Thank you for responding Mary.

Just a few more thoughts spring to mind from this…

With reference to the 5* accreditation scheme is there a reference to any stipulation in the lease agreements?
If so what is the exact wording in the lease agreement(s) with regard to our legal obligations for upkeep of “standards”, so that we can all appreciate exactly what is deemed legally required, as opposed to what is deemed “ over and above” provision ? Clarification would be appreciated.

Are we LEGALLY bound by 5* standards or has this arisen as a consequence of the visit Britain accreditation scheme which should assist marketing aspirations but which is a separate issue from the legalities.? Again clarification would be much appreciated.

We learned recently that this visit England scheme requires that we cannot advertise +2 for occupancy on the marketing website as as we used to, as Visit England would not grade the site as 5* if we did, as they do not recognize sofa beds as a 5* standard for the extra guests. Does this therefore limit our online marketing potential, as those families looking for +2 option could miss this when they initially search the website?

I wonder therefore if this aspect is open to negotiation with visit England, given the incredible overall provision already established in the Underscar lodges, not to mention the externals and amazing views afforded at Underscar.?

It seems strange that provision of a sofa bed for +2 which is already identified in the description of the lodges where applicable, should be the limiting factor to be accredited as 5* standard!

Re website issues we noticed in the latest newsletter that any concerns re the website should be addressed to [email protected] so hope this helps Julie , although I appreciate you may want to express concerns on the open forum too.

Re flipping backwards and forwards it might help to have a link established from the overview map of lodges , so that you click on the chosen lodge on the presented visual map which would link to the specific lodge description and then have a “ back” option to take you back to the last screen you visited, so that you can continue to review other various lodge options from the map. Might that help what you were looking for Julie?

In all honesty we all need to review the upgraded website http://www.underscar.co.uk to check out and feedback any issues we might find, via [email protected] who now appear to be the team responsible for changes. I need to check out the website in far greater detail too!

Also just wondering Mary if the new upgraded Underscar website is owned by UOCL?

Mary,

Please forgive my cynicism in relation to sales and the Underscar website, and whilst the website is improved, it’s still wholly lacking from a sales perspective as potential buyers have no idea what property they are looking at without having to flick backwards and forward to see a description of the property (that’s if they viewer knows where to look in the first place). I fail to understand why this has been made so complicated, if you want to sell something, the buyer usually would like to look at what they’re buying, not just a date on a poor PDF.

No disrespect intended to our Chairman, but many people have, in the past, tried to contact him with either no, or little response. I think ”email issues” were cited but I do question how long that can continue for.

A positive from the pandemic will be that owners will be able to both rent, and hopefully sell their properties over the next 12 months due to the increase in people holidaying in the UK, after 7 long years of battling with the Keswick Office.

I also concur with TikTat, there has been no formal agreement regarding the 5* status so maybe this also needs to be put back to the owners for clarity.

I also completely agree (again) with the comments made by Annie Simpson and the very real concern about the conflict of interest now faced by the likes of Sykes.

We are at last feeling more optimistic that we will be able to sell our property and hope others feel the same.

Thanks Mary, but I would like to know how you justify your statement ‘Members support the VisitEngland 5* accreditation’. When were we last asked in any more formal way than a show of hands at the last Rheged AGM, which had a far from conclusive answer?

The Board of UOCL has taken steps to radically review and improve the Underscar website. (www.underscar.co.uk). The work is currently still in progress, but there is now real interest in rental opportunities and marketing initiatives have been set in place and should be implemented very shortly. (See page 3 of the March 2021 UOCL Newsletter.)
The Board is aware that some members of UOCL wish to sell their weeks. Each year, FML/HOTL are able to negotiate successful resales of apartments, but the prices negotiated may not be acceptable to all our members. The Board carefully considers the management fee before any increase is implemented, particularly during these difficult times. The Board is duty bound to retain a reserve fund (Article 22.6 of the company’s Articles of Association) and to ensure that the Underscar estate is kept safe and secure. Members support the Visit England 5* accreditation, which reflects the high standards maintained at Underscar.
The Owners’ Forum will be maintained on the revised Underscar website and members will be able to access the Forum. Members who have specific issues they wish to raise are invited to contact Chairman, Ian Hedley – [email protected] or the Keswick office – [email protected]

Unfortunately due to personal circumstance we have not been reviewing the owners website and so can only apologise for this delayed response.

Having read the posts relating to leases, we now wish to bring other aspects relating to values to the attention of owners for their future consideration.

