Posted by: Factor1, Glasgow on 1:02pm Tue 12 Feb 08
As I advised in a previous post, you are entitled under the Law of Agency to know how much commission your factor receives for arranging the common policy on your behalf. Try asking. While you are at it find out where the interest goes on the float you provided. Do not be fobbed off with any blarney about funding repairs, which will mostly be forward funded. Any others will probably account for at most a miniscule proportion of the float.
In terms of the owner who never knew there was a common policy requirement for your flat, I would have thought your solicitor should have identified this before you bought it.
As I advised in a previous post, you are entitled under the Law of Agency to know how much commission your factor receives for arranging the common policy on your behalf. Try asking. While you are at it find out where the interest goes on the float you provided. Do not be fobbed off with any blarney about funding repairs, which will mostly be forward funded. Any others will probably account for at most a miniscule proportion of the float.
In terms of the owner who never knew there was a common policy requirement for your flat, I would have thought your solicitor should have identified this before you bought it.
Posted by: The X Factor, Glasgow on 1:12pm Tue 12 Feb 08
By all means check prices and challenge admin fees and surplusses. The price should competitive but like for like, admin fees should reflect the cost of employing staff etc to, erm, administer and no surplus should be made.
But... please recognise that a common policy means that if anything happens such as a fir, rebuild will be an option. You all (except Marianne) know it makes sense.
By all means check prices and challenge admin fees and surplusses. The price should competitive but like for like, admin fees should reflect the cost of employing staff etc to, erm, administer and no surplus should be made.
But... please recognise that a common policy means that if anything happens such as a fir, rebuild will be an option. You all (except Marianne) know it makes sense.
Posted by: Sandy, Glasgow on 2:18pm Tue 12 Feb 08
Redpath Bruce are my dad's factors and due to them under insuring his close over the years they said it would cost over £1million to rebuid now. The tenants were asked to respond to a letter asking if they wanted to go ahead with the new building insurance. Of the 6 in the close only my dad responded (for peace of mind) the other 5 left it. There are 2 people over 70 who have bought their houses, 2 rented to immigrants don't know who owns these, 1 guy who works away and the other is empty. What response were they expecting. Now they have no building insurance. My dad gets worked up about the costs they might incur but I told him to forget about it as obviously the rest are. Redpath Bruce also charge administration costs but my dad questioned it and they said it was for the cost of paper, envelopes and stamps, at £20 odd pound a quarter, they waived his costs.
Redpath Bruce are my dad's factors and due to them under insuring his close over the years they said it would cost over £1million to rebuid now. The tenants were asked to respond to a letter asking if they wanted to go ahead with the new building insurance. Of the 6 in the close only my dad responded (for peace of mind) the other 5 left it. There are 2 people over 70 who have bought their houses, 2 rented to immigrants don't know who owns these, 1 guy who works away and the other is empty. What response were they expecting. Now they have no building insurance. My dad gets worked up about the costs they might incur but I told him to forget about it as obviously the rest are. Redpath Bruce also charge administration costs but my dad questioned it and they said it was for the cost of paper, envelopes and stamps, at £20 odd pound a quarter, they waived his costs.
Posted by: The X Factor, Glasgow on 4:05pm Tue 12 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Sandy[/bold] wrote:
Redpath Bruce are my dad's factors and due to them under insuring his close over the years they said it would cost over £1million to rebuid now. The tenants were asked to respond to a letter asking if they wanted to go ahead with the new building insurance. Of the 6 in the close only my dad responded (for peace of mind) the other 5 left it. There are 2 people over 70 who have bought their houses, 2 rented to immigrants don't know who owns these, 1 guy who works away and the other is empty. What response were they expecting. Now they have no building insurance. My dad gets worked up about the costs they might incur but I told him to forget about it as obviously the rest are. Redpath Bruce also charge administration costs but my dad questioned it and they said it was for the cost of paper, envelopes and stamps, at £20 odd pound a quarter, they waived his costs.[/quote] Sandy,
the rebuild prices are fairly meaningless but the fact is your dad should keep up his buildings insurance or in the event of a fire or whatever he could be left homeless with nothing.
