Following the major disturbance and inconvenience suffered by Landmark Place residents and surrounding businesses during last years Pulse Nightclub's Mardi Gras related event, it will not come as too much of a surprise to learn that a second challenge to the event licence was recently made by local businessmen.

(Most leaseholders will recall that after last years event, the licensee of Pulse was successfully prosecuted by the Council’s regulatory team for breach of license. As such, closer scrutiny of this years event was doubtless inevitable).

The applicants – the proprietors of the Glo Bar and Hair Essentials – were represented by a solicitor at a City Hall meeting on Friday 5th September, that being just one day prior to the event itself. However, it is now known that all parties had in advance of the meeting reached a compromise in line with the following ten pre-requisite conditions:-

(As these conditions had been accepted by the Pulse licensee, the Committee simply ratified them accordingly).

(1) A plan of extent of the Mardi Gras event showing the position of the barrier/railings to be deposited with the Local Authority (in future) no less than 28 days in advance of the event;

(2) Event railings and barriers not encroach on any of the footway on the western side of Churchill Way, save where surrounding the main stage adjacent to Queen Street and then only on 3 flag stones to the west of the road side;

(3) Installation of such barriers to be in liaison with neighbours;

(4) The Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) and the Premises Licence Holder (PLH) to use best endeavours to ensure that performers do not use profanity, crude or otherwise inappropriate language when performing in the open spaces;

(5) High visibility jackets to be worn by SIA registered door staff and stewards alike;

(6) Stewards to patrol and monitor external areas in and around the event site;

(7) DPS and/or PLH to ensure that litter and other rubbish is cleared up from all areas within the vicinity of the event site paying particular regard to the western pavement, including the car park area mentioned above;

(8) Signage to be displayed at the Queen Street end of the event along the railings advising members of the public that the existing and neighbouring businesses all remain open;

(9) Noise levels of the dance tent to be set in conjunction with the Environmental Health Officer;

(10) Contact details for the PLH and DPS to be made available to neighbours throughout the duration of the event.

Given Pulse's agreement to the above conditions, the event was allowed to proceed.


Inevitably, our Landmark Place concierge team still received a number of complaints about noise, principally on the Saturday of the event, with a total of eight calls logged. Understandably, there was little they themselves could do about the disturbance, so callers were simply advised of the Environmental Agency telephone number. Unfortunately, this was poor advice and proved to be of little practical benefit.

N.B. The non-emergency “101” line is the correct contact number for any out-of-hours noise related issues.


It is now known that Council officials monitored the event extremely closely, with a senior licensing officer visiting on both days of the event. This was in addition to frequent visits by both police and council enforcement officers, with the latter taking numerous noise level readings throughout.

(It has since been confirmed that the pre-set noise levels were not breached at any point. Furthermore, the permitted decibel levels were gradually reduced as the event progressed later into the night).

The licence for the main stage event was previously set at 23:00 and 22:00 on Saturday and Sunday respectively. Unlike last year, both of those deadlines were adhered to. But confusion surrounded the dance tent license, which - as it was subsequently discovered - was licensed until 04:00 on the Sunday morning. As to the two fairground rides, it transpires that such entertainments do not even require a license...

As far as Landmark Place residents are concerned, it was arguably the cumulative effect of the rides / generators, the screaming of those using them and the amplified sound from the dance tent that was the primary cause of nuisance, doubtless because the nearest of the rides was sited little more than a road-width away from Churchill Way Core 1 residents.! Nevertheless - and having personally met with the enforcement officers at 02:15 on the Sunday morning - the noise enforcement team believe that such noise was still within permitted levels.

(To their credit, they remained in and around Landmark Place for the following forty five minutes, taking sample decibel readings throughout).

It is now known that the number of people who attended the event during the Saturday was approximately 1,700, with 2,000 having been set as the capacity figure. Sunday, though, attracted less than 400 attendees, as a result of which it is probable that next year there will be no Sunday event; an opinion apparently expressed by the Pulse organisers themselves.

Thanks – in large - to the Council's close monitoring of the event, the impact on Landmark Place and surrounding residents / businesses was nowhere near as great as last year, so it is unlikely that any further challenge to the event's licence will occur – or succeed.! Nevertheless, it is surely still open to debate as to why a 04:00 permit would be granted to any event to be held in such close proximity to a large residential development...

Finally, for those of you who might be interested, a copy of the 5th September Licensing Sub-Committee Agenda and supporting reports has been added to our Info/MoreInfo page. It is a large download, but very interesting all the same.!

