bathing, or is any period missing? I presume they are from inception as they surplus/deficit for the year is the same also the surplus/deficit carried forward, but it would be good to have this precisely answered. 3. There appears to have been a very significant adjustment applied to the 2009 figures as "Income, service charges" was £79,041 on the original 2009 accounts, but has been amended to £155,678 in the comparatives of the 2010 accounts. This also explains why the 2010 accounts have "Assets, service charge unpaid" of £79,041, whereas the 2009 accounts omit this entirely. This fundamentally changes the balance of the reserve fund from a net liability of £53,872 as originally stated in the 2009 accounts to a net asset as at 30 June 2009 in the 2010 accounts. There is no explanation for this adjustment whatsoever and this is hugely material in the eyes of any reader - please obtain an explanation for this. 4. Assuming the 2010 accounts are correct, why has total Income risen from £77,102 in 2009 to £166,439, which is a 115% increase, year-on-year? Assuming service changes levied in both years have remained relatively constant and there has been no increase in the number of properties then you would expect this to remain relatively constant. 5. Assuming the 2010 accounts are correct, please obtain a detailed ageing of service charge unpaid as at 30 June 2010. It does appear to be very high, so it would be good to find out what part of that debt remains uncollected as at now, if any. 6. Accounting policies - there are no notes accompanying the accounts that set out the basic accounting policies that have been adopted. 7. Presentation of expenses is different between the two sets of accounts. (The analysis of expenses for 2009 has been amended between the two sets of accounts, although at least seems to remain constant in total.) An overall observation is that the accounts are very brief and do not include any additional notes, accounting policies, etc. Has the Landlord fullfilled it's obligations to "make available to the Accountant all records, correspondence, information and explanations that the Accountant considers necessary to enable the performance of the Accountant’s work."? The report of the Accountant is very brief and appears to be very limited in terms of scope or responsibility - this makes it of very limited value. I hope this has been of use - please let me know if you require me to clarify or expand on any of my points. Kind regards, Amrish Shah ACA

direction no.2

Documents

residents site update

residents site update

c open email

d open email

photos of flat

residents rsb site update

j open email

e open email