We live in a small development built in Kington in 2010 by Bloor Homes (Kington Park). It comprises 46 homes, of which 16 are owned by the housing association (Stonewater).
Like many residents of similar developments in the UK that have shared public spaces or land drainage issues, we find ourselves contractually bound to make regular payments to a management company. Our maintenance contract in perpetuity was given to a company called Meadfleet, based in Hertfordshire. Meadfleet are responsible for the maintenance of a surface water soakaway and associated area of grass above of approximately 350m2, plus a hedge on one side and an access gate.
We are bound to these open space management costs by our deeds of covenant, with no right to transfer our business to another management company if we are unhappy with the quality of their service or their fees. Consequently Meadfleet have limited incentive to keep us satisfied. Whilst we have received legal advice confirming that we have a good case to get ourselves out of the contract, this is of little use to us as the potential court costs are well beyond our means as a local resident association. Our local MP (Bill Wiggin) agrees that our situation is unacceptable.
The information we received before buying houses in 2010 set out an expected annual fee and a list of things that Meadfleet would do. However, we have no negotiation rights concerning the charges we must pay them twice a year. Whilst Meadfleet make contact promptly if someone is late paying their charges, they are somewhat less responsive to our phone calls, emails or letters. Before buying their homes in 2010, the first residents were led to believe that the management charge would cover the cost of a 'sinking fund'. It was believed that the cost of paying into such a contingency fund would provide for future repairs to the soakaway and appeared to be the main justification for the charges. However, we discovered too late that Meadfleet had the option of choosing not to set up the fund should it not wish to do so. And although Meadfleet chose not to set up the fund, they decided to still charge us the full fee.
The twice yearly charge has greatly increased to over twice the initial 2010 fee – ironically, the biggest increase followed pressure on them from us to actually carry out the work they were charging for.
Not all homes are connected to this soakaway as some have their own. However, even those private homes not connected still pay towards the estate’s soakaway. Whilst the soakaway structure beneath the ground has an indeterminate lifespan, the cost of replacement will be borne by private homeowners only as maintenance charges aren’t levied on Stonewater’s homes. This could be a significant cost for private homeowners as Meadfleet has no incentive to offer value for money.
Not all homes are connected to this soakaway as some have their own. However, even those private homes not connected still pay towards the estate’s soakaway. Whilst the soakaway structure beneath the ground has an indeterminate lifespan, the cost of replacement will be borne by private homeowners only as maintenance charges aren’t levied on Stonewater’s homes. This could be a significant cost for private homeowners as Meadfleet has no incentive to offer value for money.
Furthermore, Meadfleet can prevent us selling our properties should we fall behind with payments and prospective new residents must sign a deed of covenant tying them to its services in order to buy a house here. Once prospective buyers have seen the terms of the deed they must sign, a number of sales have fallen through which is causing residents’ concerns about the resale ability of their homes. This is exacerbated by the fact that over time, the terms on new covenants have become much more unfavourable to home owners and even more beneficial to Meadfleet. The original covenant said that the terms within it must remain substantially the same but this no longer appears in the ones now received by new buyers.
It would appear that Meadfleet and similar companies have a similar hold over a number of housing developments in the UK and the Kington Park Residents Association has been in touch with them. Ours is not an isolated case.
It would appear that Meadfleet and similar companies have a similar hold over a number of housing developments in the UK and the Kington Park Residents Association has been in touch with them. Ours is not an isolated case.