Appeal for a 25% Permanent Reduction in Reserve Fund contribution by GMV Leaseholders
To:
The Directors of GMV Management Company Limited
London
Sub: Appeal for a 25% Permanent Reduction in Service Charge by GMV Leaseholders
Dear Sir/Madam,
We, the leaseholders of GMV, write to express our concerns regarding the recent increase in service charges. The rise in costs has significantly impacted many residents, resulting in financial hardship and difficulties in managing monthly expenses. We understand that the decision to increase service charges by 10-25% stems from the rising costs of energy and other general expenses.
While we value the quality of services provided by your management company, it is important to note that our service charge and reserve fund contributions are higher than those of most leaseholds in the country. The current economic climate, combined with the increased service charges, has made it challenging for us to cope with the cost of living and has further deterred potential property buyers.
We acknowledge the necessity of service charges in maintaining the quality of facilities and services. However, we kindly request that you reconsider the charges in light of the present economic situation. Reducing service charges would significantly ease the financial burden on GMV residents.
As leaseholders, we have explored options to reduce our overall service charge contributions. One viable solution is to decrease reserve fund contributions, which are discretionary and not actual expenses. Over time, we believe we have contributed substantially to healthy reserve funds, making it an appropriate time to reduce residents' reserve fund contributions.
Therefore, we kindly request you to reduce reserve fund by 25%. We would also appreciate any additional measures you can implement to reduce service charges.
We kindly ask for your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
GMV Leaseholders
Updates
Reached 250 supporters
March 31, 2023
Reached 100 supporters
March 22, 2023
42 Comments
I also add that the standard of service delivered is questionable at best - communal windows are not cleaned regularly, planting is not maintained around the building, car park lights aren’t working, costs aren’t considered when teams of workers are unnecessarily deployed on golf carts to do one man jobs, and the general sense of a management team that cares and goes above and beyond to deliver and communicate is lacking. For such an extortionate charge I expect a gold standard service and wonder what legal proceedings we can or should initiate to end this fraught situation.
Out of cotroll the service charges. You need to have additional loan to pay the service charges. Require a immediate reduction and affordable service charge program in place. Block is a only 1 floor. Not a high rise building. How could the service charge be ££3400 p/a.
These reserve demands have put the fees for GMV flats above Greenwich averages for similar properties. I want to protect the value of my property.
It would also be useful to know what OS the targeted level of the reserve fund and for how long more we are expected to continue paying into the reserve fund. This cannot continue forever.
I am in agreement with this excessive increase during this time. Also, nothing has been done to exteriors/interior at Newton Lodge so therefore not justified.
I fully agree. My service charge has shot up mainly due to the huge increase in reserve funds. I fully agree with the petition that reserve fund contributions are discretionary and should definitely be reduced, especially when many of us are struggling with paying other essential expenses.
Since buying my 2-bed flat in Maurer Court from new in 2008 , the service charge has increased from £3000 to over £10,000 per annum, I have complained constantly about these ridiculously high levels of service charge but to no avail. , now it is beyond a joke. . All we have is a concierge there are no other facilities which could go part way to explain these ridiculously inflated charges, such as a gym, or swimming pool. Other riverside blocks with these ‘extras ‘ pay half what I do! In addition the insurance is not fit for purpose as it does not cover alternative accomodation or lost rent in the event of a disaster such as fire causing the block to be inhabitable. It is usually a standard inclusion in all block policies . I even spoke to gallaghers the brokers to ask for the quotes they received as I wanted more transparency in inpolicy costs as was concerned Aviva the freeholder was also our insurer ant that we were paying extortionate rates for an inadequate policy , unfortunately his only response was that he did not have to speak to me as a resident . Which made me even more suspicious. I have been an owner of a flat in Wigan that was uninhabitable due to a fire in the block and the policy paid all alternative accomodation costs or lost rent for 18 months until the refurb was complete. We are now completely stuck, we can’t sell the flats as we do not have the fire safety certificate an and no idea of when the safety works will be done , and who would want to buy one anyway with such extortionate service charges .
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via . Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Copy link or share directly
Appeal for a 25% Permanent Reduction in Reserve Fund contribution by GMV Leaseholders
To:
The Directors of GMV Management Company Limited
London
Sub: Appeal for a 25% Permanent Reduction in Service Charge by GMV Leaseholders
Dear Sir/Madam,
We, the leaseholders of GMV, write to express our concerns regarding the recent increase in service charges. The rise in costs has significantly impacted many residents, resulting in financial hardship and difficulties in managing monthly expenses. We understand that the decision to increase service charges by 10-25% stems from the rising costs of energy and other general expenses.
