[ Burrells Wharf Messageboard ]
Posted by StefanN I have been paying service charges at BW for more then 10 years now. It was rising in moderation over the years which is clear to me. But I would like to look more on the last 2 years since there is a trend which needs to be clearified. I take 2005 as the reference year. 1H 2005 X In other words: SC wentup by ~ 6% 2005->2006. It went up by 76% 2H 2005-> 2H 2007. To be honest I find this unacceptable. I know that there are endless discussions about lifts, roofs and water pipes. I'm rather scared stiff that these horrendous costs will be the default in the coming years. Is anybody out there who could possibly show a way how we can get back to X from 2005? Can a director confirm that X will be the targeted figure for the coming years and not the current one? Also, if we accept the 76% now then this is it I believe. Then the SC from 2007 will be the new X and we possibly get another 76% percent increase in the coming future. Should we make an application to the Leasehold Valuation tribunal like mentioned in the R&R bill? Could we just pay X from 2005 instead of the astronomic figure from the bill and see what happens? Any suggestions are highly apreciated. Stefan PS: my flat is in the wheelhouse but leaking roofs or other unexpected repairs can hit any block at BW in the future.
|
Posted by StefanN - Did everybody got hit by the 76% or was it just the Wheel house guys? My salary definately didn't rise by 76% and I think all leaseholders should have the right to get an answer to these questions so that they can plan their financials. Many thanks in advance. |
Posted by claire (director's hat on) In brief, the percentages for every flat would have varied, according to the block in question and the apportionment by flat size. We do not have a target as such, but we do make every effort to keep costs down (we would like them below 2005 levels!). Our target is to maintain the quality of BW for the lowest spend. As has been posted many times already, this has been a particularly difficult year for the estate as a couple of large expenditure items outside the scope of the normal maintenance schedule have depleted the reserves of the estate as a whole and some individual blocks, the Wheelhouse being the hardest-hit block. We hope not to have another year like it but we cannot say that next year service charges will decrease by X% because the nature of unexpected expenditure is that it is unexpected! We are always mindful of the need to save money whilst maintaining BW as a quality and pleasant place to live. |
Posted by StefanN My understanding was that BWFL had build reserves for each block for the likelihood of unexpected expenses. These reserves should cover those unexpected costs and I do not understand why they couldn't be used for the wheelhouse. Why build up reserves if they do not cover anything? Why are all people hit by unexpected costs directly? Could you possibly explain what reserves mean to you then? I have the feeling that at least 2006/2007 things went very wrong for BW regarding the financials. I got the impression that everybody involved in this gets very quite at the moment, trying to not get the blame. The slogan is: let's wipe it under the carpet and in 6 months noone will remember. I will! I have the service charge stats for the last 10 years and I will not be quite until someone explains the case. And I am f***** tired to hear these speeches where people say that they work voluntarily, the do everything in the interest of BW.... It is our investment we put into BW, it is our wallet hit by the SC and it is us taking the risk. I don't know who messed it up the last years. I don't know wether the directors were nice and friendly but incapable of doing a good job. I don't know if R&R is innocent or just an incompetent agency. I don't know if our solicitors are good guys or if they just found a goldmine with BW. All I know is that I invested a lot of money and I do want the premises being handled in an professional way AND in the interest of the leaseholders. AND I DO NOT ACCEPT 76% SC RISES!!! PS: I still have the SC figures for 2005 and trust me I will compare them with a close eye to the ones to come.
