THEY bought family homes on new developments - but still ended up with a factor.

House buyers tell of rip-offs, shoddy service

THEY bought family homes on new developments - but still ended up with a factor.

It's an increasingly familiar story across Glasgow and west Scotland.

As more new houses are built, more developers will have to appoint a factor to manage common areas such as grassed areas, playgrounds, pathways and even roads.

And more homeowners will have to pay a factor - often only realising they actually have one long after they've moved in.

More factors can mean only one thing - more unhappy residents.

Unlike those who live in urban areas in traditional tenements or new flats, new developments often don't get council services such as street cleaning and road maintenance.

According to councils, residents own all the land in their development, so they must pay for its upkeep.

Despite this, those who live in such developments must still pay full council tax.

Here we tell three typical accounts of angry house owners who are fed up with their factor's bad service.

How it became your obligation

UNTIL the 1990s, property developers would build a residential project and any spare pieces of ground left undeveloped would automatically be handed back to local councils to maintain.

However, as the number of new developments grew, local authorities started to see this practice as a considerable burden.

With councils under increasing financial pressure, they started making it a condition of planning approval for a housing site that homeowners would eventually take on the responsibility of looking after common areas - such as pieces of grass, roundabouts, swingparks and signs - within new estates.

Factors would be hired to ensure such work was done but the problem is that homeowners, who have to pick up the bill, usually have no say in choosing their factor. That choice is made by the developer.

Most houses on new estates now come with a financial responsibility on owners to pay an equal share of the charges for looking after common ground that the council no longer wants. This is written into their deeds and is enforceable by law.

Some areas, such as access roads, are still adopted by councils once all the construction work on a new estate has been completed but, in some cases, residents are even responsible for roads.

Many homeowners are angry councils no longer look after their common areas - especially because they still have to pay full council tax, in which they expect such services to be included.

But local authorities point out the land doesn't belong to them - so why should they pay to look after it?

The developers can opt to return the common areas to council jurisdiction once they are established. However, a council insider said most choose not to do so as they have to lodge a financial bond with the council - it's easier for them to make residents pay a factor.

Glasgow-based factor Newton Property manages a number of new developments in west Scotland.

Managing director Stephen O'Neill said: "It's important people know what they are getting themselves into before they buy a house.

"From a factor's point of view new developments are the least profitable property management jobs and often a factor will get complaints from owners when they find out they have to pay management fees they didn't know about.

"Solicitors should explain and even follow up in writing that a property comes with an annual financial liability.

"Owners contract into this agreement when they buy the house as the deed of conditions clearly explains what they have agreed to."

The deed of conditions is a document which explains an owner's responsibilities in relation to shared areas of ground or tenement common areas.

The message to anyone buying a new house is clear - make sure you know exactly what you are signing up to before you sign on the dotted line.

We were wrongly charged £4000

DOUGLAS'S STORY . . .

DOUGLAS BROWN, 35, lives in a development called The Spinney, near Mount Vernon, Glasgow.

Douglas, who has lived in his three-bedroom home for five years, says his factor Peverel was charging owners of the 100 homes maintenance charges that apply only to the two blocks of luxury flats that share the development.

Douglas, a DJ, said he and neighbours paid out at least £40 each in charges for window cleaning, stair cleaning and gutter maintenance - which some of the owners of the flats had not paid for.

He said: "It was only when I and others started to investigate that Peverel took any action.

"We checked our deeds and saw the factor can only charge flat owners for work carried out there.

"They should have known this.

"What those of us in houses paid out adds up to more than £4000."

He also accused Peverel of being heavy-handed when chasing up payments.

He said: "On one occasion I paid my bill by cheque, which arrived a few days late.

"Just days later I got a letter from Peverel threatening court action if I didn't pay up.

"There's surely no need to threaten residents in this away.

"I've spoken to neighbours and we'd rather not have a factor at all."

A spokesman for Peverel admitted it had made a mistake in charging the house owners.

He said: "We would like to confirm to residents that we do not apply service charge costs for the apartments to the houses.

"However, an error occurred with regard to costs relating to irrecoverable debts owed to The Spinney.

"Residents were swiftly reimbursed, then re-invoiced with the correct figures."

Factor has left my shed to rot away

JACQUELINE'S STORY . . .JACQUELINE Sinclair has accused her factor, Ross and Liddell, of failing to maintain greenery on the communal pathway next to her home.

According to Jacqueline, overgrown trees weren't cut back for years, despite her and other neighbours paying for the work to be done.

She says her shed is now rotting because she couldn't get access to fix its felt roof due to the overgrown trees.

The trees were eventually cut back last summer but the 37-year-old says her shed is still in a state of disrepair.

Jacqueline, who lives in Old Kilpatrick, insists the company has twice promised to replace her shed - but has failed to deliver.

The mum-of-one, who pays £17 a month to Ross and Liddell in management fees and for gardening maintenance, said: "The factor blamed their gardening contractor for not cutting back the trees and bushes.

"But as far as I'm concerned that was their problem, not mine - we pay them to arrange appropriate contractors.

"I'm extremely angry because my shed is in a terrible state. If they'd just had the branches cut back in previous years there wouldn't be a problem.

"I've spoken to Ross and Liddell three times about this and twice been told I'd get a new shed. But so far I've heard nothing. They should take responsibility.

"I'm hoping to sell my house soon, but who will want to buy a rotting shed?"

Jacqueline, a childminder, says there are also problems with the drain in the car park outside her three-bedroom home - the only drain on the development not adopted by Glasgow City Council.

She added: "It is constantly flooding and last time Ross and Liddell sent out a contractor to unblock it the workmen left a terrible mess.

"The factor promised to send someone out to clean it up but they never did.

"It was becoming a health hazard getting kids in and out of the car.

"I ended up cleaning the mess myself, even though we'd just paid out more than £200 to have it fixed.

"It should be a case of no service, no payment."

A spokesman for Ross and Liddell said: "Though the contractors could not obviously take entry onto Mrs Sinclair's property it was agreed the contractor should have made arrangements to deal with the overhanging branches and would make reparation to Mrs Sinclair for damage caused.

"We have spoken to the contractor, who has contacted Mrs Sinclair and arranged to meet her to resolve this issue."

Firm threatened me with court action

JOHN'S STORY . . .

JOHN Walker, who lives on a private housing development in Barrhead, describes Ross and Liddell's attitude to disputes as "threatening".

The 49-year-old dad fell out with the company over a piece of communal grass attached to his garden.

John, who pays Ross and Liddell £8.40 a month for gardening, insists the factor's contractors don't mow the shared area in full - leaving him to do the part attached to his house.

He said: "I maintain the grass better than their gardeners. But when I asked for a reduction in my maintenance fee they refused and said I'd have to keep paying the same as everyone else.

"Why should I when I'm doing the contractor's work for them?

"There have been times when I've refused to pay the full fee because I'm in dispute, and they just send letters threatening court action."

A spokesman for Ross and Liddell said: "We understand Mr Walker was cutting part of the common grass which adjoined his ground as it meant the grass would be of uniform cut.

"The difficulty was the contractors were responsible for cutting the common area which would result in a variation in height of the grass.

"We understand Mr Walker was of the opinion he should only pay half of the annual contract, even though the area was only a small part of the overall landscape maintenance."

The company denied being heavy-handed when recovering payments.

The spokesman said: "Only a small proportion of our clients ever qualify to receive any reminders for unpaid accounts.

"The majority either pay by monthly direct debit or they settle their accounts before any action has to be considered.

"The company's policy is to adhere to the recommended standards of credit control and the majority of the department's staff are qualified paralegals."