In digging around on the website, I found the document library, including the minutes of the Board meeting of 20/1/17

In it, action point 10 said

”It was agreed that Janice Lawson and Chris Jackson (FML) would prepare a paper outlining proposed spend on refurbishment in 2017/18 and for a five-year period. This would include the essential rolling programme items as well as the 5* replacement of major items, costed and prioritised. The Board agreed that we were not yet in a position to put a proposal to owners on funding an escalation of 5* refurbishment, and we should consult owners before deciding on our strategy. This could be carried out via the website and Newsletter.”

I’ve never been consulted in any way nor have I seen any 5 year plan, but the Board have gone ahead anyway. I have asked Peter Allen for his comments

Sorry to say Peter Allen is a waste of time..as are most committee members, full of platitudes and do nothing. They certainly don’t listen to owners. As I have said previously, the only way to get anywhere is to be able to contact all owners and not through the website which is monitored anyway. Underscar will priced out of existence on account of the committee’s approach. The only way to deal with the committee is for owners not to go to Underscar and not to pay their management fees.

Absolutely agree with Julie

Sadly the fact the committee are riding roughshod over members doesn’t surprise me. They eitger don’t see these comments or choose to ignore them. The increase in management fees is having a direct impact on sales (this has been confirmed by the sales office who have flagged it as a concern to the committee whose weak response was pushing resales on the website (which you would have hoped was being done anyway). I also have a concern that only a small number of owners see these posts so we’ve no real idea of the wider view either way. This forum isn’t enough to generate a response so I wouid advise direct contact with Peter Allen in the first instance to at least make this a democratic process

In response to Julie and the question about a vote, given the cumulative increases over these recent years, which are not insignificant, most definitely yes, and we now (sadly) agree that such a change in the total fees over a pre- determined % surely requires explicit consent.?

We are not happy in paying this additional amount until such time as this has been fully resolved ( I.e. Explicit consent assessed by all owners with full transparent explanation and breakdown of fees associated with 1 bed 2 bed and 3 bed lodges, as used to be previously provided with the management charge bills. ) Surely owners deserve that at the very least?

The wording of the AGM draft quoted a ”consultation would begin with owners via the newsletter and website to gather views and the board would look at options for securing the necessary funds”. So why have these increases been applied in the interim? A request should go out to all owners to respond to the raising of fees over a pre-determined % rather than a show of hands from such a proportionately small number of owners who actually attend the AGM, before any increase is implemented in this regard should it not?

We have just received the management fees for our week in October and were amazed to witness they have increased by 12.6 % prior to vat being charged. How can this increase possibly be warranted given the other relevant and growing concerns regarding the knock-on impact on rentals/sales plus ongoing issues relating to 5* exchange options/ refurbishments/ effective marketing/ death of owners/ exit strategies/ etc?

My worry is that we are at growing risk ( and it saddens me to say this) of not only pricing ourselves out of the market, but also no longer gaining sufficient value and benefits associated with our ownership weeks.

In reply to Julie and the question about a vote – most definitely ’Yes’. Such a change in fees surely requires explicit consent, not a decidedly imprecise show of hands

Do members feel that it would be appropriate to have some form of ”formal” vote on whether fees should be increased. A show of hands a the AGM (bearing in mind only a relatively small cross section of members were present) isn’t really scientific nor a true representation of the view of the memberships (as has been outlined in this section).

Thank you to everyone who has taken the trouble to give their views on the refurbishment and how we can fund it. We are taking note of these and will act in the best interest of the majority. As you can see – there are a range of views expressed. It is useful to have feedback on the quality/comfort of replacement furnishings – please also use the feedback form you are given when you stay at Underscar for this type of feedback.

