Barrett–Redrow freehold property on land maintained by FirstPort: what rights do homeowners have?

Rachel166

I have lived in a freehold Redrow house for about eight years. Around six years ago, once the housing development was completed, we received a letter informing us that FirstPort would be taking over the maintenance of the estate. This included the roads, pavements, green spaces and the small park.

When we bought the property, we knew very little about these maintenance charges. A friend living on a nearby estate mentioned that his home carried similar fees, which was the first time we became aware of them. We asked Redrow about the charges before completing the purchase and were told only that the fees would be reasonable and the service would be of high quality. Our solicitor could not provide any firm details either, other than confirming that charges would be introduced at some point.

The fee began at £340 per year but has since risen to nearly £500, plus additional costs for extra work. There always seems to be additional work, whether justified or not.

I had never heard of FirstPort when I bought the house, but after researching them online, it became clear they have a poor reputation. Councillors and even MPs have criticised them for overcharging customers, particularly in the leasehold sector, where they are known for high fees and minimal work.

This mirrors our experience. The fees are excessive for what is actually delivered. Most of the time, the work amounts to basic grass cutting and very little else.

Over the past year, I have raised several issues with both Barrett–Redrow and FirstPort. These include brambles and overgrown branches obstructing pavements, bins overflowing with rubbish and dog waste bags, roads covered in stones and silt with weeds growing along the edges, and many other things.

Although Barrett–Redrow owns the land, they show no interest in dealing with complaints. They simply say they will pass concerns on to FirstPort.

FirstPort themselves are difficult to communicate with. Even when you manage to raise an issue, they are slow to act and often dispute responsibility for certain areas, despite their own maps showing they are accountable. A good example of their poor management is the £40 annual charge we were billed for maintaining a sewage pumping station. When a resident pointed out that this was already covered by our water rates, FirstPort refunded the money.

I have read that leasehold property owners have far stronger rights than freeholders. Leaseholders can legally challenge fees and, if enough residents agree, they can even replace the management company.

However, I have found very little information about whether freehold owners have similar protections. I understand new legislation is planned that will help freeholders challenge unreasonable charges, but I have not seen anything confirming whether freeholders will be able to remove a management company altogether, such as FirstPort in our case.

This leaves me wondering whether the residents on my street are effectively stuck with FirstPort indefinitely, along with the excessive and often unfair charges, or whether we have any legal ability to replace them with a different company.

I have contacted the council about adopting the land, but they explained that the matter is entirely out of their hands. Barrett–Redrow would need to submit a Section 38 application for adoption to begin. They declined to do so.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6674770/barrett-redrow-freehold-property-on-land-maintained-by-firstport-what-rights-do-homeowners-have

The fees are excessive for what is actually delivered. Most of the time, the work amounts to basic grass cutting and very little else.

Professional grass cutting is surprisingly expensive and getting more so. Many councils who used to cut amenity grass maybe fortnightly from March through to October have reduced this to perhaps two or three cuts per year.

I have contacted the council about adopting the land, but they explained that the matter is entirely out of their hands. Barrett–Redrow would need to submit a Section 38 application for adoption to begin. They declined to do so.

What the council didn't tell you (probably) is that even if a S38 application was made they are likely to do all they can to avoid adoption, but at the minimum would require the areas to be improved to a satisfactory standard prior to any adoption - so you may well get a big bill for pre-adoption works plus legal costs.

eddddy

As you say, Freeholders don't yet have the same rights as Leaseholders for challenging Management Charges etc.

All you can rely on is contract law - i.e. you would have signed a deed agreeing to pay a charge in return for the grounds being managed. So you can check the deed to see if they are breaching it in any way, or charging you for anything that they're not doing.

Just some other thoughts…

As I understand it FirstPort don't have their own grounds maintenance people, they hire contractors.

It's possible that FirstPort are paying contractors to cut brambles, empty bins etc - but the contractors aren't doing the jobs they're being paid for.

Maybe taking a collaborative approach with FirstPort would work. e.g. "I don't think the contractors are doing a good job. Could you let me know how often the contractors are supposed to visit, and what the scope of their work is? Then I can report back to you, if they're not doing what their contract says they should be."