|
Posted by andyS 1. Reserve funds The two unanticipated costs have both run into three figures per flat. Gym works have hit everyone in the pocket. Wheelhouse roof has hit Wheelhouse residents. Various more minor over-runs have occurred too but it is those two things that have bitten hardest. 2. "Everyone is keeping very quiet" If you would view the number of posts on here by myself, Claire, Charles and Gareth, I would suggest otherwise. Everything has been covered in a letter. 3. "acting in the interest of BW" We don't use this as a defence to incompetence, merely to state that no-one who makes a decision has a financial interest outside of BW that can benefit by a decision made by the board. Whilst people could claim that a third party decision-maker does have interests, we categorically do not. If you think that I am using it as an excuse, then I am sorry that you feel that way. If you think that I am a liar and a thief then please say so on here. Yes...we have all made one and that is why we act in the best financial interests of the company. It would be negligent and imprudent to do otherwise. 5. "who messed up last year" As far as I can see, there has been no "messing up". We have had unanticipated costs. Partly caused by residents; partly caused by circumstances. Both of these we are trying to overcome in a sensible way without being reactionary. As I have stated before, if you have a continued issue and want to see everyone involved in one place, please join us at the AGM. |
Posted by StefanN Reserve funds: I thought that they would be build up over the time and melt down in case of unexpected maintenance. Then it would be build up again. It should be a safe buffer and ensure that no extra service charges occure. If it does occure then the reserve funds were not sized correctly. Service Charge increase of 76%: Again I don't want to go into the core reasons of this. I just think that this is unacceptable. If I would report to my boss that unexpectedly I have an increase of 76% in running costs I would be fired. If a company aproaches the bank and asks for 76% more money the y would be bancrupt and if a football team would play 76% worse from one season to the other the coach would be fired. Even Chris Walker stated in one of his posts that stable service charges were one of the key objectives for him as director. You see what I mean? These astronomic service charges are treated as a minor hickup and noone is able to clearly explain the case nor does anybody show some evidence that this wouldn't happen again next january.
|
Posted by Charles Walker [BWFL] These are just some examples. I could mention the replacement of balcony screens a few years ago on Chart House which rusted and corroded in an unexpected manner, quite differently to those on Wheelhouse which were a different design etc etc. Now you ask will service charges not go up or go down in January 2008. We hope not but nothing in life can be that certain. We are and have been looking at costs under close scrutiny. We hope fuel charges will come down. We hope our claim record improves. We hope we do not get more unexpected items. We hope that now we have systems in place for better projections of planned maintenance which has been possible to put in place with the evidencing and cataloguing the whole structure of all aspects of the estate will enable us to plan ahead with more certainty. We are looking at other aspects like bulk buying, reducing staff costs [overtime, sickness and agency cover]
|
Posted by Andy J - Burrells Wharf is looking very good in terms of maintenance and upkeep compared with similar vintage developments (is Clippers Quay still looking prestine?) We do get a well-maintained environment for the money.
|
Posted by StefanN my records go back to 1996 and i think that BW was looking good in terms of maintenance up until the year 2007 came. |
Posted by StefanN on July 25, 2007, 8:50 pm, in reply to "Response to Stefan" You asked for my opinion so here we go: 2a. The gym: *** Content removed by Board Administrator as violating the BWFL rules of use of the Message Board *** 2b. Increased operating costs: true, electricity costs are rising but people mainly get hit by this on their personal bill. Electricity for common areas shouldn't make a huge portion out of the service charges. And the winter was very mild so heating costs shouldn't been an issue. 2c replace or not: I can't help you on that. This is wear and tear and you can always win or loose on that. 2d Wheelhouse roof: you name it. It was going on and on for years. Everyone had an opinion but noone was acting. Maybe we would have gained a lot if we had reacted on this immediately when it occured and maybe we pay so much because we had not reacted on this earlier. But I wouldn't blame BWFL for it since i could imagine doing it the same (being unexperienced with roof work). 2e. Estate leaks: This one you got completely wrong and I am sure that you already learned a lesson there. Paying planet plumbing upfront and open the door wide to give them the money was a terrible thing to do. If you throw more money on nonintrusive plumbing checks and hope to get money back on premiums is definately the wrong way. Not to mention that they didn't have to do all checks and BW became a money printing machine to them. I would have advised all landlords to carefully check their premises. But I wouldn't have given a single pound to planet plumbing especially when the costs exceed the premium benefits (if there were or are any) 2f low inflation area: yes you are right we do live in a low inflation area. 3%, yes I totally agree. But I still wonder about the 76% (in words seventysix) rise from 2006 to 2007. 