|
LONDON
YARD MANAGEMENT COMPANY MINUTES
OF THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
HELD
AT THE PIER TAVERN, MANCHESTER ROAD, LONDON, E14 ON
WEDNESDAY 15 JANUARY 2003 AT 7:30PM Directors
Present:
C
Inglis
-
Chairperson
M Bowater
-
Director
A Gilbert
-
Director
C Hawkes
-
Director
D Jackson
-
Director
C Noebel
-
Director
S Da Silva -
Director
In
Attendance:
N Golder
-
Hercules
H Weinstein
Wood
Management / DGA
Apologies
Apologies
were received from R Amarinia, M Donnelly and S Arnold. At the
start of the meeting the Chairperson reminded all those in attendance that
only one vote was permitted per shareholder. Election
of Directors C Inglis, A
Gilbert, D Jackson and S Da Silva introduced themselves and requested
formal re-election. It
was sanctioned that they would remain as directors.
Though not present at this time, it was also agreed that R Amarinia
and M Donnelly be formally re-elected to the Board. A Drewett,
having been co-opted to the Board in February, had resigned as a director,
and was thanked for his contribution. Rotational
Resignation of Directors C Hawkes
and C Noebel resigned by rotation, and were re-elected as directors. Minutes
of AGM held 31 January 2002 It was
found that these had not been sent out to all lessees, either subsequent
to last year’s meeting or with the Notice of this AGM.
It was the opinion of a number of the lessees present that it
would, therefore, be unreasonable for these to be approved at this time. It was
agreed that a further copy of last year’s AGM minutes should be sent out
by post to all lessees, as well as being placed on the London Yard
website. It was proposed that
lessee’s hopeful acceptance of the same should be made in writing to the
Management Company. This
motion was proposed and agreed. Managing
Agent N
Golder introduced himself and H Weinstein to all present. N
Golder admitted that there was no legitimate reason for last year’s
minutes not having been distributed, and advised that they would be sent
out as soon as possible, and the minutes for this year’s meeting shortly
thereafter. This matter was
noted for future reference. Those
present were advised that H Weinstein had replaced R Bronson as the
property manager responsible for London Yard, seconded to DGA from a
sister company, Wood Management. A
letter of introduction would be distributed at the earliest opportunity. It
was noted that a number of issues remained outstanding, at which time N
Golder advised that H Weinstein would make every endeavour to resolve
these issues as swiftly as possible. A
complaint was made regarding the lack of basic contact between the
previous property manager and all lessees.
Once again, lessees were advised that every effort would be made to
change lessee’s recent impressions. Chairperson’s
Report. In
addition to reading the report to all present, C Inglis advised that the
Management Company were proposing to reassign the management of London
Yard from DGA to Wood Management at the start of the next service charge
year (1 April 2003). Management
of the development was, however, to be tendered for by other Managing
Agents, and this was agreed by several of those in attendance. C
Inglis informed all present of the existence of the unofficial London Yard
website, and advised that H Weinstein could be contacted via e-mail
through it. Should lessees
not have access to a computer, a letter could be sent in the first
instance to the Managing Agent or a director should no response be
recieved. Security. It
was noted that Augustin (employed by Alamo Security) might be returning to
London Yard. It was felt that
during his time as security guard at the development, he had been
extremely proactive. N Golder
had approached Alamo in relation to the possibility of Augustin’s
return, and was awaiting their response. It
was also noted that no complaints had been received regarding Anthony, the
present security guard. The
question of why should things be changed if all was acceptable at present,
was raised. The
standard of service required of a security guard was discussed, and it was
felt that all lessees wanted ‘value for money’. The
‘swiper’ previously used by Anthony during his patrols of the
development has recently been out of service, but would be working again
within approximately 48 hours, subsequent to which Anthony would be
instructed to continue using it. It
was noted that in late September 2002 pictures had been stolen from the
walls of Vermeer Court. It
was thought that there would be no point replacing the stolen pictures, in
light of the fact that they had been easy to steal in the first place.
Stencilling the walls (which had already been repaired) was
suggested. It was also
requested that service standards for security be carefully assessed. The
Board were also asked to consider having barriers placed in various parts
of the development, at which time lessees were advised that part of the
property was a public thoroughfare and this option would, therefore, not
be viable. At
this point D Jackson advised all present that London Yard, when compared
to the rest of E14 as an area, was determined as having a low crime rate.
Those in attendance were all told that a Metropolitan Police
officer had been on site in June regarding security advice, (see
Chairperson’s report). C
Inglis advised those present that CCTV had been considered by the Board,
but had been rejected after considering its cost when related to
effectiveness. It
was noted that extra lighting in some parking areas had already been
installed. Presently existent
‘globes’ are to be replaced by clear glass so as to provide additional
light. Lights
to the rear of Van Gogh Court were also requested.
The Board agreed to give this consideration. A
barrier to the rear of Mem Sahab was also proposed.
A sum of £4,000 was suggested as a likely cost.
The Board advised that this too would be considered. The
impression received was that the majority of all lessees present wanted
additional security measures to be put in place.
C Hawkes, on behalf of the Board, assured all attendees that all
requests would be carefully considered. C
Noebel invited all lessees to make their suggestions in writing to either
the Board of Directors or the Managing Agent. It
was suggested that a sub-committee be formed to discuss security issues. The Board expressed the wish that more people would ‘join
in’, and would report further on this suggestion subsequent to the next
board meeting. At
this point A Gilbert also advised those in attendance that lessees should
feel free to bring any matter to the Board’s attention. Satellite
Television The
majority of residents felt that as a modern development, it was necessary
to have this installed at London Yard. C
Inglis advised those present that various companies had been asked to
provide proposals for the installation of a communal digital system. The
Board felt that Community Vision was the most suitable of those received
and had subsequently asked them to provide a comprehensive quotation.