For quite some time now, an increasing number of residents have been experiencing problems with the Roca dual flush water cisterns originally installed in all Landmark Place apartments. Until recently, it was assumed by leaseholders that the problem was an isolated occurrence and that they were just unlucky. But - as time has gone by - it has become increasingly apparent that this is anything but the case, with most residents affected to some degree. In all likliehood, the problems are attributable to a Roca design fault, although this will be of scant comfort to those encountering difficulties.

The problem typically manifests itself by what is sometimes referred to as "ghost flushing", whereby the cistern automatically refills itself without anyone having actually flushed the toilet. And why does it do this.? Because of ongoing leakage. As there is no external overflow from the toilet, any excess water escapes downward into the pan, with the cistern water level slowly dropping until such point that the cistern thinks it has been emptied - at which point it automatically refills itself.

Significantly, the occupant/s of a flat might not realise that this is happening unless they happen to be in the bathroom when ghost flushing occurs, and we know from those that have encountered the problem that - until the cause became apparent - they had naturally assumed that the all-too-frequent flushing sound was coming from adjacent flats.!

The primary cause of ghost flushing is, as mentioned earlier, leakage from the cistern. It is believed that a faulty washer is the main culprit, and some have claimed that simply replacing it - or even just turning it over - is enough to resolve the problem. Others have put the blame on the central cistern diaphragm and/or the adjacent water filling mechanism. These, though, are not easy to replace and may well require the services of a plumber.

As this seems to now be a growing problem - and don't forget most of the apartments have two such toilets - a call was made to Richard Allez, the Regional Chief Engineer of Sir Robert McAlpine, and who was actively involved in the construction of Landmark Place. Mr Allez has confirmed that there is no warranty on the toilet units, and nor are they covered under the scheme retention. He has, though, agreed to consult his original documentation, and to let us know what the exact Roca model and specification is. That information will be added to this site on receipt. In the meantime we have unearthed what we believe to be the appropriate installation diagram for the model in question, a scanned copy of which can be found in the Info/MoreInfo page, plus an edited thread from a DIY web-site dealing with this very same issue.

Some other information by way of assistance:-

1. How do you remove the cistern lid.? This seemingly confounds a lot of people, but it is not as difficult as it appears. Firstly, you need a knife or similar flat ended object. Depress either of the two flush controls - preferably the (short flush) right hand one to conserve water - but keep it held down. There will now be a very slight gap between that and the still upright one. Insert the tip of the knife between the gap and gently lever upwards. That will prise the right hand side control out. (N.B. - Neither are screwed or stuck down, so it is highly unlikely you will break them). You can then simply lift out the remaining one and - with a large head Phillips screw driver - release the now exposed retaining screw that secures the lid in place.

2. Photographs of each of the components and an open cistern have been added to the Info/Photos page.

3. Some residents have found that the retaining screw is potentially part of the problem, as having removed it the leaking appears to stop. This is useful as a temporary cure, but once it is refixed and tightened it is usually found that water starts to leak into the pan again. Partially loosening it is sometimes known to work, although the cistern lid or flush mechanism is then prone to move about.

Finally, please do bear in mind that the knock-on effect of this WC fault is probably greater than you might likely imagine. It is guesstimated that on average a minimum of 20 litres of water an hour will be lost for every toilet where the fault occurs and has not been dealt with. Given the 500+ like toilets installed in Landmark Place - all of which are ultimately linked to one water meter - increased water charges may be an unwelcome consequence...

As leaseholders will be all too aware, the invoices for the "shortfall" in the service charge accounts have now been received, as have copies of the statutorily long overdue 2005/06 accounts. Despite the accompanying "information" from Mainstay's Mr Wiffen, there are nevertheless a good number of questions still to be answered. As you may have read in a previous blog entry, leaseholders are somewhat disadvantaged until such time as they are given full control of the management company and can take possession of essential documentation such as copies of service agreements, contracts, invoices etc.

In the meantime, a number of leaseholders have asked for clarification of how the service charges are compiled and apportioned and what exactly they cover. The following, hopefully, goes some way to answering those questions, but it should be borne in mind that only when handover and full sight of all documentation has taken place will we be able to advise with any degree of certainty. That said, we have already managed to acquire some of the key information required, so here goes:-!

