|
Home |
Directors |
FAQs |
News |
Links |
Selling |
Letting |
Contact Us |
Location |
History |
Pepys Street NewsNews Update Savage Gardens Updated April 2010 We are pleased to announce that the City Inn Hotel have agreed our proposal of having controlled seating at either end of Savage Gardens which will be for lunchtime use and removed during the afternoon. The scheme has therefore been agreed by the Planning Department and will not have to go before the Members again. See below for further details. Issued February 2010 It has come to our notice that the City is proposing to make the part of Savage Gardens that runs alongside the West side of 1 Pepys Street into a pedestrian only area once the City Inn Hotel has been completed. We have made representations on behalf of residents at 1 Pepys Street since we feel this could cause a nuisance to those on the West side in terms of noise late at night. The original plan was to install seating in the area which we feel could encourage late night drinkers to sit around and be noisy below bedroom windows on that side of the block. A meeting took place between the RTM Company and the Planning Department in January at which we made strong objections on behalf of residents about fixed seating. The option now being considered does not include fixed seating but instead controlled seating at either end of Savage Gardens which will be managed by the City Inn Hotel and removed during each afternoon. City Planners are keen to use such spaces for the benefit of City workers during lunchtime. We have since made written representations and said that provided the seating is removed each afternoon then controlled seating is acceptable. Even if you are not resident at 1 Pepys Street, increased disturbance in the street below bedrooms could of course affect the rental value of your flat so this is an important issue for all at 1 Pepys Street. If you would like to see the proposed design please send an email to . New Item Service Charge Expenditure 2009 April 2010 The audited accounts for Pepys Street RTM Company Limited are now available for 2009 and which include the Statement of Service Charge Expenditure for that year (see page 10). See RTM Accounts For previous years, see here. Building Insurance September 2009 The current building insurance policy now contains a standard exclusion from liability in respect of unoccupied flats. Therefore, certain steps are necessary in the event that your flat remains unoccupied for a period exceeding 30 days. Failure to follow the procedures will mean that the building insurance cover is invalidated for any claim for loss or damage which emanates from an unoccupied property. See here for the procedures you are required to follow. News Update Re-decoration Updated Ocotber 2009 As part of our redecoration plan at 1 Pepys Street and in order to spread the cost across more than one year, we have had the following areas repainted.
In addition, one or two areas of damage to areas painted last year have been redecorated. The total cost of this work was £3,950 and will be paid out of the reserve fund. Bike rack August 2009 We have noticed an increasing number of residents are using bikes at 1 Pepys Street. Since we do not want bikes brought into the block to avoid damage to walls and doors etc. we have decided to provide a bike rack in the basement area where cyclists can padlock their bikes securely. A rack that accommodates ten bikes has been installed at a cost of £625 + VAT. See here for further details. News Update Are high Agent Renewal Fees eating into your Profit? Updated August 2009 As was reported on this site last year, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) launched High Court proceedings against estate agency firm Foxtons over 'unfair terms' in the company's lettings agreements with landlords. The watchdog said it was taking action against the London-based firm after receiving complaints from consumers. Terms in the agreements allow the agent to ask landlords to pay substantial commission after the initial fixed period of the tenancy has expired, even if Foxtons has had no part in persuading the tenant to stay and no longer manages the property. The case has now been heard and the following article written by John Walsh explains the result: OFT and Foxtons Case Ruling The High Court heard that Foxtons charged 11% as a renewal fee. The judge made it clear that such a material charge should have been highlighted not just in the contract but also in Foxtons' marketing literature. Although the Judge stated that clauses in the Foxtons agreement were unfair, this was because they did not make the renewal terms clear. Contrary to misleading information that has already appeared in the press, the ruling has not stated that renewal fees are unfair but that these fees must be explicitly laid out. This means that Lettings Agents can continue to seek fees in relation to renewals, even where they are instructed on a let-only basis or have no involvement in the renewal. However, Agents are being advised that their terms of business should place all commission clauses together at the top of the agreement and that this section should be placed in bold text or otherwise highlighted. Almost all of the cases that I have heard of have not "highlighted the fee up front". I suggest you quote this to any lettings agent that is still pursuing you for unpaid renewal fees. Agents are advised that all commission clauses should be