This report is due within the next few days, subsequent to which
further consideration will be given to the proposals and costings provided
therein. The
formation of a sub-committee to discuss the forthcoming report was
proposed, and agreed. Lessees
were also advised that erecting satellite dishes was against the terms of
the Lease, and that they would have to be removed in due course. The Managing Agents would be writing to all ‘offenders’,
once lessees have been advised of the proposals for the communal system. Maintenance
Issues C
Inglis thanked S Hollingworth for his list, at which time he asked for a
progress report relating to the same. Financial Audited Management
accounts had been received by all lessees. Although
not a statutory requirement, S Hollingworth noted that audited service
charge accounts for each block’s expenditure had not been received, and
stated that the lease required the auditors to provide these. The
Managing Agents were then requested to ensure that all lessees requiring a
breakdown of their own expenditure in relation to the block in which they
reside, (for the year ended 31 March 2003), should receive this
information. The
question of the use of £70,845 from the sinking fund was raised. It was explained that various decorations had been required
in a number of the blocks, together with their re-carpeting.
Attendees were advised that a substantial transfer would be added
to the sinking fund in the forthcoming year to compensate. C
Noebel acknowledged the fact that the increase in the service charge
estimate for the year ending 31 March 2003 had been agreed too late, and
apologised for this annual increase having been charged in the current and
final quarter of the service charge year.
It was agreed that the Managing Agents would circulate a letter of
explanation to all lessees. The
adoption of the accounts was proposed by R Coverson and seconded by Norman
Leader. 3 votes against, and
4 abstentions were noted. The
motion to adopt the accounts was, therefore, carried. Sinking
Fund At
this point the Board explained that expenditure on external redecorations
would be required in the forthcoming service charge year as part of the
‘rotational’ maintenance programme at the development.
Works to the pontoons and bridges are also planned for the not too
distant future. One
lessee asked for basic clarification of how the Sinking Fund operates. It was explained that periodic works are required, such as
internal and / or external decorations.
Such works are required to be carried out on a ‘cyclical’ and
‘non-annual’ basis. In
order to pay for these works to be undertaken the Sinking Fund is utilised.
For example, re-carpeting, although now completed, will be
necessary in the future, and money is being collected for this.
The
Board was asked if they were confident of the sinking fund balance being
able to meet the cost of the anticipated expenditure.
The Board felt that, whilst still collecting for forthcoming
expenditure, the cost of all planned works would be met by the sinking
fund, although funding would have to be increased. C
Hawkes also informed all those present that, on behalf of all lessees, the
Board of Directors would continue to make every effort to keep service
charges to ‘acceptable’ levels. Insurance It
was noted at this time that a £250 excess had been introduced by the
insurers (AXA) on all claims. N
Golder explained that this reflected the fact that rates within the
insurance market in general were likely to increase. It
was also explained to all present that as of 1 January 2003 terrorism
insurance would also be significantly increased.
This increase will apply from renewal, and would concern London
Yard as of 2 April 2003. Provision
will have to be made in the forthcoming year’s estimate of service
charges. Auditors The
reappointment of N R Pulver & Co. Chartered Accountants as London
Yard’s auditors was voted upon.
C Inglis proposed their reappointment, and C Noebel seconded the
motion. 3 votes against and 4 abstentions were noted.
N R Pulver & Co. were reappointed. Any
Other Business The following points
were raised and briefly discussed: ·
How
enforceable is the lease against defaulters? (A rented flat being occupied
by more individuals than deemed acceptable was used as an example.) –
The process would first involve the Managing Agent writing to the
‘offender’, then, if necessary, the threat of legal action,
potentially followed by solicitors actually being instructed.
Forfeiture of the lease would only be used as a last resort. ·
Lack of
response by R Bronson (DGA) – H Weinstein, understanding that various
issues remained unresolved and that lessees were not happy with the way
London Yard had been managed in recent months, asked for the patience and
understanding of all lessees, and assured all those present that every
effort would be made to regain their trust. It was agreed that a letter of introduction would be sent to all lessees
providing contact details, and that the Managing Agent could also be
contacted via the London Yard website.
Should lessees remain dissatisfied, a letter should be written to a
Board Director. In general terms, the commitment of the Managing Agent was pledged to
all lessees.
At this time Mr Tony Wicks expressed satisfaction with his first
contact with H Weinstein.
It was proposed to the Board that an ‘open meeting’ be held in
3-6 months to discuss lessee’s satisfaction with the Managing Agent’s
progress. ·
Covenants –
Was a lessee allowed to run a business from home? ·
How many
Managing Agents would be approached when re-tendering for the management
of London Yard? – 3 or 4 would be asked to tender.
One attendee requested that the lessees have a ‘voice’ in the
forthcoming discussions in this regard. ·
Vermeer Court
(common parts) – the lighting in all communal areas was felt to be
insufficient, and it was proposed that movement sensors be installed. It was also suggested that the door handles in these areas be changed.
Mrs Reuda offered to look at these items with H Weinstein. The lifts are not working satisfactorily at present, and the lift
contractor should be contacted. ·
Bin stores -
R L Services to be asked to steam clean all communal bins in the
spring. ·
Inadequacy of
parking – 2 or 3 vehicles have apparently been abandoned within the
grounds of the development.
The DVLA are to be contacted, and the vehicles removed if genuinely
abandoned. ·
Parking
permits - R Coverson noted as being in charge of both the reissuing and
distribution of all parking permits, as well as maintenance of all records
pertaining to the same.
He was thanked for his continuing efforts. ·
Feedback -
The Board was also requested to provide ‘feedback’ to lessees after
Board Meetings. With
no other matters raised, the meeting closed at 10:00pm.
|
||