Firstly, the amount a Landmark Place leaseholder will pay in service charges depends on two main factors: what size apartment did they purchase and do they have a car parking space or not. The amounts they are liable to pay are laid out within each purchasers lease and are based on three areas of expenditure, as follows:-

Sector 1 - a.k.a. the "Apartments" charge. This is the principal charge for leaseholders and represents the contribution toward managing and maintaining the building and common parts. This will include buildings insurance, concierge costs, cleaning, repairs, Mainstay's management fee and electricity charges amongst numerous other costs. How much an individual pays towards the Sector 1 charge is stated within their lease by way of a percentage. The percentage is based on the floor space size of their apartment. Thus, people with larger apartments pay a greater share of the Sector 1 service charge expenditure. It is for this reason that comparing service charges with others can be fraught, as there are no less than 42 different types of apartment based on floor space alone; although the differences between some types is literally a matter of a few square feet. Nevertheless, the spread overall is quite large and ranges from a 1 Bed 450sq ft. apartment to a 1564 sq ft. 3 Bed penthouse apartment: the owners therefore paying 0.21% and 0.73% respectively toward Sector 1 incurred costs. The most typical cost is that of a 2 Bed apartment, of which no less than 86 of them are in the range of between 766 and 773 sq ft. in size. As such, their contribution toward Sector 1 expenditure averages 0.36% or thereabouts.

For Information: Landmark Place comprises 280 apartments in total. 79 = 1 Bed, 173 = 2 Bed, 28 = 3 Bed.

Sector 2 - This appears to be for expenditure relating to the three commercial units and so is not relevant to residential leaseholders.

Sector 3 - This relates to expenditure on the car-parking area. Unlike the apportioned Sector 1 expenditure, those owning a car parking space are quoted an actual cost towards maintenance. (Original leases stated the figure as being £91.60). This method of calculation is unusual, because maintenance costs and required expenditure can vary year on year and the lease does not seem to include any other mechanism for recouping costs incurred in maintaining the area. Whatismore, non-carpark space owning leaseholders do not pay anything at all. So what if maintenance expenditure should prove greater than the set income the Landlord can charge - i.e. £91.60 x 200 = £18,320p.a.? It could well be that the Landlord himself will make good any shortfall via the annual ground rent income received for each allotted space and storage cupboard, although that would be unlikely. Additionally, where would any surplus income be reserved.? Clarification will be required on these issues.

Sector 4 - This relates to water supply and foul and surface water disposal expenditure. Sector 4 expenditure appears to be based solely on the number of bedrooms within a flat, irrespective of floor space, with a 1 Bed apartment owner paying 0.29%, a 2 Bed owner paying 0.36% and a 3 Bed owner paying 0.5% of all costs incurred.

The latest demand appears to be mainly for utility expenditure in Sector 1 - Landlord electricity - and Sector 4 - Tenant's water costs. It is hard to understand why such arrears could have accrued given that utility suppliers are known for regular billing. As such an approach was made to Welsh Water by the writer, who was informed that Landmark Place billing occurred six monthly. Furthermore, Welsh Water claimed that all bills - save one a few years ago - were based on actual readings and not estimated. As stated in a previous blog entry, existing legislation protects leaseholders from retrospective charges incurred more than 18 months prior to a demand being issued, unless such leaseholders have been notified of the increased expenditure by the Landlord before the 18 month period expires. It is the writer's opinion that Mainstay may now well have fallen foul of this requirement as regards the latest charges - if not of others - and this will be formally taken up with the Head Lessor, St. David / Crosby Homes, during a forthcoming visit; as will the matter of how recent purchasers are expected to recoup money from the previous owners who, presumably sold in good faith being unaware of the arrears...

p.s. - do email the site if you would like the floorspace and service charge percentages applicable to your own particular apartment.

Further to the earlier Blog entry in April concerning the writer's experience as regards the soil stack remedial work, the builders have now concluded the re-instatement of the wall decorations. And the result.? A first class job: it is now virtually impossible to see where the access hole was cut out.

A "post-work" photograph has been added to the Info/Photos page for information.

A disillusioned leaseholder from Prospect Place - who has now been in occasional contact for the past year or so - has emailed this site with a link to a simple on-line forum set up by other Prospect Place leaseholders and tenants.

For those of you unfamiliar with Prospect Place, it is a very large Bellway Homes development - still ongoing - fronting on Cardiff Bay and boasting integral leisure facilities including a small swimming pool, in addition to a "business centre". (As the site is managed by Mainstay, it is doubtless why Landmark Place Leaseholder Committee meetings are predominantly held there).

Whereas the forum does not appear to be overly subscribed, it is interesting to see the postings relating to Mainstay, which seem to bear remarkable similarities to some Landmark Place issues.

Our correspondent informs us that one issue particularly exercising leaseholders is a predicted budgetary shortfall - this supposedly being attributable to greater than expected utilities expenditure...!

Further details on this have been promised and an update will appear here when they have been received.

