This the guestbook. You can make your comments here. It is moderated, which means that your comments will NOT be published until they have been checked by the editorial staff first.
Hopeless Project 'Administration'
Chandlers Court (Cambridgeshire) is a purpose-built block of 24 flats with maintenance services provided by FirstPort. The Regional Manager is Mr James Williams and the Property Manager is Ms Louise Morris.
The block is surrounded by many trees which, before the end of the October, were scheduled to be trimmed back and reduced in height.
Two months ago, I posted a comment pointing out the extortionate amount (19.4% of the contractor’s fee) that FirstPort were proposing to charge the leaseholders of Chandlers Court for their ‘administration‘ of the Project.
Two weeks ago, the Property Manager informed the leaseholders that she has postponed the tree works for three months, explaining that the postponement was necessary because there were insufficient funds in the Service Charge Account to cover the cost even though there should be an available balance of more than £48K in the Reserve Fund. In the previous and current financial years, the leaseholders have contributed, in total, an extra £8000 to the Reserve Fund in order to help cover the cost of the tree works. Furthermore, this is the third winter that I'm having to cope with the gloom and the need to keep internal lights on all day in my lounge and kitchen.
When I queried her reason for the postponement of the tree works, given the available balance in the Reserve Fund, I was told that ‘contractors must be paid upfront, and those payments are made from the scheme’s available funds, which are then reimbursed from reserves during the year-end reconciliation’.
So, according to both the Property Manager and the Regional Manager, the Reserve Fund cannot be used to cover payments during the course of the financial year and any transfer of funds to the Service Charge Account must wait until the end of the financial year.
Is that not a totally illogical, ludicrous and obviously untrue excuse for the postponement of the tree works? I am somewhat concerned that, having asked both managers, on numerous recent occasions, to confirm what the current balance of the Reserve Fund is, there has been no response forthcoming. The accounts for the previous financial year will not be made available for, at least, another two months, probably Christmas Eve, and I suspect that they are trying to avoid letting on just how much of the Reserve Fund has been misappropriated or squandered on a host of frivolous, profligate and pointless works.
The block is surrounded by many trees which, before the end of the October, were scheduled to be trimmed back and reduced in height.
Two months ago, I posted a comment pointing out the extortionate amount (19.4% of the contractor’s fee) that FirstPort were proposing to charge the leaseholders of Chandlers Court for their ‘administration‘ of the Project.
Two weeks ago, the Property Manager informed the leaseholders that she has postponed the tree works for three months, explaining that the postponement was necessary because there were insufficient funds in the Service Charge Account to cover the cost even though there should be an available balance of more than £48K in the Reserve Fund. In the previous and current financial years, the leaseholders have contributed, in total, an extra £8000 to the Reserve Fund in order to help cover the cost of the tree works. Furthermore, this is the third winter that I'm having to cope with the gloom and the need to keep internal lights on all day in my lounge and kitchen.
When I queried her reason for the postponement of the tree works, given the available balance in the Reserve Fund, I was told that ‘contractors must be paid upfront, and those payments are made from the scheme’s available funds, which are then reimbursed from reserves during the year-end reconciliation’.
So, according to both the Property Manager and the Regional Manager, the Reserve Fund cannot be used to cover payments during the course of the financial year and any transfer of funds to the Service Charge Account must wait until the end of the financial year.
Is that not a totally illogical, ludicrous and obviously untrue excuse for the postponement of the tree works? I am somewhat concerned that, having asked both managers, on numerous recent occasions, to confirm what the current balance of the Reserve Fund is, there has been no response forthcoming. The accounts for the previous financial year will not be made available for, at least, another two months, probably Christmas Eve, and I suspect that they are trying to avoid letting on just how much of the Reserve Fund has been misappropriated or squandered on a host of frivolous, profligate and pointless works.
Posted by Bill Fox on 01 November 2025
Obviously Firstport cannot see the reserve funds for the trees? In the annuls of BS excuses (even Firstport excuses)this is quite incredible.
Let's start with the lack of available funds?
If funds were not available such that it caused the postponement of the work surely the funds would not have been available three months earlier when the works were due to go ahead?
As for only transferring reserve funds at the end of the year? Reserve funds are specifically for major works projects. If they could only be transferred at year's end no major works could ever take place or there would be no need for a reserve fund. After all what is the point of a reserve fund if it cannot be used? If you can get hold of previous development accounts that should show any transfers that have occurred in the way the property manager has described?
It is unusual for a contractor to demand payment in advance of the work. That the contractor is insisting on such suggests that like other contractors they have had issues getting paid by Firstport previously.
Let's start with the lack of available funds?
If funds were not available such that it caused the postponement of the work surely the funds would not have been available three months earlier when the works were due to go ahead?
As for only transferring reserve funds at the end of the year? Reserve funds are specifically for major works projects. If they could only be transferred at year's end no major works could ever take place or there would be no need for a reserve fund. After all what is the point of a reserve fund if it cannot be used? If you can get hold of previous development accounts that should show any transfers that have occurred in the way the property manager has described?