For many years we have been acutely aware that sales marketing of Underscar lodges has been sadly compromised by all manner of problems associated with a marketing website which many considered not fit for purpose, ( now thankfully much improved).

The problems, which are too lengthy to discuss here, have been hotly debated within other owners website threads, but suffice to say that sales values have been rapidly diminishing in the interim lengthy period, not necessarily solely due to true worth or diminishing years left on the lease, but lack of effective marketing leading to subsequent over supply and apparent failure to effectively tap into ( expose Underscar) to those interested in 5* options at large.

Suffice to say that this has left many owners wishing or needing to sell in an invidious position.

The rental values however now appear to reflect a more realistic “worth”, and we are hopeful that as the reputation of Underscar and its “value” in this regard become more widely appreciated, especially as staycations have expanded in the UK, that this will improve Underscar’s exposure to a wider public interested in high quality options, and in so doing its sales potential may also increase. Especially given there appear to be few self catering properties with this level of quality provision and location in the Lakes.

Unfortunately at present the marketing of sales of Underscar lodges remains in the hands of the new owners, SYKES (FML and Heart of the Lakes) who are predominantly a rental platform, with little incentive to market sales given any new Underscar lodge owners may not be keen to rent out their lodge, but prefer to avail themselves ( and their family) of their newly acquired week(s).
Hence we wonder if this poses a potential conflict of interests at SYKES management level with regard to effectively marketing and rigorously promoting sales, preferring to retain rentals from those understandably striving to cover their management fees until such time as a sale is acquired ? Catch 22 for owners wishing or needing e to sell for whatever reason? I

The bottom line therefore appears to be that until such time as sales marketing is adequately addressed by the board and all owners, the most beneficial way for owners to proceed in terms of “ valuing” their weeks in the interim period, lies with its rental value and not sales value.

Ironically the rental values are increasing, not diminishing, which surely must be taken into account when realistically reviewing the overall position re the offer by JB and the proposed reduction in leasehold period?

Of course if not careful increases in annual management fees play their part in disincentivising sales, so perhaps a realistic re- evaluation of continual 5* spending patterns alongside a well provisioned sinking fund, should be seriously assessed and appreciated in terms of their impact on the ability to sell if and when required.
Especially given the age demographic of the majority of owners whose family may not wish to commit to future escalating management fees.
Any increases in management fees should not be viewed in isolation therefore but in full recognition of the impact on sales during the remaining lease period.

A well managed development with ease of access to open forum such as this, with far greater owner participation than currently exists, thus striving for a balanced rational approach given all of the above concerns, appears essential going forward.
Might I suggest therefore that in every newsletter there is an easy “click here “ link to this owners website to encourage greater owner participation. At present unfortunately the owners website is not easy to locate and access for those unfamiliar with its use.

Sincerely wishing you all the best ….

Unlike most responses here, I am fully FOR the proposal. In addition to waiving the leasehold payments I would expect JB to agree to all changes to the lease(s) which RFS says are desirable and which we have been chasing for some years now. Of course, if we can negotiate an improved offer we should do so. The board should then bring this matter to an AGM as a formal proposal for ALL owners to vote on, with fully worked through recommendations. In the December Newsletter and the ‘detailed paper’ the board said this would happen. Facilitating this would be acting in the interests of all owners which the board has a duty to do. Our Trustee, RFS, was appointed due to their ‘industry-wide knowledge and contacts’ and believes the proposal, as it stands “is in the best interests of the Club and its members”. Have we all got better knowledge and contacts? If so why do so few sales appeal to new buyers? Only 7% of ’for sale’ property weeks have sold over the last 4, pre covid, years (UOCL stats). That is only 1.4% of the total 1225 owner weeks. And many are for sale at LESS than the capital cost so the ROI is low if not negative too. Value is based on what someone will pay and not our expectations. No different than selling a house. I suggest the sales turnover reflects low value or worth to anyone not currently in UOCL. JB will be aware of this. Either way,we need to get moving to establish a realistic worth and negotiate a deal on that basis. Putting it to a vote by all owners will determine if it is acceptable to the required majority. But a vote does need to take place. Alan Hodgkinson. Grange, week 3.

Totally against the reduction of the lease , especially for such a paltry sum. The properties are worth millions. The owner will be gaining a whole village for almost “next to nowt”.