The latest Head Concierge - Keith Dimanuel - officially takes over as of today, with Stefano, Dave Calder and Darren Connelly acting in support. Mr Dimanuel will be familiar to most of you, as he was a night-shift concierge for well over a year before recently moving on to the afternoon shift.

Yet again, however, no-one seems to have thought it necessary to inform residents of the changes / additions. Would it be asking too much for a simple notice to be posted on the public notice-boards.? After all, the concierge staff has full access to both a computer and printer...

p.s. To herald in the new regime, Mainstay seem to have once again resurrected the idea of staff uniforms and keen-eyed residents might have noticed the embroidered "Mainstay" on the shirt breast pocket. Could it be that Mainstay have forgotten that concierge staff are supposedly employed by Landmark Place (Management) Ltd.?!

Remedial work on the soil stack pipes continues apace, with McAlpine's team currently working in Core 2, having largely completed the Core 1 works. The "team", by the way, comprises four workmen and who are likely to be resident here for several more months yet - such is the scale of the required works.

As site editor and having recently experienced most of the repair work first hand, I thought recounting of my own experiences might assist those still wondering what is in store for you...

At the outset, it should be said that yours truly insisted beforehand that allowing any work to be carried out was dependent on McAlpine first agreeing to fully reinstate any walls to the exact condition found prior to the works being carried out - in other words, no "Inspection" hatches. (There is a prior Blog entry on this issue.) Their having agreed to this, a date was duly agreed.

On the day itself, there was some initial confusion as to how to access the soil stacks. Living in a typical two bedroom Landmark Place apartment, I was earlier informed by McAlpine's senior engineer that there were two soil stacks requiring repair, access to which would be made via a) the storage cupboard containing the hot water tank and b) a wall in the en-suite bathroom shower cubicle. However, when the workmen appeared to commence the work, they decided that a) access via the master bathroom wall was more practicable and b) access via the shower cubicle would compromise the floor to ceiling tiling. As such, they decided instead to access the pipework from the opposite side of the wall, which in this instance is the main passageway into the flat.

The cutting of both access holes and remedial work to the soil stacks took approximately three hours in total, with a half hour gap whilst the workmen inevitably dissappeared for breakfast.! As they were unable to finish the work within the morning allotted them, a further visit of approximately half an hour was required the following morning. As to the "making good", that will necessitate two more visits, but has yet to be arranged due to personal work committments. Meanwhile, a temporary repair has been effected. Disruption and mess, it must be said, was minimal and the workmen were both friendly and considerate. And despite having insisted on being present throughout, I feel the workmen were responsible enough to have been left unattended - which is what most have opted for.

One word of caution for those yet to have the work carried out: think very carefully before agreeing to inspection hatches in any visible location such as corridors or bathrooms. In my humble opinion, they really would look obtrusive and out of place - and I'm not alone in thinking that.! But to help you make up your mind, I have added four photographs to the Info / Photos page showing the access holes, position etc. which might assist. Bear in mind that they are large files, to enable better viewing of the detail.

If any readers wish to share their own experiences - either good or bad - then please let us know.

As regular site visitors will know, the new Smoke-free regulations became law in Wales as of 6:00am on Monday 2nd April. And yet, despite extensive advance publicity the managing agent failed to comply with one of the legal requirements: in this instance the display of smoke-free signage. Fortunately, after our notifying the Head Lessor of this latest oversight, the said signage has today been affixed near to (most of) the main entrances to the building.

Quite why the residents of Landmark Place have had to wait for the imposition of legislation prior to a smoke-free policy being introduced in the building is open to debate, as the right for the Head Lessor to impose their own estate regulations is allowed for within all the residential leases. Nevertheless, those of us who have witnessed the cigarette ends stamped out on communal carpets and suffered the occasional smoke-filled lift will very much welcome the changes, however they have come about.

According to governmental guidelines, it is recommended that employers / facilities managers etc. willl have a written smoke-free policy for their premises and make it known to all. Needless to say, this has not happened in Landmark Place and so it is not surprising to hear that some confused residents have questioned concierge staff as to whether they are allowed to smoke within their own flats or not.!

More concerningly is that under the new regulations the manager or person in control of any smoke-free premises could technically be fined up to £2,500 for failing to prevent others from smoking in those premises, so it is all the harder to understand why no guidance for concierge staff has been forthcoming from Mainstay thus far...

Mid-afternoon today a full emergency evacuation of the adjacent British Gas Helmont House building was carried out on the instructions of the police. The reason.? An anonymous caller had rung their switchboard to claim that there was a bomb hidden in the building. Fortunately, and despite the police discovering an unaccounted for package, it turned out that the alarm was a hoax, with a disgruntled ex-employee being considered the prime suspect.

