PANTEIDAL OWNERS COMMUNITY

Dear Owner or Resident

I am writing to you as you are a resident or owner of a chalet on Plas Panteidal Holiday Village.

 

This is to share with you concerns I have with Plas Panteidal Estate Management Limited (PPEML) the company that owns the site.

I have no doubt they have introduced themselves to you. They are registered as a private company limited by guarantee without share capital. I also accept that their intention is that the company will not be profit motivated and any money raised by donations, grants. Estatecharge Rents, or adroit commercial management of the site for instance by the sale of land, will be used for their perceived benefit of the chalet owners.

There are virtually two facets to the site. One is the 'development' which includes the woodlands and general amenities of the site, the other is the maintenance of what has been defined in chalet owners title deeds as the “maintained properties”. The chalet owners are bound by their deeds and by the law to contribute to the maintenance of the “maintained properties” because their title gives them exclusive and private use of the Maintained properties and associated utilities, so it is only right they should pay for the upkeep. When it comes to the rest of the site, they have no legal obligation to pay for its upkeep although they may wish to do so. The estate by definitions in the title is a private estate, not for access by the general public, and PPEML have a duty to ensure that this privacy is protected. They cannot for instance invite the general public on to the site. PPEML are registered at Company House (Company Number 13292974 ) and their stated objects are:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

        PLEASE NOTE THESE OBJECTS WERE UPDATED WITH SLIGHT CHANGES IN MAY 2022

 

You may wonder why this should be of interest to you, and the simple answer is that these objects could trespass on your rights. How many of their stated object do you agree with, and more importantly where do you think they will get the money to finance them. Are they intending to use your Estatecharge Rent or grants, funds and donations that have been made for your benefit. I admit that many of the aims are benevolent and culturally nurturing, but should they decide what YOUR money should be spent on.

A simple solution to this would be for PPEML to scrap their existing objects (apart from the maintenance aspects defined within the covenants of our titles), and then make every chalet owner unconditionally a member of the company with voting rights and control. This is something that has been discussed and is suggested in the chalet Titles, With their new inclusive membership they could then define their business objects. There is an argument that PPEML used grants and donation made for the benefit of all of us to purchase the site, so in effect they bought it on our behalf, and are therefore due no further payment if this scheme is implemented.

 

I believe we need a Facebook Page that can discuss site business and indeed consider setting up a Residents Management Company (RMC) to own and run the site and a page that is private to chalet owners and residents. At one time I felt that the PPA would have been able to represent us to PPEML but I now believe they are too entwined in PPEML to fulfil that role.

At the moment RMCs are normal on leaseholds on privately owned land, but not on freeholds. The Law on this is under review and is likely to change to bring Freeholds in line with Leaseholds. An RMC is a company owned by the freeholders with each freeholder being a member, able to propose and vote on motions, to call meetings, to elect company officers, and to give orders to the directors very similar to the company described above. There might be many chalet owners on site who would be interested in forming such a company.

 

The following is a potted history of the PPA and PPCG over the last few years:

Trehaven Leisure Limited (TLL, the previous site owners) were failing to maintain the site. The PPA were formed to deal with this and negotiate with TLL, and around 2017 decided to form a claim group, the PPCG, to take legal action.

 

The following is from the Particulars of Claim: (26th July 2018):

“Whilst these Conveyances foreshadowed the creation of a Management Company, in which all freehold property owners had a stake, such has (to date) not been formed.

Whilst PPA have suggested that a Management Company is formed, as anticipated in the original Conveyances, and that each property is allocated one share in that Management Company, this has been rejected by TLL. If it was created, the Management Company could then decide how to go about modernising and repairing the infrastructure”.

 

And the following from a PPCG meeting in June 2019:

1. Proposal: that a management company be set up with conditions:

• New company to be set up by property owners as a not for profit organisation.

• New company should decide its own structure and how it is managed. (i.e. not Muddiman or one of his appointees) .

• New company contract and conditions must be fully transparent to all its members / shareholders.

• Every property owner is an equal shareholder of the new company and gets one vote – a cooperative.

• All (92?) property owners take on an equal share of paying for repair and maintenance and running of site.

