Time for a mediator at Upton Dene?

Posted to the blog on the  15/10/2013

The letter below was posted to the board of directors of Upton Dene Residents Ltd five days ago. Unfortunately no reply or communication of any kind was posted in response. Perhaps the lack of engagement by Upton Dene Residents Ltd is a true indication of the failure of company law when it comes to directors responsibilities to account for their decisions. It is up to shareholders and readers in general to form their own opinions on these matters. But I ask you, if you meet one of these directors during your day, to present to them the following questions that have, as yet, gone unanswered. 

1. Upton Dene Residents Ltd claimed to have taken "Legal Advice" prior to implementing the changes to parking regulations at Upton Dene. If this is truly the case why haven't the board presented to shareholders, upon request, a copy of that advice.  Is it the case such Legal Advice doesn't exist?

2. The new parking regulations have been challenged with a justifiable argument. Why haven't the board engaged in that discussion. If you are confident that Upton Dene Residents Ltd had the rights to make these changes to parking  at Upton Dene then surely you have the confidence to present your case when challenged.

3. If issues like these cannot be solved between shareholders and directors on a one to one basis then a mediator can be used to help work toward a resolution. Are the board in favour of a mediator? If not why? 

The blog can be contacted via 4shareholderview@gmail.com. Shareholders comments are welcome and will be treated in confidence if requested.

A letter to the board of directors requesting dialogue in search of a solution to the present situation regarding “No Rights to Parking” at Upton Dene 

To;                                                                                                                                                                      10/10/2013

Upton Dene Residents Ltd

Upton Dene

From;

David

Upton Dene

On the 24^th of June 2013 the directors of Upton Dene Residents Ltd published a rewrite of the “Company Regulations”. The new policy of no rights to parking for residents except under license from the board was introduced.

On the 26^th of June, two days later, I presented a letter to the board explaining that they could not remove shareholders rights to parking as it was a right expressed in the lease. In the same letter I asked the board to explain their position. I specifically asked them to….”clarify what legal basis they have to go against the lease”.

My case was presented to the board two days after the new company regulations were published. That was 5 weeks before Ace Security Services’ contract came into force. There was no delay on my part to communicate my concerns to the board.

On more than one occasion the board have stated in writing that they had taken “legal advice” regarding changes to parking rules. I requested to see that “Legal Advice” from their legal adviser multiple times over the last three and a half months and have received no response todate. 

The seriousness of the matter at Upton Dene requires dialogue. I have received 5 tickets todate from “Ace Security Services” for being a shareholder, for parking on the square within the bays and in a safe manner. The board contracted “Ace Security Services” to police the common areas and issue parking penalties without first, or at any time since, engaging in dialogue with me on the points I raised.

It seems the board of directors have chosen the method of force to establish these new “No Rights to Parking” policies. Todate I have received zero explanations from the board of directors regarding my concerns of lease changes. Attempting to force through changes that have been challenged by a shareholder is not the best approach to the problem we face.

I ask the board a simple, direct question.

Is your strategy ,into the future, to continue to ignore my requests for explanations and a dialogue and for “Ace Security services” to continue issuing parking fines regardless of my rights to be heard?

Freehold Management Companies and a section of Parking Enforcement Companies seem outside of a stringent regulatory framework when it comes to day to day management issues.  A weak regulatory framework plus the two types of companies above make for a bad marriage were shareholder’s rights are concerned.

I do not believe the presence of Ace Security Services is helping us resolve matters. Directors have to manage the issues. Contracting “Ace Security Services to “manage the issues” on their behalf, through force of a penalty notice, is not right in any sense.

It seems the presence of the parking enforcement company has allowed the board of directors to believe they can “step back”, abdicating responsibility, for their policies in the hope that the parking enforcement company “Ace Security Services” can get all “sorted and settled” through parking penalties. This won’t work on any level and I hope the courts will understand shareholders predicament and make any fines unenforceable.

To alleviate further escalation and reputation damage to our estate we should talk. I am comfortable talking directly with the board or a board representative. If the board on the other hand would be more comfortable using a mediator we can find an appropriate person through such websites as “The Leasehold Advisory Service”. Issues like ours fall under the specific category of “Alternative Dispute Resolution”, abbreviated to “ADR”. 

•         We should start with common areas of agreement and work toward details of agreement.

• ·       The lease is the subject and we can establish written milestones along the way

• ·       The meetings would be between myself and a board member or members. A mediator can be present if requested.

• ·       Common ground of agreement will be in writing and signed and would be binding.

• ·       The discussions and debates beforehand will be exploratory and discursive and non-binding.

I believe this is the best way to understand the rights and responsibilities of shareholders and directors alike and overcome the impasse we have at present.

I believe, for this situation to have a chance of resolving itself, parking enforcement by Ace Security Services of shareholders not displaying a permit should be suspended for the period of discussion and agreement. (Shareholders and their vehicles are known by the board and Ace security Services. It is a simple matter to make sure all enforcement officers are aware of those vehicles and are instructed not to ticket). I would also suspend my charges to the board and Ace Security Services for the same period for as long as agreements are adhered to.

Calling a halt to further escalation and searching for common ground, around the lease, is the only way this matter can be resolved. I and other shareholders are in favour of this approach.

A copy of this letter will be posted to “shareholderviews.blogspot.com” on the 15^th  October 2013. I would be happy to post your reply at the same time. If you need more time to draft a reply let me know before the 15^th and I can adjust the publication date within reason.

I look forward to working toward a resolution with you

Regards

David

4shareholderview@gmail.com