Or from another angle…

As you probably realise, the contractor's fees form part of your Estate Management bill - possibly the main chunk of your bill.

If you're asking for bins to be emptied more often, pavements to be weeded more often, trees to be pruned more often, etc - that might require more time and/or visits by the contractors, and that extra cost will be added to your bill.

And I guess that you need to bear in mind that maintenance costs will increase over time. A new estate will need relatively little maintenance - but as years pass, trees and bushes will need pruning, pavements will get worn and need repairing, etc.

RelievedSheff

The paperwork that you signed when you bought the house will have highlighted that there would be a management company and that the estate was to remain an unadopted private estate with a management company.

This is why it is very important to read, and understand, what you are signing up for. Your solicitors should also have pointed this out to you.

You will have signed a deed with the management company also.

mta999

I have had experience with Firstport and my advice would be to avoid them at all costs they are appalling - not that you have any choice of course as Redrow have appointed them

Your house is not freehold it is fleecehold - you can Google that

Unless and until legislation is passed that allows you to change your management company you're pretty much stuck with paying whatever they demand.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/stronger-protections-for-homeowners-on-fleecehold-estates

Woodstok2000

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82055906#Comment_82055906

The OP was pretty clear they were aware of these charges. The issue is with thr level of service being provided (or not).

daveyjp

Freeholders have little protection other than contract law.

Starting point is to request the service level agreement you are paying for, review what they are supposed to manage and maintain, how often works should be done and to what standard. Then assess if standards are being met and if not start gathering evidence, dates, times, photos etc,

It will then probably come down to a strength in numbers approach with other unhappy neighbours, form a group and make a formal representation to Firstport highlighting shortcomings. Give notice to them that all invoices will be paid under protest due to their failures in meeting the contractual requirements and you expect them to start delivering the service you are paying for.

If the fees include potential costs for very expensive repairs to roads, streetlights, pavements and sewers you need to understand how those repairs are managed and how costs will be covered.

mta999

Good advice with any other management company but speaking from experience you will not get anywhere by representing anything to Firstport from anybody!

Rachel166

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82055841#Comment_82055841

Yes, that is correct. FirstPort do not carry out any of the hands‑on maintenance themselves. They simply pass the work on to subcontractors.

The real problem, which I have already raised with both FirstPort and Barrett-Redrow, is that there is no proper, efficient plan in place to maintain the estate to a decent standard or at a fair price. Nobody from FirstPort ever seems to visit the site or check the work being done. The subcontractors responsible for the general upkeep, including grass cutting, hedge trimming and other routine tasks, turn up roughly every two weeks and repeat the same job again and again. They cut the grass even when it is barely two inches long.

In reality, the grass only needs cutting every four to six weeks at most. That would free up time for other essential work to be completed without adding any extra cost. Yet this almost never happens. My guess is that grass cutting is easy, especially when using a sit‑on mower, and it looks impressive. Most of the cutting is done at the entrance to the street where everyone can see it, while the corners and hidden areas are left untouched.

Section62

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82056294#Comment_82056294

In reality, the grass only needs cutting every four to six weeks at most. That would free up time for other essential work to be completed without adding any extra cost. Yet this almost never happens. My guess is that grass cutting is easy, especially when using a sit‑on mower, and it looks impressive. Most of the cutting is done at the entrance to the street where everyone can see it, while the corners and hidden areas are left untouched.

There's probably some form of SLA-type arrangement in place - e.g. specifying the grass should be cut every two weeks, or trees/shrubs to be inspected and trimmed twice a year.

This type of contract is fairly straightforward and easy to manage - the client can just ask for the dates the grass was cut. A contract which specifies grass cutting "as necessary" or "when it needs doing" is harder to manage as it introduces potential for conflict (e.g. what does "as necessary" mean?)

More complicated contracts with greater contract management requirements equate to the potential for residents being charged higher bills.

Rachel166

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82056308#Comment_82056308

Maybe, but when a footpath is obstructed by foliage, or worse, when a bramble is hanging at face height and could cause a serious injury to your face or eyes, that is completely unacceptable. Yet on their last visit about six days ago, the contractors ignored the problem of overgrown foliage obstructing the pathway and chose to cut the grass instead.

That more or less sums up FirstPort.