pavilion court rtm company limitedpavilion-court.co.uk/assets/files/legal...

Pavilion Court RTM Company Limited

of 99

Case No: CHI-29UL-LSC-2009-0106

Re Pavilion Court, Marine Terrace, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 1QB

Application by Pavilion Court RTM Company Limited (PCRTM) for prior approval of service charge demands.


of 99

Case No: CHI-29UL-LSC-2009-0106 ............................................................................................ 11. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 32. Accountancy fees .................................................................................................................. 163. Bank charges......................................................................................................................... 194. Buildings and Directors insurance ......................................................................................... 20

4.1. Buildings insurance ....................................................................................................... 204.2. Directors Insurance........................................................................................................ 20

5. Essential Building Maintenance............................................................................................. 306. Fire alarm testing................................................................................................................... 327. Fire risk assessment............................................................................................................... 358. Light public areas .................................................................................................................. 419. LVT referral .......................................................................................................................... 4310. Maintenance costs electrical systems ................................................................................. 4311. Management fees............................................................................................................... 4512. Porter ................................................................................................................................ 5813. Rent, equipment room ....................................................................................................... 6414. Room Hire (AGM plus 1 EGM) ........................................................................................ 6915. Sewerage & Water............................................................................................................. 7116. Water administration charge .............................................................................................. 7317. Web site ............................................................................................................................ 7418. Window cleaning (communal only) ................................................................................... 7519. Urgent Capital Expenditure – Roof Repair......................................................................... 7820. Pipework upgrade (external) .............................................................................................. 7821. Doors, Stainless external.................................................................................................... 8322. CCTV................................................................................................................................ 8523. Roof sinking fund.............................................................................................................. 9324. Asbestos removal .............................................................................................................. 94


of 99

1. Introduction

As a prelude to this hearing the company held an EGM specifically to discuss the forthcoming service charge demands (first payment due on 29 September 2009). The aim of the meeting was to achieve a consensus of all present and to enable everyone to attend all known religious holy days were avoided. The agreement of those present was obtained representing approximately two thirds of the total leaseholders in the block. The minutes of the meeting are attached at Annex 1A. Please note that the format of the service charge demands has been altered for the purposes of this hearing so as to put items into alphabetical order and this differs in presentation from the table presented in the minutes. Only two figures has been altered and that is for metered electricity and metered water based on figures for consumption last year. These figures were not available until late on the 7th

October 2009.

Annex 1B is the list of proposed service charges which is submitted for approval.

Pavilion Court RTM Company Limited Annex 1A

of 99


Pavilion Court RTM Company Limited Registered Office Pavilion Court Marine Terrace Folkestone Kent CT20 1QB

Registered in England No: 6464629

Minutes of the EGM held on 7 October at 18:00 in the Grand Burstin Hotel,Folkestone.

Chairman/Secretary David PriceDirector Mac (G McCallion)Director Mrs Carol TorrensDirector Mrs Christine ShearingDirector Chris Price (by mobile phone)

Members and leaseholders presentGraham Nye (Springwell) Leaseholder and memberProf J Strange Leaseholder and memberMrs A Strange Leaseholder and memberIsaac Hammond LeaseholderMs Helen Resuggon LeaseholderD J Webber LeaseholderMrs WebberMrs Jacqueline Lippiett LeaseholderMichael Joslin ResidentDavid Wren ResidentDavid Ellis ResidentRiaghan Hartley ResidentTony Luderman ResidentMrs R Pulling Resident Leaseholder and memberMrs P Fitzpatrick Representing Simon Snow, LeaseholderMrs C McCallion Resident

1. Introduction and Meeting OverviewThe main purpose of the meeting was to discuss the forthcoming submission to the LVT for approval. A provisional list of necessary works had been prepared and the aim was to come to a consensus on a final list to be submitted to the LVT.In addition the appeal against the decision of the 2008/2009 decision and the necessary surcharge was to be discussed Although not strictly PCRTM business the introduction of car parking fees by Pavilion Court Ltd was the final item on the agenda, a move reluctantly introduced as a means of raising the funds necessary to pay our solicitor.It was explained that the only source of income for the company was the leaseholders and that any deficiency would result in the demise of the company as it would then be trading insolvent.


of 99




2. Proposal to close the companyThe decision on whether to close the company would be critically dependant on the outcome of the meeting.

