FAQs
FAQs

Our FAQs

Handover is a complex thing for residents to get to grips with. In fact, Bloor Homes and FirstPort deliberately take advantage of this perceived complexity, hoping that residents just allow them to take control of the process.

The RA understands how handover should work, after learning the hard way over the past three years. Some residents will simply be boggled by all of this info. Our advice to you: just read as much as you want, then ask the RA questions!

If you have any other questions, please reach out to the TDRA Admin Team and we will attempt to answer your questions.

We can then update these FAQs for the benefit of all residents.

Yes, it does.

It was formally established by public vote on Sat 18th July 2020 with the support of Soha as a major property owner. You can find its Constitution and all other relevant details here: The Dovecote Residents' Association.

A declaration that the RA existed and represented the views of the residents was issued the same month to Bloor Homes Ltd, Chamonix Estates Ltd, Vale of White Horse District Council and Drayton Parish Council. All acknowledged the role being played by the RA.

The RA doesn’t need to be a legal entity and has never attempted to be a legal entity. It is a not-for-profit organisation representing the interests of residents of The Dovecote.

A lot!

Bloor Homes Ltd wanted to initiate handover to Chamonix/FirstPort in 2020. If that had happened, Chamonix/FirstPort would have been justified in starting to charge the residents a Service Charge. The RA prevented this from happening and insisted that the entire development be handed over when it was all completed. That still hasn’t happened and won’t happen until the Certificate of Final Completion has been issued in early summer 2024 (the RA suspects that might be June 2024).

As a result, residents have saved approx. £100,000 by deferring handover until all work has been completed. This is based on a conservative estimate of £33,000 per year expenses which would have been incurred by FirstPort and passed on to residents. Based on recent inflation, we expect the next estimate should be in excess of £40,000.

The RA has been actively involved in all handover discussions up until the final handover inspection, with the express intention of ensuring Bloor completes ALL aspects of the original planning application. The RA suspects that Bloor Homes Ltd coerced senior leaders within VWHDC to fast track the inspection process and therefore not to include the RA. This was probably to avoid legal action due to the delays imposed by VWHDC on the handover process.

Bear in mind, VWHDC does not have the time or energy to devote to ensuring Bloor Homes Ltd completes all work according to the Planning Application. In essence, VWHDC accepts whatever Bloor Homes Ltd tells it at face value – there are very few checks undertaken, if any. The RA has learnt about the inner workings of VWHDC, through a very reliable source. The RA therefore took it on itself to protect the interests of residents, by adding that extra level of governance that VWHDC didn’t have the time (or willing) to add itself.

The RA has successfully argued that any cost FirstPort has attempted to impose on residents (in the form of Service Charges) prior to handover have (effectively) not been on a valid legal basis. FirstPort has acknowledged this fact and Bloor has been repaying residents any costs that FirstPort has been charging them, without question. The process can be found here: Claiming back service charges from Bloor Homes Ltd.

So, the RA thinks it has justified its existence, based on the progress made so far.

In the context of The Dovecote, none.

The RA has used both terms over the years. Our current preference is Estate Manager, since that’s exactly what they do. In the Articles of Memorandum, the term used is Managing Agent.

SOHA are obligated to pay a Service Charge for each of their properties; they have one vote per property.

SOHA own 30+ properties on the Dovecote. In theory they pay the same amount as we do for each property they own. As we understand it, so far they have paid nothing to FirstPort and FirstPort hasn't chased them for payment. That's no concern from an RA perspective however.

From a voting perspective, SOHA has one vote for each property they own. In future, they intend on transferring votes to their tenants, but to do so they need to raise a motion at a Management Company General Meeting, so they won't have time to do this for this particular vote.

They will therefore be voting en block this time around. We have asked them for an indication as to whether they will continue to support the wishes of the residents or whether they might be preferring to sit on the fence. It's with their Senior Leadership team just now.

No - but that doesn't matter!

The RA has acknowledged the fact that it doesn't technically have any legal role in handover on multiple occasions since 2020. Has that fact ever stopped any unfairly treated group of individuals over the ages from effecting change? No!