God knows how this building will be maintained if redpath bruce don't instruct communal repairs any more.
Sandy wrote:
Redpath Bruce are my dad's factors and due to them under insuring his close over the years they said it would cost over £1million to rebuid now. The tenants were asked to respond to a letter asking if they wanted to go ahead with the new building insurance. Of the 6 in the close only my dad responded (for peace of mind) the other 5 left it. There are 2 people over 70 who have bought their houses, 2 rented to immigrants don't know who owns these, 1 guy who works away and the other is empty. What response were they expecting. Now they have no building insurance. My dad gets worked up about the costs they might incur but I told him to forget about it as obviously the rest are. Redpath Bruce also charge administration costs but my dad questioned it and they said it was for the cost of paper, envelopes and stamps, at £20 odd pound a quarter, they waived his costs.
Sandy,
the rebuild prices are fairly meaningless but the fact is your dad should keep up his buildings insurance or in the event of a fire or whatever he could be left homeless with nothing.
God knows how this building will be maintained if redpath bruce don't instruct communal repairs any more.
Posted by: Sandy, Glasgow on 4:37pm Tue 12 Feb 08
[quote][bold]The X Factor[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Sandy[/bold] wrote: Redpath Bruce are my dad's factors and due to them under insuring his close over the years they said it would cost over £1million to rebuid now. The tenants were asked to respond to a letter asking if they wanted to go ahead with the new building insurance. Of the 6 in the close only my dad responded (for peace of mind) the other 5 left it. There are 2 people over 70 who have bought their houses, 2 rented to immigrants don't know who owns these, 1 guy who works away and the other is empty. What response were they expecting. Now they have no building insurance. My dad gets worked up about the costs they might incur but I told him to forget about it as obviously the rest are. Redpath Bruce also charge administration costs but my dad questioned it and they said it was for the cost of paper, envelopes and stamps, at £20 odd pound a quarter, they waived his costs.[/quote] Sandy, the rebuild prices are fairly meaningless but the fact is your dad should keep up his buildings insurance or in the event of a fire or whatever he could be left homeless with nothing. God knows how this building will be maintained if redpath bruce don't instruct communal repairs any more. [/quote] What can he do, the other tenants don't seem to be bothered. I don't think he can go it alone. Any suggestions gratefully accepted
The X Factor wrote:
Sandy wrote: Redpath Bruce are my dad's factors and due to them under insuring his close over the years they said it would cost over £1million to rebuid now. The tenants were asked to respond to a letter asking if they wanted to go ahead with the new building insurance. Of the 6 in the close only my dad responded (for peace of mind) the other 5 left it. There are 2 people over 70 who have bought their houses, 2 rented to immigrants don't know who owns these, 1 guy who works away and the other is empty. What response were they expecting. Now they have no building insurance. My dad gets worked up about the costs they might incur but I told him to forget about it as obviously the rest are. Redpath Bruce also charge administration costs but my dad questioned it and they said it was for the cost of paper, envelopes and stamps, at £20 odd pound a quarter, they waived his costs.
Sandy, the rebuild prices are fairly meaningless but the fact is your dad should keep up his buildings insurance or in the event of a fire or whatever he could be left homeless with nothing. God knows how this building will be maintained if redpath bruce don't instruct communal repairs any more.
What can he do, the other tenants don't seem to be bothered. I don't think he can go it alone. Any suggestions gratefully accepted
Posted by: roor06, glasgow on 6:29pm Tue 12 Feb 08
Buy to-let investors appear to be a major factor in the cost passed on to residents who reside full time ...
Factors are necessary - building insurance is necessary ...
More regulation by Government departments has to be the way forward to end this mess ...
Buy to-let investors appear to be a major factor in the cost passed on to residents who reside full time ...