3. AuditorNo vote was taken on the auditor as ther was no time available. In the event the directors have been forced into a position where they had to appoint Beresfords as accountant and auditor, at no samll expense but as some leaseholders insist on an audit it is an expense which must be bourne by all the leaseholders. The cost of accounting has thus increased from �400 in the first year to circa �2,000 in the second year.

4. Legal ActionAlthough only briefly discussed at the meeting for lack of time, please note that the cost of an LVT action every year is currently �500 and that the directors feel that it is prudent to get the court’s authority to incur the expenditure before the year starts rather than have to attempt to unspend money already spent. There was some debate as to the legality of charging the leaseholders and it was decided to let the court decide.

In the absence of any decision at the meeting leave to appeal will be sought and the grounds are outlined in Annex E

5. Service charge estimatesThe meeting discussed the items in the provisional expenditure list one by one, with a great deal of fillibustering from Mrs Lippiett which effectively delayed the proceedings to such an extent that only the service charges were discussed.

The LVT had provided an excellent set of guidelines for the forthcoming years which the company would endevour to adhere to in the future.

It was agreed that the service charge list to be submitted to the LVT would be as appended at Annex A. Serveral items in the original list were omitted and a unanimous decision was obtained for all the remaining items. In all cases there were some abstentions but no one voted against the final figures. All the figures were suported by estimates which were available for all to inspect. Significantly no one looked at the esimates.

In particular it should be noted that all present agreed that the water and sewage rates both past and future should be pais in full and without any further argument (64 votes for and none against)

Proposals were made to include ittems which were not originally on the list, notably the continuance of the website and the reintroduction of CCTV cameras albeit a lower number. The latter decision was made as a result of the vandal damage which had occurred over the previous weekend which in itself had cost over a thousand pounds to rectify without any hope of catching the persons responsible. CCTV will not stop vandals but it may enable the police to aprehend them.

At great speed Beresfords prepared a balance sheet for issue at the meeting (Annex B) so as to give an indication, and at this stage only an indication of the surcharge which will have to be levied. It is the opinion of the directors that this will eventually be in the order of �250.


of 99




6 Quality ProceduresPeermission to let was not discussed

Parking was not discussed save to say that charges were to be introduced and a scale was presented to the floor. This is attached at Annex C

7. Meeting ConclusionMac addressed the floor and asked if they wanted him to remain and look after Pavilion Court. Th unanimous conclusion was that Mac should be reinstated as the resident caretaker under the terms permitted in the lease.

All present agreed that they would make an immediate payment of �500 to get the company out of its immediate financial trouble on presentation of the service charge estimates and demands for the current year.

Mr Webber raised the question of reopening the accounts for the 2007/2008 financial year with the aim of getting a reduction. It was pointed out that if a reduction was obtained then an immediatesurcharge would have to be levied and if this was not accepted the company would close. No resolution was achieved.

At the end of the meeting Mrs Lippiett insisted that a letter from Glyn Jones be read. The chairman concurred against his better judgement, for he considered it best for the letter not to be read. However the opinion from the floor prevailed and as a consequence the letter is attached at Annex D

The meeting closed at 22:05

Secretary’s note: The next AGM will be held on 16 January 2010, at 13:00 in the Burstin Hotel.


of 99

Annex APurpose Estimate Contingency Subtotal

Inc VAT@20% 10%Porter �16,208.00 �16,208.00

�0.00 �16,208.00window cleaning (communal only) �1,500.00 �150.00 �17,858.00Internal decoration (two corridors per year) �0.00 �0.00 �17,858.00Buildings and Directors Insurance �3,906.56 �390.66 �22,155.22Fire alarm testing, �55+VAT per week �3,432.00 �343.20 �25,930.42Fire risk assessment �894.00 �89.40 �26,913.82Sewerage & Water �22,000.00 �2,200.00 �50,130.42Water administration charge �558.45 �50,688.87Light public areas �3,300.00 �330.00 �54,318.87Communications �0.00 �0.00 �54,318.87Management fees �30,000.00 �3,000.00 �87,318.87Refuse Control �1,650.00 �165.00 �89,133.87Petty Cash �0.00 �0.00 �89,133.87Legal and professional fees �0.00 �0.00 �89,133.87Accountancy fees �2,000.00 �200.00 �91,333.87Bank charges �200.00 �20.00 �91,553.87Essential building maintenance �12,000.00 �1,200.00 �104,753.87Maintenance costs electrical systems �6,270.00 �627.00 �111,650.87LVT referral �500.00 �112,150.87Room Hire (AGM plus 1 EGM) �100.00 �10.00 �112,260.87Rent, equipment room �3,300.00 �330.00 �115,890.87

