General Meeting Minutes - 30 January 2025
Date: 30 January 2025
Time and Venue: 6.30 pm at Academy Espresso Bar, The Pumphouse, Hood Road, Barry, CF62 5BE
Meeting called to order by: Charlotte Baillie - Chair
In Attendance
Founder Members and Officers of the Association
Charlotte Baillie (CB) Chair
Alun Williams (AW) Co Chair
Amy Owens (AO) Treasurer
Lesley Novis (LN) Secretary
Representatives from Fexco Property Management (Formally Remus)
Matthew Haywood – Regional Manager
Kate Reynolds – Director of Central Services
Nicola Smith – Property Manager
Luke Tuvey – Director of Property Management
Representative from Whitehead Chartered Surveyors – Consortium Surveyor
Jon Whitehead
Vale of Glamorgan Councillors
Lis Burnett – Leader of Vale of Glamorgan Council
Mark Hooper – Baruc Ward
Steffan Wiliam – Baruc Ward
Representative from the office of Kanishka Narayan - Member of Parliament
Mark Goodjohn – Constituency Support Officer
Residents and members of Barry Waterfront Residents Association
APOLOGIES
None received
Agenda
Welcome.
Introductions to members of the Association and introduction and thanks to invited guests.
Thanks to residents for submission of questions and a request for respect to be shown to invited speakers. Thanks to the Academy Espresso Bar for hosting the meeting and to Asda who have given us space to advertise the residents association and will be offering future support.
Requests for residents to set up working groups for events and for community champions from each phase of the development.
Councillor Lis Burnett to speak about consultation on parking restrictions and charges.
Actions following the last meeting.
Jon Whitehead, the consortium surveyor and Fexco/Remus representatives to answer the questions submitted by residents.
Key Points of Discussion and matters arising
Welcome
CB welcomed all those in attendance and outlined the agenda for the meeting. CB introduced the guest speakers, gave thanks for attendance to all present and thanked the Academy Espresso Bar and Asda for their continuing support. CB also asked for support from residents willing to form working groups for events and made a request those who would like to become community champions for each individual phase of the development.
Parking Consultation on charges and restrictions
Councillor Lis Burnett spoke on the subject of parking consultation and whether, as residents of the Waterfront, we would need new parking restrictions and double yellow lines once the council has adopted the roads. The councillor also spoke about the proposal for parking charges to be implemented on Barry Island. This subject has been raised in cabinet and is currently still under discussion.
Actions following the last general meeting on 21 November 2024
Questions were sought from the residents in order that they be posed to Fexco/Remus These were collated by AO, were sent to Fexco/Remus and printed copies were distributed to all at the meeting. These questions also formed part of the presentation slides.
CB advised the meeting that she has been receiving many messages from residents to her personal email and via Facebook. It was suggested, therefore, that enquires be addressed to the committee as a whole. Henceforth, contact with us should be made via our Association email address: hello@barrywaterfrontresidents.com
Questions posted to Jon Whitehead - Chartered Surveyor for the Consortium
Apartments with areas unfinished
Q - Block 75-93 of Ffordd Penrhyn, South Haven was built in 2018 and the base floor is still unfinished. Why did this block get adopted from Persimmon and why are the residents being charged for this unfinished block? (7 years ago!).
A - Persimmon have been trying to market the ground floor and there is now interest in it. It is hoped, therefore, that in the early part of this year it will be let and the base floor will then be finished. Matthew Haywood from Fexco/Remus added that residents would not have received any charges for the empty shop unit and gave an assurance that until vacant units are purchased by a commercial entity, residents would not be charged. Insurance values are charged proportionally by floor area for both individual flats and the commercial unit. The commercial element of the insurance should be charged back to the developer.
AW said he had asked for a breakdown of insurance, split between the commercial and residential elements, but that this had not been forthcoming.
Matthew Haywood confirmed that he would check this and come back to us in the week commencing 3 February 2025.