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to consider the issue around the leases and give me your comments. The consultation is now closed and I have recruited a couple of non-Board members to help me analyse the detailed response, and report that analysis to the Board and then to all owners.
You will be interested to know that we have 866 owners who between them have the right to occupy our 1190 Weeks in our 25 apartments. Of these 178 owners have responded representing 276 Owner-Weeks. There is no outright support for any one course of action at present, so we have a lot to think about.

We need the sums to be set out clearly.

It is highly misleading to suggest that forfeiting half the remaining lease term would present a significant cost saving.

If we understand correctly, the proposal is that owners should relinquish 28 years of the 58-year lease (i.e almost half of the remaining term).

In return, the ground rent would be removed. Based on 53 flats and 52 weeks, this would represent a saving of just £3.63 per owner per week.

By far the greatest cost to owners, however, is the management charge. An alternative cost-saving approach could perhaps be to abandon the quest to maintain 5* status for the resort.

Thank you to the 109 owners (with 163 weeks) who have responded to the newsletter consultation. They are still coming in apace, and I will give my Board colleagues an update at our meeting next week. We hope to provide detailed feedback to owners on the range of issues owners have explored early in 2021. It is clear there are strong views on either side, as well as many helpful suggestions. The views shared here in the forum are being added into our overview. Ian Hedley Chairman UOCL

We would be in favour of shortening the lease commitment but completely understand that others will not. It’s going to be a matter of individual situations, of course.

This is an extremely well considered letter to the Board, and I agree entirely with the points made. Given the Board see Underscar as a liability and seek to reduce this, we should also open discussions with any organisation able and willing to take it on as a going concern, which would give a number of benefits, including potential exit options for those that wish to and a much stronger negotiating hand with the owner of the Manor

Peter

We are aware that people’s personal circumstances will greatly influence their response to this proposal. For information purposes, we post below in full the email we have sent to the Chairman. In essence, whilst we would consider the proposal we would only do is if the economics reflected the real values being lost (by the members) and gained (by the landlord). At the moment, the value of this offer to members is little more than 2 cups of coffee a week!

START QUOTE

Dear Chairman,

We refer to your email discussing the offer from Jon Brown to (in effect) waive the right to receive future rental under the leases in exchange for shortening the residual term of the leases (and by implication lessening the economic burden of the arrangement in the hands of members or their heirs and successors).

We set out our preliminary view on the proposal below. However, we think this matter is of such import that a forum should established for the proper discussion of its implications amongst the members well ahead of any position being proposed at the AGM next year. Please advise how you propose to disseminate views amongst members.

Although we do not object in principle to an arrangement of this type being negotiated, we think it crucial that a proper negotiation takes place and the correct economic value of what is being relinquished by the owners is fully understood. Members should keep in view that we will be negotiating with a business man who is currently running Underscar Manor as a luxury business and not as a family home.

At the moment, on the basis of 26 units x 50 weeks (i.e 1300 weeks) the actual value of this offer is little more than £7.00 per week over 30 years; in other words, of negligible value in view of the value that is being foregone: namely, the right to holiday for one week in the Lake District for a further 30 years (even at current average rentals that is worth well in excess of £300,000 per unit, per week).

You describe the carrot of £10,000 being ’saved’ and therefore in principle applicable to the ongoing maintenance of the properties. However, the reality is that £10,000 per annum is not a significant sum when simply forfeited on an annual basis under which no cash is actually received from the landlord. It might be marginally more attractive if the whole sum were paid as a premium, in advance, to enable a meaningful maintenance pot to be established on day one. However, if that were to happen the quantum involved would need to be discussed. The value of the 30 year residual interest, even in present money terms, is worth significantly more than £280,000. A negotiation should be held with the starting point being a far more realistic figure of several million pounds.

The other factor here is whether existing owners would be entitled to receive the whole or part of any premium directly, rather than being obliged to fund the maintenance pot. We would suggest something along the lines of 50% being applied to effect an immediate reduction of maintenance charges for several years, with 50% being applied to the maintenance pot. This provides members with an immediate, short term cash benefit and the comfort of a well-funded maintenance pot for future expenses. The pro rata funds applicable to ‘unowned weeks’ should be placed in the maintenance pot in their entirety.

For the reasons explained, we would currently disapprove the proposal; however, if a more realistic purchase price were agreed, we would reconsider that view.

END QUOTE

I suspect that views will be mixed but I don’t want my lease term to decrease

I am firmly against any reduction in the lease period, I can see no benefit to owners and fully expect my children and grandchildren to enjoy another 58 years at the place theyve been coming to for the last 21 years