Urgent capital expenditure Urgent repair to roof �3,305.11 �330.51 �3,635.62External pipework upgrade �753.70 �75.37 �4,464.69New Stainless external doors �10,142.40 �1,014.24 �15,621.33

Sinking funds

roof sinking fund �10,000.00 �10,000.00

Urgent Capital Projects

Asbestos removal �19,488.00 �1,948.80 �21,436.80

Total for the year Ä162,948.99

NB:

4. VAT HAS BEEN ASSUMED AT 20% AS THIS IS THOUGHT TO BE THE LIKELY RATE DURING THE YEAR

1.THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS A CURRENT DRAFT OF THE WORK AND OR NECESSARY COSTS THAT WILL BE INCURRED IN OPERATING PC DURING THE PERIOD 2009-2010 2.THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS A SERVICE CHARGE ESTIMATE AS AGREED AT THE EGM ON 7 OCTOBER 20093. THE SERVICE CHARGE LEVIED OF Ä500 IS AN INTERIM CHARGE PENDING RATIFICATION AT THE FORTHCOMING LVT HEARING ON 30 NOVEMBER 2009


of 99

Annex B

Please note that this is a provisional Balance Sheet and will be subject to modification as the last month’s information becomes available.


of 99

Annex C


of 99

Annex D


of 99

Annex E

Appeal

CaretakerWhilst the LVT may have the authority to limit the amount charged (as opposed to its normal role in determining value for money) to the leaseholders we believe that it does not have the authority to determine how the company is run, that is to determine that the money must be spent on a contractor. Furthermore the LVT has not taken into consideration clause 6(h) of the lease which empowers the company to provide accommodation should it see fit. We believe that the LVT does not have the authority to determine how the company is run or how it meets its service obligations.

By imposing the condition that the service obligation should be met by employing an external contractor thus mandating that the caretaker be dismissed and be evicted from his home the human rights of the caretaker are infringed [Human Rights Act 1998, article 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment)].

Directors of Respondent companiesDr Price is not a director of Pavilion Court Ltd. This is a vital point which was incorrectly reported by the tribunal, which may have significant legal implications both within this determination and externally.

Fire Risk Assessment

The Tribunal quite rightly criticised David Price for not being a professional fire risk assessor, for producing a fire risk assessment, for which I made no charge to the company, and agreed that the work should have taken no more than two hours. A professional fire risk assessor has estimated that the job will take two days and cost nearly �1,000. No one in court was qualified to make the decision or to agree with the opinion of the applicant’s barrister, and no professional evidence was adduced by the applicant. The fact that the fire risk assessment had been approved by the local fire safety officer was not taken into account.

Marine CrescentMarine crescent is a block which is totally dissimilar to Pavilion Court but was accepted as beingcomparable and furthermore was the basis for challenging many aspects of management of Pavilion Court. No documents were adduced to prove this purported similarity or that Mr Scriber owned 500 properties which was the basis for the tribunal accepting his opinion.

Petty CashBoth the applicant and the first respondent submitted that the amount should a minimum of �4,600 in 2007/2008 to be considered reasonable but the tribunal ruled that only the sum of �2,000 was reasonable despite the fact that documentary evidence had been produced to support a figure of �7,760.88. There seems to be no factual basis or explanation for the tribunal’s decision for such a draconian decrease.


of 99

Annex ECCTVThe tribunal have made an arbitrary decision with no reasoning that we do not need two security systems. This despite the Police report that a CCTV system is needed and the fact that it fulfils a different purpose to the locking system. Specifically since the Tribunal case there have been two drug related deaths for which the police have no CCTV evidence. Also the locking system has been circumvented by tenants activating the fire alarm, something which cannot be prevented without the aid of a CCTV detection system. Within the last few days two call points have been smashed in separate incidents with the perpetrators escaping undetected.