Q - The same situation is happening at the bottom of Ffordd y Dociau which has raised a lot of questions and concerns regarding buildings insurance and fire safety. Are the buildings and residents safe?
AW clarified this, as the question was unclear to Jon Whitehead. The adjacent land to this block has not been completed and therefore residents are living with barriers and rubble.
A - Jon Whitehead explained that the initial plans for the land at the end of Ffordd y Dociau were for there be a link road between the estate and the road leading out to the ABP harbour. However, Associated British Ports are now not sure whether they want this link and therefore works by Persimmon are in abeyance. Jon Whitehead is chasing this decision weekly and will report back to us on this. He will also clarify if anybody is checking the vacant commercial units for safety. Jon Whitehead has also offered to walk round with members of the Residents Association and look at the areas that residents consider to be unsafe. This was set for Wednesday 5th February.
Lighting Issues
Q - There are ongoing issues with lighting on the estate. Residents are unsure who to contact about lights not working so areas are usually left dark causing health & safety hazards and personal safety issues. There are also areas where the positioning of lighting is poor, or bad quality products have been used - like in entrances to apartment blocks. Who will take responsibility for this and ensure residents won't be charged to rectify poor planning or product choice?
A - The responsibility lies with both the Consortium and Fexco/Remus, mainly the Consortium. However, all lights will be adopted by the local authority eventually. Pre-Christmas two areas of lighting were out, one on the first phase, and the second on Ffordd y Mileniwm. Contractors were instructed in both cases. At the moment, any areas of lights not working should be reported to the Consortium via Nicola Smith at Fexco/Remus. Jon Whitehead said that non-working lights would generally be fixed within a week. Poor quality of lighting products should also be reported to Fexco/Remus and any defects will be addressed by Jon Whitehead.
CB suggested that the responsibility for checking both the quality and function of the lights should rest with the Consortium and should not rest with residents.
A resident living on Ffordd y Mileniwm said that one light outside his house has not been fixed for two years and the lighting behind his house is poorly positioned and effectively useless. He considers this to be dangerous. He related the story of walking past a car crime in progress at 4 am in the morning. Due to the lack of lighting, he had not seen this incident.
Jon Whitehead said that the resident should email Nicola at Fexco regarding the lighting problems and this will be passed to him to look at. A new lighting contractor is due to be appointed in February/March to address all lighting issues. Two prices have been received, but each has been submitted with a number of questions that need to be addressed. This is being dealt with at the moment.
Questions regarding state of the pavements and roads
Q - The paved areas all over the estate are in bad shape due to neglect and no weed management, even though this is included in our charges. For example, Ffordd y Mileniwm where a resident has lived for 2 years and has not once seen anyone do any upkeep of the communal areas. There are weeds growing everywhere, and residents are having to clear some of these areas themselves. How often are contractors supposed to attend these areas to look after them? Why are we paying for a service that is not being completed? How can you ensure consistency across the whole of the estate? Poor workmanship of some areas is also causing concern.
A - The responsibility again lies both with the Consortium and Fexco/Remus. Wider roads and footpaths are the responsibility of the Consortium, whilst areas around the buildings are the responsibility of Fexco/Remus. The consortium did a weed kill last year and another one has been instructed for the whole estate next month for both spraying and clearance of the areas that are to be adopted by the council. Weeding occurs when the onsite landscaper advises Jon Whitehead that this is necessary.
This was challenged by CB on behalf of the residents, as it is felt that weeds should be controlled and maintained regularly. CB asked if this was not part of the service charge for which we are paying.
Matthew Haywood said that Fexco/Remus, do not weed the areas to be adopted by the council as this is the responsibility of the consortium. Fexco/Remus have specific areas that have been passed to them to manage and if those areas have paths, they will be weeded. He also said that the many of the weeds are part of the demise of individual residents and that residents should check their demised areas. Nicola Smith said that she would provide a land registry plan for residents who were unsure of this.
Both LN and other residents suggested that the Fexco/Remus area of management be mapped out, detailing the areas of their management.
