NHBC Claim
This claim has been initiated due to significant build defects, which we believe were inherent in the original build. At a meeting in 2014, the options were discussed as to these repairs, and it was explained that the cost of the repairs would run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. The claim was initially rejected by the NHBC, though their grounds for rejection are not entirely clear. Trinity, with significant input from DTZ and Charles Fry are contesting this. Everybody appreciates that the flats look shabby but they need more than a lick of paint to brighten them up as has been stated in previous NDRA meetings. The options here are very simple. Either wait and see what the outcome of the claim is or do the works now and charge the full costs to the flat owners. Trinty are presently holding off non-essential repairs to items included in the claim in order to ensure that the claim is not invalidated and are therefore fulfilling their duty of care to everyone involved. DTZ are currently collating a variety of independent reports, which will form the basis of a response to the NHBC. The outcome, clearly, is currently not yet known. However, if a settlement is not reached with the NHBC, the only option will be to raise additional charges to owners to carry out these repairs. I have seen correspondence suggesting that the costs of these repairs should, in fact be met by the freeholder. I would refer you to the terms of your lease/TP1 for clarity on this. I would point out that costs for all maintenance and repair works are to be met by the sub-lessees. I am at a loss to understand why any owner would believe we are not pursuing the correct course of action. The potential cost of these repairs far exceeds the maintenance budget, as was confirmed in our meetings previously. I would also point out that we are obliged to give details of the NHBC claim on request from the solicitors of potential new owners, and that this information may not be withheld. If anyone wishes to receive further information on the claim, I would ask that they come to me direct for clarity, rather than issuing indiscriminate emails, which set us back considerably.
Parking Arrangements
Permits have now been issued, and I believe all owners have received them. Any tenants not in receipt should contact their landlords. The purpose of the parking restrictions is to reduce the number of vehicles on site and to ensure that everyone who has an allocated space is able to use it. The properties come with a designated space, and over time this has been ignored. Holiday lets and normal sub-lets frequently use additional or incorrect spaces, and we have seen instances where letting agents have informed incoming tenants that there are no restrictions, either on the number of spaces or the location of them. The restrictions should alleviate this issue, and ensure that everyone has access to those spaces to which they are entitled for the benefit of everyone. I recognise that it may be inconvenient, especially for holiday lets to have this restrictions but the transfer agreements are clear, and it is our duty to enforce them. The rules issued are clear, and we have provided options for assistance in the event of non-receipt etc. The parking company are also aware of the teething issues inherent in such a large site, and are being flexible in the early stages.
I have received numerous calls from tenants on this issue, and would ask them to refer to their landlord for clarity, as we have no relationship with anyone other than owners.
I can confirm that the speed bumps and other restrictions are within legal guidelines, and would ask that any owner who has substantive queries on this issue to please come to us direct. Again, these restrictions were put in place to increase safety on site, as we received numerous complaints about near-misses and irresponsible driving, exacerbated by poor parking in certain areas of the estate. I believe that this action is correct and responsible on such a large, unmarked estate.
NDRA
As you will be aware, there are significant issues with the NDRA, which are yet to be fully resolved. Trinity’s position is that the NDRA must meet certain requirements in order to be recognised by us, and I believe that certain of these conditions may not be met at present. First amongst these is the issue of membership, which must be a significant proportion of all owners on site. The troubles within the committee are preventing any clarity on these issues, and must be resolved if the committee is to remain recognised by Trinity Estates.
For clarity, I would point out that the NDRA has limited powers and responsibilities, and is primarily a tool for communication with the managing agent. I look forward to agreeing with the existing members and other interested parties a firm date for an AGM, at which time the make-up and constitution of the NDRA can be agreed, and we can continue working with them in the best interest of residents. Please be advised that the two issues listed above are not affected by the current issues within the NDRA. These issues are management functions of Trinity Estates, and while it would be beneficial to have input from the NDRA, their current situation does not change our contractual obligations to you as owners, or to the freeholder. The existence or otherwise of the NDRA does not affect our approach to the above issues.
Simon Bellamy | Regional Manager