Factors are necessary - building insurance is necessary ...
More regulation by Government departments has to be the way forward to end this mess ...
Posted by: Reader, Glasgow on 7:02pm Tue 12 Feb 08
>A spokeswoman for Ross and Liddell said >buying in bulk is not always cheaper.
Really? Best not buy 4 tin's o beans oot o Asda as the may put a surcharge on them
>We must ensure all aspects of the common >property, as well as their own property, are >comprehensively insured to fully protect >their interests
Well the Insurance company not know they are insuring a Flat? clue address Flat 2/1 get what i mean clue Flats by definition have common areas - are these people real?
>"They may also have neglected to declare the >full claims history of the property
So if you buy a 150 year old cottage -which never needed a Factor - would you know it's History? Listen **** if the condition satisfies a Mortgage Lender don't lose any sleep over it ok.
What a load of old twaddle - what you mean is LARGE INSURANCE FEE = BIG COMMISSION
>A spokeswoman for Ross and Liddell said >buying in bulk is not always cheaper.
Really? Best not buy 4 tin's o beans oot o Asda as the may put a surcharge on them
>We must ensure all aspects of the common >property, as well as their own property, are >comprehensively insured to fully protect >their interests
Well the Insurance company not know they are insuring a Flat? clue address Flat 2/1 get what i mean clue Flats by definition have common areas - are these people real?
>"They may also have neglected to declare the >full claims history of the property
So if you buy a 150 year old cottage -which never needed a Factor - would you know it's History? Listen **** if the condition satisfies a Mortgage Lender don't lose any sleep over it ok.
What a load of old twaddle - what you mean is LARGE INSURANCE FEE = BIG COMMISSION
Posted by: Peterkin, SouthoftheBorder on 7:17pm Tue 12 Feb 08
Who in their right mind would pay £250,000 for a "townhouse" in Bridgeton?!?! It beggars belief. They saw you coming hen!
Who in their right mind would pay £250,000 for a "townhouse" in Bridgeton?!?! It beggars belief. They saw you coming hen!
Posted by: ricey59, glasgow on 7:34pm Tue 12 Feb 08
I am with GHA and offered to pay my insurance annually so as to save paying very high management fees[four times a year]only to be told i could pay the full amount but would still have to pay for all the management fees.I feel this is wrong and would be very happy if someone could explain to me why.
I am with GHA and offered to pay my insurance annually so as to save paying very high management feesonly to be told i could pay the full amount but would still have to pay for all the management fees.I feel this is wrong and would be very happy if someone could explain to me why.
Posted by: snap c, glasgow on 7:39pm Tue 12 Feb 08
my family and i live in 4 in a block we bought our house some 13 years ago we were not told then we had to take factors insurance ,,its now £235 a year ican get both contents,buildings insurance for £90/105 tha covers us for up to £350.000 more than enough to rebuild ,,my factor,or money grabers are cumins turner watt carlton place glagow i have asked for a copy of my deads to see what action i can take enough is enough G33
my family and i live in 4 in a block we bought our house some 13 years ago we were not told then we had to take factors insurance ,,its now £235 a year ican get both contents,buildings insurance for £90/105 tha covers us for up to £350.000 more than enough to rebuild ,,my factor,or money grabers are cumins turner watt carlton place glagow i have asked for a copy of my deads to see what action i can take enough is enough G33
Posted by: roor06, glasgow on 7:52pm Tue 12 Feb 08
Valid point ...
Here we have a person not dodging their responsibility , willing to pay ahead of time , yet , the GHA still wants its quarterly high management fees ...
I can only explain this as sheer profiteering .
Valid point ...
Here we have a person not dodging their responsibility , willing to pay ahead of time , yet , the GHA still wants its quarterly high management fees ...
I can only explain this as sheer profiteering .
