Although thankfully we now have a website that effects rentals (with online facility) there is still sadly the question relating to transparency of sales.

What SPECIFIC sales of lodges have been achieved, i.e. which lodges and which weeks have been sold, and which were stock weeks?
What sale price was achieved.?….note it would appear to be in the owners best interests to remain aware of this detail to comprehend the current values and assess whether there might be either undervaluing or over valuing ( unrealistic sales price) taking place.
For instance might undervaluing be occurring to effect a steady flow of commissions or perhaps these were urgent sales due to external circumstances?

Obviously trust in those responsible for sales is essential but it would help considerably if transparency and greater detail were improved in this regard on an annual basis at year end, to the mutual benefit of all.

In terms of effective marketing of sales, the question still remains as to the way that sales are currently marketed, given the fact that commission from sales appears to go towards aiding a marketing budget.
This is fine so long as there is not an over supply of lodges for sale which directly impacts values and ability to sell.

Unfortunately it would appear that there is still an over supply of lodges ( the reason for which has already been highlighted below) , so the question then arises is sufficient priority ( and funding) now being given to ensure that sales are recognised as being in urgent need of review.
To fail to recognise this reality will be to the detriment of all, especially given the age demographic of owners.

So please can we request that this be given urgent consideration via provision of an effective sales marketing strategy ( and reassessment of funding provision) to the ultimate benefit of all.
Note the values of lodges also have wider implications with regard to any ongoing negotiations with the landlord re any changes to the longevity of leases as discussed elsewhere.

Just to keep owners looking to this thread updated, there is ongoing discussion taking place with regard to stock weeks owned by UOCL and other sales and rental marketing concerns being discussed on the following thread

https://underscar.co.uk/members/answers/payment-of-management-fee-during-2020-coronavirus-closure/#comment-428

Just catching up on the responses , not sure why the heading has been chosen as this is an issue many owners have a concern with but it is what it is.

The issue with sales / rentals is not just a current issue, this will continue be a problem for future owners too if it’s not resolved in a transparent, effective manner as circumstances change, and as much as owners like us (we’ve owned since 2000) love our little piece of paradise, our lifestyle and our dogs have determined our need to sell.

I do have one question of the marketing team (if I’ve missed this, I apologise); and that is :

What are the timescales on the new website?

As interesting as it is in reading about what it will or will not deliver, this has been an empty promise now for so long an idea of timescales would give owners a glimmer of hope.

Julie Edmondson

Dear Mr Norris

Thank you for your replies.
There are still outstanding issues that need clarifying.

Firstly when you observe with regard to HOTL “why should they give us any preferential treatment” you fail to take note of the following.

The original website handled BOTH sales and rentals within the one website, the original Underscar.co.uk.
This website was subsequently superceeded after UOCL instructed Creation ADM (back in 2015 ?) to amend the website in order to enhance the marketing of sales and rentals and seek out better search engine optimisations.
But unfortunately in so doing when this website when live this redesign came under increasing criticism. One aspect being that the new website did not protect owners from “ losing “ potential renters to competing properties outside of Underscar, as it failed to easily redirect potential renters to other available weeks across the Underscar development when the requested week was not available. And this is still the case as we speak many years later.
This is nothing to do with preferential treatment.

But there were other criticisms levelled against this redesign, suggesting the website changes by Creation ADM did not enhance the website, but made it far more confusing to use ….

Observations were made that sales had been removed from the banner heading hidden under the title cottages, which begged the question why the rentals link was so transparent on the banner heading and not sales. Moreover a list of all sales is still extremely difficult to find. No wonder the marketing of sales have suffered!
Photos of views front and rear to maximise the best selling points for each cottage are still unavailable, as are all other relevant concerns identified in my last post.
Cottage details are not up to date, and the website shows dates 2015- 2018.
During this lengthy period of time, no changes to take account of the criticisms raised in the intervening years have been addressed by Creation ADM. Why?
Also is Creation ADM responsible for the owners website changes?
Why have all of these aspects been so long awaiting correction if they are outside the remit of HOTL responsibility? Was this not part of Creation ADM’s original remit?

Bear in mind this was well in advance of any subsequent buyout by Sykes.