2g unplanable forecasts. Hm, I would not sign this. We had stable SCs until end of 2006. In January this year BWFL already increased the SC by 40% because you saw that you would not be able to cover the period. Mid this year you rose it to 76% because you lost it completely with the costs. So you weren't proactive in any way it was more of an disaster recovery action AFTER the disaster happened. (And i still don't understand why reserve funds were not in place to be available as an "reserve") My statement was that SC went up by 76% from 2006 to 2007. Yes, this was regardless the context and it happened in less then one year. Someone reading this would get the impression it was terrible and unexpected, but Charles.... it WAS! One last remark: I also pay SCs for other premises. My secrete hint would be to increase the reserve funds. If you put those buffers up, then you won't get hit directly by nasty lifts, inpolite landlords and sound proofing and you would have the following years to get the reserves back to normal again without firefighting. Stefan PS: I bet my grammar is five times worse then yours, Charles. |
Posted by Charles Walker [BWFL] 2a. The gym: I would have taken a photo of the flat owner who threatened to sue us and stuck it to the wall in the estate office. Underneath the photo I would write "This is the man who got his flat very cheap and makes us all pay £70000 for it". I wonder how he would make it back to his flat then every evening. Mmm. Not sure that could have ever been an option, and frankly would have opened us up to legal action for defamation of character, and harassment, both are civil and criminal offences. No one knows this to be true and is a dangerous thing to say. 2b. Increased operating costs: true, electricity costs are rising but people mainly get hit by this on their personal bill. Electricity for common areas shouldn't make a huge portion out of the service charges. And the winter was very mild so heating costs shouldn't been an issue.
|
Posted by Dave Sorry - I realise that this horse is long past dead, but further flogging on the plumbing checks: "We only paid planet plumbing the cost to inspect each flat. About £50 per flat. The idea this was part of the service charge and people would take this up for the communal good and the incentive would be that they had already paid for it and that in the long run it would reduce costs." The objection is that this money was paid up front, before takeup of the checks was known. I don't see that this incentivises people well enough to justify paying for checks that are not done. "Asking people nicely to do theirs on their own initiative would not work in reality as a large proportion would not bother" I agree entirely, but if this plan was only going to be effective at 100% takeup, it was always doomed to fail and should never have been attempted. I assume that this is not the case, and the benefit increases as the number of checks increases - which is, again, why it doesn't make sense to me to have paid for every check up front. "[even now there is a large proportion who are not acting responsibly and refuse to have this done]" I'm sorry - this gets trotted out a lot, but I don't think it's anywhere near that simple. Not everyone who hasn't had their check done is "refusing" to get it done, or acting irresponsibly. Planet Plumbing won't work on a Saturday or outside of working hours. Accordingly you're asking each leaseholder who works to either (a) get comfortable with having someone they don't know, who has no responsibility for making good any damage, in their flat while they're at work; or (b) take time off work. I'm glad that there's a significant number of people who are able to do one of those, but I don't think it's fair to say that I'm irresponsible because I'm not happy to allow strangers into my home unsupervised on those terms, and I don't think it's fair to say that I'm refusing to get the check done because I can't get time off work to suit an arbitrary schedule. Now that work is in a quiet period I have been able to arrange some flexibility for next week - I have emailed Andrew at Planet Plumbing to arrange an appointment, and will happily have my check done if he can arrange one during that time. As yet I have had no answer. I'm not holding my breath. "Are you suggesting there are no benefits to trying to reduce the insurance premium and therefore the service charges?" I know that this point has been made before, but I'm not sure that we've ever been given any compelling evidence that we can expect a premium reduction that will outweigh the money we're spending on the checks.
|
Posted by PatrickW - on building up reserves: the options were (a) charge more in the past to build up reserves on the chance that what has happened would (and face as many complaints that the service charges were unnecessarily high, what do they need all that money for, better cross that bridge when we come to it, etc., etc.) But there's no way out of paying for work to be done. And on the plumbing inspections, I think (I don't have my lease in front of me) there's a reserve power for freeholders to have access to inspect for things like that anyway, which BWFL have yet to enforce. It would have been a bit more reassuring to have some precise figures on how many claims there have been and for how much, and it's another matter if Planet have in fact been paid upfront rather than as the jobs have been done: but the principle of requiring the inspections to be made, and charging them to the service charge seems perfectly sound to me.