It is unusual for a contractor to demand payment in advance of the work. That the contractor is insisting on such suggests that like other contractors they have had issues getting paid by Firstport previously.
Posted by Michael Epstein on 02 November 2025
To me, this suggests either Firstport have "borrowed" your reserves and they are not available or service charge arrears are being covered up by using the reserve fund. When we were with Firstport we had to demand arrears were seperately shown in the accounts. If they are not they will be hidden under "sundry debtors" An urgent check on the last set of Accounts is needed here
Posted by Stephen Smith on 02 November 2025
Stephen, After RTM it is a well known tactic of Firstport to not take responsibility for chasing debtors by simply taking owed money from the reserve funds.
Posted by Michael Epstein on 02 November 2025
Same old Same old!
Reading about an estate in Redhill this morning where FirstPort are the agent. Sevice charges have tripled since 2022, up to a staggering £7,500 pa.
And these aren't even flats in blocks, they are freehold houses on a leasehold estate. Ridiculous high charges.
Presumably the type of setup where you can't easily RTM, so the home owners are trapped and values have crashed.
Is there still no end in sight to this ugly system of leasehold exploitation!
And these aren't even flats in blocks, they are freehold houses on a leasehold estate. Ridiculous high charges.
Presumably the type of setup where you can't easily RTM, so the home owners are trapped and values have crashed.
Is there still no end in sight to this ugly system of leasehold exploitation!
Posted by Stroof on 30 October 2025
The situation you describe is sadly all too typical.
Often a connected company to Firstport will have purchased the communal land in order to exploit homeowners who have less rights than leaseholders.
That will change in the future but it is a long hard road ahead.
Some developments have discovered by searching the Land Registry that though it had been claimed that the land had been transferred to the freeholder who appointed Firstport to manage it hadn't actually been legally transferred.
This means all claimed service charges are not payable.
The scale of these issues facing Firstport is great and the consequences for Firstport are huge. That is why they fight tooth and nail to threaten, bully, harass any property owner who has the temerity to challenge the ownership of development land.
If that tactic doesn't work they will deploy all their resources to defend at the tribunal and hope for a friendly Judge who readily and without question simply accept the word of Firstport without taking any account of the evidence. Even if Firstport lose or are about to lose, they will resort to enforcing a Non Disclosure Agreement.
Sadly too many agree to the order simply to settle and to be able to get on with their lives.
For any meaningful change to the exploitation of leaseholders we need companies such as Firstport to be put out of business.
Often a connected company to Firstport will have purchased the communal land in order to exploit homeowners who have less rights than leaseholders.
That will change in the future but it is a long hard road ahead.
Some developments have discovered by searching the Land Registry that though it had been claimed that the land had been transferred to the freeholder who appointed Firstport to manage it hadn't actually been legally transferred.
This means all claimed service charges are not payable.
The scale of these issues facing Firstport is great and the consequences for Firstport are huge. That is why they fight tooth and nail to threaten, bully, harass any property owner who has the temerity to challenge the ownership of development land.
If that tactic doesn't work they will deploy all their resources to defend at the tribunal and hope for a friendly Judge who readily and without question simply accept the word of Firstport without taking any account of the evidence. Even if Firstport lose or are about to lose, they will resort to enforcing a Non Disclosure Agreement.
Sadly too many agree to the order simply to settle and to be able to get on with their lives.
For any meaningful change to the exploitation of leaseholders we need companies such as Firstport to be put out of business.
Posted by The Editor on 30 October 2025
Another Director Gone!
I see John Joseph Keenan was removed as a Director on 1st October. Does anyone know why?
Posted by Stephen Smith on 30 October 2025
Stephen,
You sound the sort of person who might like the sound of a "Buy one get one fee" offer?
If so, I am sure you will appreciate that not only has Keenan gone but also Simon Smith from the parent company.
You sound the sort of person who might like the sound of a "Buy one get one fee" offer?
If so, I am sure you will appreciate that not only has Keenan gone but also Simon Smith from the parent company.
Posted by Michael Epstein on 30 October 2025
I would prefer a closing down sale, Everything Must Go.
Posted by Stephen Smith on 30 October 2025
tree quotation
Bill do what we did years ago b 4 we went RTM get your own quotation and compare it with theirs
Posted by the holy mole on 05 October 2025
There have been some 16739 posts and replies on this page. To view older ones search here.
This only searches posts, not replies.
And the couple could have afforded it until misfortune struck and they purchased a two bedroom house at the Park 25 development in Redhill Surrey.
The house for which they paid £250,000 for was fine, they budgeted for the £2,800 service charge for the communal areas even though it was a bit steep.
The misfortune as they soon discovered was that the company maintaining the communal areas was Firstport.
Now the service charge for very poor or non existent service is £7,520!
Because they wanted to increase their family they needed to move and buy a bigger house. They put their house on the market for a reasonable £290,000 but could find no buyers at that price.
They have now dropped the price to £220,000 and still nobody will buy. The excuse given is the high cost of the service charges.
Local MP Rebecca Paul clearly agrees with those that will not buy as she described Firstport service charges as being exorbitant.
So this couple are trapped and cannot try for another baby thanks to Firstport.