With regard to upgrades and 5* status, we were concerned to note that the two large settees which comfortably accommodated each of us to lie across and relax when required, have been replaced by a large and medium sized sofa, which now prohibits this. No discussion or reason has been given for this downsizing of one of the sofas and only adds to the frustration.
As for rentals and 5* status, we have unsuccessfully been trying to rent one of our timeshare weeks (in glorious early October) for 12 years now (via the website) and find it frustrating to note that the website defaults to other Heart of the Lakes properties if a specific week requested is unavailable, rather than have the flexibility to point/direct clients to an easily accessible list of alternative weeks/lodges that remain un-rented within the development.
To maximise the marketing of Underscar rentals, availability via this website should surely focus on Underscar alone should it not, and not direct potential clients to other Heart of the Lakes properties so long as vacancies remain within the Underscar development? It appears self defeating to direct clients elsewhere as default.
If the take-up of rentals were increased by marketing improvements of this nature, wouldn’t the subsequent increase in income from a percentage of fees charged go some way to assisting the refurbishment program, or do these fees only benefit Heart of the Lakes?
As for sales we are aware that many weeks for sale have remained unsold for all too many years, which begs the question of the marketing and pricing strategy and exposure given its 5* status. Many of our friends and colleagues over the years have never heard of Underscar, which is extraordinary given the prominence that it should hold (being 5*) in the Northern Lake District.
We sincerely hope that that these observations prove useful.

We have just arrived for our annual week in Seatoller, to be followed shortly by our annual week in Latrigg. We have read all the comments re refurbishment of bathrooms and kitchens but would like to see general maintenance of the properties improved first. For example, the windows in Seatoller did not open last year and, despite our complaints, still don’t open. In fact the windows now have a notice on them telling us not to attempt to open them. Try cooking a full English breakfast without setting the fire alarm off. How does the property retain its 5* status when you cannot open the windows? Perhaps we should ask Visit England this question?
The sofa beds in both apartments have been useless for a long time- we have to bring a mattress topper every time we visit. Hinges are missing from wardrobe doors. Increasing management charges when such basics are ignored is really an insult.

Some items need to be refurbished – shower cabinets in particular. However, being in a unit that has had replacement sofas which are the most uncomfortable things ever, I remain concerned about the buying strategy.
I complained bitterly several years ago when the Turkish boudoir curtains appeared in Oxleys – horrendous!
The original APC at Underscar was done very very well. The furnishings have stood the test of time and have not dated. In general, high quality fittings were installed and certainly, kitchen units and worktops do not need to be replaced at such a high cost.
We are in danger of pricing ourselves out of any market as the management fee is very high. I would hope that a phased approach can be adopted to utilise some if the capacity in the current reserves from past management fees.

I would be happy to supply my details regarding moving forward with our oposition to this please email me directly at [email protected]

I share callcallino’s concerns about both the direction of travel for maintenance and the refusal of the Board to facilitate contacting other owners. Does anyone have any idea how to force the Board change their stance. I’m willing to share my email here. Peter

My husband and I have tried before to form a group of owners who do not wish to go down the path of being dictated to by the committee. We tried very hard to prevent permission for the wall being granted and did have some interest from owners but not enough. We have asked the management company for access to all owners which they have steadfastly refused, hiding behind the data protection act. Unless we have email access to as many owners as possible it will not be possible to effect any change other than at the AGM which only a handful of owners actually attend. By paying £20000 for new kitchens we will soon price ourselves out of existence. Owners need to take matters into their own hands. The committee will not help, in fact they will hinder. Very soon we can see a situation where owners who cannot sell will simply walk away which will impose a great burden on the remaining owners.

5* status may assist with rentals but it’s certainly hindering sales – some owners can’t give their properties away – there has to be a balance and hiking up the management fee every isn’t fair to those who wish to sell their properties. Bear in mind that some owners are now faced with the ”wall” which hinders their view from the ground floor. I for one feel as though some owners are being railroaded into this.

Could admin please confirm that they are seeing these posts and that some members are not happy with the proposed increases and would like further details on what 5* status is actually bringing the club? I feel we’re being pushed down a path which brings no value only additional expense. Many thanks

I support the board in the accelerated upgrade programme, and also agree that the order of priority should be 1. Ensuite bathrooms 2. Main bathrooms 3. Kitchen fittings.
My preference would be that all ensuite bathrooms should be refitted as an urgent priority.

There is no question that maintaining 5* status is vital to achieving rentals and to maintain the standing of Underscar.

The weekly fees are now quite costly, and the board should look to achieve efficiencies wherever possible.

In parallel with the upgrade programme the board should be looking to push out the 2068 leasehold for a further 99 years at least.