In fact, the reason the majority of change comes about is due to these groups of individuals taking a stand and shouting about what they think is a alternative, but fair course of action.

The RA is simply taking a similar approach here, acting specifically on behalf of the residents.

No - the RA has already asked.

The RA asked Bloor and Chamonix/First Port whether this would be considered, and the answer was clear. The EGM cannot take place until handover is complete.

This is obviously in their interest. Bloor, FirstPort and Fairfield Company Secretaries all want the handover process to work like all the other handover processes they have run in the past. The Dovecote is different and has made its views known that it wants more control of the handover process, which is only fair and reasonable.

No – that’s because of the unfair arrangements for voting noted in the answer to Q05.

With 500 votes at any meeting, Fairfield Company Secretaires (appointed by Bloor Homes Ltd) would always win. Hence, any resident motion that isn’t supported by Bloor Homes Ltd, could never be successful, even if all residents voted for the motion (max 140 votes).

Because FirstPort has a reputation for treating residents unfairly.

If FirstPort gets involved, they gain control of all costs passed on to residents, whether they have been fairly incurred or not – that means they have the ability to fleece residents. There is no reason to suggest they will treat The Dovecote residents any differently.

FirstPort has been the subject of Watchdog recently and debate in Parliament.

You can find examples of the way FirstPort has already treated residents here: Our Vision.

Remember, the only stakeholders with any real interest in The Dovecote are the residents. So, we need to ensure residents retain full control of the Management Company.

Right now? It's Bloor Homes Ltd.

Up until handover, Bloor Homes Ltd is the one and only Person with Significant Control according to Companies House. Hence Bloor Homes Ltd makes all the decisions prior to it handing over control to an elected board. Technically, they have assigned FirstPort (as Estate Manager) to look after all day-to-day aspects of running the Management Company.

According to the Articles of Memorandum, section 29c, prior to the point the Development has officially been completed (i.e. Certificate of Final Completion has been issued), the Subscribers (i.e Fairfield Company Secretaries Ltd, assigned by Bloor Homes Ltd) shall have 500 votes at any meeting. Hence, any motion that is supported by Bloor Homes Ltd, would automatically be successful.

The residents could only ever muster a total of approx. 140 votes. Therefore, prior to handover, voting is completely weighted in the favour of Bloor Homes Ltd and the companies that it has assigned to take on responsibility for the development.

This also means that Bloor Homes Ltd can change the direction of whom they handover to. They have already highlighted they are happy to handover to a residents-managed MC, as long as the RA demonstrates there has been a vote in favour of a residents-managed Management Company.

No - there's no role for the RA in the context of the Management Company!

Let’s be clear, that any handover of the Management Company to anyone other than FirstPort, does not involve the RA! Handover would be to a set of elected Resident Directors. That simply means that we need to organise ourselves prior to handover concluding, although the actual steps and order of these steps would need to be agreed with Bloor Homes Ltd.

No – that’s not the recommendation at this point.

The RA recommends securing control of the Management Company, then the residents can decide on how to proceed and which Estate Manager to appoint.

Yes – whichever way we vote, we will end up with an EGM.

Note that the route to getting to an EGM will vary depending on which way we vote. Both end up with an EGM to allow for the election of Residents as Directors.

If residents vote to stick with FirstPort, that route leads to Bloor Homes Ltd handing over control to a FirstPort-managed Management Company. FirstPort and Fairfield Company Secretaries will then organise an EGM at which they have control over proceedings. Between handover completing and the EGM, FirstPort will have the opportunity to charge the residents for their time and any expenses they incur. With their feet under the table, they will also charge the Management Company (which will end up as a Service Charge to be paid by the residents) to transfer the Management Company from FirstPort to another Estate Manager.

If residents vote to take control, (exact timeline to be agreed with Bloor Homes Ltd), the RA will likely facilitate the setting up of the EGM, so that Resident Directors can be in place ahead of the final handover. Handover will then be from Bloor Homes Ltd to a residents-led Management Company. Thus, FirstPort would never be involved and would never have the opportunity to charge the residents for anything.