This was agreed by Matthew Haywood and a detailed map is being worked on currently by Matthew Haywood, Nicola Smith, Jon Whitehead and the developers. Matthew Hayward said that a lot of areas are outside of the area of Fexco/Remus management at the moment, but will be coming into management in the future, such as that of the park in Phase 3 and the land along Clive Road. The map will be completed by the end of the year and will be an accurate reflection of the managed areas.
Questions regarding poor workmanship
Q - For example, the main tarmacked walkway through Clôs and Lon Y Rheilffordd has massive cracks in it. Who is responsible for repair? Would it be covered by warranty due to bad workmanship? Another example is the rumble strip at the end of Heol Livesey where it joins Clos y Rheilffordd. It is badly damaged due to heavy construction lorries using Heol Livesey for access over several years. It is a tripping hazard and has been reported previously but nothing has been done. How is this going to get sorted at no cost to residents?
A - The responsibility currently lies with the consortium. Over the last six to nine months the consortium has been focusing on the spine road, Ffordd y Dociau, which is 99% complete. The next focus will be Ffordd y Mileniwm and Jon Whitehead believes that by June of this year all defects will be rectified and will be ready for adoption by the council. The roads will then be subject to a 12-month maintenance contract by the consortium. The cracks on Clôs and Lon Y Rheilffordd will be repaired by Barratts in the coming months. The rumble strip on Heol Livesey which was damaged by construction lorries will be fixed by June of this year. There will be no additional costs to residents. Jon Whitehead confirmed that he spoke on behalf of all of the developers.
The turf by the Amphitheatre has been reseeded but has not regrown as it is being driven over by the council van collecting rubbish.
Questions regarding litter
Q - Litter is getting to be a big issue across the estate. Although we pay for litter picking in our estate service charges, they only ever seem to do Charles Darwin Way, why do you not do the whole estate as the council would if the estate were adopted? How often are contractors supposed to attend?
A - Jon Whitehead said that litter pickers are paid to come twice a month to litter pick, but it was noted from replies in the meeting that residents are having to litter pick areas themselves. Jon Whitehead had instructed the strimming, litter picking and re-seeding of Ffordd y Dociau, (the wild seeded area). This was conducted in January.
However, AW explained that this was done incorrectly as it was strimmed before litter picking was conducted. This resulted in many particles of shattered plastic being left on the ground which were obviously more difficult to pick up. Jon Whitehead will feed this back to the landscaper. CB reported having watched contractors on many occasions and noted that little work was being done. It was asked if this was in any way monitored. AO questioned whether works were conducted to the whole of the estate as when you see the contractors they are only ever on Charles Darwin Way.
Matthew Haywood said on their walk round of the estate on 30th January he had not noticed much rubbish in the managed areas, but he had noticed fly tipping into the bins, cat litter to be precise. Councillor Mark Hooper said that all fly tipping should be reported to the council as it is an offence. This reporting can be done anonymously.
Kate Reynolds pointed out that there needed to be clarification of what the Fexco/Remus management fee is for, as it is not for service charge items. CB suggested that this clarification happen later in the meeting. CB thanked Jon Whitehead for his attendance and he confirmed that he would attend the next meeting.
Questions posted to Fexco/Remus
Questions regarding apartment maintenance and charges
Q - The state of some of the apartment blocks that are being charged thousands of pounds for maintenance is becoming a big health and safety issue. For example, on Neptune Road there are damp and mould issues, a car park full of rubbish, a broken bin shed and a communal door that has been broken since September 2023. Residents feel like Fexco/Remus are not holding up their end of the bargain regarding the lease so why should we continue to pay them? Why does Fexco/Remus not engage with residents to sort out these issues and why was something so obvious as this not rectified straight away from Fexco/Remus site visits? CB introduced photos of mould in apartment blocks and the rubbish strewed around them.