|
Posted by Charles Walker [BWFL] |
Posted by Paul |
Posted by Dave 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 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; 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.
|
Posted by martyn A long tim ago in response for ideas on building work it was suggested that we exercised tighter control on works within the estate. Scheduling, notification to office etc. Given that all electrical kitchen work requires certification on sale why don't we ask for an estate certification on all plumbing work that involves modification. After all most faults are a result of change and given the number of kitchen and bathroom changes that we see on a monthly basis this would be a proactive way of introducing control and would also make people tyhink twice about using uncertified plummers or sparkies. If we made this a way of life we would definately know what was being changed and that it was done correctly. Who could object to that. Can we stop the tennis and act responsibly. Thistakes director leadership and action please
|
Posted by David The only thing I would like to confirm for my own maths is the £50 for checking a BW flat. In the accounts sent out in January, it showed a line for "plumbing checks" estimated at £12,000 for the charthouse alone. I'm not sure how many flats are in the charthouse (less than 50?), but that doesn't work out at £50 each, unless either this line was incorrectly labelled or that the £12,000 included other things? As for everything else, I guess we are at a bit of a stalemate. As I have mentioned before, I think communication is the key. Although democracy is not always a good way to run a company, perhaps the directors would consider a monthly or bi monthly informal report to make shareholders aware of the upcoming problems and the solutions they are considering. At least that would remove the concern from shareholders that not all avenues are being looked at when the unavoidable unexpected happens, by giving them the opportunity to make positive suggestions at the time. DC
|
Posted by Mike |
Posted by AndyS 1. "pay Planet Plumbing per check" so that they would chase up - not practical as (a) we would not have received a bulk discount (b) people would have ignored a letter from a plumbing firm asking to enter their property (c) this would not be seen as BW pushing through a solution. 2. early morning/evening/weekend appointments - from my experience of plumbers I would suggest that could have tripled the cost. 3. EO to supervise Planet Plumbing - I am not entirely sure what this would have achieved. Would people have felt more confident? What if there were 2 jobs on simultaneously? 4. "we did our best, could you do better, see you at the AGM threat". As I have said before, these are not excuses or threats! If you have a workable solution that you can convince me works then I am happy to advocate it. Much as I appreciate many of the more intelligent comments on here, I am still unconvinced by anything else. The criteria for a solution are : (a) it leads to BW being insured next year Please do not criticise the leadership merely because you dislike the decision! Propose a better decision and we will see what we can do.
|
Posted by martyn |
Posted by AndyS Any decision made that affects the development as a whole is discussed at the AGM and then implemented over the next year. The number of meetings that we hold over a period is limited by our availability. Each time we meet, we minute it. I am not entirely sure why it isn't online but I guess that it could be when we get the new website up and running.
|
Posted by claire (director's hat on) |
Posted by martyn |
Posted by AndyS I am not entirely sure that that is true Martyn. Anything that we discuss that is litigious has a direct financial consequence for all users of this site. ie. for every person that threatens to sue BW, the bill for service charge holders rises. Therefore, I would suggest that many users of the website would feel that the litigation issues that we discuss are fairly substantial. You can't put disclaimers on minutes as they are an objective record of a meeting!
|
Posted by martyn |
Posted by Dave Without knowing, though, the cost implications of not getting the checks done (or getting them done with a small level of takeup) or the level of takeup required to achieve whatever our goal is, I'm not in a position to suggest anything. I thought that was clear from my post? As expensive as evening and weekend checks might be, they strike me as the easiest way to get a more significant level of takeup - whether or not they're a good idea overall depends on variables about which the rest of us have no idea. And for the record - yes, having the EO supervise checks would have made me much more comfortable. Why should I not trust them more than some folks I've never met?
|
Posted by Mike Therefore, I suggest that BWFL tries to negotiate that type of volume discount agreement for any future plumbing check years. Of course, that’s unless someone can figure out a way of getting a take-up that is much closer to 100%, in which case my reasoning is redundant.
