Re: Re: Changing the Carpets

[imported_post]

Hi Chris,

Many thanks for the post.  I respect that we may have a difference of opinion on this assessment, but my personal view is that the carpets are (with the exception of the blue ones recently replaced) looking old/tired and should be replaced.

Comparison with newer developments – impact on asset value: The development is an asset which we all have a stake in.  I think this requires more investment, from time to time and when appropriate, which goes beyond repair and maintenance.  My view is that the development is in need of a refresh and the interior decoration, including the carpets, ought to be brought back up to an “as new” look.  I have received negative comments on the state of the development and this is part of solution to fixing that.  I'm not saying the carpets are worn completely through with holes, but they are looking dated and tired beyond what I think a steam clean will remedy.  I believe the contrast is particularly evident given the new developments which have opened up in the area.  These provide a benchmark against which our development is judged when competing for tenants/potential purchasers.

Lease Obligations: Notwithstanding the justification for a refresh, I think the manager has a legal obligation to conduct this refurbishment (and accordingly us all as lessees who control this company).  The lease for the flats stipulates that the Common Parts and Main Structures, which includes floor coverings, should be redecorated every 4 years by the Manager.  It has, for many of the blocks, been substantially longer than this.  Please see Schedule 2, Para 2 for the definition of “Main Structures” and Schedule 4, Paragraph 4 for the obligation to maintain and refurbish these areas (see my emphasis):

THE FOURTH SCHEDULE: “The Manager will:- … 4.  In the year Two thousand and one and thereafter in every subsequent fourth year fully effectively and efficiently redecorate in a good and workmanlike manner such part or parts of the exterior of the Main Structures and Flats and the Common Parts as shall have previously been decorated…”

THE SECOND SCHEDULE: “The Main Structures” “2. The Common Parts and the tiling and floorcoverings on the floors the windows window frames glass in the windows doors doorframes plaster on the ceilings and walls of the Common Parts…”

As such, even though we might have a difference of opinion, I respectfully believe that this refresh cycle is a legal requirement on the manager.  As above, I believe this is justifiable for good reason.  Any previous refurbishment has a natural shelf-live and requirements for refurbishment cycles such as this are common for this reason.  We have similar refurbishment cycles within the hotels the company I work for owns.

We could obtain separate legal advise on these provisions if necessary, but my view this that the refurbishment is required.  Of a particular concern to me is that enquiries regarding refurbishment cycles (last refurbs etc) and compliance with our lease provisions are a standard enquiry which a solicitor for a purchaser will ask.  It is important, particular as this is expressly provided for to show compliance.

Overal interior design: Finally – and apologies for the long post (I just wanted to put down my perspective) – the development is currently being repainted with a colour scheme which has been selected as part of an attempt to improve the interior design for the block to give it a more modern look.  The replacement carpets will go well with the proposed new colour scheme and, if the red carpets are to be retained, much less so.  I therefore think the replacement will be of much greater benefit if this goes ahead.
Many thanks,

Russell Bingham