Most of the entries in this blog are derived from the approved Minutes of the SCRA AGM and meetings of the SCRA
Board. Please note that they are not verbatim copies of the Minutes as the information has been redacted for
reasons of security and privacy.
As the main purpose of the meeting was to discuss progress on the appointment of a Managing Agent, the agenda would be different from normal. Nevertheless, there were a few recent matters that required immediate attention. These would also be discussed at the meeting.
Consideration of the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2024 was held over until the next month's meeting.
Recent matters for discussion
The leak from a failed joint in the plumbing on the roof affecting the flats below had now been identified. In view of the cost of repairing the joint, Shane Williams had suggested an alternative, cheaper, solution. This involved re-routing the cold water supply in the bathroom of one flat so that it comes from the rising main instead of the roof tank. This is already the case in the other two flats. Once that is done, the pipe from the roof tank can be shut off, drained down and decommissioned.
As this solution would save SCRA the cost of repairing the joint, it was proposed that the Board should approve the work on Shane’s solution and also fund it. The Board gave its approval.
Consideration of commissioning repairs the damage caused by the leak would be held over until the premises had had time to dry out.
One flat owner had submitted a plan to replace her bath with a shower. As Shane Williams had been commissioned to do the work, Dhe had discussed it with the services director. A particular concern was that there should be sufficient gradient in the waste pipe(s) that they would not easily become blocked and result in flooding. The Board gave its approval to go ahead.
The gardens director reported that the fencing around the compost area next to the greenhouse was now in a very poor state. She had re-visited the cost of having it replaced. While prices had risen, they had not gone up by very much: the last quote had been for £545. This would include installing a new base, replacing the wooden panels, but retaining the concrete upright posts. The Board gave its approval for the expenditure.
The acting chairman observed that the area on the other side of the greenhouse was a mess and needed to be tidied up.
The acting chairman informed the Board that a surveyor, appointed by our insurers, would be coming on Wednesday 6 March to inspect the buildings and review our procedures. He asked all directors to ensure that communal areas are tidied up and all potential hazards removed.
he acting chairman reported that he had identified three styles of lights, incorporating emergency lighting, He asked the directors to express a preference, which he would then specify as the chosen style for all the other staircases as emergency lighting is installed.
The tenant of a top floor flat had contacted the Board to say that a damp patch in the bedroom, reported earlier this year, had reappeared following recent particularly stormy weather. Investigation identified a likely cause: rainwater coming through vents in the chimney pot above. In the flat below, the corresponding fireplace appeared to have been bricked off. The directors agreed to re-open the case. In the meantime, the tenant should inform his landlord and ask him to contact the Board.
Shane Williams had completed a check of the boxes on the roof covering the points where down pipes from the roof tanks
turned downwards to supply water to the bathrooms below. This was to ensure that rainwater had not penetrated the
boxes and leaked into the flats.
CF Electrical had agreed to quote for installing emergency lighting in the staircases 1-4, 5-10, 11-17 and 60-65. A decision from SCRA on the light fitting we wanted was still outstanding.
On the recommendation of the surveyor, the Gardens Director would be asked to arrange for a tree surgeon to cut back the branches of the tree on the corner of the building adjacent to flat 63.
PESS had been asked to provide new signage specifying that cars must park facing archways. A new circular would be distributed that included the updated parking rules. The corresponding web page in the Handbook would also be updated.
Following the destruction during a storm of a high-level lantern in one of the archways, new lanterns had been ordered and would be installed.
Correspondence
There had been considerable correspondence between the directors and the Council Planning Office about the proposal by the developer of SC Mews that a one-way system should be implemented on the roadways belonging to SCRA.
The drain outside the entrance to Flat 5-10 had been blocked (again). Shane Williams had attended to it very promptly.
A flat owner had enquired about the procedure to follow when replacing some of the double-glazed windows in the flat. The acting chairman had replied.
A letting agent acting for one of the flat owners had requested a parking dispensation for delivery van. The services director had replied. He drew attention to the Handbook page on "Moving & Deliveries" and advised them to check the van dimensions against those of the archways. In the event, the van did not fit through the archways and was also too big for the parking bays. If parking fines had ensued, the SCRA Board would not intervene.
Just after Christmas, a resident had emailed the Board to complain about excessive noise one night emanating from a neighbouring flat. The landlord of that flat kindly took the matter up with his tenant.
There had been an enquiry about progress on tackling the damp patch on the wall of the living room of one of the flats with an entrance towards the centre of the Inner Court. Shane Williams had inspected, but that we would need a spell of dry weather to address the problem further.
There had been some exchanges of correspondence in response to the circular issued by the Board about the increase in Buildings Insurance excess to £5,000. A number of ideas were floated as to how to bring this down in future years.
Insurance
Following a steep increase in the buildings insurance premium for this year, the Insurance director circulated a note to all residents, flat owners and letting agents warning them of the new excess payable. He advised them to be vigilant and keep checking the plumbing in their flats.
In the light of the number of claims due to water leaks in the Court over the last few years and the problems this was causing for policy renewal, the insurers had asked what steps we were taking to mitigate further risk. The Insurance director had agreed that we would in future conduct formal plumbing checks in all flats to examine stopcocks, isolation valves, seals, connectors etc.
Gardens
As the Gardens director was indisposed, discussion of the gardens was postponed to the next meeting.
Premises
The Report from the survey of serious damp reported in three flats had just arrived. The surveyor's findings were as follows:
In the first flat inspected, there was significant ingress of water through the fabric from outside. The report detailed the initial remedial work that should be carried out. If that was unsuccessful, the plaster should be removed on the affected walls inside and a waterproof membrane installed before re-plastering and re-decorating.