• All decisions should be on a majority basis - one vote per freeholder not one vote per property. New company is solely to collect monies for the improvement and maintenance of the site for the repair and maintenance of shared resources at PP (grounds, water, sewage, drive, electricity).

• New company must not to take on TLL's past liabilities including (but not limited to) debits, loans and possible third-party litigations. (including possible liabilities that may arise from GC and NRW)

• TLL would not be entitled to any service charge arrears/backpayments.

 

And in addition (11th December 2017:DAVID MITCHELL PPCG Barrister, Letter of Claim):

“Whilst these Conveyances foreshadowed the creation of a Management Company in which all freehold property owners had a stake, such has (to date) not been formed.The PPCG’s view is that significant and expensive works of repair are required to the infrastructure at Plas Panteidal. Monies have previously been paid to TLL but no accounts have been received showing how this money has been spent. It has been made clear to TLL on numerous occasions that the money held in reserve will be made available pending accounts confirmed by a qualified accountant and evidence of works completed. The PPCG suggest that a Management Company is formed, as anticipated in the original Conveyances, and that each property is allocated one share in that Management Company. That Management Company can then decide how to go about modernising and repairing the infrastructure going forward. “

In short, from 2016 until the time PPEML bought the site on behalf of the PPA (or was this on behalf of the residents), the agreement amongst the PPA and the PPCG was that a company consisting of all site owners would be started, with each site owner being an unconditional member, and they would define the management, control, and direction of the company. The company that was formed had three members, all directors, and PPA committee members, who set the objectives of the company and control membership. This was far different from the company they had been asked to form and the PPA committee did not encourage any questions or criticism of what had happened and PPCG discussion was stifled or certainly not communicated..

Around November 2021 the PPA/PPCG had a meeting with PPEML and PPEML were asked a number of questions. One of the questions asked was for what purpose could the Estatecharge Rent be used (The use is stated in the chalet titles. It is to be used on an Annual basis for ongoing maintenance to the maintained properties. The maintained properties were also strictly defined).

THE DEFINITIONS. These are most plainly seen in PPCG's Particulars of Claim july 2018.

These terms are defined:-

‘the Development’ in simple terms means the Plas Panteidal site presently owned by TLL;

‘the Private Roads’ means the roads, ways and footpaths existing at the date of each Conveyance or any other roads, ways or footpaths which may be constructed by TLL from time to time in substitution therefor;

‘Service Installations’ means sewers, drains, watercourses, channels, pipes, soakaways, gutters, mains, wires, cables, pillars and any other apparatus for the supply of water, electricity, telephone or telecommunication services or for the disposal of foul or surface water now constructed or to be constructed in or under or over the Development, including the Private Drainage System hereinafter referred to;

‘the Private Drainage System’ means the private drainage system existing at the date hereof and maintained by TLL for the purpose of disposing of foul and (if appropriate) surface water from each Property or any upgraded or replacement system that may be installed by TLL from time to time in substitution therefor;

‘the Maintained Property’ means the Private Roads and Service Installations laid thereunder or laid under or over any other parts of the Development.

 

In addition to the above we (the PPCG, whose members included the three founding directors of PPEML), had also been advised by our Barrister (email PPCG Solicitor Date: 26 July 2018 at 16:26
Subject: Particulars of Claim ):

1. Re: the Sewerage System, the notes suggest there is no present problem?

2. The instructions refer to additional matters that were not part of the Letter of Claim. These include:-

   1. Problems with Service Charge accounts – however as the Covenant is very Freeholder friendly, encouraging it to provide audited accounts simply triggers a liability for additional payments?

   2. I cannot find any covenant to maintain the grounds generally or trees, as such does not fall within the definition ‘Maintained Property’;

   3. Fire hydrants do not fall within ‘Service Installations’;

   4. As to the Gas cylinder which is located on land occupied by TLL qua owner of a Chattel and not as Freeholder, then this is difficult but have referred to it as part of the Main Access claim.

   5. I can see not covenant re: provision of Contact info (albeit that such is very sensible).

I was astounded by PPEML's reply which deliberately altered and then misinterpreted the Title Document. This was their response!