And what of Landmark Place throughout this incident.? Well, just as with the September 2003 noxious fumes major incident (See Info/MoreInfo page for two press cuttings) the lack of any established evacuation process meant that Landmark Place residents were once again overlooked. But even if the alarms had been sounded, where do current fire signs state the assembly point to be.? Yes, the Piazza area - hardly the safest place to assemble should a bomb be going off in a neighbouring building with predominantly glass facades.

(A quick visit to British Gas's security team established that - for the above reasons - their own assembly point is as far away as the other side of Queen Street.)

As regular readers will know, the self-confessed failure of Mainstay to properly maintain the building fire log and signage and implement an emergency evacuation policy / procedure was cause for a recent formal complaint to the Head Lessor, as a result of which a long overdue professional fire risk assessment is now due to be carried out on 12th April. As that date in itself is more than six months after the Regulatory Fire Reform Order became law and thereby making a risk assessment mandatory, it is fortunate for someone that today's incident was only a hoax...

Further to the Blog entry of the 5th March - and as "promised" by St. David / Crosby Homes's Mr Starkey - letters from Mainstay's Robert Wiffen are now being received by all Landmark Place leaseholders and announcing that the additional management fee (i.e. the £12.00 + VAT) is to be deferred until the end of the current contract period.

Unlike Mainstay's initial two sided letter, in which they went to great lengths in attempting to justify the increase, this letter is notable for its brevity, save to say that the deferral results from "further" discussions with both the Leaseholders Committee and the Management Company. But in keeping his letter so short, Mr Wiffen has not explained his previous pronouncement in his letter of 16th November 2006 in which he stated quite clearly that the charge was to "take effect in the current financial year, with charges being raised to the service charge account with immediate effect". Given that the second service charge demand for the year should have been paid in January 2007, the management fee hike should have been added at that time. So was it charged or not.?.

Clarification is now being sought from the Head Lessor accordingly.

The letter received from Richard Starkey (Chief Financial Officer of St. David / Crosby Homes) a copy of which can be found in the Letters page, is as significant for what it does not say as what it does say. The combined response addresses two of the author's letters, those dated the 4th & 6th February 2007, with the former being quite specific in its requested information. Sadly, but not unexpectedly, little of the specific information was forthcoming.!

On developing a site, large scale developers such as St. David / Crosby Homes will typically have little interest in managing it once the last unit has sold - after all, they are builders and not facilities managers - although they will inevitably wish to retain control of it up to that very point. In reality, they almost always appoint a managing agent to manage the development on their behalf, with the managing agent answering primarily to them. So how do they retain such control.? Firstly, by denying leaseholders control of the management company, the non-trading limited company which is incorporated for the specific purpose of managing and maintaining both the Lessors and Lessees interests as outlined within the lease. (In this instance Landmark Place (Management) Limited). When the company is set-up, the developer appoints their own people as both Directors and Company Secretary, but do not issue any shares until it suits them to. And why.? Because once shares are issued to leaseholders they would then have the power to force a general meeting and take control of the company simply by collectively voting off the developers own officials and voting on their own.

With regard to Landmark Place, there are added complications courtesy of the three integral retail units. (These three under-lease interests operate under the auspices of the separate Landmark Place (Commercial) Limited.) It is almost certain that it is this part of the development that has been responsible for the ongoing delay in handover of the residents management company to residential leaseholders, because the developer might need to make estate or other changes to accommodate the needs of an incoming commercial lessee. As we know, the much vaunted Health Club / Fitness Centre failed to materialise and the third unit has only recently been assigned. As it reaches completion, the need for St. David / Crosby Homes to retain control likely ends, hence Mr Starkey's statement within his letter that it is now their intention to proceed with the handover. So, it may not be long before we start receiving our share certificates through the post.!

The downside of these commercially motivated priorities is that such delay leaves leaseholders relatively disenfranchised between the sale of the first unit and handover of the residents management company. In the case of Landmark Place, the sale of the first apartment was "completed" in July 2002, with the last sold in August 2004. So, half of the leaseholders have now been resident for no less than four and a half years and without a formal say in the management of "their" interests. Throughout this time, leaseholders have been pretty much dependent upon the Head Lessor's appointed managing agent - Mainstay - for both "management" of the building and the provision of any relevant information. Rarely throughout the four and a half years have we heard from the Head Lessor direct and yet it is they who "hold" control of the residents management company, albeit in an interim capacity. As such, in the latter role it is their duty to ensure the performance of the managing agents on our behalf and it was for this reason that the author challenged them for specific evidence of this. Their failure to provide tangible detail would indicate that such monitoring does not routinely occur, despite his reference to their own "inspections". (During a previous telephone conversation with a senior Crosby Homes employee, it was let slip that "monitoring" was typically limited to a monthly visit to Mainstay's Worcester base, during which Landmark Place was only one of numerous sites that might be discussed).