|
Posted by AndyS The way to get a higher take up as far as I can see it though is to enforce it. Although some people may find it easier at weekends and evenings, I think that the majority would still be difficult about it. I don't want to sound negative about my fellow residents (and actually whether I argue or agree with people on here I still prefer negative feedback to no feedback!) there is a general failure by people to want to participate. Hmmmm. Anyway. Someone will have to make the call on how to proceed next year. Feedback has been listened too.
|
Posted by Mike The other benefit of having a ‘pay per check’ arrangement is that it avoids the criticism that some leaseholders have raised. They say that the plumber is somehow taking advantage of BWFL (and therefore the charge payers) by being paid for 100% checks but only needing to perform a lesser percentage. In the mind of some people, that seems to set them as anti-plumber and therefore anti-plumbing checks.
|
Posted by AndyS The problem is that on job-lot we at least make a demonstration of trying to get everyone to have the check. On ppc, the insurer could well say that we didn't make best efforts. Point taken and I will make sure that we get both quotes next time for public perusal.
|
Posted by C7 Pete What about something similar to the current arrangement - which facilitates checks during normal working hours, plus the provision for a (hopefully not too high) premium payment for those needing an 'out-of-hours' inspection?
|
Posted by Mike 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.
|
Posted by AndyS In terms of your surprise that so many are not taking up the checks, don't be! i am currently sat here trying to get hold of some absolute idiot who is using a dodgy builder to do plumbing work. That tenant had no plumbing checks and has now caused two major leaks in a month to the flat below. This is the sort of absolute idiocy that we face on a day-to-day basis. |
Posted by Mike In ‘Mike’s World’, every leaseholder complies with his/her lease including the so called ‘use in a tenant-like manner’ clause. Every leaseholder maintains the plumbing and associated appliances in his/her flat up to a good standard with regular inspection and maintenance. Every leaseholder also recognises his/her moral obligation to the neighbours to take all reasonable steps to avoid inflicting avoidable flood damage on adjacent properties. Unfortunately, it sounds as though ‘Mike’s World’ only exists inside my head.
|
Posted by AndyS |
Posted by Mike Apologies in advance if there are any BW residents named Wayne.
|
Posted by AndyS |
Posted by David The aim is to reduce flood insurance premiums, although the amount of this intended reduction has not been disclosed. We need to set a goal otherwise we don’t know if we succeeded. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, I don’t believe that partial checks will result in an appropriate premium reduction. I think this because (1) partial checks aren’t going to provide much comfort to the insurers (2) plumbing checks don’t predict washing machine or dishwasher failures, nor do they (3) prevent floods caused by dodgy builders, accidents or DIY mishaps as Andy is chasing now. I have been trying to extract the financials of this exercise, but it has been like pulling teeth. For example, the charthouse accounts sent out in January claim an estimation of £12000 to check 80 flats. That’s £150 per flat not £50 per flat as claimed on this message board. I have asked for clarification but not received it. So how much have we paid Planet Plumbing for plumbing checks in total? The reason I ask is to try and offer another alternative for the future. If the total is in the region of £12,000 for the charthouse, that would suggest it would be around £60,000 for the whole of BW. If that were the case, shouldn’t we employ our own plumber who could then carry out the checks on a routine basis, as well as be charged out to residents at a competitive rate for corrective work or any other plumbing work? If it were financially viable, that would mean that (1) insurers could take comfort from an on-site plumber that knows the site and has immediate access. (2) Residents would have a trusted staff member to carry out the checks, so hopefully increasing the check rate (3) Residents would benefit from a cheaper hourly rate and no call out charge for any plumbing work they needed. You never know, a permanent plumber might even be profitable to the development! Difficult to tell though while the financials are so hard to get at. David |
Posted by paul1984 I do feel this thread is a distraction from the main issues and a symptom rather than a cause of this malaise. This esatate is large concern which would be an attractive proposition for more than one Management Company to bid for. Open tender based on the detailed information and a critique of same( the schedule of dilapidations undertaken by Tom and Chris)is surely the best way forward. A rolling contract with options to renew after competitive bidding is what we need. I hope we resolve this before September so the AGM is a productive forum.
