Underscar : The Liability and The Refurbishment« Back to Questions List
|
The weekly fees are becoming too steep (justified by the need to refurbish) and Underscar will become overpriced, It is now a liability to owners . Rises are fine as long as the refurbishment is done with style and quality. The semi-chic care home like sofas we now find in High Spy are an embarrassment. If we carry on putting up the fees and refurbishing the lodges in a poor style owners will not want to use them , more will be offered to the rental market and less care will then be taken by occupiers and the route to decline will have begun. Given the number of complaints on the message board on these themes the Board needs to rethink and revisit its plans. It is NOT acceptable that problems with lodges are not addressed - owners finding the same uncorrected faults 1 year on . Conduct a survey among owners about what they would like to see regarding refurbishment there are bound to be some excellent ideas ( along with the unaffordable ones ).
|
|
For information, here is an email exchange I have had with Peter Allen On 30 Aug 2017, at 15:50, Peter Hands wrote: Hi Peter As your comment in the newsletter makes clear, you are aware of concerns about the maintenance fees I’ve been having a look at what has happened when and was surprised that action point 10 from board meeting 0007 in January said ”It was agreed that JL and CJ would prepare a paper outlining proposed spend on refurbishment in 2017/18 and for a five-year period. This would include the essential rolling programme items as well as the 5* replacement of major items, costed and prioritised. The Board agreed that we were not yet in a position to put a proposal to owners on funding an escalation of 5* refurbishment, and we should consult owners before deciding on our strategy. This could be carried out via the website and Newsletter.” (my italics) I have never seen such a paper (maybe it is for the Board only – a shame if that’s the case) and I have certainly never been consulted in any way, apart from the infamous show of hands for three options at the AGM. In that context, I am surprised that the Board has just gone ahead anyway What are your comments on this? Peter I had a reply today, which is Dear Peter This was discussed at the Board meeting yesterday and it believed that the discussion at the AGM coupled with its responsibility to ensure orders for refurbishment goods for the 2017 close down be placed in good time obviated the need for wider consultation. My personal view is that you will never get agreement through consultation with a large number of people and that the Board is elected to act in the best interests of the Club. I replied to that Thankyou for the update but we will have to agree to differ on whether the AGM discussion was adequate and gave the Board the authority to act as it has As a Board, you agreed the need for a costed report and consultation before approving funding, in the shape of higher management fees, so placing orders before getting the funding authority is an unusual way to operate Kind regards Peter Clearly, the Board feel that they have the best interests of the owners at heart, and know them so well that they don’t need to ask, even when they have, as a Board, agreed to ask! I see problems ahead for Underscar if things don’t change, as owners will start to walk away and default rather than pay ever increasing fees set by a Board that doesn’t ask, let alone listen. And by the way, I suggested that the Board regularly publish performance indicators such as occupancy, number of resales, number of rentals achieved and so on but they have refused to do this, for reasons that are beyond me |
|
There are currently 2 vacancies on the Board. Maybe those if us feeling there is a need for change should consider this as an option |
|
I find all this a little surprising (and other posts). I accept that I’ve never attended any AGM since owning (2002), due to timing and/or location and frankly not particularly engaging with the process (my problem). We either take up our week or rent it out. Reading the AGM minutes each year it appears to be a friendly non confrontational couple of hours with lunch thrown in. However, recent postings on this forum suggest otherwise and this current Board appear to be just not listening to owner’s very pertinent worries/issues, particularly regarding sales, rentals and the all important annual fees! What the heck is going on… it appears I’m sleepwalking into apathy and there are some very serious questions that are being asked but not properly answered. Should we start a revolution/hostile takeover and maybe some of us can get under the skin of this?!! Happy to help. |
|
There is a huge issue about how the development is being managed but the Board seem to take no notice. Even there own decisions about how to go forwards are ignored. Apologies for reposting something that is elsewhere but here is a Board decision from their meeting of January 2017 ”It was agreed that JL and CJ would prepare a paper outlining proposed spend on refurbishment in 2017/18 and for a five-year period. This would include the essential rolling programme items as well as the 5* replacement of major items, costed and prioritised. The Board agreed that we were not yet in a position to put a proposal to owners on funding an escalation of 5* refurbishment, and we should consult owners before deciding on our strategy. This could be carried out via the website and Newsletter.” As we all know, no such report has been published, no consultation has taken place and the Board have just gone ahead with a shocking rise in fees with no accountability Does anyone have any ideas if there are any corporate law options to reel in a Board acting in this way? |