Of particular concern is Mr Starkey's stated satisfaction with the way that Mainstay perform, although it is most likely that a) he has never even visited this site or spoken with leaseholders and b) he is, after all, a chief financial officer and not a facilities or leasehold manager. It is to be hoped that this does not indicate any form of pre-judgement prior to his meeting with the author as, after all, he has not been presented with our own detailed evidence of poor performance by Mainstay as yet. Nevertheless, it is not unexpected that his company would publicly endorse their appointed manager: do not forget the reference on page two to the "charge structure and budget devised prior to their involvement with Landmark Place". In other words, a wider arrangement exists between the two parties.

Also of concern are the several references to Mainstay's Residents Committee (sic) as if their involvement somehow legitimises such a large projected budgetary shortfall, fee increase and management of the development in general. Mr Starkey is clearly unaware that since Sept 2005 neither notification nor minutes of these committee meetings have been published or distributed to Landmark Place leaseholders. (Copies of all minutes made available have already been added to the Committee page.) Indeed, a number of leaseholders, particularly non-resident and recent purchasers, will likely be unaware that such a committee even exists, but as St. David / Crosby's own agent has in any case repeatedly failed to fulfill the minimum requirements expected of ARMA members in administering such forums, Mr Starkey's comments are all the more unfortunate.

(In light of the above, a formal request will now be made for copies of all non-distributed minutes).

The referenence to the "deferral" of the £12.00 + VAT management fee hike could almost go unnoticed, but it is obviously the most significant part of the response, as it was the author's refusal to pay this sum that precipitated Mr Starkey's letter. It could, of course, be argued that if both the Head Lessor and Mainstay were so confident of the legitimacy of the increase - as they clearly imply - then why have they not imposed it on leaseholders irrespective.? And why a deferral until the end of the current contract period.? The management agreement with Mainstay (copy in the Info page) states that the contract extends for a further two years after the residents management company is transferred, with a further six month notice period required should leaseholders opt to dispense with their services. Thus, there is a minimum period of two and a half years remaining if handover occurred tomorrow. In reality, therefore, the increase has been abandoned.! It will be of interest to see how this news is announced to Landmark Place lessees, given that the increase would appear to have already been charged within the January service charge demands...

Today brings a response from Richard Allez of Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd. which has confirmed suspicion that there was indeed an alternative to access hatches being required - i.e. their re-instating affected walls to the condition they were in prior to the remedial work being carrried out. Quite why leaseholders were not informed of this choice within the notification letters is open to debate, although it clearly does save McAlpine's time and effort if the hatch option is chosen.

As you can read from their response - copy in Letters page - it will involve several additional visits to make good the walls, but at least leaseholders have the choice...

As you will read on the News page, some leaseholders have enquired whether the Info site can, or will, supply purchase price details for individual Landmark Place properties. To date, the Info site has not attempted to provide such information, as obtaining the data would have involved Land Registry or third party provider fees. Furthermore, it raises questions as to confidentiality or intrusiveness.! However, there are now at least two web-sites providing property sales information and without charge. The sites www.ourproperty.co.uk and www.houseprices.co.uk freely supply subscribers with all Land Registry sales data since the year 2000 and, as a result, include purchase prices for nearly all Landmark Place apartments.

Given that such information is now openly available within the public domain, collation of the data for inclusion on this site may be given consideration within the near future. In the meantime, any opinions or views on this will be welcomed.

The latest letter from Mainstay's Mr Wiffen, which is today being received by all unsuspecting Landmark Place leaseholders, raises yet further doubts as to the efficacy of their management of the development. A projected £120,000 - £140,000 deficit in annual service charge budgets, (equating to £430-£500 per leaseholder), is clearly cause for concern given the already high level of service charges. And as if this was not bad enough, we are cooly informed that we must wait yet longer for our copy of the accounts. Of course, what Mr Wiffen omits to tell his customers is that by rights leaseholders are entitled to such accounts within 6 months of the end of the relevant financial year - that being 30th June 2006 in this instance. So, in other words, they will be late once again. (Sadly, this is not the first time and despite ARMA's expectation that its members should deal promptly with financial matters.)