|
Posted by AndyS
|
Posted by Mike |
Posted by AndyS |
Posted by martyn The AGM should have a formal paper covering options.
|
Posted by AndyS We are looking into a new certification of works, but it isn't straightforward. We aare taking expert advice - an insurer, a plumber, a managing agent. I am not sure what the comment about leases was meant to be getting at.
|
Posted by Mike Seriously, everything you say makes sense to me. The only thing I’d add is that the goal goes beyond just reducing the insurance premiums. I think the goal should be expressed in terms of a reduction in the number of water damage incidents. Even if the event is insured against, it is unpleasant, stressful and time-consuming to have to clear up after a major leak.
|
Posted by David I have asked before what proportion of past water damage was caused by incidents that would not be picked up by plumbing checks; that is - appliance failure and building mishaps. I have not had a response and so assume the directors have not evaluated this. Without this evaluation, I can’t see it was possible to assess whether the cost of the plumbing checks was worthwhile. Speaking of which, I have been asking since May how much has been paid to Planet Plumbing for the checks. I haven't got a conclusive response to that either. If it were possible to justify the cost of an "in house" plumber, then at least we might be able to increase response time when accidents happen, thus reducing the damage.
|
Posted by AndyS I have stated REPEATEDLY that the heart of the issue is not what the breakdown of failures is. The issue that we face is whether or not we can actually get any insurance at all. I am not talking about "how much insurance will cost" or "is this the most cost-efficient way of reducing claims" but "Can Burrells Wharf receive insurance cover this year?". Therefore, even if plumbing checks cost a thousand pounds per flat, they are in that respect cost-efficient. This solution had to be implemented this year. What happens next year is what needs to be discussed. Whether or not we can have an in-house plumber is something that we could look into - but there is a natural railing by residents against higher staffing costs that we would have to deal with. I have provided a breakdown of what we think that we have prevented on another post. I am not sure how we go about breaking down previous claims - I will ask the managing agent today if they have details of previous years.
|
Posted by David As I have mentioned, the January accounts for The Charthouse estimate the plumbing checks to be £12,000 for 80 flats. Thats £150 per flat. Charles has stated the actual cost of the check is £50 per flat. I am just asking for clarification as to which one is correct and what the total was for the whole development? "Therefore, even if plumbing checks cost a thousand pounds per flat, they are in that respect cost-efficient." If our actions do not change the view of an insurer, then clearly this isn't the case. Has any insurer agreed in writing that our actions will yield the goal we are looking for? "Whether or not we can have an in-house plumber is something that we could look into - but there is a natural railing by residents against higher staffing costs " Whether its a higher costs depends on the net cost of employing the plumber, less the cost of the plumbing checks to PP, less the income generated for BW by the plumber for chargeable works. "I am not sure how we go about breaking down previous claims" If we have never broken this down, how did we measure what effect the plumbing checks would have and therefore what evidence did we present to insurers to get their agreement that this route would be helpful?
|
Posted by claire (director's hat on) "Has any insurer agreed in writing that our actions will yield the goal we are looking for?" ""I am not sure how we go about breaking down previous claims" If we have never broken this down, how did we measure what effect the plumbing checks would have and therefore what evidence did we present to insurers to get their agreement that this route would be helpful? " I can assure you that the Estate Office staff and R&R did sit down and look at previous claims and target the plumbing checks accordingly.
|
Posted by Mike If it helps to build a more complete picture, I can add two additional data points to the Chart House £12,000/£150 average per flat figure. The corresponding budgeted figures for Taffrail and Slipway are: Taffrail House £7410 (40 flats equates to an average of £185 per flat) Slipway House £9180 (50 flats equates to an average of £184 per flat)
|
Posted by martyn |
Posted by David One very important future step is that this message board should be private to residents only. That would make it more useful for directors communication and less damaging to property prices. You never know, we might even get some answers to questions like "Why did different blocks pay different amounts for the same plumbing check?" DC
|
Posted by Stefan |
| 1004 |