Posted by: leesome, Glasgow on 8:34pm Tue 12 Feb 08
[quote]Jennifer Russell, managing director of GHA (management) Ltd, said: "GHA was able to negotiate a massive reduction in buildings insurance costs for homeowners when we re-tendered the contract last year.[/quote]
Could the Evening Times ask Jennifer Russell why they factored in rats to a deck access building via LHO South Maryhill. And why they allow faeces untouched for months (yes, tenants have made complaint via customer care team at Granite House). Why LHO installed new white plastic windows and never negotiated a cleaning contract for them. Why the windows over-look years of rubbish and why has LHO South Maryhill and GHA at Granite house done nothing. Would name the LHO officer responsible but, in place a management structure that gives it easily away. Ask why the tenants have to climb urine ridden stairs that drip with water from condensation. Not to mention the anti-social tenant(s) who persist without attempts to educate from the LHO Management in dumping rubbish in a hopper or shoot area.
Jennifer Russell, managing director of GHA (management) Ltd, said: "GHA was able to negotiate a massive reduction in buildings insurance costs for homeowners when we re-tendered the contract last year.
Could the Evening Times ask Jennifer Russell why they factored in rats to a deck access building via LHO South Maryhill. And why they allow faeces untouched for months (yes, tenants have made complaint via customer care team at Granite House). Why LHO installed new white plastic windows and never negotiated a cleaning contract for them. Why the windows over-look years of rubbish and why has LHO South Maryhill and GHA at Granite house done nothing. Would name the LHO officer responsible but, in place a management structure that gives it easily away. Ask why the tenants have to climb urine ridden stairs that drip with water from condensation. Not to mention the anti-social tenant(s) who persist without attempts to educate from the LHO Management in dumping rubbish in a hopper or shoot area.
Posted by: Heather W, Luing on 8:44pm Tue 12 Feb 08
Re Roor06 @ 6.29 - spot on. Buy to letters only see the investment they have made and relate that to growth. Expenditure on upkeep does not seem to be added to the equation at all. One had the nerve to complain that they had only made £26 profit on their rental property last year. It's unbelievable that they do not see maintenance as part of the investment. They are banking (literally) on rising house prices ensuring a profit when they do decide to sell - let's just hope ALL the owners' properties are still worth anything by then cause by their neglect. <rant over>
Re Roor06 @ 6.29 - spot on. Buy to letters only see the investment they have made and relate that to growth. Expenditure on upkeep does not seem to be added to the equation at all. One had the nerve to complain that they had only made £26 profit on their rental property last year. It's unbelievable that they do not see maintenance as part of the investment. They are banking (literally) on rising house prices ensuring a profit when they do decide to sell - let's just hope ALL the owners' properties are still worth anything by then cause by their neglect. <rant over>
Posted by: The X Factor, Glasgow on 10:26am Wed 13 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Peterkin[/bold] wrote:
Who in their right mind would pay £250,000 for a "townhouse" in Bridgeton?!?! It beggars belief. They saw you coming hen![/quote] Best stay "south of the border". where of course houses are so cheap (not)
Peterkin wrote:
Who in their right mind would pay £250,000 for a "townhouse" in Bridgeton?!?! It beggars belief. They saw you coming hen!
Best stay "south of the border". where of course houses are so cheap (not)
Posted by: The X Factor, Glasgow on 10:30am Wed 13 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Heather W[/bold] wrote:
Re Roor06 @ 6.29 - spot on. Buy to letters only see the investment they have made and relate that to growth. Expenditure on upkeep does not seem to be added to the equation at all. One had the nerve to complain that they had only made £26 profit on their rental property last year. It's unbelievable that they do not see maintenance as part of the investment. They are banking (literally) on rising house prices ensuring a profit when they do decide to sell - let's just hope ALL the owners' properties are still worth anything by then cause by their neglect. <rant over>[/quote] Sorry heather but the jokers who don't want to pay their part of the upkeep of buildings and estates are overwhelmingly Right to buy owners who bought but have no real notion of the responsibilities they were taking on, and paid a fiver for the survey and a couple of quid for the lawyer hence no in depth advice from them.
