Posted by Mike on July 31, 2007, 5:55 pm, in reply to "Re: Response to Charles"

No, I’m not suggesting that ‘pay per check’ will only be payable by those that have the checks done. By ‘pay per check’, I mean that BWFL would only pay the plumber for the checks that were actually done. The total cost of the plumbing checks would still be charged to the service charge accounts, and be payable by all service charge payers, in the same way that it is done today. The benefit is that the total bill should be less than it is today. I’m surprised that so many people are not taking up the checks. In effect they are subsidising those people that are having the checks. They are also increasing the risk that a water related problem goes undetected within their flat. That’s a double-whammy which you would think would act as a strong incentive to get the checks done. I think the idea of an ‘out of hours’ premium, payable directly by the leaseholders that would like that service, is a good idea. It might enable a few more leaseholders to go ahead with the checks. It could be a bit cumbersome to administer though. There could also be a similar ‘accompanied by estate office staff member’ premium, again payable directly by the leaseholder, which might persuade a further set of leaseholders to go ahead with the checks.

106