Directors Newsletter No. 2
2 posters
Page 1 of 1
Directors Newsletter No. 2
anniegg Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:55 am
An open letter to Jolanta, Samantha & Ken....
Thank you for the report in the newsletter. As one of the first private owners in the block, and never having failed to meet the payments due for these reparations, one wonders whether the word 'progress' is exactly appropriate, bearing in mind that having taken two tranches of money already, the Directors are no further forward than "... finding the most cost effective option for Stage 1 of the works." If the most cost effective option for such an early stage was not already established, what basis was used to calculate the amounts to be paid in tranches 1 & 2? And, as your Newsletter implies, why has this cost-effective option STILL not been identified?
There is also considerable discomfort in the knowledge that you are quite willing to take individual owners to court to extract these payments from them; yet similar legal action against Salter Rex was not taken, though they seem to be the most guilty party in all of this. The previous freeholder may have been guilty of neglect - but Salter Rex were still taking the monies in!
Thank you for the report in the newsletter. As one of the first private owners in the block, and never having failed to meet the payments due for these reparations, one wonders whether the word 'progress' is exactly appropriate, bearing in mind that having taken two tranches of money already, the Directors are no further forward than "... finding the most cost effective option for Stage 1 of the works." If the most cost effective option for such an early stage was not already established, what basis was used to calculate the amounts to be paid in tranches 1 & 2? And, as your Newsletter implies, why has this cost-effective option STILL not been identified?
There is also considerable discomfort in the knowledge that you are quite willing to take individual owners to court to extract these payments from them; yet similar legal action against Salter Rex was not taken, though they seem to be the most guilty party in all of this. The previous freeholder may have been guilty of neglect - but Salter Rex were still taking the monies in!
anniegg- Posts : 3
Join date : 2010-08-15
A little expansion on the problem
JMK Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:21 am
Hi Annie,
it is a little bit worse than that, there are factual errors in that "newsletter" which are just blatant fabrication.
You hit upon the exact point of this: at what point was proper consultation carried out?
There was a "goldilocks and 3 bears choice", cheap, medium and burningly expensive. But not once any plans, any evidence of tender, and still to this day, none of the above. No plans, no tender possible, simple as that. You may be pressured with the "it's a sinking fund" argument, but since none was run before, since the freehold company ignored obligations even to file accounts, since Stonedale is clearly insolvent, since the accounts have no audit, and since - i keep getting back to this - there are no plans proposed, that is sheer bunk.
One of the most condemning issues, is how it took 5 years and more, for any management to be aware of problems, including below, which risked our hides:
Take this for example: myself, Ian H and others discovered the Dry Riser had been known to be broken, for some 7 years at least, dating well into Salter Rex days. I witnessed Stonedale inspecting it, early last year. In late August, there was a fire, and the firefighters were dangerously delayed in attending. I spoke extensively with the fire department as to this, and was only tipped off by accident as to the timescale of negligence which shook me as to the sheer audacity of carelessness.
Meanwhile statute law as to overcrowding, and other covenants are not enforced, exacerbating the risk.
I was informed - not by Stonedale or the "freehold company" - that Costcutters will close for one day shortly, to remedy the Dry Riser problem. Nevertheless, for 7 years and maybe more, and counting, management has knowingly put lives at risk.
A Landlord has responsibility to their Tenants, which is what we are, no matter length of lease or a share in a dubiously run company. Landlords have to be fit to carry on in business.
I am highly surprised that anyone claims they have successfully sued to get payment of current demands, as I can only think the sole means to win such a case is if by default, no defence offered. The gratuitous and complete disregard for required legal convention is not merely wholesale, but complete.
You also have the conflict between shareholders in the Landlord company majority ruling the sham - RTM company vote. I assure you it is sham, because it is in legal conflict. You might ask, quite rightly, where are the taxable incomes accounted for, and how does a landlord, knowing a building is in disrepair, ignore their responsibility to prevent expensive emergency maintenance? I could go further, and note I obtained extensive quotes, which put the work at a fraction already billed, for high specifications.