Then however, unbeknown to the majority of Underscar owners, and following this initial redesign by Creation ADM, Fisherbeck and HOTL were seeking a sale of their company to another rental platform( as you note they were subsequently bought out by Pure Cottages and then a subsequent buy out by Sykes took place ).
It appears in this later interim period that yet another redesign of Underscar website was taking place, under the control of HOTL, to separate sales from rentals. And this is where the complexity comes in, as this separation appeared to benefit Fisherbeck who were endeavouring to sell to a company that was a RENTAL platform. At no point were owners made aware of the reasons for this website separation, nor the background as to why this was occurring.

The rest is history, in so much as we now appear to find ourselves with the Creation ADM website Underscar.co.uk that is out of date, but also we appear to have lost control of our rental website design, since we are now told that HOTL ( Sykes) are responsible for designing and maintaining this “new” website https://www.underscar-holidays.co.uk/ Is this correct?
A website I hasten to add which appears to “ use” the original website that UOCL has paid for. Is this correct?

The ongoing process of communications between UOCL and the new HOTL ( Sykes) designers therefore leaves questions unanswered.

Has the brief from UOCL to the HOTL web designers requested a prominent link back to sales, and does it include a “view all “ facility including site map, with regard to rentals, when a specific requested week is not available?
Whether the designers ( under the direction from HOTL) cater for all of the relevant ongoing concerns will be interesting to see in September when we are told this will be available!
To repeat, this is not suggesting “ preferential treatment” but ensuring that owners best interests are rightly catered for.

But more worryingly, Sales marketing in this lengthy interim period ( now no longer driven by HOTL ) has sadly not been effective, which has led to an oversupply of cottages for sale,( thus undermining values). This ironically left some owners wishing to sell to require rentals until such time as a sale was effected. And this is where the criticism re conflict of interests come into effect….
Why would any rental platform company wish to enhance sales, when every sale is a rental opportunity lost?.
In other words their priority is NOT in the owners best interests, but their own self interests to effect a commission from whatever source they can acquire.
Some have suggested that in this scenario Underscar has unwittingly in effect become rental fodder at the expense of sales.

Those who are sufficiently concerned by the under effectiveness of marketing sales and the knock on impact on over supply and values, especially given the 5* status of Underscar , have been informed that UOCL committee did not perceive sales as a priority, with the inference that there were few wishing to sell, which has caused many to question their decision making in this regard and request further detailed clarification of why and how this unfortunate circumstance has arisen.

What’s more when you look at other timeshare websites, there is a pattern developing where rentals and sales are being increasingly “ taken over” by rental and sales platforms which present conflict of interests.

In other words they are taking away control from owners, and in that process appear to be sadly undermining values, without regard to 5* standards, where applicable. And the irony is that Underscar owners are paying for these standards to be retained whilst values are being undermined for “ quick sales” to achieve commission.

Few if any are recognising exactly what is going on under their very eyes!

Questions re conflict of interests are also now being asked ( rightly or wrongly) if marketeers might have made any monetary gains from the furnishings and upgrades? Might it also be in the interests of Fisherbeck to drive up the management fees to increase their financial return from receipt of a percentage commission?
All of these uncomfortable questions relating to conflict of interests now relate to lack of trust in those companies who increasingly do not appear to have Underscar owners best interests at heart. And communication is all in this scenario.

We all deserve to be kept informed of what is happening behind the scenes, and not be made to feel guilty or be undermined when we ask detailed questions that arise from owners understandable vulnerabilities.

The issue re conflict of interests has now reached such a point for many to wonder if there should be a complete review of HOTL (Sykes) involvement ….hence the suggestion that an independent route to manage and market rentals and sales may be in the better interests of Underscar owners going forward.

I hope this goes some way to express the perceived vulnerabilities.

By the way the suggestion of three weeks maintenance arose from the timeshare calendar which shows three weeks blank ( namely weeks 48, 49 and 51). Perhaps this can be clarified.

Many thanks.

This set of answers relates mainly to Anne Simpson’s questions posted on august 25th at 11.47.
1.Currently it is difficult to determine why UOCL are having to pay additional monies for what appeared to be HOTL’s responsibility to provide a website fit for purpose and to include its ongoing maintenance.

The current home website (underscar.co.uk)has been funded by UOCL for many years and was the responsibility of a separate company. HOTL were not paid for maintaining or developing this site. The rentals site (Underscar-holidays.co.uk) has never been funded by UOCL and was set up and maintained by HOTL from the start. The new integrated sales and lettings site will be supported by UOCL to the same level as the previous sales only site maintained by the separate contractor. There are no additional monies involved in the new contract apart from some one-off costs for improvements to the owners area.