Thanks to the board for the work that they put in on our behalf; as we live in Australia it is not possible to be more proactive, sorry to say.

I’ve found out today that, due to Visit England rules, our 2 bed, max occupancy 6 unit (Hindscarth) in fact only sleeps 4 and can only be advertised for rent as such. Keeping 5* status means that sofa beds don’t count, no matter how good they are…. Really have to wonder what the strategy is here.

I’d like to know the benefits that being a 5* resort actually brings, the complex is starting to price itself out of the market (this is evident by some owners not being able to almost give away their weeks). I am opposed to the increase in management fee and maybe add someone to the committee who has strong buying / negotiation skills . Management fees increased by 20% when the club became a limited company, you’re not looking to increase further. I would suggest we look at other, more cost effective ways of refurbishing

I am also very disappointed and unhappy at the imposition of a £50 increase in the fees and would also query the benefit to owners of the 5star status

The increase in the management fee is getting out of hand. What value does being a 5* resort offer members?

I agree with tifkats concerns as he comments today. I find the management increases quite high considering the response at the AGM. And when is the increase due to take effect from?

In the chairman’s email today, he states ’Those present at the AGM agreed that we must accelerate the programme of renewal and retain our five star plus status’. I was at the AGM and I do not remember any such mandate. The only one was a quick show of hands poll with a choice of ’carry on as we are’, ’pay up to £50 more’ or ’pay whatever it takes’. The ’pay whatever it takes’ was by far the smallest group so I am surprised and disappointed by the rise in fees set by the Board. This gives me grave concerns that the Board is acting ignoring the views of the members expressed at the AGM

Having recently visited after some years, we agree refurbishement of the bathrooms are the most urgent matter, with more shower facilities in particular. Re the kitchens, existing granite worktops and cupboards are fine in our view. We feel that only the appliances need upgrading. For example, new induction hob and pans, fridge freezer (more fridge space and less freezer space) and possibly new washer dryer and sink unit depending on wear and tear. New units and worktops would be an unnecessary expense at this time.

Thank you for all your comments. We’ll be discussing the way forward at the next Board meeting – in June – so still time for more views to be expressed. We will let everyone know how we intend to tackle the refurbishment once we have agreed a workable plan.

While I agree that the single biggest group was supportive of a £50 rise in management fee, the draft minutes say ’large majority’, which I am less sure of. I hope that the Board will come up with a strategy that uses 5* as a plus point for greater resale / rental rather than an aim in itself. Why keep paying more and more if there remains limited resale / rental options?

We agree with the proposed £50 addition to the management fee. We would like to know whether the increased fee is ongoing, or for a set period of time. We do not see the need for a steam room. We feel it useful to keep one bathroom with a shower in the bath set up. We would be willing to forego our 10 day occupancy one year to help speed up refurbishment in lieu of management fees.

Before agreeing to to extra £50 to cover speedier refurbishments I would like more information on the programme and what should be done first.
My view is that priority 1 is the master bedroom ensuite . You do not get 5 Star ratings without a shower in the master inf like premises. So first fix this bathroom
No 2 is to replace the shower only in the main bathroom.. The rest of the bathroom at least in Manesty still has plenty of life left in it. Unlike the master bedroom it is a good basic design. A good power shower is all that is needed. In the short term.
The rest of the apartment still works and does not require wholesale renewal. Simply replace things as the wear out or breakdown..
We do not know when proposed work will be carried out and we do do not know what the Refurbishments that have been carried look like. So can you post some images please and perhaps give us a programme of the proposed works

Agree additional £50/week fee to complete refurbishment in 5-6 years. After that period, hope the annual savings from the purchase of the heat pumps would allow the £50 supplement to be reversed – jjn

We need to keep up our 5 star status and agree that an extra £50 per week is a good way forwards.

We need to keep up the 5* standard and if that means an extra £50 per week then we must go ahead.

I agree with with janicemarybramble

We agree with the proposed £50 addition to the management fee to fund refurbishment. The 3 bed roomed houses urgently need 2 proper shower rooms rather than a large bath in the en suite. The steam room facility is no longer required as there is a good one available next to the pool. We would be willing to forego our 10 day occupancy one year to allow speedier reburbishment in lieu of management fees.