A - Matthew Haywood explained that the Neptune Road apartments comprise eight blocks. Haven Point Blocks A, B, C and D are subject to Fexco/Remus management, but the other four (West Haven) are not part of their remit as Persimmon has not handed them over to be managed. The latter four are not being maintained, have not been cleaned and have been subject to vandalism. CB confirmed that the photographs have come from residents in the managed apartments, Blocks A – D. However, even in these there are snagging issues due to water leaks. Matthew Hayward explained that this is apparently due to the water pressure to the building not being put into the building properly. The water pressure is in fact too high. Persimmon have committed to a number of repairs; they have to date completed fire stopping and safety work at their own cost, but there have been delays to the remaining snagging issues of water ingress due to changes in personnel at Persimmon. The new site manager (number three to date) of Persimmon will be meeting with Fexco/Remus in the coming weeks.
CB pointed out that the conditions are clearly unacceptable to residents living there whilst this process is being negotiated between the developer and Fexco/Remus. The person living there should not be impacted in any way.
Kate Reynolds said that as a management company, they have two just choices, which are either to collaborate with the developer to get these issues addressed, or take on these issues themselves, which would void the warranties and involve additional costs for the residents.
AW asked whether Fexco/Remus should have taken on the management with these defects.
Kate Reynolds said that they are often not aware of the defects at the time of handover as they are given Certificates of Completion, subsequent to which the defects become apparent. AW said that this certificate should be used as redress by Fexco/Remus against the consortium.
Questions regarding landscaping
Q - Outside 165-195 Ffordd y Dociau Apartment block there is a parcel of land that has not been landscaped for at least 3 years and we are being charged landscaping fees for it. This has been raised with Fexco/Remus many times, but nothing has ever been done. Can we get a refund for the landscaping charges for the years it has been untouched and when will it be properly landscaped? CB informed the meeting of an eldery couple that CB and LN had met whilst handing out leaflets. The couple said that they have been asking Fexco/Remus to sort out the problem outside their ground floor flat for over three years. There is standing water outside which is causing damp issues and is very concerning to them. They are also looking out at bare and ugly soil outside their window as the land has not been landscaped.
A - Matthew Hayward said that the land referred to is north facing and the grass seed has not taken due to rubble and poor soil. The best way forward would be to strip it all off and replace it with gravel. Matthew Hayward will take a note of this in order for action to be taken. However, Kate Reynolds said that the issues have been addressed and, on this and other parts of the estate, re-seeding has been conducted.
This was refuted by AO who lives in the apartment block and said that nobody had been there for at least two years.
The issue of refunds in a case like this was discussed. Matthew Hayward said that no refunds could be made as the landscaping charges apply to wider areas of grounds, not just this land. Matthew will, however, revert to the Consortium to see if anything can be done with respect to remediation works as, as one resident pointed out, this has occurred elsewhere on the estate.
Questions regarding fire safety
Q - Two buildings on the Waterfront were signed off by a fire engineer who worked for a company called Tri Fire. He was one of the chosen engineers for Persimmon homes and signed off a lot of EWS1 forms which is needed to sell a property. It has become known that he has recently been struck off and ‘anecdotally’ we understand that none of the ‘main’ banks are accepting anything signed by him. How does this impact how Fexco/Remus manage properties which were signed off by him? How can residents be sure that their properties are safe?
A - Matthew Hayward said that there are a few facets to this answer. Yes, Tri Fire were used by the developers and by Fexco/Remus for EWS1 surveys. However, all buildings on the development are under 9m in height and therefore do not require an EWS1 under current legislation. Therefore, no mortgage lenders should ask for an EWS1. Tri Fire have another accredited individual to sign off on their work. It was pointed out by a resident that historically residents had to pay for an EWS1. This, however, is no longer the case under current legislation and Fexco/Remus are no longer instructing Tri Fire to conduct any works for them.