2. Is it correct to say that a proportion of our actual management fee has always gone to HOTL for developing and maintaining Underscar website and marketing our properties. NO.

3. Are UOCL now satisfied that the responsibility for required modifications to finally make it fit for purpose are being adequately accommodated by HOTL ( Sykes or whoever)?

Don’t know; we have not seen the final results of their proposals.

4. For any one week you have 25 different properties and 25 x 49 weeks ( allowing 3 weeks for maintenance) each with different owners to cater for within Underscar….. Are these figures correct? No;there are normally 2 weeks for maintenance.

5. Has the above been taken into consideration to date in the brief given to the party responsible for website design?

It appears imperative that the web designer engaged is fully conversant with the needs to maximise Underscar given all of the above, so that this time it truly reflects a design fit for purpose.

The above questions are at the end of your summary of some of the key issues facing us in how to achieve a website design and link to a ”parent” site which maximises the marketing effectiveness of our website presence for Underscar owners at a minimal cost. And yes these issues have been presented and discussed with the people who are preparing the website, indeed many months, if not years, ago.
But there are no easy answers to any of these problems many of which can only easily be resolved by throwing large bags of money at the problem on a continuing basis.
It is important that you do not confuse/conflate issues relating to our own standalone website and issues with the way in which underscar properties are presented/available through a separate larger website which is also offering other properties for rental. If HOTL includes our properties on their website along with lots of other properties for rent (and all of these properties are owned by other individuals/companies) why should they give us any preferential treatment?

Don’t know; we will have to assess their proposals when we see them.

Annie, it is a couple of years or so since I attended Barnsdale’s presentation. My recollection is that was done by an inhouse team and they had introduced shorter periods – eg 5 years, which thus had a ”visible” end and seemed to generate more interest. No reason why an independent company should not be successful; after all, it is how Underscar was marketed and sold at outset and how we bought. I exchanged into Barnsdale from another timeshare we owned, using DAE. I had joined them after several frustrating years with RCI weeks and Points! Your final points are of course valid, but should not detract from permanency.

Thanks to all for their respective postings which hopefully are going some way to identify concerns and establish solutions.

Here’s a few more thoughts to consider….

Marketing
Marketing covers a multitude of elements, one of which is the website provision and its maintenance.

Currently it is difficult to determine why UOCL are having to pay additional monies for what appeared to be HOTL’s responsibility to provide a website fit for purpose and to include its ongoing maintenance.
Are HOTL suggesting that the original website design for Underscar from the outset and its maintenance have never been part of its ongoing remit?

Is it correct to say that a proportion of our actual management fee has always gone to HOTL for developing and maintaining Underscar website and marketing our properties? If so what was that proportion over various calendar years?

If UOCL have had to make extra financial provision to accommodate for failings of a website not fit for purpose, how much has this cost UOCL over various calendar years?

Are UOCL now satisfied that the responsibility for required modifications to finally make it fit for purpose are being adequately accommodated by HOTL ( Sykes or whoever)?

Rentals and sales.
For any one week you have 25 different properties and 25 x 49 weeks ( allowing 3 weeks for maintenance) each with different owners to cater for within Underscar….. Are these figures correct?

In general, existing rental websites do not seem to currently cater for the above scenario, as for any given week they only have one property to consider, therefore their websites would require major changes to accommodate for this scenario.

To request a week’s rental at Underscar, you would first have to check the number of bedrooms required or numbers of people to accommodate, and then which of the 25 cottages meet that requirement and are available for rent. Thereafter you then presumably link to the description associated with each matching available cottage, and show its position within the complex, from which the potential renter has to make their choice.

The difficulty comes in how you prioritorise the cottages to be viewed thereafter….is it on a first come first served basis ( in other words the first to advertise their week is the first able to be viewed, and so on…), or is it on a purely descriptive basis, eg. lake views, garden views, ease of access etc. or is it from a whole year’s availability for all cottages, or all of the above?
This is totally different from the norm, where you only have the one property description to cater for, for any required week or year.

In terms of the descriptive element, how are individual photos ( front and rear) to maximise the best assets of each cottage being catered for ( I.e. their best selling point)? Is this going to require yet more future updates or is this going to be catered for at point of the new website delivery?

The problem has always been that the visual element to promote the views from each individual property has been lacking and has relied too much upon the written word.