Its the real world and Roor06 seems to have that dawning on him/her.
Heather W wrote:
Re Roor06 @ 6.29 - spot on. Buy to letters only see the investment they have made and relate that to growth. Expenditure on upkeep does not seem to be added to the equation at all. One had the nerve to complain that they had only made £26 profit on their rental property last year. It's unbelievable that they do not see maintenance as part of the investment. They are banking (literally) on rising house prices ensuring a profit when they do decide to sell - let's just hope ALL the owners' properties are still worth anything by then cause by their neglect. <rant over>
Sorry heather but the jokers who don't want to pay their part of the upkeep of buildings and estates are overwhelmingly Right to buy owners who bought but have no real notion of the responsibilities they were taking on, and paid a fiver for the survey and a couple of quid for the lawyer hence no in depth advice from them.
Its the real world and Roor06 seems to have that dawning on him/her.
Posted by: Heather W, Luing on 7:25pm Wed 13 Feb 08
[quote][bold]The X Factor[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Heather W[/bold] wrote:
Re Roor06 @ 6.29 - spot on. Buy to letters only see the investment they have made and relate that to growth. Expenditure on upkeep does not seem to be added to the equation at all. One had the nerve to complain that they had only made £26 profit on their rental property last year. It's unbelievable that they do not see maintenance as part of the investment. They are banking (literally) on rising house prices ensuring a profit when they do decide to sell - let's just hope ALL the owners' properties are still worth anything by then cause by their neglect. &lt;rant over&gt;[/quote] Sorry heather but the jokers who don't want to pay their part of the upkeep of buildings and estates are overwhelmingly Right to buy owners who bought but have no real notion of the responsibilities they were taking on, and paid a fiver for the survey and a couple of quid for the lawyer hence no in depth advice from them.
Its the real world and Roor06 seems to have that dawning on him/her. [/quote] Same fundamental problem - lack of sense of responsibility with money at the root of it.
The X Factor wrote:
Heather W wrote:
Re Roor06 @ 6.29 - spot on. Buy to letters only see the investment they have made and relate that to growth. Expenditure on upkeep does not seem to be added to the equation at all. One had the nerve to complain that they had only made £26 profit on their rental property last year. It's unbelievable that they do not see maintenance as part of the investment. They are banking (literally) on rising house prices ensuring a profit when they do decide to sell - let's just hope ALL the owners' properties are still worth anything by then cause by their neglect. &lt;rant over&gt;
Sorry heather but the jokers who don't want to pay their part of the upkeep of buildings and estates are overwhelmingly Right to buy owners who bought but have no real notion of the responsibilities they were taking on, and paid a fiver for the survey and a couple of quid for the lawyer hence no in depth advice from them.
Its the real world and Roor06 seems to have that dawning on him/her.
Same fundamental problem - lack of sense of responsibility with money at the root of it.
Posted by: rgtrrgtr, netherlee on 1:34pm Fri 15 Feb 08
Peverel amongst other factors take a huge commission by placing the insurance through their own broker (in peverel's case, Kingsborough) who aren't even registered, who then place the insurance business with another (real) firm of brokers who place it with norwich union (who get a fair price which is the one which should be passed on)
With their connections why dont they use Norwich Union direct ? Ah of course the price would come DOWN, and they would lose the ability to use the "have a new kitchen on the insurance" bribe to ensure a few people keep them appointed by trashing any attempts to have them ousted.
Peverel amongst other factors take a huge commission by placing the insurance through their own broker (in peverel's case, Kingsborough) who aren't even registered, who then place the insurance business with another (real) firm of brokers who place it with norwich union (who get a fair price which is the one which should be passed on)
With their connections why dont they use Norwich Union direct ? Ah of course the price would come DOWN, and they would lose the ability to use the "have a new kitchen on the insurance" bribe to ensure a few people keep them appointed by trashing any attempts to have them ousted.
Comment | Read Comments (17)