Questions about management and communication
Q - Why are Fexco/Remus so hard to communicate with? It takes many emails or issues raised on the portal for the majority of them to be ignored. Many of the apartment blocks do not have regular site visits by the block manager and I would question what they do when they do visit as obvious issues are never rectified. Can we get assurance that you will answer emails within a specified time scale and work with residents to solve issues rather than ignore us? Can you also confirm that your attendance at this meeting will not be charged to residents as additional management expenses? Fexco/Remus’s management of Barry Waterfront development is having an impact on the value, sale and resale of properties. Anecdotal evidence from estate agents and potential buyers suggests that potential interested residents are being warned not to buy properties on the Waterfront. How do you feel about that? What do you plan to do to rectify this situation?
A - Nicola Smith spoke on this subject and said that she joined the company last May. Fexco/Remus are a large company who operate a centralised communication system. As Property Manager, she responds to as many emails as she can, but sometimes this is difficult to keep on top of as she only works four days a week.
CB pointed out that in a large company providing a service, communication should be at the core of its business and should not be the responsibility of just one person.
Kate Reynolds acknowledged that they do have communication issues as they receive a large number of emails from our development, which are in her words ‘beyond a normal rate’. Nicola now only works on Barry Waterfront and has been removed from her role with other developments. Nicola will deal with day-to-day issues, but historical issues will be shared between Kate Reynolds, Matthew Hayward and Luke Tovey.
CB suggested that each complaint or issue should be addressed globally and dealt with expediently. CB gave the example of asking to pay in instalments but being issued with a late payment fee before receiving a reply to the original request to pay in instalments.
Luke Tovey asked that, going forward, they have a working relationship with the residents association to include updates from Fexco/Remus, and that we find a better way of communicating in the future.
Councillor Steffan Wiliam then spoke about the issue of redress posed earlier in the meeting by AW. The councillor said that It has now been identified that there is a point of contact and that Fexco/Remus will respond, but this does not negate the fact that there have been problems of Fexco/Remus accountability for years. The councillor said that Fexco/Remus should use the certificates of completion to seek redress from the consortium, as it is obvious that there are certain issues around the estate that have been caused by obvious building defects. Fexco/Remus should therefore take legal action against the consortium.
Kate Reynolds responded by saying that the consortium is their client until handover. Luke Tovey said that if they were required to take legal action this would require an increase to service charge, but this is a problem of the system and is a countrywide phenomenon.
CB challenged the fact that the residents should have to pay for this and also the motives of keeping the client happy but not doing the same for the recipients of the service. John, a Barry Waterfront Resident, asked our elected representatives to collectively support us in making a change to this unfair system. He said, we are paying 100% council tax but paying again for the open space charges.
Councillor Hooper said that this was a problem that should be addressed to members of the Senedd as it their responsibility. Lis Burnett agreed that the current system is problematic and that she would not recommend in the future in the Vale of Glamorgan. She asked for copies of our presentation slides as there were parts of the relationship she had not understood before.
Q - Fexco/Remus’s management of Barry Waterfront development is having an impact on the value, sale and resale of properties. Anecdotal evidence from estate agents and potential buyers suggests that potential interested residents are being warned not to buy properties on the Waterfront. How do you feel about that? What do you plan to do to rectify this situation?
A - CB pointed out that Estate Agents local to the development have very negative views about the management of the estate by Fexco/Remus. AW pointed out there are also very negative reviews on TrustPilot which are affecting property prices.
Kate Reynolds said that Fexco/Remus are trying to resolve this by asking people who have left poor reviews on TrustPilot which department of Fexco/Remus is letting them down.
Evidence gathered from local letting agents by the association committee members is that owners of apartments are unable to contact the management company and thus estate agents are spending a lot of time trying to resolve issues.
The meeting was told that Fexco/Remus are trying to better the customer service by centralising the system and ensuring that issues are dealt with. Information is constantly uploaded about the development on the Fexco/Remus shared server. Fexco/Remus call abandonment rate has improved recently from 35% to 5%.
AW asked where Fexco/Remus will be with regard to this in six months and asked that Fexco/Remus to take seriously the impact they are having on the lives of all residents.
Luke Tovey replied by saying that they are fully aware that they will have to improve, as the day will come when the control of the estate will be in the hands of the residents. He added that Fexco/Remus are committed to improving their service.
