Vic Burt VRA elected Chairman introduced himself and the committee and Suzan Veale of White Mid Sloan Ltd. A company involved in buying properties on the estate and renovating them, then letting them out to the private sector. Suzan and her company at present represent about 10% of the Village.

He also went on to say that we are an elected group, the present committee was elected at an AGM and then, the Committee then chose the officers i.e. Treasurer, Chairman etc. We also have a constitution. We are members of NORA ( National Organisation of Residents Associations).I n a recent letter from NORA we were told that" the Government now recognise us being worthy of providing oral evidence to ministerial bodies. This confirms that our views are representative of the people that we represent in English towns and Cities."

Vic also told the residents that we were overdue an AGM and that the many problems encountered involving the estate had made this difficult. He asked that people think about putting themselves forward to be nominated for the committee. This is extremely important for us all. He also told the residents that neither he himself nor his wife Sandra, would be standing at the next election for a new committee.

Andrew Dodd's VRA Vice Chairman then spoke of the meeting with LPL on the 2007 accounts. "A few of you may know that we attended labyrinths offices to discus the 2007 budget. We have put a copy of the purposed budget on the web site with the changes we suggested.

For those who haven't seen the website I will go through the budget item by item.

will refer to the Johnson report; this was a survey of the estate which resulted in a time table of works to be done over a 6 year period, starting in 2003. Included in the Johnson report were the figures/costs for the works to be completed. The costs included 9% fees, VAT and 4.5% inflation.

Labyrinths initially tried to raise £735,500.00 for the 2007 budget.

Added to all sums relating to the Johnson report in the proposed budget was a 5% surcharge. This figure was queried and eventually it was stated it was for "inflation". It was pointed out that in Para 10 of the Johnson Report a figure of 4.5% inflation had been included. After much discussion on this point Labyrinth agreed to delete the 5% surcharge on all items so charged.

The first item on the list was Darwin way roof overlay, for £79,485.00 labyrinth claimed this is in line with the Johnson report plus 5%. We pointed out that this had already been raised in 2006. so asked for it to be removed. This was agreed by all parties.

Item 2 was the re-asphalting of the walkways for £19,635.00, labyrinth claimed this is in line with the Johnson report plus 5%, we pointed out that the Johnson report already had a built in percentage that allowed for inflation so we asked for this 5% to be removed. This was agreed by all parties, less the 5% as aforesaid

Item 3 stairs cladding repairs £2,625.00 labyrinth claimed this is in line with the Johnson report plus 5% we pointed out that the Johnson report already had a built in percentage that allowed for inflation so we asked for this 5% to be removed. This was agreed by all parties, less the 5% as aforesaid.

Item 4 external redecoration, for £39.06000 labyrinth claimed this is in line with the Johnson report plus 5% we pointed out that the Johnson report already had a built in percentage that allowed for inflation so we asked for this 5% to be removed. This was agreed by all parties, less the 5% as aforesaid

Item 5 associated repairs, for £8,400.00 labyrinth claimed this is in line with the Johnson report plus 5% we pointed out that the Johnson report did not allow for this and asked for it to be removed. This was agreed by all parties.

Item 6 trunking and fan replacement for £65,520.00 labyrinth claimed this is in line with the Johnson report plus 5%, we pointed out that this had already been raised in 2006. So we asked for it to be removed. This was agreed by all parties, less the 5% as aforesaid

Item 7 lift maintenance for £3,675.00 labyrinth claimed this is in line with the Johnson report plus 5% we pointed that the lifts weren't working and if they were they have a warranty period and so wasn't required for 2007 and asked for it to be removed. This was agreed by all parties

Item 8 engineering insurance, for £1,500.00 labyrinth claimed this is in line with the Johnson report plus 5% we pointed that the lifts weren't working and so wasn't required for 2007 and asked for it to be removed. This was agreed by all parties

Item 9 lighting and electrical £2,100.00 labyrinth claimed this is in line with the Johnson report plus 5%, This was agreed by all parties, less the 5% as aforesaid

Item 10 lightening conductor upgrade, of £6000.00 we agreed to this.

Item 11 day to day repairs for £31,500.00 labyrinth claimed this is in line with the Johnson report plus 5% we pointed out that the Johnson report already had a built in percentage that allowed for inflation so we asked for this 5% to be removed. This was agreed by all parties, less the 5% as aforesaid

Item 12 security for 24 hour full time cover 2 man £151,000.00 we agreed this subject to further tenders yet to be received, (further it should be noted that we have been verbally informed the tender was in the amount of 146k and not 151k)

Item 13 landscaping/cleaning for £74,263.00 as per lvt plus 3% inflation, again we allowed this. But it was requested that a breakdown separating the cleaning and landscaping be supplied. - It was further queried as to whether these services had been put out to tender