Quite how such a large deficit should have accrued can only be a matter of conjecture at this time, as leaseholders are naturally compromised without sight of the accounts, but if (as Mr Wiffen states in his letter) it is largely due to expenditure on utility services, then it will most certainly beg questions as to why quarterly bills and meter readings were not providing ample prior warning of increasing cost quite some time ago.

Other significant points that will need to be carefully considered relate to leasehold legislation. Under current regulations, should any of the relevant costs taken into account in determining the amount of any service charges be incurred more than 18 months before a demand for payment of the service charge is served on the leaseholder, then the leaseholder shall not be liable to pay so much of the service charge as reflects the costs so incurred. The legislation further makes provision for consultation with leaseholders for any "Qualifying Long Term Agreements". In effect, should the landlord or lessor intend to enter into any agreement for the provision of goods or services for a period greater than twelve months and which will cost individual leaseholders more than £100 a year, then all leaseholders must first be consulted. Failure to do so means that any subsequent recharges are limited to £100 irrespective of how much actual cost was incurred.

As a rule, the only item of service charge expenditure costing Landmark Place leaseholders more than £100 per annum has been the provision of concierge staff. However, the legislative requirements do not apply in instances where there is a "contract of employment" involved. Of interest, though, is the provison of electricity to the communal areas. In 2005 we were informed that a change of supplier would result in a saving to leaseholders of about £10K p.a. - the annual cost until then having been in the region of £30K p.a. Typically, £20K p.a. would not involve any consultative requirements - but £28K would, as there are 280 leaseholders @ £100 each - and we are now given to believe that a marked increase in electricity costs is one of the principal reasons for such a large budget deficit.(!) Of course, it should be said that if the transfer agreement did not involve a "committment" term of more than twelve months, then all this is purely academic, but it will nonetheless be worthwhile checking on this - once we eventually receive our copies of the accounts, that is...

As per the item in the News page, it is all but certain that the current Landmark Place Head Concierge - Jay Derham - is to be appointed Mainstay's Regional Head Concierge and will presumably spend his future days driving around visiting all the other Mainstay regional sites.

Whereas Mr Derham will doubtless consider himself fortunate to be leaving for promotional reasons, his departure means that his successor will have the honour of being no less than the 14th "full-time" member of the concierge team appointed within the four and a half years since the original concierges took up post in Summer 2002 - at least four of which departed in a less than amicable manner. (To our knowledge, two of them effectively "walked out" without giving any notice whatsoever).

The remuneration of Landmark Place concierge staff would appear to be above the industry average paid for undertaking such duties, so it should be of concern that the turnover of staff is so high, particularly so as three previous concierges have been directly related, two more have been flatmates with a third having been their landlord and a fourth being one of their "in-laws"...

N.B: The concierge and cleaning staff are directly employed by Landmark Place (Management) Ltd. - our very own Residents Management Company - and are not Mainstay employees. The Mainstay contract simply requires them to appoint and "manage" such employees, with any absences covered - at additional expense to leaseholders - via agency staff. Significantly, one such agency employee has now spent more time covering at Landmark Place - excepting one - than any directly employed individual.!

The poor state of the Piazza area has been of concern for quite some time, with a number of leaseholders / residents justifiably complaining about the lack of maintenance and upkeep of the area. The weed overgrowth in the boat shaped planters and "funnels" has come in for particular criticism. N.B: You might like to know that the funnels serve a specific purpose - i.e. to assist the ventilation of the British Gas car park situated below.

The artist originally commissioned to landscape the Piazza area - Andrew Leicester - cleverly incorporated the funnels into a nautical theme, with adjacent planters designed to represent little boats. Sadly, though, his efforts have not subsequently been matched by whoever is responsible for overseeing the site. (Significantly, Mr Leicester's very own web-site www.andrewleicester.com omits any photographs of Landmark Place - the ONLY commission he appears not to have illustrated.!)

As far as we can tell, the Piazza area is still owned by St. David / Crosby Homes, so it is to them that a letter has today been sent seeking clarification as to who is "responsible" for maintaining the area in question.

Please see the Letters, Info/Photos and Info/MoreInfo pages for additional background information.

It is to the credit of Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd. that an oversight has been rectified and that letters detailing the proposed remedial works to the soil and vent pipes have this time been sent to non-resident leaseholders and not just hand-delivered to each apartment.

(As residents of Core 2 and car-park vistors will likely have noticed, the McAlpine team have already set-up base camp in preparation for the works, by creating an office / storage facility.)