Questions about accounts and bills
Q - When will Fexco/Remus complete and disclose the outstanding end of year accounts for both Estate charges and Apartment Service Charges?
A - Matthew Hayward acknowledged that they have been significantly behind in issuing of the service charge accounts. The accounts for many, but not all, of the apartment blocks are now relatively up to date for 2023/2024 , but the accounts for the estate service charge have not been delivered since 2020. The accounts for 2021 have had several revisions but have now been finalised and will be sent to the external auditors shortly. They will then be reviewed, which will take roughly 10 to 14 days and sent to the billing team for billing to the residents.
It is hoped that the 2022 accounts will be delivered within approximately 4-6 weeks with the 2023 accounts following either at the same time, or shortly after. It is also hoped that the 2024 accounts will be delivered by the end of June.
LN asked what had caused the problems.
Accounting problems were caused by a combination of issues. The company had migrated to a new IT system in 2020/21. This caused significant errors in producing the accounts as accounts were not balancing. It took more than a desirable amount of time to resolve this. This created a backlog, meaning that the number of personnel in the accounts team needed to be increased. Barry Waterfront is a large complex estate, it has the estate charge and 27 blocks, each with its own individual service charge.
AW asked if Fexco/Remus were oversubscribed and whether this was part of the problem.
Kate Reynolds refuted this but acknowledged that they may not have moved quickly enough on this issue.
CB pointed out that we are being asked to trust the accuracy of projected budgets but at the same time are being charged late payment fees without proof of actual expenditure. Whilst, conversely, Fexco/Remus are failing in their obligations to deliver accounts. It was challenged as to whether within the terms of the TPI Fexco/Remus are able to charge £50 late payment fee.
Kate Reynolds confirmed that the TP1 allows them to do this.
LN pointed out that this fee could be considered punitive to older people who cannot communicate by email and gave the example of a 90-year-old resident who had queried a bill in writing and before receiving a reply was charged the late payment fee. Eventually Fexco/Remus agreed to remove this fee, but when he got his bill this year, the fee was still showing on his account.
Kate Reynolds said that as a company Fexco/Remus would set up, on an individual basis, a payment plan for those that could not afford it and will remove late payment fees where it was felt necessary.
However, AW pointed out that payment plans are not managed effectively, a point that was acknowledged by Nicola Smith.
Q - Would you issue refunds if expenditure were under previously invoiced amounts?
A - The demands that residents receive are based on estimated budgets and are issued in advance. There are contracts in place for grounds maintenance for the estate and individual blocks, cleaning for internal areas of blocks, fire safety system maintenance and some variable costs such as repairs and maintenance. When the accounts are issued, depending on how the TP1 has been written, most of the TP1 documents will say that if there is a surplus, amounts would be credited to individual accounts and if this means that individual accounts are in overall credit, then those residents are able to request repayment.
Q - What are the legalities around charging residents for expenditure defrayed 4 years ago?
A - There is different legislation for Leasehold and Freehold Properties. For freehold properties, under current legislation, there is no specified time limit in which residents can be charged for a deficit in service charge. There is a guideline of 18 months which Fexco/Remus would have liked to adhere to. However, if the service charge is in deficit, it can be charged at any time. For Leasehold Properties, if a Section 20B notice has been issued then again there is no time limit for a deficit to be charged. However, where a Section 20B has not been issued then by law a deficit must be billed within 18 months of the date of the service charge.
LN asked if accounts received 4 years late would be subject to a late payment fee.
Kate Reynolds said, no there are a couple of things that Fexco/Remus will do in this situation. If people cannot pay that deficit, Fexco Remus will set up a payment plan for this, but they cannot set up a payment plan for both the bill issued annually for the budgeted service charge and the deficit together, as the debt always comes first. The payment plans must be set up separately. They will agree not to charge a late payment fee on the deficit and have reduced the accountancy fee on estate 2021 service charges in acknowledgement of the late issue of accounts. They do not have to do this legally, but morally they do. LN asked if payment plans could be set up for everyone, but this cannot be done across the board on our estate as some blocks will be in deficit whilst others are in surplus.
