Not fit for purpose

OldMusicGuy

AdrianC said:

So, yes, it's entirely possible that the maintenance and upgrading of the pumping station is the responsibility of the management company, and the bill is then going to follow a similiarly unidirectional trajectory all the way to the property owners.

That wasn't the point I was making. The developers built the pump station. If it was not built to the right spec for the development, then that is the developer's problem, not the property management company. There may be grounds for getting the developer to foot the bill for the upgrades if there were problems with the initial spec, but I don't know how you would go about that (in terms of identifying if the original pump station was not fit for purpose). You need to be able to answer these questions "did the pump station really need upgrading and if so, why?" 

Of course the property management company is responsible for all ongoing maintenance and upgrades. If all the property management company has done is pass on the costs of upgrading the pump station in accordance with the maintenance agreement, then the property management company has done nothing wrong. However, there is a possibility that the pump station did not need upgrading and the management company did this as a way of inflating its management fee (usually based on the total estate spend).

The residents should ask the property management company to provide the justification for upgrading the pump station. Maybe they have a report which states the work needed doing which could then be used to get the developer to foot the bill. If they cannot provide justification, you could challenge them on why they did the work. That is the kind of thing the Property Ombudsman would arbitrate on.

The OP should separate out every issue with the management company. If you think they are charging the wrong management fee, that is a separate issue from the pump station one. But you must read the terms of the maintenance agreement - most management fees escalate every year. Just saying "they are too much" won't get you anywhere.

Final point for the OP - if you are going to use the Property Ombudsman, make sure you form a Residents Association. This has no legal standing but it will allow you to make one complaint on behalf of all the residents to the Ombudsman. If you don't have a resident's association, each resident will have to make their own individual complaint.

AdrianC

OldMusicGuy said:

AdrianC said:

So, yes, it's entirely possible that the maintenance and upgrading of the pumping station is the responsibility of the management company, and the bill is then going to follow a similiarly unidirectional trajectory all the way to the property owners.

That wasn't the point I was making.

In the fuller context of my whole post, it should be clear that I was following on from your point.

The developers built the pump station. If it was not built to the right spec for the development, then that is the developer's problem, not the property management company.

Not necessarily. Especially after five years. We know nothing about the transfer from developer to management.

Final point for the OP - if you are going to use the Property Ombudsman, make sure you form a Residents Association. This has no legal standing but it will allow you to make one complaint on behalf of all the residents to the Ombudsman. If you don't have a resident's association, each resident will have to make their own individual complaint.

This is, of course, a very good plan even if the ombudsman is not going to be brought in.

OldMusicGuy

AdrianC said:

Not necessarily. Especially after five years. We know nothing about the transfer from developer to management.

Fair point, I should have said it may be the developer's problem. Like I said, I have no idea how you would go about verifying if the original work by the developer was adequate or not.

So the starting point for the investigation into costs of upgrading the pump station is for the OP to find out why the work was undertaken. What justification did the property management company have for upgrading the pump station and incurring the cost? Do the terms of the transfer of land allow the property management company to undertake work like this "as they see fit"? 

jennifersewell

Thank you for all the comments. Yes I very much agree that there are two issues that we as a residents group need to tackle. 1) pump station inadequacy from the property developer 2) management company.

In regards to 1) the comment regarding council planning seems sensible, and I will propose this to our residents group, thank you, as well being clear with any wording included within the land transfer. 

The residents have agreed that the next steps as a group are to engage with a solicitor to pursue further advice also. 

2) yes we are all freehold. I don’t mind at all paying for charges, as this was expected, it’s when they starting charging £1700 to maintain 3 m of path that it gets concerning. I also believe they should have the interest to mitigate cost (not send a team from 150miles away on a Sunday for maintenance when there is a sufficient local supplier in the next town). Just doesn’t seem as if any sensible thought is considered. We have a united front and hope to start making traction on this front. 

Thank you to the comments regarding finding other similar groups for advice and information, I have also taken this up and started researching. 

OldMusicGuy

jennifersewell said:

2) yes we are all freehold. I don’t mind at all paying for charges, as this was expected, it’s when they starting charging £1700 to maintain 3 m of path that it gets concerning. I also believe they should have the interest to mitigate cost (not send a team from 150miles away on a Sunday for maintenance when there is a sufficient local supplier in the next town). Just doesn’t seem as if any sensible thought is considered. We have a united front and hope to start making traction on this front. 

This is the kind of thing that started happening to us. We were ok for many years but the property management company was "rebranded" and had a new management team. The service went from barely adequate to appalling. We started getting all sorts of charges that we felt weren't needed (like an annual health & safety inspection even though the last one said no inspection needed for another four years), there was also double charging for work and incorrect calculation of the management fee. The management fee was a %age of the total costs charged to the estate, so the more they charged, the higher the fee. Property managers changed every six months and anything agreed with one never passed on to the new one so we could never get anything progressed.

We had to form a residents association (make sure you do that and have a written constitution) and spend a lot of time going through the accounts for several years. We had to use the Ombudsman twice, there were many angry letters and calls to the CEO and eventually we got things under control with significant refunds of overbilling and incorrect charges. 

Best of luck!