| Subject: I Have Heard from a Committee Member |
Author:
Dave
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02:15:42 12/24/04 Fri
Further to my comments under 2005 AGM and elsewhere, I have had a reply for committee member J Lomax. His comments do not inspire me, but for the record this is what he has to say in answer to my questions:
1. WHEN & WHY DID COMMITTEE AGREE TO 2005 AGM BEING HELD IN TENERIFE
"I share your concern about the 2005 AGM being held in Tenerfire. This decision was agreed, somewhat reluctantly, by both Paradise Committees at their meetings in September 2004.
Ever since the CLC takeover the committees have been under pressure to hold AGMs at the resort. This is the normal pattern at all other CLC resorts. Up until now we have resisted this pressure on the grounds that the majority of the owners are based in the UK and this is where the AGM should be held. The owner members of the committees were also convinced that attendance at an AGM at the resort would be minimal.
Unfortunately the attendance at the 2004 AGM was considerably down on the previous year. This gave CLC the opportunity to renew their preference for an AGM at the resort. After considerable discussion it was finally agreed, with reservation, to hold the AGM alternatively in Tenerife and in the UK. This is done on a trial basis. The committee will obviously review the situation after the Tenerife AGM"
My Comment : I thought the number of owner committee members outnumbered the CLC committee appointees. If that is the case then why did the owners committee members cave in to something Mr Lomax states the owners committee members were reluctant to accept.
2.LATE PAYMENT SURCHARGE
" There have always been penalties for the late payment of the management charge"
My Comment: If that is the case, then when have the "penalties" been imposed and was it as per the constitution.
3. MANGAGEMENT CHARGES
"Management charges are now calculated by reference to a fixed base figure, rather than the previous cost plus arrangement. The cost plus system provided no incentive for the management team to be efficient- they receive their guaranteed 15% profit however much it costs to run the resort.
Under the fixed base arrangement the management charge will remain constant, subject only to inflation and currency fluctuations. This fixed base will cover all running costs of the resort, including the on-going refurbishment of apartments on a 4/5 year cycle. There will be no demand for additional funds for extra work, as has happened in the past. Conversely there will be no major reduction in the charge unless there is a dramatic change in the exchange rate."
4.COMMITTEE RELATIONS
Mr Lomax draws my attention to the comments he made at the AGM and also stated "Despite any comments on the website, to which you refer, about inaction, I can only repeat what I said at the AGM - A great deal of time and effort was expended in attempting to achieve satisfactory outcomes. We have to ensure, as far as we are able, that the resort is properly run and financed and that the long term interests of the resort and the owners, are protected. After all we are owners too".
My Comments: It is strange that as owners, the committee members have a complete different view point to those members who comment on this website. How are the owners being protected when so many are walking away from outragous charges. At least one member of the committee now has our website address. Let us hope that he takes note of our comments and passes them on to the other committee members. Who knows perhaps we may even get some comments from them on this forum.
Merry Christmas to all members.
Dave
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
|
Feedback: 