Legal FeesUnder article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 the company, legally an individual, has the right to professional representation at the tribunal. By disallowing legal costs this right is denied as the company has no income except from service charges. The company believes that the statute overrides the lease.

Pavilion Court RTM Company Limited Annex 1B

of 99


of 99

2. Accountancy feesIn essence accountancy fees can be reduced to a minimum of �400 for unaudited accounts. However a few leaseholders insist on audited accounts so an estimated figure of �2,000 must be used. This figure is based on the LVT adjudication of 9 September 2009 ref CHI/29UL/LSC/2008/0016.

Annex 2A is the bill for last year’s accounts and Annex 2B an extract from the LVT adjudication cited above.


of 99


of 99

3. Bank chargesThe sum estimated is a contingency figure which can only be guessed. If smaller charges are incurred then this sum will be carried forward to next year.

Please not that his sum is for charges on the PCRTM trust account and is nothing to do with the Managing Agent.


of 99

4. Buildings and Directors insurance

4.1. Buildings insuranceAttempts were made to obtain building insurance quotations from several brokers with no success as is detailed in Annex 4A. Our regular broker managed to secure insurance at a very reasonable rate, less than half the insurance paid on The Crescent (Annex 4C) and this offer is detailed in Annex 4B. .

4.2. Directors InsuranceIndependent Insurance Services again managed to obtain the only quotation for Directors and Officers insurance which is shown at Annex D


of 99

Pavilion Court RTM Company Limited Annex 4C

of 99

Pavilion Court RTM Company Limited Annex 4D

of 99

Pavilion Court RTM Company Limited Annex 4D

of 99.


of 99

5. Essential Building MaintenanceThis item is and always will be an educated guess. By agreement at the meeting a figure of �12,000 was inserted against the advice of the directors who considered that this figure was too low. In the first four days of the current financial year the expenditure on vandal damage to the fire alarm system has already exceeded �1,000. Last year the expenditure on general maintenance was �10,556 (Annex 5A) a year which was by no means exceptional. With the demise of the caretaker and his replacement by a cleaner it is likely that the expenditure will be higher this year.


of 99

Annex B



of 99

6. Fire alarm testingWeekly testing of the fire alarm will be undertaken by an external contractor. Two companies have quoted and their estimates are attached at annexes 6A and 6B.

In view of the disruptive nature of the visitors to the block it is necessary to test two fire point and two smoke alarms on a rolling basis each week. In addition all the fire doors and all the internal and external doors must be proved to release. The estimated time for this test is in excess of one hour and the quotations represent the minimum call out charge.


of 99


of 99

7. Fire risk assessment

The comments of the tribunal in their adjudication of 9 September 2009 ref CHI/29UL/LSC/2008/0016.are noted (extract at Annex 7A) and it is proposed to have a professional fire risk assessment done this year.

Quotations obtained are at Annex 7B and 7C


of 99


of 99

8. Light public areas

This includes all the power for the fire alarm, door entry system, entryphone and all the power used in cleaning and maintaining the block. It is charged at cost.

In the past year there has been an expenditure of �3734.05 on public electricity and �250 for the CCTV recorder and door control computer, this latter being part of now abandoned petty cash. The figure in the table is slightly higher than the figure presented to the EGM on 7 October 2009 as there was not time to alter the spreadsheet for the EGM.

Consumption during 2008/2009 is shown in Annex 8A


of 99

Annex B



of 99

9. LVT referralThe cost of referring to the LVT was challenged in the EGM as being legal costs and therefore not chargeable to the leaseholders. We ask the tribunal to rule on this.

10. Maintenance costs electrical systems

It is impossible to estimate the cost of maintaining the electrical systems, here intended to refer to the electronic component rather than the power. The major source of maintenance problems is vandalism and this varies tremendously hence no contractor is willing to quote for a maintenance contract.

The figure inserted is based on The Crescent as submitted by Mr Schreiber to the hearing ref CHI/29UL/LSC/2008/0016 as being a comparable block. Annex 10 A refers.