Unfortunately, though - and in common with the original St. David / Crosby notification letter - the implication is that you are obliged to go along with the outlined requirements, whether you want to or not. Naturally, it goes without saying that leaseholders should co-operate whenever possible, because leaks in blocks of flats can unfairly affect neighbouring apartments as well as your own, but it would have been nice to be informed whether there are other options available instead of the installation of access hatches - two photographs of which have been added to the Photos page for the benefit of non-resident leaseholders...

Today sees the arrival of the 6 monthly service charge demands (payable in advance) for the period 1st January 2007 to 30th June 2007. As Robert Wiffen's covering letter is dated 30th November, it appears that the Mainstay Group have placed their full trust in the Royal Mail delivering the letters in sufficient time to meet the regulatory timescale required when serving ground rent notices - i.e. not less than 30 days or more than 60 days outside the due date quoted in your lease. N.B: the accompanying ground rent notice is dated the 1st December..!! But lest you think that Mainstay managed to get it right this time, then take a quick look at the copy of the Wales Assembly Government statutory instrument No. 1355 located in the "Info" page. As you will see, Mainstay failed to get the prescribed date format right yet again and despite Mainstay's very own Glyn Miles (Managing Director) being previously informed about this same oversight...

(Do not forget the £12.00 + VAT hike in "management" fees Mr Miles's company wishes to charge Landmark Place leaseholders as a result of the claimed additional legislative requirements now affecting them...)

As per our News page, letters from St. David / Crosby Homes have today been hand delivered to Landmark Place residents, notifying all of work required to replace or repair the soil stacks in each apartment; such work to be carried out over the next few months. Inasmuch as we can tell, it is only the occupants of flats that have received these letters and not the actual owners - which, if correct, is somewhat discourteous to leaseholders.

(In the interest of fairness, please do let us know if this proves not to be the case.)

Today brings a letter to all Landmark Place leaseholders from the Mainstay Group, notifying us of an increase in their management fee. Without so much as a touch of irony on their part, the letter states that this is due to their increased workload / responsibilities in having to comply with recent legislative requirements.! (See the Letters pages for correspondence relating to Mainstay's recent failures to comply with prescribed ground rent demand procedure.)

Several leaseholders have queried as to how Mainstay can unilaterally impose such an increase and, tellingly, where are St. David / Crosby Homes while such pronouncements are being made. Why.? Because control of Landmark Place (Management) Ltd. has yet to be transferred to leaseholders, so it is St. David / Crosby Homes who are currently responsible for overseeing the managing agent.

It is worth taking a look at the copy Mainstay management agreement which can be found in the Info page. As you will see, Mainstay's engagement is assured for two years following handover of the Residents Management Company - which, as previously stated, has yet to occur. In addition, they are to be given six months notice should leaseholders then decide to dispense with their services.

Of interest is whether such an arrangement is wholly legitimate, in that leaseholders are fully bound into an agreement made without their involvement or awareness. Recent correspondence with Trading Standards indicates that part of the agreement may possibly fall foul of the 1999 "Unfair Terms in Contracts" regulations, but the added complexity of the Lessor / Lessee arrangement will doutless require legal involvement to clarify fully.

Nevertheless, it is not all bad news, as existing legislation gives leaseholders the "Right to Manage" should they so wish. This effectively allows leaseholders to appoint their own manager, irrespective of existing agreements and without due reason being required. That said, there are qualifying conditions that must be met, full details of which can be found in the LEASE web-site. But to save you time reading through all of it, as far as Landmark Place is concerned, it would simply require a majority of the 280 leaseholders voting in favour...

The fire alarm that occurred at 3:05a.m. this morning once again highlighted a "burning" issue, no pun intended, and yet again calls into question Mainstay's committment to fire evacuation procedures. Although the (false) alarm was triggered by windy weather in the car park area, a number of tenants dutifully came down from Core 4 believing that they were expected to exit the building when the fire alarm sounded. As they had been roused from bed and obliged to hurriedly dress before leaving, it is easy to appreciate their annoyance when told that there was no evacuation procedure in place. All the more so in that they had had to walk down from their 10th floor flat.

What is of greatest concern is that the 2005 Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order became effective (due to delay) as of 1st October - less than one month ago. This Reform Order for the first time requires attention to the communal areas of blocks of flats, so you would be forgiven for believing procedures would already be in place. But despite Mainstay's previous committments to the South Wales Fire Service and an earlier admission that the Health & Safety file was not being maintained "consistently", it appears that we are still awaiting communication of such procedures.

A copy of the relevant governmental guide to the new regulatory order can be found in the Info page. As it is a lengthty download, it has been split into two parts, the first of which is the most relevant.