Also when renters come to view Underscar, does filtering purely by calendar week limit the promotion of cottages available for rental throughout the year? Would availability of cottages for any given year be another route to maximise the rental potential for the whole of Underscar?
Currently if any specific week is unavailable at Underscar, redirection to other properties away from Underscar occurs!

The fear is that the redesign will not be either fair in its provision, (I.e. each cottage is given equal consideration either illustrative and descriptive ) or that the photographs are not sufficiently bespoke to each cottage, or that redirection elsewhere will undermine and reduce Underscar’s rental potential. The last thing all owners need is for this to become a wasteful exercise.

Currently the website is inconsistent and lacking in this regard.
Has the above been taken into consideration to date in the brief given to the party responsible for website design?

It appears imperative that the web designer engaged is fully conversant with the needs to maximise Underscar given all of the above, so that this time it truly reflects a design fit for purpose.

To David (didl261)

Just seen your recent post…..

To your knowledge is Barnsdale using travel and leisure group to accommodate their sales and rentals? Who do they use for exchange? Would extending the lease beyond 58 years as you identified be another costly exercise, adding to the management fees?
If travel and leisure group have all of the attributes to better promote a timeshare complex, as they appear to do for Barnsdale, would this be an effective alternative to Sykes, or are the associated costs prohibitive? Might this also be a route to providing a better equivalent 5* exchange facility?

In your opinion is there still room to accommodate a totally independent route forward to manage 5* sales and rentals from within ( an independently employed manager acccountable to UOCL to oversee the website, it’s maintenance and online bookings and use of a reciprocal 5*exchange mechanism), or does this now appear unrealistic?

Re sales, I agree fully with you David that a sense of ownership and permanency is important, but equally timeshare by its definition is supposed to be sufficiently flexible to provide equivalence of exchange and effective rental opportunity where required or circumstances dictate, until such time as a realistic sale value is effected. Or for that matter for the occasion when for instance the owner requires an occasional break away from their week for whatever reason, and should be able to effect a fair rental appreciation to reflect the 5* standards they are contributing towards. An equivalent 5* deposit might be a way to ensure that those who rent remain accountable and respectful of the cottage they are renting.

Clearly the Board has much to consider and more importantly to resolve: do let us remember that they too, are endeavouring to function with Covid19. A minor note, Peter (Tifkat), there are only 25 apartments – there is no number 13! As I suggested yesterday, an effective marketing operation, producing sales will give a greater sense of permanency and ownership. Renters and exchangers tend not to feel the same about any site they visit. We must remember there is still 58 years remaining, though a new approach to the length of time for future ownership might now be appropriate, eg the arrangements such as at Barnsdale.

Thanks once again Geoff

Looking at the longer term, it worries me that all the minutes of Board meetings, albeit the last ones on the site are over a year old, deal almost exclusively with immediate to short term issues such as tvs and Oxleys. Important yes, but where is the discussion of longer term issues?

This apparent lack of any forward vision doesn’t provide reassurance that there is a plan out of shorter term challenges

As others have pointed out, a new website has been long promised but there is always a reason why it is just around the corner. Most other businesses would have pulled the plug on a non delivering contractor by now

Peter

1. I don’t like the format of the current owners area message board and when we get round to it I will try and get it to be more effective and easy to use and present. At the moment, without an updated single website for sales and rentals and without an agreement on a marketing strategy going forward with the current website management I think sorting the owners area message board out is not a high priority.

2. LEVELS OF OWNERS REQUESTING SALES AND LETS.
The numbers here are significant in my view.

3. OCCUPANCY LEVELS
I have been at all the recent AGMs and the issues of occupancy, sales levels and letting levels were discussed at some of these but clearly were not minuted. Numbers were used in these discussions but owners did not have a full range of data to enable them to critically comment effectively. We as a Board now get a much better presented set of useful stats covering these issues and it was our intention to present that as part of the FML report to the ill fated 2020 AGM.

I think real measurement of occupancy is not undertaken. We do have data clearly on properties which are put up for let but are not let. You could describe that as the highest figure for occupancy. What is not routinely analysed is the numbers of properties which are not put up for rent but are not used by the owners or their friends and/or relatives. I have no idea what that figure is nor would it necessarily tell us much as a lot will be down to individual circumstances.

4. The presence of Sykes on the pitch is a matter entirely out of our control. We have an agreement with HOTL to deliver the proposal for a single website which covers sales, rentals etc. HOTL have been bought out by a series of larger companies. The new website has not yet been delivered but once it has been we can assess it to see whether it meets our requirements or not. There is no marketing agreement with Sykes specifically, at the moment we have the status quo (ie our apartments appear on the HOTL website) but that will definitely change this autumn. We are awaiting to see their proposals effectively.

