Frasier runs for condo board president, against the tyrannical Ms. Langer. Niles lends his apartment to Martin for a romantic evening with Sherry, but inadvertently walks in on the two of them in flagrante.
Frasier has a new antique Japanese door knocker, which he claims “is said to bring peace and tranquility to any home it adorns”. Unfortunately, minutes after he fixes it to his front door, he receives an angry note from Ms. Langer, the woman who chairs the condo board, claiming that the knocker violates rules of hallway decoration. He decides to raise the issue in a rhetorical manner at the next condo board meeting, but Ms. Langer dismisses the request so abruptly that Frasier loses his temper, calls her a tyrant and storms out, to the applause of the other residents. Soon afterwards, Frasier is approached in the unlit car park of Elliot Bay Towers by a secretive figure, who wants him to stand as presidential candidate against Ms. Langer, for the good of the other residents. He is initially reluctant, but then Martin and Daphne start receiving angry notes as well, and Frasier decides it is time to take action.
We gathered extensive qualitative evidence during the course of the study of examples of poor outcomes for leaseholders, including complaints relating to: high charges for services arranged by property managers; unnecessary or excessive works; little transparency and unexpected costs; poor communica- tion; flawed procedures for consultations on major works; vertical integration between property managers and contractors or between property managers and freeholders; poor service and complaints handling; and ineffective or difficult to use redress schemes.
The Upper Tribunal decided that the landlord could not justify the work to the windows and exterior cladding and that there was no evidence that they had explored alternative methods of addressing the problem with the windows nor evidence that had any consideration had been given to the financial impact on the leaseholders of replacing both the windows and the cladding.
In conclusion, landlords will have to show that when it comes to the cost of improvements they have listened to and taken on board the views of their tenants.
A similar solution to the existing render that will last 7 years.
Leaseholders who’ve invested to extend their leases may not be surprised the presentation was rigged in favour of a cheap, short term solution that won’t even permit increased value of equity release. Their only legacy will be a repeat of the jolecd adventure that has blighted the building for the past two decades.
On Monday, Mar 2, 2015 at 9:31AM SUSSEX HEIGHTS wrote:
Mr N Rosborough has circulated a ‘Notice of a Petition…’ stating that he intends to circulate a petition for an EGM.
What a shame that a board resorts to ad hominem attacks on an individual after 21 shareholders (over 60% of those in residence) have given their signatures in support of a simple request that has been repeatedly ignored by the people who prefer to communicate through lawyers.
He wants support for a demand for an ‘Emergency (sic) General Meeting’. It appears he seeks an Extraordinary General Meeting of shareholders
What’s the point of this sentence? It seems somebody believes they have a better understanding of the meaning of EGM. According to wikipedia, “In some settings, this is known as a special general meeting or an emergency general meeting.”
but, if so, this is not relevant because there is no proposal for the company to spend company funds.
Again, we are given the impression that our board better understands the purpose of an EGM. “The term is usually used where the group would ordinarily hold an annual general meeting (AGM), but where an issue arises which requires the input of the entire membership and is too serious or urgent to wait until the next AGM.” For example, a time-limited consultation perhaps?
What is necessary is a meeting of Leaseholders that the Board has stated, in the circular memorandum of 24th February 2015, it is arranging so that the Leaseholders will have the opportunity to discuss the proposal
Notice that this intention wasn’t announced until after the petition began circulating, so well after the announcement of the Section 20 proposal.
There is no intention to trick or force the proposed project
Not only is this alternative cheaper and less disruptive than attempting to remove all the tiles from the exterior, its projected lifespan is a lot longer, and the appearance would not be subject to the same deterioration any attempts to bathe the building with additional layers of suffocating paintwork.
With regard to the above project we are pleased to advise our budget supply and fix rate of £170.00/m2 for the Ash & Lacy Ashtech Freedom 1 Rainscreen Cladding System.
Our budget rate is based upon:
Volume – 4700m2
Panel module – 1300mm
Panel length – 3600mm
Thickness/material – 4.0mm ACM
Panel aesthetic – horizontal
Paint system/colour – Pvdf, std colour
Standard support system – included
Flat panel rate – £170.00/m2
In the case of cranked corner panels we suggest the flat panel rate be increased by 50% for budget purposes. The above rate includes 2.5% main contractor discount but excludes primary structural support, insulation, dpm, fire stops, and site attendances/allowances. Site fixing is carried out through a network of experienced installer’s dedicated to providing the Client with a partnership of Manufacturer and Contractor, producing a unified solution to the satisfaction of all concerned.
In line with rainscreen design principles, the Ashtech Rainscreen System is not an insulated panel, the insulation value required being achieved within the overall total wall construction. Rainscreen design by virtue of its nature is not a watertight system, the weather tightness being achieved via the backing wall and perimeter detailing.