We have a local company (Absolute Security) which undertakes all our maintenance on a cost plus basis.


of 99


of 99

11. Management fees

Two quotations for management of the block were obtained and both were based on the assumption that there was an on site caretaker to deal with any out of hours problems. The demise of the caretaker position has made this difficult block considerably more difficult and time consuming to manage and hence the DJ & HA Price fee has been increased to reflect this increased difficulty. Because even at this level the fee is considerably below that of the other tender, estimated to be well in excess of �40,000 after all extras had been added (Annex 11B), a revised tender was not sought.

There are no extras in the DJ & HA Price tender (Annex 11A) bar normal disbursements and all telephony (�1,5000) and postage (�1,000) is now included within the fixed price quotation.. The new company, if appointed, will take over the 24 month contract telephones from PCRTM thus avoiding considerable early termination charges.


of 99

<New Company>2 Harrow Road

KnockholtSevenoaks

KentTN14 7JT

Date: 10 December 2008Revised 25 September 2009Your reference: Management/ITTOur reference: FF/Letters/TenderFile reference 2008-12-10, Tender

for management,Price.doc

Modifications dated 25 September 2009 as a result of the LVT adjudication ref CHI/29UL/LSC/2008/0016 are in bold italic with deletions struck through.

Dear Sirs,Thank you for your invitation to tender for the management of Pavilion Court.If the contract is awarded a New Company will be formed specifically to fulfil this contract, this company will have no other commitments.On behalf of this potential <new Company> I am pleased to submit the following quotation.

GeneralThe tender which follows is based on conformity primarily to the individual leases.Management would be in accord with the RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code, second edition, in particular section 2.5 et seq.In addition there are many statutes with which it is essential to conform, notably The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, The Housing Act 1996, The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, The Disability Discrimination Act 2005, The Data Protection Act 1998 and many more Acts of lesser importance. There are of course the various enabling acts and statutory instruments relating the more recent of these acts to be taken into consideration.All the aforementioned are enshrined in law and take precedence over all other considerations. Acts of Parliament take precedence over local decisions and under no circumstances will the property be knowingly managed other than in accord with the strict interpretation of the law.In addition the following guidelines will be adopted

1. Data Protection – Everybody’s business, published by the British Computer Society2. Data Protection – Implementing the Legislation, published by the British Computer Society3. Service Charge Residential Management Code, second edition, The Royal Institution of

Chartered Surveyors4. Any other guidelines required by Pavilion Court Ltd

All work would be undertaken in the name of Pavilion Court RTM Company Ltd; in effect <New Company> would supply the labour under contract to Pavilion Court RTM Company Ltd.

Pavilion Court RTM Company Ltd101 Pavilion CourtMarine TerraceFolkestoneKentCT20 1QB


of 99

All instructions from the board must be in writing and signed on behalf of the board. If at any time <New Company> Ltd is uneasy about the instructions given it reserves the right to ask for instructions to be signed by all directors.<New Company> operates a paperless office system with the exception of contractual documentation.

Collection of service charges1. Issue semi annual service charge demands at least a month in advance of the due date

(subject to being supplied information in a timely manner).2. Issue monthly statements to all who do not pay on time.3. Prepare papers to pass to solicitor for legal action in accord with a standard policy

applicable to all leaseholders (to be formulated by directors).Banking of payments and maintaining a record is included but no other accounting processes. <New Company> does not claim to have any professional accounting capability.

Collection of Ground Rent1. Issue annual statements in proper format2. Initiate legal action against those who decline to pay

Management of caretakerThis activity will be replaced by management of the cleaner and contract management of all the activities which the caretaker formerly performed. Quality procedures which existed for the management of the caretaker will be rewritten for the new management regime.The management of the caretaker depends critically on the company producing a signed copy of his job description. Provided this signed document is still on file the caretaker will be required to perform the duties described. A certified copy will be required on <New Company> Ltd file in order that it has the necessary authority.

1. <New Company> will provide day to day on site management on an hour to hour basis if necessary to ensure that the caretaker understands his duties and is provided with the tools necessary to perform them. The caretaker will always be tasked in writing usually via email.

2. Worksheets will be provided which will have to be completed on a daily basis and the work will be checked at the end of each day.

3. Positive feedback will be collected generally in the form of photographic evidence.

Routine maintenance1. Local craftsmen will be used to perform maintenance which is beyond the scope of the

caretaker.2. Verbal invitations will be given to traders when the cost is small (perhaps less than �200)

and it is not viable to produce a written specification. This will normally be in the form of a single tender with written quotation.