Item 14 management fee for £66,910.00 as per lvt plus 3% inflation, we pointed out the lvt only allowed £150 per flat plus 3% for inflation. We asked for this to be corrected This was agreed by all parties. We further discussed the "on site manager" or self styled "Development liaison officer" - it was held by all parties that his presence (non-presence) was not required and that any remuneration paid to him should be credited back to the service charge account. This was agreed by all parties

Item 15 asbestos removal, £25,000.00, we pointed out this had already been billed for and asked for it to be removed. This was agreed by all parties

Item 16 insurance, £140,000.00 again allowed - This was agreed by all parties

Item 17 bin chutes £2,000.00 in accordance with HSE requirement, we pointed that £25,000.00 has already been billed for bin chutes We requested this item be removed from the budget - This was agreed by all parties

Item 18 refrigerator removal £13,000.00 based on £35 +vat per 350 units, we pointed out to labyrinth that these are dumped on Caseacre land not Rowner estates. And in any event it would mean the every one would have to have had one new fridge last year and some people had two fridges. Anyway witnesses have seen the cleaning company driving on to the estate, then empting the vehicle of fridges. Let us not forget this cleaning company also works for labyrinth on other properties with in the area.

We asked for this charge to be removed. Subsequently during a telephone conversation with the solicitors for the freeholder, it was agreed that contractors fly tipping these white goods should be invoiced directly by them and/or by those instructed by them. If the contractors failed to pay for the removal, proceedings would be issued against them. It was acknowledged that this should not be an item for the residents and/or the service charge budget.

Item 19 accountancy £3.740.00 as per lvt + 3% inflation, we allowed this.

The following items we asked to have added to service charge in line with the recommendations of the Johnson Report.

Item 20 Lawrence walk roof overlay £1500.00 as per Johnson report. Item 21 Livingstone roof overlay £2000.00 as per Johnson report.

Item 22 concrete repairs £2000.00 as per Johnson report

Item 23 cladding windows and doors £50,000.00 as per Johnson report, however in previous years we have had addition fees added to the service charge which should have been covered by this £50,000.00 we have asked that the additional fees be deducted from the £50,000.00 This was agreed by all parties

Altogether we reduced the service charge budget by £223,666.00 "

Suzan Veale then spoke about her company and the fact that there was a huge shortfall in the payments of the 2006 service charge. Suzan then went on to speak about the letter, sent to all residents from LPL, stating that all attendees of the meeting with LPL had agreed to the letter. But in actual fact although we in principle agreed with a letter, the wording and content was most certainly not agreed. People up to date with their service charge should NOT have received that letter.

Suzan's company were in the position to take high court action to prevent the insurance cleaning and security being stopped. But at the very last minute they received confirmation that the services would not be withdrawn

Bramsdon and Childs the landlords solicitors said that they were unaware of the amount of service charges that were in arrears. Some amounting to £9,000. They are now busy collecting the arrears. The cost of which will be borne by the people in arrears.

Suzan went on to say the past needed to be dealt with, and would. But we need to look forward. If everyone is up to date with their service charge, Suzan's company can use all their power to force LPL to do the jobs that have been paid for. Detailed accounting needs to done, this has been started.

The residents were then asked for suggestions on what they would like to see in Rowner Village. Some residents wanted the shop units gone and residential properties in there place, many others disagreed. This is obviously something that everyone in the Village needs to be asked about.

Suzan also stated that she was looking into the possibility of the lifts, apart from the burnt one being reinstated.

Andrew Dodd's then spoke of the landscaping/cleaning.......

Once again we have found ourselves in the position of having no money in the service charge fund. But this in our opinion is a situation of LPLs making.They quite clearly have not chased the service charge owed as in some cases it reached thousands of pounds.The LVT hearing only protected those people who were actually involved in the action. Also once the LVT had made a decision, we had 14 days in which to pay.

In the past we have had 4 cleaners at the cost of £87,000 we now have 2 cleaners at the cost of £74,000. At the LVT in 2005 we were told that the cost of the cleaning was "expensive and poor quality" The cleaning we have now is most certainly not the best. In fact it is disgusting the amount paid for and the services we receive. The landscaping is abysmal,just this week the plants and bushes have been mutilated by the company supposedly landscaping the Village.

We have a witness to say that they have seen a van bringing fridges to the old NAAFI . This is Caseacres property yet we are being charged on the service charge for 350 fridges to be removed from the old NAAFI. On an estate where there are 301 properties are we to believe that every property, has had a new fridge and some more than one???

Vic ended the meeting by talking about the regeneration of Rowner and how LPL have told us quite clearly that this is not going to happen, this is very different to what Mark Hook and our councillors believe.

LPL had asked as the VRA to go to LVT jointly with them, to agree the reasonableness of the 2006 service charge. A vote was taken at the last meeting and was 100% against that action therefore we refused. We were concerned that the cost of the action, would then be added to the service charge, causing it to escalate.

We hope to be holding an AGM in September, please put you're name forward to assist us in looking forward and making Rowner Village a happy and healthier place to live for the residents.

Regards

VRA