​

"12. What can the annual Estate rentcharge / service charge be used for, according to the covenants? Can it be used to bring the site up to standard, as well as to maintain the site? A: The Covenants state that the site owner agrees ‘To keep the Maintained Property [the site] in a proper state of repair decoration and condition including the renewal and replacement of all worn or damaged parts’; and that the chalet owner / property owner agrees to pay the Estate Rentcharge 'to represent a due proportion of the costs expense and outgoings incurred or to be incurred’ by the site owner."

​

Below is the actual wording in the covenants:

You will note that the words in brackets in PPEMLs’ answer [the site] are noticeably absent. This is because the Estate rentcharge can only be used on the MAINTAINED” property (which is defined in the covenants).

PPEM's reply shows a complete non-understanding of our Titles, unless it is a deliberate attempt to deceive.

There is also a further additional concern. I have seen advice that the Estatecharge Rent cannot be used retrospectively (ie it can only be used for current wear and tear).

In the Court Order of September 2020 TLL were ordered to put right the lack of maintenance. PPEML were aware of this when they bought the site and it is likely they took on responsibility to comply with this court order.

I hope the above gives some understanding about my concerns around PPEML.

I believe that the Estaterent Charge was levied incorrectly as it can only be assessed when the “maintained properties” are in an acceptable state of maintenance.. If any owner challenges it they may well win and PPEML will be forced to repay all rent charges they collected.

They may also have a further problem as they seem to be using grants and donations etc., which may have been meant to be under the control of all freeholders, and certainly I do not know whether these were intended for the owner/residents of the estate or for PPEML.

As you can see, the whole matter is very fraught. What I would like to see is for PPEML to allow and encourage site owners to become unconditional members with control of the maintenance company, and be very open on the basis of their charge of the Estatecharge Rent. There are obvious problems with just lumping together the bringing the site up to a reasonable standard and collecting it as part of the charge. Many owners may already have paid TLL to do this maintenance (although they didn't do it) whereas others may not have paid. It is a hell of a mess. It is almost certain that the costs of bringing the site up to an acceptable standard will fall to the chalet owners, so it is only reasonable that they are in control OF how it is done.

I know it all sounds very complicated but the following is a simple analogy.

You buy a house. You have to drive over your neighbour's land using his private road to get to the main road. You come to an agreement with your neighbour which allows you to drive over his private road if you contribute to the maintenance. This all seems nice and simple. What then happens if your neighbour starts growing rare and exotic plants which need the care of expert gardeners, and he then tries to include the purchase of the plants and the payment of the gardeners in the sum he his charging you for using his private road, because, after all, you get the benefit of driving through a beautiful garden and in addition to this the garden was in an atrocious state to start with and needed money spent to get it right.!

Sorry the above was so long, complicated and tedious, but I hope it gives an insight into the situation.

I would be happy if PPEML altered their membership criteria so that all chalet owners could unconditionally become member with voting rights and able to control the company, or even a company as suggested in the covenants (check your title deeds). I also think it would be better if PPEML told everyone that because of factors mentioned above they could not impose the Estatecharge Rent but would ask everyone to pay an equivalent amount to PPEML to fund the necessary work. This situation would hopefully resolve itself in the next couple of years, and PPEML will be able to re-introduce the Estatecharge Rent.

I am happy to discuss any or all of the above. My address is on the letter head, my email is hughdiamond1@hotmail.com, my phone number is 01626 775517,

Yours faithfully,

Hugh

P.S. I have just seen PPEML's May newsletter which by and large looks excellent and hopefully their plans will soon lead to a great improvement to the site. I congratulate them, and I also wish the new director all the best.

I note in the newsletter it mentions that they will circulate a summary of the covenants. I do have a concern from the example given above, that they do interpret the covenants to their advantage. It is quite easy to get copies of your deeds by going on to the Land Registry site (make sure you go on the Gov site, not an expensive look a like) and they cost about £3 for a copy. You can then read it straight from the horses mouth so to speak. Your original conveyancer may even be prepared to clarify them for you.

I also note in the newsletter under Annual Accounts that it is stated that PPEML was set up by and for chalet owners, purely to manage and own the site responsibly, which begs the question “why are all the chalet owners not voting members, is it because they are not trusted or might have different priorities and needs?”

It would be nice if PPEML could share some information about themselves and their backgrounds