Postcards from Seagull Towers...

The only part of his account I could understand was that apart from someone who spent half the time abroad, he was the only director of the company, as well as secretary, and he was going to resign at the end of the month. He sent several other alarming letters before resigning, each one prophesying doom for Seagull Towers and provoking indignant letters from other residents. Notices denouncing opponents’ behaviour, some offensive, were posted on the general notice board. Best to stay out of it, I thought.

Yet fast forward a year to just after the Annual General Meeting 2004 and I was a director and also company secretary – the latter I thought temporarily until we could engage managing agents to introduce professional detachment into the management process. Three years later we are still, against my better judgement, self-managing, but the atmosphere has been transformed because, first, we dealt with a backlog of major tasks, and second, we improved communications dramatically.

In one year we secured everyone’s agreement to a levy for a major refurbishment project that had caused a dispute involving Section 20 of the LTA, arrived at an agreement with the firm that had a contentious contract to undertake the work and got the work done. In two years we also carried out a task left over from the purchase of the freehold 25 years earlier – a merger of our two companies and modernisation of our leases. All this took more work than I had ever envisaged, in particular dealing with our solicitors, and far more frequent board meetings than would normally be desirable.

In the first few weeks there was more communication between the directors and with outside organisations than with the residents. Gradually, however, we evolved a routine that kept everyone content and after three months acrimonious correspondence dwindled to nothing. Board meetings were often heated but we kept the contention within the board and concentrated on communicating with tenants often and in a way carefully targeted to the residents’ needs.
Seagull Towers is a block of 22 flats, and (not unusually for the south coast) all the tenants are aged between 60 and 95 and some are away a good deal. Some tenants are legalistic, others don’t want to know about the work required as long as someone else does it, but all need to be consulted and kept informed.

I persuaded Mr Thorogood, now a director again and treasurer, to restrict himself to financial letters and to stop responding to provocation from his ‘enemies’ with self-justifying letters circulated to the entire block. All five directors agreed to leave communications to me as secretary provided that I circulated drafts to them before issuing them.

Letters – in large, clear type to assist residents with poor eyesight – were always sent to every tenant, not placed on the notice board, and were written in clear, non-bureaucratic language with explanations of legal issues involved in the changes to the companies and leases. They no longer contained digs at individuals. Notices on the board were similar but in larger type, never in capitals (bossy and harder to read). We also started a newsletter, monthly during the hectic first two years but now quarterly, in a lighter and chattier style, mentioning residents’ helpful contributions with ideas or in the garden.

It would now be sensible for us to arrange at last to use managing agents; it is the only way to provide future stability when so few tenants are able to make an active contribution. Professional property managers might have prevented the crisis at Seagull Towers by reducing the unhelpful personal element. But we had to produce a solution to the problems ourselves, and clear, pleasant, impartial communication was a vital ingredient. ‘Nothing nasty through the letterbox’ is now our motto.