You touched upon Salter Rex and dilapidations, but I have a full lever arch folder of who was landlord at different times, so wrong target. Maybe it is consolation, they barely exist as an entity, any more. Nevertheless, the claim is made to the freeholder. Since the previous freeholder cannot be served do not exist, or are disappeared, the responsibility falls to who bought it, without looking closer. It is better to claim against the directors, because they failed in their duty, relieving them thereby of limitation of liability, which included to seek recompense, either during the transaction, or later, for the state the building was left in at transfer, see LVT 2005 decision.
I know I am not popular. This case may be unique in the way it will run, because of the conflicts noted above. However I am not acting in the dark, or hiding away. I've just yet to set the ball rolling, on what is a voluminous indictment. You get copies anyhow, but I am at 27, if you are interested beforehand.
Replying here, because glad to here someone is not affected by what i - not all in jest - consider to be an Omerta.
all best - john
it is a little bit worse than that, there are factual errors in that "newsletter" which are just blatant fabrication.
You hit upon the exact point of this: at what point was proper consultation carried out?
There was a "goldilocks and 3 bears choice", cheap, medium and burningly expensive. But not once any plans, any evidence of tender, and still to this day, none of the above. No plans, no tender possible, simple as that. You may be pressured with the "it's a sinking fund" argument, but since none was run before, since the freehold company ignored obligations even to file accounts, since Stonedale is clearly insolvent, since the accounts have no audit, and since - i keep getting back to this - there are no plans proposed, that is sheer bunk.
One of the most condemning issues, is how it took 5 years and more, for any management to be aware of problems, including below, which risked our hides:
Take this for example: myself, Ian H and others discovered the Dry Riser had been known to be broken, for some 7 years at least, dating well into Salter Rex days. I witnessed Stonedale inspecting it, early last year. In late August, there was a fire, and the firefighters were dangerously delayed in attending. I spoke extensively with the fire department as to this, and was only tipped off by accident as to the timescale of negligence which shook me as to the sheer audacity of carelessness.
Meanwhile statute law as to overcrowding, and other covenants are not enforced, exacerbating the risk.
I was informed - not by Stonedale or the "freehold company" - that Costcutters will close for one day shortly, to remedy the Dry Riser problem. Nevertheless, for 7 years and maybe more, and counting, management has knowingly put lives at risk.
A Landlord has responsibility to their Tenants, which is what we are, no matter length of lease or a share in a dubiously run company. Landlords have to be fit to carry on in business.
I am highly surprised that anyone claims they have successfully sued to get payment of current demands, as I can only think the sole means to win such a case is if by default, no defence offered. The gratuitous and complete disregard for required legal convention is not merely wholesale, but complete.
You also have the conflict between shareholders in the Landlord company majority ruling the sham - RTM company vote. I assure you it is sham, because it is in legal conflict. You might ask, quite rightly, where are the taxable incomes accounted for, and how does a landlord, knowing a building is in disrepair, ignore their responsibility to prevent expensive emergency maintenance? I could go further, and note I obtained extensive quotes, which put the work at a fraction already billed, for high specifications.
You touched upon Salter Rex and dilapidations, but I have a full lever arch folder of who was landlord at different times, so wrong target. Maybe it is consolation, they barely exist as an entity, any more. Nevertheless, the claim is made to the freeholder. Since the previous freeholder cannot be served do not exist, or are disappeared, the responsibility falls to who bought it, without looking closer. It is better to claim against the directors, because they failed in their duty, relieving them thereby of limitation of liability, which included to seek recompense, either during the transaction, or later, for the state the building was left in at transfer, see LVT 2005 decision.
I know I am not popular. This case may be unique in the way it will run, because of the conflicts noted above. However I am not acting in the dark, or hiding away. I've just yet to set the ball rolling, on what is a voluminous indictment. You get copies anyhow, but I am at 27, if you are interested beforehand.
Replying here, because glad to here someone is not affected by what i - not all in jest - consider to be an Omerta.
all best - john
JMK- Posts : 5
Join date : 2011-01-16
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|