Posted by Dave on July 27, 2007, 1:53 pm, in reply to "Re: Response to Charles"

What would I have done? That depends on two things: 1) Whether the issue is that we're likely to be uninsurable going forward, or that we're trying to drive down premiums; and 2) At what level of takeup of the checks we achieve the desired result. If both of those came down in favour of doing the checks (and I can see how they would), then I think it's a question of making the impact of those checks as minimal as possible, so as to encourage takeup. I would have considered the following: - Obliging PP to make good any damage they cause in carrying out the checks - Insisting that PP (a) carry out checks at early mornings, evenings or weekends; or (b) give (and stick to) a definite appointment time and duration. - Setting up a realistic timeframe for checks and repairs to be carried out - Arranging for someone from the Estate Office to be available to accompany PP on their inspections Obviously all of the above may have a cost implication over and above just paying PP for each check that's done, but (a) so did the way that you did it, and (b) clearly the cost would have been weighed against the potential saving in premiums. This may be a ridiculous and/or unworkable idea, but I might even have sent a letter to each leaseholder which set out the problem and the proposed solution, and offered multiple choice responses for leaseholders to indicate their position, e.g.: a) I will not wish to be present during the checks; b) I would prefer someone from the Estate Office to be present; c) I would prefer to be present personally during the checks, and can arrange this during normal working hours within a month d) I would prefer to be present personally during the checks, but am unlikely to be able to arrange this during normal working hours within a month Etc. Maybe no-one would've responded...but even that would have been a useful indication. Clearly any cost of each of those suggestions at this point has to be added to the costs that have already been incurred, and is therefore less useful. Having spent that money up front, I don't think that the directors have any realistic option but to keep pushing the checks. I'm not sure that anyone really DOES think that.

156