5 Rental levels; ultimately owners have the final say in the level at which their properties should be offered on the website. If you have a problem getting HOTL to agree to this let me know.

6 Finally, Peter, you are right in pointing out that the Board has a number of strategic issues to address. We are aware of this and are grappling with these as best we can; the long term interests of the owners being our focus.

As I said earlier, thanks for the reply Geoff – it is clear that a lot of work has gone into it

It is disappointing that the layout is such that it is very hard to read. However, there are a few points I’d like to raise

First of all, it isn’t just me that has asked about sales and marketing strategies, so I don’t find the title of the post that appropriate. Anyway, we have what we have.

Similarly, as others have commented, posting it in a new thread potentially makes it harder for interested parties to see the whole set of comments. This is partly a limitation of a poor forum software system. I’ll assume that the Board weren’t actively trying to make it less transparent by doing this

In terms of the content of your reply, I work on the basis of there being 1300 weeks (26×50) within Underscar, so with 266 weeks for sale (your data) this is just over 20% of the total. I strongly disagree with Ian’s earlier suggestion that we don’t have a significant number of owners looking to sell their week, so there is a real demand for a proper sales and marketing system. Note that I’m not sure if this includes stock weeks or not

I am a bit surprised that you say that data regarding occupancy is brought to and discussed at the AGM. There is no such record in the last two sets of minutes for 2018 and 2019 and certainly wasn’t discussed at the 2017 Rheged AGM (I attended). It would be a worthwhile topic for future meetings. Maybe I have misunderstood, but I read your comment on ’95% occupancy’ as meaning that, for the period, only around 65-70 weeks were unused in the entire year. Is my interpretation correct? Although my week is week 12, not the busiest, there always seems to be a few apartments empty, so this occupancy rate feels higher than I expected

With regards to the Sykes / website issues, disregarding other concerns about the on site management for UOCL, again I’m surprised that an agreement has been reached for Sykes’ to run the website but, as you say, ’We have yet to discuss with them how our apartments will be marketed’. I don’t understand how they can have been commissioned to launch a site for us without such a fundamental agreement. I agree with the difficulties around getting effective traffic to an Underscar only site, but I’m not sure that handing it all over with no control to Sykes is going to make a step change in improving rental performance

I’m glad you managed to let your week privately but, as you are aware, any issues during their stay are at your risk. It would be helpful if there was a method of owners to pass the risks of such rentals over to UOCL, even if the owner has to pay a small fee for doing so.

When I worked with you looking at Dial An Exchange, I seem to remember that they were happy to take any weeks to offer through their rental system, not needing an apartment for the whole year as you suggest. Also, DAE are, clearly, happy to take single weeks of exchange, so I don’t really follow your argument that large operators would only be interested in complete blocks of rental. Perhaps DAE are different, but I am aware of other holiday operators who take odd weeks availability. Surely, for a 5* site (I’m not getting into the argument about whether to sustain this), rental operators would be willing to show flexibility

I completely agree with you on the realistic view needed by owners wishing to rent out. Unfortunately, whenever we’ve placed our week for rent, HOTL insisted on a ludicrously high figure, refusing to take our instructions on making it much lower. And it didn’t get let.

The achievable rent versus the management fee is at the heart of the whole management issue. Owners feel they should be able to at least cover the management fee as, if they don’t, what is the point of owning. Prospective purchasers will, likely, say ’why buy when we can rent for less than the management fee?’

I know that you are just one member of the Board and, clearly, my dissatisfaction with the current situation is with the general situation rather than any individual Board member. I, and I suspect many others, would like to hear how the Board is going to resolve the many issues facing Underscar if it is to survive. A genuine concern is that Underscar could be heading for a ’fire sale’ if owners start to default on payment, whereas a planned merger / takeover / sale to a larger operator could have significant benefits. UOCL may be too small to survive in its current form in a difficult market.

Peter

The key way to ensure Underscar’s secure 5* future, surely lies in ”Ownership” rather than rentals or exchanges. To ensure unsold and resale weeks are sold, help is needed from a reputable sales company with a really good marketing strategy; perhaps similar to the one that handled the original sales. An effective sales strategy would soon diminish the need for owners to resort to wishing rent. I agree that we are unlikely to recoup our maintenance costs via rental income. One only has to look at potential rental costs in the Lakes and other ”favourite” areas.