Typically a Board of Directors will comprise between 4 and 6 directors. Legally there is a minimum required of 2.

Based on the RA's discussions with industry experts, typically the Board of Directors will comprise the following roles:

  • An MD (an elected Resident Director) to provide overall leadership.
  • 2-4 other Resident Directors - they may have specific roles (e.g one director might oversee finances; another might oversee operations).
  • Drayton Parish Council will nominate a director.
  • Company secretary – typically provided either by the Estate Manager, or engaged directly by the Management Company.

Some norms to be aware of:

  • Resident Directors would usually have an initial 2 years in post, then one director would stand down each year by rotation. Directors could ask to be re-elected if they wish.
  • Elections are held every year so that directors can leave and be elected in an orderly fashion. Obviously, there could be exceptions due to unforeseen circumstances.
  • The Estate Manager would NOT have a role on the Board of Directors on the basis that they are a supplier to the Management Company, however, typically the Company Secretary is appointed by the Estate Manager (if the Management Company has decided a fully managed approach is adopted).

The important point about FirstPort is that we don't want them to already be in place when residents are elected to the Board of Directors, because by that stage they are already charging residents. That's what we need to try and avoid.

The Board of Directors will need to put forward a motion to change the Estate Manager.

It will be down to the Board of Directors to decide on what motions to put forward at any General Meeting. So it will be entirely possible for residents to force the issue, but its more difficult and there will be additional costs incurred if we allow FirstPort in as the incumbent Estate Manager.

At the first EGM, there will be an opportunity to vote to change the Estate Manager, but the incumbent Estate Manager will already be charging residents by then, and they will charge us to transition to another Estate Manager. If no one puts forward a motion to change Estate Manager, FirstPort will automatically carry on providing services.

Yes - it does!

It’s clear in the Constitution. The RA could hold a vote on anything that it deems is in line with its objectives (i.e. anything that supports residents’ best interests).

There’s only really one thing of interest here: do residents want to give FirstPort an opportunity of getting their feet under the table, allow them to start charging residents (potentially unfairly) and for providing a poor level of service?

These concerns are based on real evidence in the public domain. Examples from Dovecote residents can be found here: Our Vision.

Yes – any group can collect personal data as long as it keeps in mind the regulations covered by the UK Data Protection Act 2018.

The UK Data Protection Act 2018 is the UK’s leglislation which implements the principles set out in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).

The RA can collect personal data for two primary reasons: Legitimate Interests and Consent. In the context of The Big Vote, the RA is collecting data through explicit consent and making a commitment to destroying that personal data after handover has completed.

Ultimately, the Chair of the RA will be held accountable for any unreasonable use of residents’ personal data.

We need a way of verifying the identity of residents who post a vote.

The RA has made it clear that it is only requesting residents' personal information in order to support the voting process. Key here is being able to verify voters identities in order to avoid voting fraud. We know that sounds a bit far-fetched, but that's the sort of challenge that Bloor Homes Ltd and FirstPort might throw at us.

If asked by Bloor Homes Ltd, FirstPort or VWHDC, we need to be able to show an audit trail to prove that real homeowning residents on The Dovecote have voted in the way we have said they have voted.

Let's face it, if any of these organisations challenge the voting outcome, it probably says a lot about their character.

The RA has committed to destroying ALL personal information as soon as handover has completed, so it will only be retained for a short period of time.

Ultimately, it may simply come down to trust - do residents trust the RA to protect their personal information? To only use it for the purpose that it is intended? And to destroy residents' personal data as soon as handover is completed?

We hope the answer to that question is YES!

We think it's unlikely this will be necessary but we have to acknowledge there is a risk we will need to.

No one likes the idea of sharing their personal data with anyone. We don't believe we can guarantee that these organisations won't ask for evidence of voting details. We could resist, but that might look like we have something to hide.