3. Higher value projects will always go to multiple tender and the tenders passed to the board for consideration. A recommendation will always be given which will not necessarily be for the lowest tender.

4. Emergency work will be undertaken as an ad hoc exercise and will be a balance of judgement between the urgency of the situation, the cost and the need for accountability.


of 99

Special projectsMajor projects will be subject to multiple tender and if necessary a section 20 notice. In general expert written advice will be sought and this will be charged separately as an additional cost.This section includes obtaining quotations for insurance.

Web siteMaintenance and update of the Pavilion Court web site (but not disbursements associated with the site, e.g. hosting)

Company obligationsEnsure that all the appropriate documentation is filed at Companies House in a timely manner for both Pavilion Court Limited and Pavilion Court RTM Company Limited

LVTIt is anticipated that the LVT will be approached to approve all the service charge estimates in advance of the financial year so that there is no excuse for anybody to take further legal action and County Court cases will be dealt with immediately rather than the interminable delay of the LVT

ContractThe standard RICS contract with amendments to reflect the special situation of Pavilion Court, is acceptable as would a specially written contract.At the end of the year an invitation to tender would be produced to obtain tenders for the next year, a requirement of the Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Act. This would be distributed in accord with the wishes of the directors.

Hours of Business and contactNormally 09:00 to 17:00, Monday to Friday excluding public holidays. A geographic number will be provided which will normally be manned and a mobile number for times when the office is not manned, usually during site visits. Email contact will be provided. Email will generally be checked on a daily basis. All landline and internet access costs are included in the figures quoted (but not web hosting). Access to and free use of the Pavilion Court telephone is assumed while on site.


of 99

Quotation�2,500 per month equivalent to �291.26 per flat per year, no extras save for disbursements and no VAT.

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish1.David PriceBSc MSc PhD CEng MIEE CPhys MInstP MCMI MBCSChartered Information Systems Engineer

Chartered Electrical EngineerMembership No 157547-40

Dr David PriceFor and on behalf of <New Company>

1 The Fourth Book in The Hitchhiker's Trilogy


of 99


of 99

12. Porter

In accord with the LVT ruling (Annex 12A) and the increase in the national minimum wage the amount claimed is �16,208 (1.3% allowance for inflation of statutory minimum wage �5.73 to �5.80).

The majority at the EGM on Wednesday 7 October 2008 wanted the Block Manager reinstated on his old terms (with allowance for increase in national minimum wage). This is to be the subject of an appeal as the company is empowered in the lease to employ a porter on the terms formerly used. If this appeal is successful then we ask for the full cost of the Block Manager to be allowed:-

40 Hours times �5.80 times 365/7 equals �12,097.1411% employers NI contributions �1,330.69Accommodation �6,465.71Electricity estimated �800.00Total �20,693.54

The LVT is asked to take into consideration the fact that this is only �4,485.54 greater than the sum allowed for a very much reduced service and the fact that the lease allows for us to employ a “Porter” on the terms shown above (Annex 12B). The tribunal should also consider the fact that the directors do not consider that the company can adequately discharge its obligations under the lease without an on site caretaker.


of 99


of 99

13. Rent, equipment room

When the company was in administration the administrator moved all the electronic equipment from the Porters flat to flat 49 at considerable expense to the leaseholders (now disallowed by the LVT). We now have to rent the accommodation for the equipment from the freeholder (wholly owned by the leaseholders). After the existing legal debt has been paid and provided that there is no more litigation, the resulting income, minus the service charges payable on flat 49, will be available to pay a dividend to all the leaseholders.

AS the flat and the Freehold are in the same name there is technically no lease on flat 49 and hence there is no prohibition on running a business from the flat. In addition permission has recently been granted to convert the flat into an equipment room (Annex 13A). The rent charged is that recommended by a local estate agent and is considerably lower than the rent for all the other studio flats (Annex 13B).


of 99


of 99

14. Room Hire (AGM plus 1 EGM)The leases in Pavilion Court do not allow us to hold meetings in any of the flats which in any case are far too small to accommodate a group of more than three or four. It is thus necessary to hire a meeting room in the local hotel. The last bill from the hotel is show in Annex 14A. It has been assumed that in addition to the AGM there will be on average one EGM per year.


of 99


of 99

15. Sewerage & Water

Sewerage & Water are charged at cost.