John, a Barry Waterfront resident, then asked the Fexco/Remus representatives what the laws were governing the open space service charge as, as a freeholder, he had received a bill from Remus which related to a leasehold property and contained the Landlord and Tenant Act printed on the back. He asked why this document was not also provided in the Welsh language as without the Welsh language version, it does not comply with Welsh legislation and as such is illegal. He said he had raised this issue with Fexco/Remus three times and that the reply he had received was in the form of a late payment fee. Nicola Smith the Property Manager has since sent this demand to the accounts department, who in turn, have forwarded this to Kate Reynolds, Director of Central Services. John said he had also issued a formal complaint. Kate Reynolds was unaware of this, meaning that departments within Fexco/Remus are not communicating. John said that the demands are illegal, and as such, they are unenforceable and therefore any late payment fees are unenforceable too. John also spoke about other problems with the billing such as the account name on the original demand. The demand was originally issued under the name of Remus when the company had already changed its name to Fexco. Some residents were having difficulties as banks were not accepting the Remus name.
Kate Reynolds said that the bills would have to be re-issued, but in the interim, Luke Tovey apologised but has passed this issue to their legal department, who will investigate and come back to us with a statement in order that we can add a note to our minutes. This should be within a week.
Q - When the accounts are done for the Apartment service charges, if Remus need to bill for extra expenditure and the apartment owner has changed what will you do?
A - Kate Reynolds said that no one will like the answer, and morally she does not agree with it, but legally a solicitor will only hold retention for a year and after that a debt can be charged to the new owner as the debt stays with the property. Should this happen to you, Kate Reynolds would encourage residents to contact Fexco/Remus and it will be looked at on an individual basis in order to resolve. They cannot write off debts across the board.
Q - Do Remus have written contracts for works to be conducted?
A - Yes, we go out to tender every year and there are written contracts. If there are complaints, they will go out to tender again. Contractors have annual contracts on a 364-day basis.
Q - How do you monitor the quality of the workmanship within these contracts:
A - Matthew Hayward gave the example of DGS the landscape contractors, who take before and after photos on every site visit. Similarly, cleaners will take photos and are asked to report vandalism in communal areas and to report on what they have done. Through this system of reporting, it has come to the attention of Fexco/Remus that the council van that comes to do the bin emptying has been driving over landscaped areas and this has now been reported to the council. The lorry of the contractor seen on the wildflower seeded area of Ffordd y Dociau was a consortium contractor. Fexco/Remus will report this action to Jon Whitehead the consortium representative.
Q - Why have Fexco/Remus refused to provide evidence to residents that their charges comply with TP1 contracts.
A - The representatives from Fexco/Remus believe that the question requires more clarity, but Matthew Hayward answered it based on what he believes was meant. From a freehold house point of view, Section 5 normally or section 7 of the TP1 document will stipulate that for which the management company can charge. As the management company, Fexco/Remus could, for example, charge for a local part-time caretaker if this were required. What the agent and the management company can charge will typically include, maintaining the buildings and the managed areas, employing contractors/sub-contractors, carrying out risk assessments and fire risk assessments each year or every two years.
CB then spoke about the Management Agreement published on the resident association website, saying that it is very vague and asking, therefore, if it was the correct version.
Kate Reynolds answered by saying that there are 5 different Resident Management Companies around Barry Waterfront and we therefore could have the wrong document. She pointed out that until the Barry Waterfront Residents Association is recognised, Fexco Remus are not permitted to provide us with a copy of management agreement as they are bound by the management agreement restrictions.
