I am conscious of the need to move matters forward as we have a lot to consider in the short time available. However, it will be useful to have a recap on situation we all face.

Suttons Commercial (Brunswick Quay) Limited, is the management company which owns all the properties that fall within its boundaries including the external fabric of the building communal areas, car parks grassed area’s all of which are a valuable asset.

Until recently Suttons Commercial (Brunswick Quay) Limited, owned a valuable asset in the access to the Dock Wall moorings. This asset was transferred out of Company by Wren Properties / Harbourside Marina Limited when it acquired Suttons Commercial (Brunswick Quay) Limited. Notably both Wren and Harbourside share Directors and significantly no payment for this asset was made to Suttons Commercial (Brunswick Quay) Limited, we have been advised that this is in contravention of the law.

Suttons Commercial (Brunswick Quay) Limited, may own all the assets along with the freeholds but it also has liabilities, the most burdensome being the dock wall maintenance charge and to add insult to injury, whilst Wren and Harbourside have the profitable commercial use of the dock wall, they contrived to leave the liability to pay the £18,000 per annum dock wall maintenance charge with Suttons Commercial (Brunswick Quay) Limited. To be paid by the Anchorage Owners from of the Service Charge.

Suttons Commercial (Brunswick Quay) Limited owns all apartment and the remaining House assets including freeholds. Since December 2008 eligible members of The Anchorage Owners Association Limited own Suttons Commercial (Brunswick Quay) Limited.   

Some 13 house owners have purchased their freehold with further house owners expressing an interest in acquiring their freeholds. As a result of purchasing their freehold for a one off payment they no longer pay dock wall maintenance charge. The result of this is that the dock wall charge is divided amongst increasingly fewer owners. If this trend continues and more house owners apply to buy their freehold and are granted such a right, this will inevitably result in the dock wall maintenance cost being borne by the Apartment Owners. Resulting in increases in the annual service charges to take this increased cost into account.

In addition to the problems we all face resulting from the failure of the previous (Manchester Based) Directors of Suttons Commercial (Brunswick Quay) Limited who from 1998 through to 2006 failed to properly maintain the fabric of the buildings with monies in the order of £50,000 disappearing from the maintenance / decoration account. It is clear that had the £50,000 been spent on programmed maintenance the deterioration to the fabric of the building would not have occurred and we would not be facing the much higher costs to put matters right today. For the most part those same issues including the structure of the companies were addressed in the meeting of the 7^th February 2008 which resulted in an overwhelming vote to pursue matters and was further addressed in reports to members 15^th December 2008, 27^th May 2009 and 23 June 2009.  

However, time has moved on and it is now felt that matters should be prioritised in relation to the £18,000 per annum paid to The British Waterways in regard to the dock wall maintenance charge. Since the election of the new government a situation has arisen that has possible opened a window of opportunity for us? In a Cabinet Office document published by the Daily Telegraph in 2010, it was revealed that British Waterways is on the list of public bodies known as “quangos” that will be abolished. The complete list comprises of some 177 quangos, with British Waterways' name appearing under the heading 'Bodies to be abolished'.   

It is apparent that abolition of British Waterways has induced a state of considerable confusion in what was already a confused organisation with staff disinterested and facing redundancy to the extent that despite Mr. Nicholas, our Managing Chartered Building Surveyor, making numerous attempts to set up a meeting to discuss matters, they have not even responded, so it would appear the time to act is now.

As mentioned above, divesting the remaining House and Apartment Owners of the ever increasing £18,000 cost per annum paid by an ever decreasing number of Owners will be of major benefit and would also have a significant impact by increasing the value of Anchorage properties in the future.

We are advised that ................................................................... unlike House Owners the apartment owners cannot independently own their freehold and supporting assets.

As with the House Owners who, having purchased their freehold, leave the liability for dock wall maintenance payments with Suttons Commercial (Brunswick Quay) Limited to be paid by the remaining owners. .........................................................................................

The cost ..........................................................................should be regarded as a one of payment that will relieve them of future dock wall charges and as with the Houses the cost will be established by Certified Independent Valuation.

..........................................   

It is felt that if house owners who purchase their freehold can escape paying the dock wall maintenance cost, the Apartment owners should also be able to escape the cost. It was proposed from the floor of the meeting that the necessary advice be taken to detach the assets / freeholds from dock wall maintenance liability.