expressed in very plain language and should not use words specifically disapproved by the Court such as 'associated', 'connected', or 'nominee' in relation to bargains concluded between the landlord and other people who might have been introduced to the property by the tenant. Agents should concentrate on seeking fees where the tenant or occupier themselves renews or there is a tenancy by a member of the tenant or occupier's immediate family. Where the tenant is a company, then fees should only be sought where the renewal is to one of the same group of companies. Agents should change their terms to reflect this focus. Agents should concentrate on seeking fees where the tenant or occupier themselves renews or there is a tenancy by a member of the tenant or occupier's immediate family. Where the tenant is a company, then fees should only be sought where the renewal is to one of the same group of companies. Agents should change their terms to reflect this focus. It is worth considering the judgement in detail at this point. In paragraph 33 of his judgement Mr Justice Mann said the following: "I should first make clear what I am not deciding, and what I am not asked to decide. I am not asked to decide, and do not decide, that renewal commissions (in the sense used in these proceedings) are always unfair. I make that clear because some of the evidence and submissions of the OFT come close to asserting a case that they are always unfair, and some of the correspondence seemed to be based on such a proposition, though Mr Nicholas Green QC, for the OFT, eventually made it clear that that was not his case. Mr Michael Kent QC, for Foxtons, opened his submissions by saying that I would eventually have to, and should, rule on renewal commission generally, but he moved away from that. I shall not decide whether or not renewal commission is always unfair to consumer landlords." Therefore, the judgement in no way states that renewal commission is unfair. What was decided was that Foxtons renewal commission clauses were not worded in plain and intelligible language and were excessive in the level of commission charged and in their wider definition of renewals by associates of the tenant which would also attract a fee. The other area of misreporting is in relation to the rights of parties to demand the return of sums already paid. Contrary to the decisions made in the various cases involving bank charges there is nothing in this judgement which allows for monies already paid to be recovered. This particular issue was one which Foxtons fought hard to avoid and at the current time the Court has not made any ruling in relation to it. This however, does not draw a line under the issue as there is now a question as to what constitutes plain language that highlights this clause up front. You can read more at The Office of Fair Trading website. If you are unsure about a particular case email me on Any advice given by John Walsh is entirely independent of Pepys Street RTM Company Limited. News Update Construction of City Inn Hotel Updated March 2010 Demolition by Expanded of the old Mariner House is now complete and Laing O'Rourke are well into the build of the new 584 bedroom hotel for City Inn. The planned time scale for the build can be seen here. A meeting was held recently with representatives of Laing O'Rourke and from the City of London Department of Environmental Services to discuss concerns from residents about early morning disturbances and over running the specified working hours. Laing O'Rourke have already taken steps to deal with these issues and have taken on board our concerns and complaints. In the event of any problems being caused to residents during the build, the following representative of Laing O'Rourke can be contacted during site operating times:
Site operating hours are:
The latest News Bulletin from Laing O'Rourke can be downloaded here. Water Leaks May 2009 There have been a number of water leaks in the block recently caused by leaking bath wastes and the supply to the toilet cistern. These need checking regularly to ensure that leaks are not occurring and causing water damage to flats below. The bath/shower seals should also be checked to avoid water seeping beneath the floor tiles in bathrooms. See here for further details. Do you have problems operating your sliding door? April 2009 We often have leaseholders contacting us about their balcony sliding door. If these are not handled correctly they will soon require an engineer to fix them. We have therefore produced a set of operating instructions for you and your tenants to use. See here. Hot Water Tanks in Flats - Annual Maintenance April 2009 If your flat is fitted with a Megaflo Heatrae Sadia hot water tank it requires regular maintenance, ideally annually. If you haven't had yours attended to yet it is strongly advised that you do so as soon as possible. See here for further details. Redevelopment of 10 Trinity Square December 2008 Thomas Enterprises Inc, the new owners of 10 Trinity Square, are planning to create a luxury hotel with a small number of hotel-affiliated residential serviced apartments. This historic building was originally the headquarters of the Port of London Authority. For full details of the plans and to see how they will affect 1 Pepys Street, go to their website 10trinity.com. To read the above documents you will need Adobe Reader which can be downloaded free here. See the News Archive pages for older items.
|