So we have to accept there is a risk that we might be forced into sharing residents' personal data, if we are asked to prove the outcome of the vote. Note that both Bloor and FirstPort already have everyone's personal details anyway - it was part of the house purchase process and the Chamonix/FirstPort onboarding process. The RA does not know whether VWHDC has access to residents' personal data in the context of providing services to the community.

We could ask any interested parties to come and view the voting details in person, to avoid them getting access to electronic versions of residents' personal information - that might be a way to mitigate this concern?

That would mean that the RA, (which has been calling for this vote), doesn't even know the outcome when the vote closes.

It doesn't seem reasonable for the RA to be calling for a vote and the RA not knowing the outcome. That suggests we are not confident about our position and we are not prepared to take responsibility for holding a professional, well governed vote on a critical topic.

It would also then leave the RA needing to ask for justification from Bloor Homes as to how its own residents, that the RA has been representing, have voted! We would then have another challenge, because Bloor Homes Ltd would refuse to share that personal information and they could say the outcome was whatever they wanted it to be.

In fact, worse than that, the fact that the RA has had to ask Bloor to hold its residents' voting preferences demonstrates that the residents do not trust the RA to have access to residents' personal information.

So, no we don't think that's the right approach in this instance.

According to clause 6 of the RA's Constitution, a simple majority of votes is required.

So, according to the Constitution, all we need is 51% of the votes cast. What this highlights is that NOT VOTING is not the right thing to do, unless you genuinely do not care about the outcome. If you don't vote, you will not be recognised in the outcome. Simple as that.

Now clearly, the larger the majority the better. The RA would not like to approach Bloor Homes Ltd saying we had secured 51% of residents (that had voted) had voted YES in favour of Bloor handing over to a residents-managed Management Company. We would hope that the vote in favour of this would be significantly higher, but we have to respect the wishes of the residents as a whole.

If the RA secures any majority either way, we will do the following:

  • First off, publish the results to the residents who voted. After all, it's those residents that made the effort to vote, so they should find out the result first.
  • We will then circulate the result to all other residents, likely via an article on the RA's website, plus a post on the private Facebook Group.
  • Then the RA will issue a letter to Bloor Homes Ltd, FirstPort and VWHDC to advise them of the outcome of the vote, to seek an assurance that they will abide by the outcome, and to work with the RA to make whatever the outcome a success for the residents.

The RA will then start its work on delivering on the outcome that the residents have voted for. We will continue to keep residents informed as to progress and any issues/problems faced along the way.

Absolutely - if the residents vote YES, it gives us total flexibility over the direction we want to take with the Management Company.

As soon as the residents secure control of the Management Company, we can decide how we want to manage things moving forward. We could:

  • Appoint a different Estate Manager, after some sort of selection process.
  • Run things ourselves.
  • Find a half-way house, where the residents part-manage and we leave the complex stuff to experts.

We can only try! The residents are in a very powerful position ahead of handover.

Prior to handover, FirstPort do not have the legal justification to charge the residents for anything. This is directly as a result of the legal arguments made by the RA in 2021/2022.

If residents allow Bloor Homes Ltd to handover to a FirstPort-managed Management Company, the Service Charge floodgates will open.

See the diagrams below.

Note that the timelines and the actual order of steps will need to be verified with Bloor Homes Ltd. Also note, that SOHA do not have an automatic director appointed to the board and FirstPort would act in the role of a supplier to the Management Company, rather than as a director per se.

Option 1 - process flow
Option 1 - process flow
Option 1 - process flow
Option 1 - process flow
Option 2 - process flow
Option 2 - process flow
Option 2 - process flow
Option 2 - process flow

FirstPort will start charging residents and we are in the hands of Bloor/FirstPort as to when they organise an EGM.

We will lose all control of expenses and if/when an EGM is organised. The longer it takes for an EGM to be organised, the more expenses FirstPort will incur and the larger the cost that will be passed over to residents in the form of Service Charges.

It's essential that residents take control as soon as possible, so that we can decide on how we want the Management Company to be run moving forward. That means voting YES for Bloor to hand over to a residents-controlled Management Company.

up scroll arrow
down scroll arrow