In the second flat, instrument readings taken of the air and surfaces inside and outside the flat confirmed that the damp in the flat was due to condensation. The report provided recommendations as to how the residents could improve matters.
The damp in the final was due to a combination of factors. Outside, the pointing and some broken bricks needed a professional repair; an adjacent tree also needed to be cut back as it was obstructing the flow of air around the building. Inside, the ventilation needed improvement: the residents was advised that the windows should be opened from time to time and furniture brought away from the wall to allow dry air to circulate.
Mr Carter (Flat 43) had researched suppliers of replacement doors. Having contacted a number, he concluded that Fire Risk-compliant, certified, front doors would cost £2,100 - £2,500 each, plus VAT. Cupboard doors (for the hallways) would be around £800 each including VAT.
The price of the cupboard doors included “fire-brigade” locks and fitting.
He had found some doors with inbuilt windows. These were compliant if the glass was fire-rated. Although the glass was plain, it could have a laminate applied to make them patterned or opaque. The window area was slightly less than in the current Surbiton Court doors.
He had found no compliant doors which contained cat-flaps.
All certified doors included automatic closers, intumescent strips, smoke seals, and certified hinges. Fire-rated letterboxes were an option. Further accessories could be added as long as they did not penetrate right through the thickness of the door. These included upgraded locks, wireless doorbells, screw-on metal flat numbers, etc.
The Directors agreed that, as the running of the Court was moving towards the appointment of Managing Agents, they would most likely wish to appoint their own project manager and contractors. The report from the Fire Doors inspection we had commissioned, for example, had identified many deficiencies, but provided no help in how to go about the project needed to achieve compliance with the regulations
The Services director said that he would prefer the Fire Doors project to be professionally managed.
The director for garages and parking said that he wanted assurance that everyone would comply, and would rather pay more for his front door if he knew that it would be managed professionally.
Services
The services director had talked to the cleaners about the incidences of animal excrement – which they have to clear up as part of their regular cleaning routine. They had mentioned two examples in staircase 18-20 on the day of the conversation. These appeared to have been due to cats. The acting chairman brought up the subject of barriers at the entrances to the staircases, but these could be a hazard in case of fire. Ultrasonic deterrents were a possible alternative, but might be unpopular with cat-owners.
Health & Safety
The director for H&S reported his latest monthly inspection. He had noted one issue in particular: a number of flats had bulky deliveries left outside and thought these could be a hazard if left there too long. The services director said he would add some words about this on the Handbook page on Moving In/Out & Deliveries.
The acting chairman observed that Covea, our insurers, had expressed a wish to visit and inspect Surbiton Court. They might have further things to say about Health & Safety and any associated claims.
Parking
The director for Parking reported that the number of people complaining about PCNs from PESS had reduced. Residents and their visitors were becoming better acquainted with the rules and no longer running foul of them.
An additional parking rule was now in force: that vehicles should park facing the archways with a valid permit in the front windscreen. The signage had been changed to reflect this. The director for Parking proposed sending round a circular to residents reiterating the rules and including the new one. The Handbook page on Driving & Parking would be updated to reflect this.
Planning Application
The acting chairman reported. Russell Cooke, our solicitors, had written directly to the developers asserting that they had no legal authority to impose such a system. In the end, the developers withdrew their proposal. At the decision meeting just before Christmas, the Council approved the developers revised "Parking Plan" on that basis and agreed to include an "Informative" in the record of the council Decision. The Informative included words SCRA had submitted:
The Applicant is advised of the following and must ensure:
Vehicular traffic using the driveway between the gate (between Surbiton Court Mews and the Surbiton Court) and the Portsmouth Road, will not adversely affect or place pedestrians or cyclists at risk of harm.
Any traffic control measures are agreed with the owners of the driveway to ensure that the volume of traffic does not increase and create nuisance and danger to the residents of Surbiton Court, Surbiton Court 2, Surbiton Court 3 and Tangerby House (who currently have a right of way along it).
In effect, this means that the vehicles parked in the 3 Mews parking spaces on the Portsmouth Road side of the building can be given the means, if they wish, to exit to St Andrews Square. This could be a key or a combination to the lock on the gate. We are still within our rights to control the flow of traffic on our driveway and forecourt for H&S reasons and such an arrangement would achieve this without denying access rights to the Mews parking space users.
Managing Agents
The workload of the Board has become considerably heavier in recent years than under the regime of “rolling maintenance” that we had had for so long. This is partly due to heavier legal requirements, especially concerning Fire Safety and imminent changes to the regulations governing landlords and tenants. Major works projects are now becoming urgent, e.g. the front doors and cupboard doors, repointing the building. The need to refurbish the roof and re-surface the roadways will not be far behind.
As a consequence, The services director had been looking into the process involved in employing managing agents to help reduce both the burden of the day-to-day running of the Court and, possibly, to manage the major projects as well. In this, he had been looking at the extensive guidance provided by the Association of Residential Managing Agents (ARMA) on their web site. He circulated some of the guidance material to the members of the meeting.
He had identified three possible agents so far and would now approach them to arrange an informal meeting with each one to see the Court and meet the directors.
AOB
The acting chairman said he would be drafting a Newsletter in which he would provide more detail about the latest buildings insurance arrangements. He would circulate the draft to the other directors, for comment.
The acting chairman mentioned that the chairman of the Board of Management of Brea Court, had written asking if we had experience in preventing flat owners from sub-letting. He had replied that our Lease permits subletting, but we had been researching ways of reducing the problems caused. A Licence to Let was one possibility, but it would probably require considerable work and expense to implement.