While we value the quality of services provided by your management company, it is important to note that our service charge and reserve fund contributions are higher than those of most leaseholds in the country. The current economic climate, combined with the increased service charges, has made it challenging for us to cope with the cost of living and has further deterred potential property buyers.
We acknowledge the necessity of service charges in maintaining the quality of facilities and services. However, we kindly request that you reconsider the charges in light of the present economic situation. Reducing service charges would significantly ease the financial burden on GMV residents.
As leaseholders, we have explored options to reduce our overall service charge contributions. One viable solution is to decrease reserve fund contributions, which are discretionary and not actual expenses. Over time, we believe we have contributed substantially to healthy reserve funds, making it an appropriate time to reduce residents' reserve fund contributions.
Therefore, we kindly request you to reduce reserve fund by 25%. We would also appreciate any additional measures you can implement to reduce service charges.
We kindly ask for your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
GMV Leaseholders
Updates
Reached 250 supporters
March 31, 2023
Reached 100 supporters
March 22, 2023
42 Comments
The role of Randell and Ritner in my view is highly over valued and presents a significant cost to the service charge. I am not aware a tender of their services has been conducted for several years (unusual in itself and possibly down to the lack of resource to conduct such a task?), which presents an opportunity to do so now to try and reduce the costs they bring to our service charge.
I also add that the standard of service delivered is questionable at best - communal windows are not cleaned regularly, planting is not maintained around the building, car park lights aren’t working, costs aren’t considered when teams of workers are unnecessarily deployed on golf carts to do one man jobs, and the general sense of a management team that cares and goes above and beyond to deliver and communicate is lacking. For such an extortionate charge I expect a gold standard service and wonder what legal proceedings we can or should initiate to end this fraught situation.
Out of cotroll the service charges. You need to have additional loan to pay the service charges. Require a immediate reduction and affordable service charge program in place. Block is a only 1 floor. Not a high rise building. How could the service charge be ££3400 p/a.
These reserve demands have put the fees for GMV flats above Greenwich averages for similar properties. I want to protect the value of my property.
It would also be useful to know what OS the targeted level of the reserve fund and for how long more we are expected to continue paying into the reserve fund. This cannot continue forever.
I am in agreement with this excessive increase during this time. Also, nothing has been done to exteriors/interior at Newton Lodge so therefore not justified.
I fully agree. My service charge has shot up mainly due to the huge increase in reserve funds. I fully agree with the petition that reserve fund contributions are discretionary and should definitely be reduced, especially when many of us are struggling with paying other essential expenses.
Since buying my 2-bed flat in Maurer Court from new in 2008 , the service charge has increased from £3000 to over £10,000 per annum, I have complained constantly about these ridiculously high levels of service charge but to no avail. , now it is beyond a joke. . All we have is a concierge there are no other facilities which could go part way to explain these ridiculously inflated charges, such as a gym, or swimming pool. Other riverside blocks with these ‘extras ‘ pay half what I do! In addition the insurance is not fit for purpose as it does not cover alternative accomodation or lost rent in the event of a disaster such as fire causing the block to be inhabitable. It is usually a standard inclusion in all block policies . I even spoke to gallaghers the brokers to ask for the quotes they received as I wanted more transparency in inpolicy costs as was concerned Aviva the freeholder was also our insurer ant that we were paying extortionate rates for an inadequate policy , unfortunately his only response was that he did not have to speak to me as a resident . Which made me even more suspicious. I have been an owner of a flat in Wigan that was uninhabitable due to a fire in the block and the policy paid all alternative accomodation costs or lost rent for 18 months until the refurb was complete. We are now completely stuck, we can’t sell the flats as we do not have the fire safety certificate an and no idea of when the safety works will be done , and who would want to buy one anyway with such extortionate service charges .
Help this petition grow
Share it with friends to help reach 500 signatures.
Sign Petition
We never post to your account. Social sign-in is used only to verify your signature.
Add a comment?
Your signature will be added via .
Tell others why you're signing — it's optional.
Signing with Google or Facebook verifies your signature instantly — no email needed.
By signing, you accept iPetitions Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Share Petition
Don't stop at signing, share the petition link with friends to multiply our impact
Petitions like this
Other petitions you might want to support
Scan to share
Anyone who scans this can sign the petition.
The role of Randell and Ritner in my view is highly over valued and presents a significant cost to the service charge. I am not aware a tender of their services has been conducted for several years (unusual in itself and possibly down to the lack of resource to conduct such a task?), which presents an opportunity to do so now to try and reduce the costs they bring to our service charge.