The possibility will need to be further assessed by Solicitors and valued by Chartered Surveyors and it goes without saying that the matters we are discussing are highly confidential.

As a footnote, we have never received a copy of the agreement / contract binding owners to pay the dock wall maintenance cost and have instructed solicitors to pursue this matter and we expect to have a response within the coming weeks.  

SUPPLEMENTAL

Owners expressed understandable concern in respect of none payment of Service Charge. The simple fact is that the minority of owners who do not pay their service charge are taking a free ride at the expense of their fellow owners who do pay and compromise everyone’s investment. At the meeting owners proposed that in addition to enforcement action being taken through the Courts, that defaulting owners face rigorous enforcement of the provisions in the lease.

The lease makes the following provisions.

(i) If the Rent or the Service Charge and sums hereby reserved and made payable or if any other monies which may become payable by the Lessee hereunder or any part of such rents Service Charge or other monies at any time or times remains unpaid for twenty-one days after becoming due and payable(whether such sums have been formally or legally demanded or not).... bear and carry interest thereon as well after as before any judgment) at the rate of ten per cent per annum or at a rate equivalent to four per cent per annum above the base lending rate of Barclays Bank PLC or any other Bank that is a member of the Committee of London & Scottish Bankers from time to time nominated by the Lessor for this purpose for the time being prevailing (whichever shall be the higher rate of interest)....

ii) If the rent or the Service Charge or any part thereof shall be unpaid for twenty—one days after becoming payable whether formally demanded or not) or if any of the covenants on the part of the Lessee herein contained are not observed and performed then in any such case it shall be lawful for the Lessor or any person authorized by the Lessor in that behalf at any time thereafter to re—enter the Premises or any part thereof in the name of the whole and thereupon this demise shall absolutely determine provided always the Lessor or the Management Company shall give twenty—one days prior notice to any mortgagee or chargee of the Lessee of which the Lessor and the Management Company have received prior written notice in accordance with Clause 33(c) of the Sixth Schedule hereto before commencing proceedings for forfeiture of this Lease but without prejudice to any right of action or remedy of the Lessor or the Management Company in respect of any breach of the covenants on the part of the Lessee hereinbefore contained

As stated above, owners proposed that in addition to proceedings being perused through the Court for recovery of unpaid service charge, with cost and interest lodged against defaulters’ property. That separate proceedings for forfeiture of the lease be initiated with all the further additional legal costs lodged against defaulters’ property and, were necessary, to recover such costs by a forced sale of the property.   

As owners themselves, directors are as effected by decisions as everyone else and have always sought to conduct matters in as neighbourly manner as possible with everyone rubbing along.

The directors would very much have it otherwise however, unfortunately they have been advised that they cannot be expected to differentiate between matters on which an understanding line might be taken and matters on which a more exacting line might be taken and would be constantly exposed to risk from anyone who may perceive that they have a grievance to contrive a lack of strict adherence to company and the lease clauses as an opportunity to censure the directors.

When you purchased your property your solicitor will have explained that a Lease is a Deed and a special document in law and explained all the clauses. When you signed your Lease you did so knowing that you were entering into a covenant to comply with all the provisions and clauses contained in your lease.

It follows that the clauses in the lease regarding subletting must be complied with.  

(iii) to the intent that no transfer or assignment of this Lease or any underlease shall take place without a Deed of Covenant having been entered into in accordance with Clause 35 of the Sixth Schedule....

Anyone who is subletting their apartment or house and does not have the proper Sub-Deed of Covenant in place agreed by the Management Company is in clear breach of their Lease and will need to provide the Management Company the relevant information required by their lease for forwarding on to the company Solicitors in regard to a Sub-Deed of Covenant and this process will need to be repeated on any change of tenant.

Owners who are letting their property may contact the management in regard to a meeting to discuss matters. 

Other exclusions include such as keeping pets, fixing Ariel Dishes or any works that include the exterior of the building and obstructing the communal passageways which breaches fire regulation along with all the other clauses set out in your lease.

On a more upbeat note, since the meeting of the 10^th January 2011a positive meeting has now taken place with solicitors regarding the vexed matter of the £18,000 annual dock wall maintenance charge and enquiries are being made as a matter of urgency. 

7 Feb 2011