Thanks for the reply Geoff.

Will consider what you and others have said.

Peter

Mr. Norris
It’s probably easier if I address each of your points in situ….

1. It was placed on another thread so that stood out and people who were specifically interested in that area would go straight to it instead of going through swathes of the original now long thread. Also it means hopefully that intelligent comments on the content will now be grouped in the same place.

With respect, Mr Norris, the previous thread’s content needs to be read as it covers a multitude of concerns that relate to sales and rentals and marketing and management issues over several years, and if other owners are to be directed to the owners website, for this to be taken in context, requires that they be made aware of the whole picture.
Without remaining aware of the whole, there will be a lack of full understanding of the background and complicated detail surrounding these ongoing concerns.

2. there is no hidden agenda to thwart people’s access to the information or inhibit discussion or anything

The point being made, Mr Norris was that by setting up a separate thread the previous posters were not being prompted of responses going forward, and also, sadly, it diminished the overall picture of events and ongoing concerns. Questions and viewpoints had been made within the previous thread that appeared genuine concerns, which form part of the overall scenario.

3. The fact that what was a carefully prepared document with spacing and paragraph headings was turned into a single stream of consciousness probably has something to do with the way in the message board works; an issue to be addressed at a later stage etc

I have found the easiest way to address this problem is to formulate an answer, and then copy and paste it into the current box at the bottom of the page. Not ideal, and this is what others have been frustrated by, as the original owners website design appears to be, once again, not user friendly.
This in itself has sadly ( and rightly or wrongly) given the impression that the owners website was never designed to be user friendly.

4 I am not sure what the ”noise” is; perhaps you could enlighten me. I suggest people concentrate on reading the content (there is nothing between the lines to read) and spend some time on that if they have a serious interest in pushing though the improvements we all want. I am happy to engage with anyone who has constructive suggestions about what we actually do about the situation; specifics are helpful as well; As in ”setup our own marketing budget” is not exactly helpful; how big? managed by whom? focussed on social media? how will it increase visitors to our site etc etc.

Agreed, It’s important that we all remain respectful of one another’s viewpoints and constructive suggestions about what to do. However, suggestions have already been made in the previous thread. Hence again the request to keep these together in the one, previous thread. Only then can owners appreciate the overall perspective.

Also to direct the title to one person who has made a suggestion is a little unfair and appears questionable.

So in this instance please can we keep these ongoing suggestions and observations in the one thread ( the previous thread) so that those owners trying to gain an overall perspective are not left either with half a picture or confused by cross references that appear elsewhere.

I hope you can appreciate Mr Norris, that this is suggested with sincere intent.

I will paste this into the original thread.

1. It was placed on another thread so that stood out and people who were specifically interested in that area would go straight to it instead of going through swathes of the original now long thread. Also it means hopefully that intelligent comments on the content will now be grouped in the same place.
2. there is no hidden agenda to thwart people’s access to the information or inhibit discussion or anything
3. The fact that what was a carefully prepared document with spacing and paragraph headings was turned into a single stream of consciousness probably has something to do with the way in the message board works; an issue to be addressed at a later stage etc
4 I am not sure what the ”noise” is; perhaps you could enlighten me. I suggest people concentrate on reading the content (there is nothing between the lines to read) and spend some time on that if they have a serious interest in pushing though the improvements we all want. I am happy to engage with anyone who has constructive suggestions about what we actually do about the situation; specifics are helpful as well; As in ”setup our own marketing budget” is not exactly helpful; how big? managed by whom? focussed on social media? how will it increase visitors to our site etc etc.

Can I ask why has this detail been placed on yet another thread and not included in the original thread covering the many issues?
The prompting to view this new thread only occurs when you view the whole question list , so many of those who have been following the previous thread will remain unaware of these new postings. They will not have been prompted!
Can we please keep these relevant postings together in the one thread to assist ease of use, rather than fragment into several other threads.
This is so frustrating and only increases elements of distrust going forward ( maybe unwittingly or otherwise).
If you don’t mind I will try to copy Mr Norris’s response into the original thread and will try and address some questions going forward.

There’s an awful lot of ’noise’ here Geoff and presented in such a way that it’s difficult to absorb the content… deliberately perhaps. There are others here with more time I hope to read between the lines and let you know how useful all this is. But thanks for the response anyway on something very close to many owner’s hearts.