Councillor Hooper addressed the issue of the Management Agreement and said that residents should have been made aware of its existence when we bought our houses. Not everyone was aware of it. It is an issue for the developers in terms of doing this, but is also a legal issue that needs resolution, one which the council are currently looking into from a Trading Standards perspective. Councillor Hooper has committed to keep us informed. If the residents choose to take on this arrangement, they are also taking on the liabilities of the whole estate. This includes parts of the estate with hugely contaminated land with a seal on the top of it that will run its course in about 5 years’ time. This most contaminated land is the former graving dock, which is the area where the play area or park is currently being developed. Councillor Hooper advised residents that they should not take this on without fully understanding the implications of doing so and advised that this should be a real concern.
Kate Reynolds then explained the processes for recognition of a residents association. As an estate, in order to achieve this, we would need the registration as members of 51% of the properties on the Waterfront which equates to around 780 flats and houses. This is something the residents association will strive to achieve.
Councillor Hooper described the relationship between Fexco/Remus and the consortium, and the one between Fexco/Remus and the residents as being one in which Fexco/Remus have two masters. The consortium was the entity that appointed Fexco/Remus, but the residents are the people who pay them. A final point made was that although Fexco/Remus had admitted that they had made mistakes, there was no individual present who could take full responsibility, such as a member of the Board of Fexco/Remus. The councillor believes that Fexco/Remus had not taken responsibility but had just blamed others for faults. He added that the work that Fexco/Remus is doing is just not good enough. Councillor Wiliam said that Fexco/Remus are asking us to be reasonable and yet find it perfectly reasonable to charge a late payment fee of £50 which many consider punitive. It was also noted that Fexco/Remus are asking us to pay when their bills are illegal.
The £50 fee was considered reasonable by Kate Reynolds in terms of the work that has to be done. She argued that some people should be charged as they are serial debtors.
Q - Can you explain why we have to pay Remus a year in advance and why that payment has to be made on 1st January?
A - This date of the invoice cannot be amended as it is stated in the Transfer Document and cannot be changed without a deed of variation.
CB asked whether Fexco/Remus could be more flexible and extend the payment terms as a late payment fee is applied after 14 days.
Kate Reynolds said she would investigate this point and come back to us.
Q - Why do Remus charge for a management information pack to sell properties on the estate? This pack is not listed as a billable charge within the TP1 document and should come under the general cost of business (within the yearly fee), not an additional charge to residents.
A - Kate Reynolds replied that this is a fee to provide all of the information to the new owner of a property. It is a fee to the seller. She argued that it takes a lot of work to get all the information collated. Luke Tovey said that is a reasonable fee, which has been considered by the government as being so.
AW argued that this is a duplication and is simply a cut and paste exercise, but Kate Reynolds said that it can be both cut and paste and individual dependant on circumstances.
Kate Reynolds pointed out also that in the TP1, this fee is covered by administrative expenses.
Q - What steps are the Management company taking to drive down costs and reduce charges for residents?
A - Kate Reynolds replied that the management company go out to tender every year in order to do this. They are trying to source local suppliers and they are looking at different energy suppliers, to get a block price to bring it down. However, insurances for example have gone up by 25%.
A question was posed about the management fee, but a resident at the meeting pointed out that the management fee has not gone up us per the agreement. Fexco/Remus have the right to increase it by what he believed to be CPI, but if you track this, it has not increased it by that amount. However, AW argued that it is only good value for money if the management company are delivering the services effectively.
Q - One resident said that their annual charge increased by 20% this year compared to last, what could be the reason for such a steep increase?
A - In answer to this Matthew Haycock said that each block is looked at individually and there are various reasons why the charges could have increased by this amount. For example, on Haven point, which he believed to be Block C or D there has been significant vandalism to fire doors which have had to be replaced. As already mentioned, insurance has increased considerably. There are less insurers in the market. The insurance industry has also been undervaluing properties and these have now been reset. Residents who received their budget should have had a covering letter explaining this. If not, please would they get in touch and they will be provided with this.
Closing remarks
The meeting was then concluded. CB gave thanks to everyone in attendance and asked that residents check the website in the next week to view the minutes of this meeting. She also asked to direct others not at the meeting to do so.
Date of next meeting
The date of the next meeting was not fixed at this time but will be published on our website in the coming days.