The accounts for last year indicate an ongoing metered water and sewage charge exceeding �2,000 per month. Water was �12,420.77 and the sewage is somewhat more at �12,748.48 (the figure in the accounts includes some arrears). It is very likely that there will be an increase in water charges over the forthcoming year and no allowance has been made for this save the contingency figure applicable to all expenditure in accord with the RICS guidelines part 8.


of 99

Annex B



of 99

16. Water administration chargeA water administration charge of 1.5 pence per day is payable under the Water Industry Act 1991 section 150, The Water Resale Order 2006.


of 99

17. Web siteDespite the proposal to withdraw the web site there was overwhelming support at the EGM for it to be continued and expanded. The hosting cost, bandwidth charge and other minor expenses are estimated to be about �200 per year. Populating the site, a major expense is included in the managing agents fixed fee if the Price quotation is accepted but will be charged extra is any other quotation is accepted.


of 99

18. Window cleaning (communal only)The EGM on 7 October 2009 voted to allocate �1,500 to cleaning the communal windows only. This is considerably less than spent on the crescent (annex 18A) but of course it is for a much smaller proportion of the building. To date no quotations have been obtained (Annex B).


of 99


of 99

19. Urgent Capital Expenditure – Roof Repair

A small area of flat roofing is in imminent danger of collapse. Quotations are attached at Annex 19A, Annex 19B and Annex 19C.

20. Pipework upgrade (external)

The upgrade to the external pipework to eliminate brittle plastic pipe dating from the 60’s is less urgent but prudent to replace while the scaffolding is in place. Since the roof quotations also quote for the pipework the reader is referred to the same annexes as shown in section 19.


of 99


of 99

21. Doors, Stainless external

A great deal of trouble is experienced with vandals in Pavilion Court. Our first line of defence is the electronic locking system and the cellular structure of the corridors which the locks impose. The outer doors have become very decrepit over the years and are in need of replacement. A visit to the security exhibition in Birmingham resulted in a quotation for stainless steel (remember the marine environment) doors to both the north and south block together with new frames and locking magnets (annex 21A). The old hardware will be used to replace and enhance vandal damaged locks in the centre block.

At present this is a budgetary price as there is a great deal of research still to do before the best value product can be ascertained but the estimate gives an indication of the likely price. It is important that this item is approved if further extensive damage to the buildings is to be avoided.


of 99


of 99

22. CCTVCCTV was not included in the original estimates as it had been disallowed by the LVT in adjudication of 9 September 2009 ref CHI/29UL/LSC/2008/0016 (extract at Annex 22A). CCTV was originally part of the building management (phase 4) implementation and has been deferred for many years to the detriment of the building.

It is anticipated that by using local labour to mechanically fix the cameras with a professional wireman will enable us to fit six high quality vandal resistant cameras (Annex 22A) which conform to the latest police requirements (Annex 22B).

Cameras are part of the police requirements for increased safety in the block (Annex 22 C, page 3) and will certainly deter further vandalism which is currently using virtually all our maintenance money.


of 99


of 99

23. Roof sinking fundThis has already been approved by the LVT in adjudication dated 9 September 2009 ref CHI/29UL/LSC/2008/0016. Extract below.


of 99

24. Asbestos removalAsbestos has to be managed in some manner. The best means of management is removal for,particularly in Pavilion Court, management is virtually impossible because of frequent vandalism and the necessity to remove asbestos panels at short notice to maintain the drainage system. The problem of management is compounded by the fact that we no longer have an on site presence to detect and resolve problems in a speedy manner.

In the past asbestos has been removed as and when it is damaged. This is an expensive and inefficient way of dealing with the problem.

Attached are quotations for removal of all the know asbestos within the building (Annex 24A and annex 24B). A very large asbestos report has been made available to the contractors indicating where asbestos needs to be removed and this has been taken into account when tendering for the work.

This removal has already been disallowed by the LVT in adjudication dated 9 September 2009 ref CHI/29UL/LSC/2008/0016. Extract below. The tribunal will note that the sum sought this year is the same as the sum previously sought.


of 99

pavilion court rtm company limitedpavilion-court.co.uk/assets/files/legal...

Documents